I am as big a Huskie MBB fan as anyone on this board but some of us are getting ahead of ourselves. As dc1 pointed out last year at this point we took a nosedive (3-7) which I hope doesn't happen. But in this league who knows. Lets revisit tournament seeding in two or three weeks. I guarantee MD's magic formula will keep changing.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(01-30-2020 03:12 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ]I am as big a Huskie MBB fan as anyone on this board but some of us are getting ahead of ourselves. As dc1 pointed out last year at this point we took a nosedive (3-7) which I hope doesn't happen. But in this league who knows. Lets revisit tournament seeding in two or three weeks. I guarantee MD's magic formula will keep changing.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh it definitely will change every day. It just attempts to prognosticate based on the future opponents and how they have done, and based on how NIU has done, how things might progress if everything went "chalk". The method does great in some cases and very poor in others. One success that seems to be playing out is EMU, I had them projected at 4-14 to start the year. Akron is an example of a huge bust, a team I only had at 9-9. NIU I had at 9-9 preseason and that might not be too far off. The raw power rankings I have show just how little separation there is between 1 and 6, and thus things will be tough to predict and highly fluctuate. If I was to break the MAC into 4 power ranking tiers (not looking at current records), this is how I would group them. Biggest separation I see if from 6 to 7 and the drop from BGSU to CMU.
1. Kent State .742
2. Akron .706
-----------------------
3. Buffalo. .686
4. Toledo .677
5. Ball State .670
6. Bowling Green .665
----------------------------
7. Central Michigan .564
8. Northern Illinois .539
9. Ohio .536
-----------------------------
10. Miami-OH .513
11. Eastern Michigan .513
12. Western Michigan .495
Kind of an interesting distribution this year with how the MAC is playing out. Honestly, I dont think there is a top 100 team in the bunch, although Kent and Akron are probably right on that margin and could be considered in that 80 to 110 range. A lot of "good teams" though which will make tournament play tough for the mid level seeds like NIU
(01-30-2020 03:24 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 03:12 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ]I am as big a Huskie MBB fan as anyone on this board but some of us are getting ahead of ourselves. As dc1 pointed out last year at this point we took a nosedive (3-7) which I hope doesn't happen. But in this league who knows. Lets revisit tournament seeding in two or three weeks. I guarantee MD's magic formula will keep changing.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh it definitely will change every day. It just attempts to prognosticate based on the future opponents and how they have done, and based on how NIU has done, how things might progress if everything went "chalk". The method does great in some cases and very poor in others. One success that seems to be playing out is EMU, I had them projected at 4-14 to start the year. Akron is an example of a huge bust, a team I only had at 9-9. NIU I had at 9-9 preseason and that might not be too far off. The raw power rankings I have show just how little separation there is between 1 and 6, and thus things will be tough to predict and highly fluctuate. If I was to break the MAC into 4 power ranking tiers (not looking at current records), this is how I would group them. Biggest separation I see if from 6 to 7 and the drop from BGSU to CMU.
1. Kent State .742
2. Akron .706
-----------------------
3. Buffalo. .686
4. Toledo .677
5. Ball State .670
6. Bowling Green .665
----------------------------
7. Central Michigan .564
8. Northern Illinois .539
9. Ohio .536
-----------------------------
10. Miami-OH .513
11. Eastern Michigan .513
12. Western Michigan .495
Kind of an interesting distribution this year with how the MAC is playing out. Honestly, I dont think there is a top 100 team in the bunch, although Kent and Akron are probably right on that margin and could be considered in that 80 to 110 range. A lot of "good teams" though which will make tournament play tough for the mid level seeds like NIU
Just one simple question? Why not sit back and look at the NCAA NET rankings. They look at reputable rankers like Kenpom and have set up
reasonable ranking variables to determine strength of schedule, how teams are trending , how the top 66 will be determined, etc, etc.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. I do appreciate your interest and input on how the Huskies will progress.
(01-30-2020 06:07 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 03:24 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 03:12 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ]I am as big a Huskie MBB fan as anyone on this board but some of us are getting ahead of ourselves. As dc1 pointed out last year at this point we took a nosedive (3-7) which I hope doesn't happen. But in this league who knows. Lets revisit tournament seeding in two or three weeks. I guarantee MD's magic formula will keep changing.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh it definitely will change every day. It just attempts to prognosticate based on the future opponents and how they have done, and based on how NIU has done, how things might progress if everything went "chalk". The method does great in some cases and very poor in others. One success that seems to be playing out is EMU, I had them projected at 4-14 to start the year. Akron is an example of a huge bust, a team I only had at 9-9. NIU I had at 9-9 preseason and that might not be too far off. The raw power rankings I have show just how little separation there is between 1 and 6, and thus things will be tough to predict and highly fluctuate. If I was to break the MAC into 4 power ranking tiers (not looking at current records), this is how I would group them. Biggest separation I see if from 6 to 7 and the drop from BGSU to CMU.
1. Kent State .742
2. Akron .706
-----------------------
3. Buffalo. .686
4. Toledo .677
5. Ball State .670
6. Bowling Green .665
----------------------------
7. Central Michigan .564
8. Northern Illinois .539
9. Ohio .536
-----------------------------
10. Miami-OH .513
11. Eastern Michigan .513
12. Western Michigan .495
Kind of an interesting distribution this year with how the MAC is playing out. Honestly, I dont think there is a top 100 team in the bunch, although Kent and Akron are probably right on that margin and could be considered in that 80 to 110 range. A lot of "good teams" though which will make tournament play tough for the mid level seeds like NIU
Just one simple question? Why not sit back and look at the NCAA NET rankings. They look at reputable rankers like Kenpom and have set up
reasonable ranking variables to determine strength of schedule, how teams are trending , how the top 66 will be determined, etc, etc.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. I do appreciate your interest and input on how the Huskies will progress.
Keeping my own system allows me flexibility to create stats on demand for things I find interesting. I am ashamed to say, I keep my own because of the ability to update them on demand, and I sometimes use them for light gambling purposes haha.
I actually think the best most reliable stats to look at are not KenPom, not NCAA NEt for sure, but the composite rankings on Masseys site. That takes a composite of about 50 ranking system. Consensus ranking systems are almost always better than any one ranking system. The only problem with that composite site is that it is updated only once a week or so.
(01-30-2020 08:23 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 06:07 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 03:24 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 03:12 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ]I am as big a Huskie MBB fan as anyone on this board but some of us are getting ahead of ourselves. As dc1 pointed out last year at this point we took a nosedive (3-7) which I hope doesn't happen. But in this league who knows. Lets revisit tournament seeding in two or three weeks. I guarantee MD's magic formula will keep changing.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh it definitely will change every day. It just attempts to prognosticate based on the future opponents and how they have done, and based on how NIU has done, how things might progress if everything went "chalk". The method does great in some cases and very poor in others. One success that seems to be playing out is EMU, I had them projected at 4-14 to start the year. Akron is an example of a huge bust, a team I only had at 9-9. NIU I had at 9-9 preseason and that might not be too far off. The raw power rankings I have show just how little separation there is between 1 and 6, and thus things will be tough to predict and highly fluctuate. If I was to break the MAC into 4 power ranking tiers (not looking at current records), this is how I would group them. Biggest separation I see if from 6 to 7 and the drop from BGSU to CMU.
1. Kent State .742
2. Akron .706
-----------------------
3. Buffalo. .686
4. Toledo .677
5. Ball State .670
6. Bowling Green .665
----------------------------
7. Central Michigan .564
8. Northern Illinois .539
9. Ohio .536
-----------------------------
10. Miami-OH .513
11. Eastern Michigan .513
12. Western Michigan .495
Kind of an interesting distribution this year with how the MAC is playing out. Honestly, I dont think there is a top 100 team in the bunch, although Kent and Akron are probably right on that margin and could be considered in that 80 to 110 range. A lot of "good teams" though which will make tournament play tough for the mid level seeds like NIU
Just one simple question? Why not sit back and look at the NCAA NET rankings. They look at reputable rankers like Kenpom and have set up
reasonable ranking variables to determine strength of schedule, how teams are trending , how the top 66 will be determined, etc, etc.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. I do appreciate your interest and input on how the Huskies will progress.
Keeping my own system allows me flexibility to create stats on demand for things I find interesting. I am ashamed to say, I keep my own because of the ability to update them on demand, and I sometimes use them for light gambling purposes haha.
I actually think the best most reliable stats to look at are not KenPom, not NCAA NEt for sure, but the composite rankings on Masseys site. That takes a composite of about 50 ranking system. Consensus ranking systems are almost always better than any one ranking system. The only problem with that composite site is that it is updated only once a week or so.
But of those fifty, 45 are someone in their parents basement using bad
input which throws the whole deal into the worthless pile. Stick with NCAA NET as it was well thought out and is the basis for the tournament.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(01-30-2020 08:51 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 08:23 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 06:07 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 03:24 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020 03:12 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ]I am as big a Huskie MBB fan as anyone on this board but some of us are getting ahead of ourselves. As dc1 pointed out last year at this point we took a nosedive (3-7) which I hope doesn't happen. But in this league who knows. Lets revisit tournament seeding in two or three weeks. I guarantee MD's magic formula will keep changing.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh it definitely will change every day. It just attempts to prognosticate based on the future opponents and how they have done, and based on how NIU has done, how things might progress if everything went "chalk". The method does great in some cases and very poor in others. One success that seems to be playing out is EMU, I had them projected at 4-14 to start the year. Akron is an example of a huge bust, a team I only had at 9-9. NIU I had at 9-9 preseason and that might not be too far off. The raw power rankings I have show just how little separation there is between 1 and 6, and thus things will be tough to predict and highly fluctuate. If I was to break the MAC into 4 power ranking tiers (not looking at current records), this is how I would group them. Biggest separation I see if from 6 to 7 and the drop from BGSU to CMU.
1. Kent State .742
2. Akron .706
-----------------------
3. Buffalo. .686
4. Toledo .677
5. Ball State .670
6. Bowling Green .665
----------------------------
7. Central Michigan .564
8. Northern Illinois .539
9. Ohio .536
-----------------------------
10. Miami-OH .513
11. Eastern Michigan .513
12. Western Michigan .495
Kind of an interesting distribution this year with how the MAC is playing out. Honestly, I dont think there is a top 100 team in the bunch, although Kent and Akron are probably right on that margin and could be considered in that 80 to 110 range. A lot of "good teams" though which will make tournament play tough for the mid level seeds like NIU
Just one simple question? Why not sit back and look at the NCAA NET rankings. They look at reputable rankers like Kenpom and have set up
reasonable ranking variables to determine strength of schedule, how teams are trending , how the top 66 will be determined, etc, etc.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. I do appreciate your interest and input on how the Huskies will progress.
Keeping my own system allows me flexibility to create stats on demand for things I find interesting. I am ashamed to say, I keep my own because of the ability to update them on demand, and I sometimes use them for light gambling purposes haha.
I actually think the best most reliable stats to look at are not KenPom, not NCAA NEt for sure, but the composite rankings on Masseys site. That takes a composite of about 50 ranking system. Consensus ranking systems are almost always better than any one ranking system. The only problem with that composite site is that it is updated only once a week or so.
But of those fifty, 45 are someone in their parents basement using bad
input which throws the whole deal into the worthless pile. Stick with NCAA NET as it was well thought out and is the basis for the tournament.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I still prefer to look at composites because no one ranking system is perfect. You would he surprised how good the composites can be. I have noticed ranking systems have had a really tough time this year. Accurately predicting college bball results have become impossible as evident by a new number one team every week. As far as NCAA NET rankings , I just dont look at those. Way too much volatility. Kenpom and Massey I have found to be the best and most in depth , but again the composites usually tell the most, which I think was a motivation for Massey to develop that site
Can we assume tomorrow's game is on? I would think a decision would have been made last night?
(01-31-2020 10:30 AM)pvk75 Wrote: [ -> ]Huh?
DC1 expressed some concern the other day about Miami being able to travel for this game given the possible coronavirus cases they had. I am hoping they tested negative.
(01-31-2020 10:30 AM)pvk75 Wrote: [ -> ]Huh?
Coronavirus. Since it is away it should be on.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Two massive games in the MAC tonight, Akron @ Kent and BG @ Buffalo. Who would we want to win these games?
(01-31-2020 12:57 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ]Two massive games in the MAC tonight, Akron @ Kent and BG @ Buffalo. Who would we want to win these games?
Would like to see akron win out and lose in tournament semi or final and maybe get an at large March Madness bid. Otherwise it really doesn't matter.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(01-31-2020 01:15 PM)pantone1935 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 12:57 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ]Two massive games in the MAC tonight, Akron @ Kent and BG @ Buffalo. Who would we want to win these games?
Would like to see akron win out and lose in tournament semi or final and maybe get an at large March Madness bid. Otherwise it really doesn't matter.
GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah I think Akron winning would be good , especially since NIU would lose out in the tiebreaker to Akron anyway. For the same reason, maybe we would want Buffalo to won tonight since NIU beat Buffalo? Like you mention, probably doesnt matter much.
(01-31-2020 09:57 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ]Can we assume tomorrow's game is on? I would think a decision would have been made last night?
Uh, yeah, it's on.
It was CMU that didn't want to come and play at Miami not the home team.
These people have been under quarantine. Think about it. Cancel basketball but lectures with 300 plus still happen. The dining areas are still serving food. Anyone can go anywhere in town except for those two people. This time it's a mountain out of a mole hill.
I don’t know if it was just CMU they also canceled a Miami vs WMU girls game.
We want Kent St and Buffalo to win. Huskies want a 1 or 2 seed come tournament time.
Akron and Kent in an instant classic on CBSSN. Zips up 1 with 6 to play.
Wow BGSU with a massive road win. What a turnaround for the Falcons