The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-25-2019 12:24 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 10:56 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 10:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 10:35 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:58 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  And you really believe they are 40 spots better than us. Take a step back for a second and forget what the SOS says.

Just because they beat some teams that are better than the teams we beat, does not mean they are better than us. We played who we played, and largely beat them, as did VCU. You cannot however deduce that they are better than us when both teams beat the teams they played, just because the teams they beat are supposedly (according to the same flawed metrics) better than the ones we beat, that would assume that we could not have beaten Bowling Green, Temple, Hofstra, and Dayton. I am not ready to concede that.

The notion that the metric is flawed is the number 1 mistake. We have almost 30 games worth of data between the 2 teams to determine what the rankings are.

Do I like our team? Sure! We've also lost to St. Joes, Northern Iowa, Marsha, FAU, and UTSA. None of those are good losses. They have 1 bad loss vs. Rhode Island on the road and a ton of good wins. Even their losses have been understandable for the most part ....OT away at St. Johns, Away at ODU, Away to UVA, Away to Dayton. All have been tight games. Their wins have been blowouts while are wins have been nail biters.

If we played VCU on a neutral court, they would be a pretty significant favorite. There are very good reasons why they are rated higher; whether is should be 10, 30, or 50; the metrics tell us better than old dudes watching basketball games. Hell, look how screwed up the top 25 rankings are.

At what point do the metrics from November become useless in determining the best teams? UTSA was without their best player throughout the non-conference. Because of that, a loss there looks like a bad loss. Do you really think they aren't a top 100 team?

C'mon man. That's the problem with metrics. Then again, I guarantee you nobody on that committee would know enough about UTSA to subjectively say that wasn't a bad loss.

Also, do you think we would lose to St. Joe's and UNI now?

I get the "body of work" argument, but they really need to rearrange that formula so the November games count less than the February games. It'd be a shame if Furman got in over us because they beat Villanova back in November even though they are 4th in the Southern Conference with 5 losses.

This is a great point. Especially in the current transfer climate, early season games add bad data to the metrics, which in turn corrupts the selection process. Whatever happened to the last 10 games evaluation. Why would they remove and point of analysis that gives a glimpse into who are actually the better teams now? Isn't the point to get the best teams into the tournament? How do you say the metrics make since when they were used to justify the addition of a team in Oklahoma that had like like 12 out of their last 14 games last season? Is there any world in which that makes since?

It wasn't the metrics that had Oklahoma in the tourney, it was old men watching sportscenter.

And the metrics and the "Body of Work" gave them the excuse they needed to do it.

Also, can you explain to me how what happened in November definitively contributes to assessing how good a team is in Ferbuary? Is Duke 40 points better than Kentucky, or has Kentucky gotten a lot better?