header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~

 (Read 54404 times)

Brutus Buckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1400 on: March 09, 2018, 11:28:21 AM »
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3362
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1401 on: March 09, 2018, 12:00:53 PM »
Maryland's RPI just fell from #74 to #76 overnight, meaning MSU, Purdue and UM all lose one Quadrant 1 win, because a road win over Maryland no longer qualifies.
This illustrates my main objection to this system.  I don't like the hard cut-offs.  
This system effectively treats a road game against #1 as being equivalent to a road game against #75.  At the same time, a road win against #75 (or 74, UMD as of yesterday) is MUCH better than a road win over #76.  
We all know that beating #75 on the road is obviously NOT the same thing as beating #1 on the road.  Conversely, we all know that beating #75 or #76 on the road is almost exactly the same thing.  
More sophisticated computer rankings can deal with this easily by simply treating a road win over #1 as being slightly better than a road win over #2 which is slightly better than a road win over #3, etc, etc.  
In a more sophisticated system the difference between beating #74 Maryland and beating #76 Maryland is negligible as it should be.  In the system we have, the difference between beating #74 Maryland and beating #76 Maryland is a major issue.  It shouldn't be.  

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3362
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1402 on: March 09, 2018, 12:03:35 PM »
FWIW:
I feel the same way when people talk about wins over "ranked teams" in football.  Beating #1 is a MUCH bigger deal than beating #25 and beating #25 is essentially equivalent to beating #26 but talking of "ranked wins" treats the wins over #1 and #25 as equivalents while treating the win over #26 as equivalent to beating the worst team in FBS and/or an FCS team.  Similarly, in football, the more sophisticated computer systems handle this appropriately by treating a win over #1 as slightly better than a win over #2 and a win over #2 as slightly better than a win over #3, etc.  

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11120
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1403 on: March 09, 2018, 12:09:47 PM »
This illustrates my main objection to this system.  I don't like the hard cut-offs.  
This system effectively treats a road game against #1 as being equivalent to a road game against #75.  At the same time, a road win against #75 (or 74, UMD as of yesterday) is MUCH better than a road win over #76.  
We all know that beating #75 on the road is obviously NOT the same thing as beating #1 on the road.  Conversely, we all know that beating #75 or #76 on the road is almost exactly the same thing.  
More sophisticated computer rankings can deal with this easily by simply treating a road win over #1 as being slightly better than a road win over #2 which is slightly better than a road win over #3, etc, etc.  
In a more sophisticated system the difference between beating #74 Maryland and beating #76 Maryland is negligible as it should be.  In the system we have, the difference between beating #74 Maryland and beating #76 Maryland is a major issue.  It shouldn't be.  
Yeah, that's what I don't get.  The quality of wins is factored into whatever computer ranking system you use.  So why throw this in on top of it?

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11120
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1404 on: March 09, 2018, 02:55:35 PM »
Tyler Cook putting his name in the draft, but not hiring an agent

Brutus Buckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1405 on: March 09, 2018, 03:25:52 PM »

The Bearcats take down the 'Stangs. 

1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13721
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1406 on: March 09, 2018, 03:33:28 PM »
Money it's gotta be the shoes!
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11120
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1407 on: March 09, 2018, 03:38:19 PM »
Cincy coach Mick Cronin throwing shade at Pitino

Cincinnati coach Mick Cronin wore a pullover for today's American tournament game against SMU in honor of Bob Huggins, one of his mentors. "I could have still been banging around at Woodard High School if he didn't hire me," Cronin said. He did bring suits for the weekend, though. "Tomorrow, I'll wear a real expensive suit like Rick Pitino," he said.

Brutus Buckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1408 on: March 09, 2018, 03:41:25 PM »

He should go for Ketchup, since the other two have already covered Mustard and Mayo. 

1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

bwarbiany

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1409 on: March 09, 2018, 03:57:02 PM »
FWIW:
I feel the same way when people talk about wins over "ranked teams" in football.  Beating #1 is a MUCH bigger deal than beating #25 and beating #25 is essentially equivalent to beating #26 but talking of "ranked wins" treats the wins over #1 and #25 as equivalents while treating the win over #26 as equivalent to beating the worst team in FBS and/or an FCS team.  Similarly, in football, the more sophisticated computer systems handle this appropriately by treating a win over #1 as slightly better than a win over #2 and a win over #2 as slightly better than a win over #3, etc.  
Yeah, and we constantly talk about wins over ranked at the time teams, despite what else happens to them. I remember in football, for a long time a win over a ranked Illinois team was Purdue's most recent "ranked road win". It might still be. That game was right before Illinois took a 6-game losing streak. So it's not all that big of an accomplishment, but it was a ranked win on the road, dammit!
The thing is that people are dumb. We like hard cutoffs, because we like to categorize things. "Beating a ranked team" means something to us emotionally, even if it's the #23 team and they drop out of the rankings the next week. 

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3362
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1410 on: March 09, 2018, 04:14:15 PM »
Yeah, and we constantly talk about wins over ranked at the time teams, despite what else happens to them. I remember in football, for a long time a win over a ranked Illinois team was Purdue's most recent "ranked road win". It might still be. That game was right before Illinois took a 6-game losing streak. So it's not all that big of an accomplishment, but it was a ranked win on the road, dammit!
The thing is that people are dumb. We like hard cutoffs, because we like to categorize things. "Beating a ranked team" means something to us emotionally, even if it's the #23 team and they drop out of the rankings the next week.
Oh I get that but I think those are also two very different things.  
A Purdue fan (your example), bragging about a "road win over a ranked team" even though said "ranked" team subsequently lost their next five games and finished sub .500 and unranked doesn't bother me too much.  
What does annoy me is when the people responsible for NCAA Tournament selection and/or seeding or the people responsible for CFP selection talk about wins over "ranked" teams.  Then it actually matters.  At least in the CFP era it seems to have improved somewhat because people are mostly talking now about wins over teams ranked at the end of the season.  That is obviously a lot better than talking about wins over ranked at the time teams. Still, it suffers from the hard cut-off issue of treating wins over #1 or #25 as equivalent and also treating wins over #26 or #126 as equivalent.  

Brutus Buckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1411 on: March 10, 2018, 06:01:28 AM »


1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11120
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1412 on: March 10, 2018, 03:53:32 PM »
The SEC still using the It Just Means More motto, even painting it on the court, is like the Big Ten returning to NYC next year.  Just really refusing to acknowledge something in reality is so much dumber than it appears in a meeting.

Also enjoying the side banner noting they have the most Quadrant 1 and 2 Wins.  Aside from the "why?" I also ask why?  If you know what that even means, you also know it's a dumb metric and you know the SEC was pretty good in basketball this year for the first time in like a decade, and therefore don't need to be told, and can only laugh at it.  If you do need to be informed the SEC was good, then that message is for you...except you don't know what a Quadrant 1 win means, so the message is lost.

So you've got a message that is going to mean nothing to the target audience, and is going to be laughed at by everyone else.  Marketing 101 I suppose.

Brutus Buckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked:
Re: ~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~
« Reply #1413 on: March 10, 2018, 06:49:38 PM »
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

 

Associate Links/Search