forums

Canes #11/13 (Coach/AP) - 2.20.23

ALLoverCANE said:
I guess all ratings systems, including both analytics and human pollsters, suck. Well except for AmherstCane's own ratings, those are flawless.

BTW, there are rating systems that look ONLY at wins and losses, too. But God forbid you try to inform yourself. You're better off complaining about something on the internet than trying to understand and contextualize it.
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about?

The ESPN BPI strength of record is a rating system that looks at wins, losses, and SOS.

I know reading is tough for you but I have mentioned that ranking system several times before.

We are currently ranked 8th by SOR.
www.espn.com

2024-25 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2024-25 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Really, are you this daft? Or are your panties in a bundle because your boyfriend kenpom is useless for a ranking system?

Edit:
Understand and contextualize? That’s literally what I’ve done in explaining why kenpom (which currently ranks miami 41st) is a stupid ranking system - though it has some predictive value. You can lose half your games and still be ranked highly by kenpom (Creighton) if you blow out the mediocre teams and lose close games to good teams.

Also the BPI SOR ranking literally accounts for all my complaints about the polls and ranks us ahead of UVA and UVA ahead of Baylor.

But go on with your drivel.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
AmherstCane said:
What are you babbling about?

The ESPN BPI strength of record is a rating system that looks at wins, losses, and SOS.

I know reading is tough for you but I have mentioned that ranking system several times before.

We are currently ranked 8th by SOR.
www.espn.com

2024-25 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2024-25 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Really, are you this daft? Or are your panties in a bundle because your boyfriend kenpom is useless for a ranking system?

Edit:
Understand and contextualize? That’s literally what I’ve done in explaining why kenpom (which currently ranks miami 41st) is a stupid ranking system - though it has some predictive value. You can lose half your games and still be ranked highly by kenpom (Creighton) if you blow out the mediocre teams and lose close games to good teams.

Also the BPI SOR ranking literally accounts for all my complaints about the polls and ranks us ahead of UVA and UVA ahead of Baylor.

But go on with your drivel.
Click to expand...

Wow. I am shocked. This entire time you just didn't know what the word "ranking" means lol.

Ranking by no mean implies a resume ranking. Ken Pomeroy has said, repeatedly, that his system should not be used for NCAAT purposes, for that same reason. You can rank teams based on full season resume (e.g. SOR, RPI), you can rank teams based on recent performance (e.g. Sagarin's "recent" rating), you can rank teams based on future strength (e.g. Kenpom, BPI), you can rank teams on subjective all-of-the-above criteria (e.g. the human polls).

Idk if this makes all of your posts about kenpom better or worse. I think worse - because you know what it is, but still get so triggered by it that you feel the need to bring it up, unprompted, repeatedly. Weird.
 
ALLoverCANE said:
Wow. I am shocked. This entire time you just didn't know what the word "ranking" means lol.

Ranking by no mean implies a resume ranking. Ken Pomeroy has said, repeatedly, that his system should not be used for NCAAT purposes, for that same reason. You can rank teams based on full season resume (e.g. SOR, RPI), you can rank teams based on recent performance (e.g. Sagarin's "recent" rating), you can rank teams based on future strength (e.g. Kenpom, BPI), you can rank teams on subjective all-of-the-above criteria (e.g. the human polls).

Idk if this makes all of your posts about kenpom better or worse. I think worse - because you know what it is, but still get so triggered by it that you feel the need to bring it up, unprompted, repeatedly. Weird.
Click to expand...
I personally feel like Kenpom makes Canes fans more jaded because the model consistently thinks we are “lucky” and thus rates us much lower than you’d expect
 
Gables Canes said:
I personally feel like Kenpom makes Canes fans more jaded because the model consistently thinks we are “lucky” and thus rates us much lower than you’d expect
Click to expand...

The "luck" metric is basically just the model error. The name is pretty arrogant though. It could definitely be luck, but it could be something that the model just isn't picking up correctly.
 
Gables Canes said:
I personally feel like Kenpom makes Canes fans more jaded because the model consistently thinks we are “lucky” and thus rates us much lower than you’d expect
Click to expand...

The infuriating thing about “luck” in the kenpom system is that kenpom says a team is lucky if it beats a team that is ranked higher according to kenpom but does not actually factor outcomes into the ranking system. So we are “lucky” because we keep beating teams that are ranked higher according to kenpom, but our ranking doesn’t go up because the only real upward movement in kenpom rankings happens when you blow teams out (like our kenpom ranking jumped 20 points to the low 30’s after the Louisville game, then fell back to the mid 40’s after the close game with Cornell).

And while kenpom SHOULD not be used for any purposes in ranking teams for the purpose of polls or postseason, etc… it IS and kenpom knows it and is quite pleased about the attention.

Problem is very few people understand how the kenpom ranking system works, but it is treated as some highly effective ranking system (it isn’t) because it’s variables happen to correlate with who typically ends up winning the championship. But it does a terrible job outside that.
 
Advertisement
ALLoverCANE said:
The "luck" metric is basically just the model error. The name is pretty arrogant though. It could definitely be luck, but it could be something that the model just isn't picking up correctly.
Click to expand...

Seriously… are you trying to date Ken Pomeroy?

Nowhere in the English language does “luck” mean “model error”. And kenpom does not define “luck” as model error in his own definitions and explanations.

Kenpom says what he means and means what he says, despite his boyfriend trying to defuse the OUTRAGEOUSLY ARROGANT term that illustrates the absurdity of the entire ranking system.

Kenpom is useless for ranking purposes but it is a great resource for statistics and team offensive and defensive performance.

Problem is kenpom happily holds his system out to be a team ranking system and encourages its use by the NCAA selection committee and pollsters. But @ALLoverCANE thinks he’s a really great guy.
 
Last edited:
AmherstCane said:
Seriously… are you trying to date Ken Pomeroy?

Nowhere in the English language does “luck” mean “model error”. And kenpom does not define “luck” as model error in his own definitions and explanations.

Kenpom says what he means and means what he says, despite his boyfriend trying to defuse the OUTRAGEOUSLY ARROGANT term that illustrates the absurdity of the entire ranking system.

Kenpom is useless for ranking purposes but it is a great resource for statistics and team offensive and defensive performance.

Problem is kenpom happily holds his system out to be a team ranking system and encourages its use by the NCAA selection committee and pollsters. But @ALLoverCANE thinks he’s a really great guy.
Click to expand...

The fact you still don't understand what the word "ranking" means is kind of amusing. "Ranking purposes" is a meaningless phrase. Every ranking has its own purpose. US News and Playboy both rank colleges. For some reason, you keep associating the word ranking with a resume ranking.

Kenpom is extremely effective for "ranking purposes" if those purposes are to predict future outcomes. Even Ken Pomeroy himself says kenpom is a poor resume ranking:

And yes, his luck rating is just the error term in his model. Luck is defined as "the deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method", i.e. model error.

What year is it? Is calling someone someone's else boyfriend supposed to be insulting?

Anyways, I'm not sure what more there is to say. Kenpom will keep being used and referenced all over the place, and you'll keep fuming about it and making poor arguments about it on the internet - which no one will listen to. Enjoy.
 
ALLoverCANE said:
The fact you still don't understand what the word "ranking" means is kind of amusing. "Ranking purposes" is a meaningless phrase. Every ranking has its own purpose. US News and Playboy both rank colleges. For some reason, you keep associating the word ranking with a resume ranking.

Kenpom is extremely effective for "ranking purposes" if those purposes are to predict future outcomes. Even Ken Pomeroy himself says kenpom is a poor resume ranking:

And yes, his luck rating is just the error term in his model. Luck is defined as "the deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method", i.e. model error.

What year is it? Is calling someone someone's else boyfriend supposed to be insulting?

Anyways, I'm not sure what more there is to say. Kenpom will keep being used and referenced all over the place, and you'll keep fuming about it and making poor arguments about it on the internet - which no one will listen to. Enjoy.
Click to expand...


I can just picture you vigorously defending the final BCS computer rankings in 2000. You’re not smart, and you’re not savvy… no matter how hard you try.

But at least you agree that kenpom has no business being used by pollsters or the selection committee - despite it being used by both.

Weird that you would attack me and my criticism of pollsters for using it and ranking Miami too low.

And I’m not sure what year it is has anything to do with one human being infatuated by another human? You could be female, couldn’t you? I mean… I don’t know your gender or what you look like? Girls post on sports message boards too.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Exactly. Not to mention how much the pre-season poll incorrectly establishes the assumptions that continue to dominate, even halfway through the season. I've been talking about this since watching it all play out in 1983, when Miami opened the season unranked and had to fight to get to #5, before winning the national championship (and we would have never even had the chance to PLAY FOR the national championship if the current "top 4" system existed back then).

No polls until AT LEAST one-quarter or one-third of football and basketball seasons have been played. It makes so much sense, but we're still going to have a bunch of apologists telling us to wait until March for some respect and equity...
Click to expand...
Agree on poll timing.

Some stats (CFB poll):
Only 45% of the teams ranked in the pre-season poll are ranked in the final poll. I went back 10+/- years.
Last year, If you take away the top-5, only 6 of the remaining 20 teams were ranked in the end.
The guesswork that a “pre-season poll” is, has to end.

The pollsters should just rank based on what they see.
AT THIS TIME we are better than UVA.
Vote that way.
 
Advertisement
AmherstCane said:
I can just picture you vigorously defending the final BCS computer rankings in 2000. You’re not smart, and you’re not savvy… no matter how hard you try.

But at least you agree that kenpom has no business being used by pollsters or the selection committee - despite it being used by both.

Weird that you would attack me and my criticism of pollsters for using it and ranking Miami too low.

And I’m not sure what year it is has anything to do with one human being infatuated by another human? You could be female, couldn’t you? I mean… I don’t know your gender or what you look like? Girls post on sports message boards too.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree on all fronts
 
https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/st...-mock-draft-scoot-henderson-play-ignite-again

It baffles me as this program continues to get no respect. Despite how well the team has been playing, specifically Wong, no Canes player cracked the most recent mock draft from ESPN.

Found it interesting that 6 players from the state of Florida did crack the 1st round.

3. Amen Thompson
5. Ausar Thompson
10. Jett Howard
16. Dillon Mitchell
23. Taylor Hendricks
24. Bryce Sensabaugh

I know it’s along way til next June’s draft but would be nice to see some of our guys get some recognition and their names called when the time comes.
 
NJshoreCane said:
Agree on poll timing.

Some stats (CFB poll):
Only 45% of the teams ranked in the pre-season poll are ranked in the final poll. I went back 10+/- years.
Last year, If you take away the top-5, only 6 of the remaining 20 teams were ranked in the end.
The guesswork that a “pre-season poll” is, has to end.

The pollsters should just rank based on what they see.
AT THIS TIME we are better than UVA.
Vote that way.
Click to expand...


Nailed it.

Voters tend to vote their biases. The voters historically pick 25 blue-bloods and put them in some sort of order (for the pre-season).

Anyone can pick the 5 most dominant teams at the beginning of the season. But Positions 6-25 are an absolute crapshoot before anyone has actually played a game.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
1672684844489.png

sports.yahoo.com

AP basketball Top 25: Xavier snaps UConn's undefeated run, leaving just 2 unbeaten teams

Only Purdue and New Mexico are still undefeated this season.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
1672685082948.gif
1672685103684.gif
 
Advertisement
Back
Top