Their severe layup allergy is most of the problem. When you’re up 20 just take the *** **** ************* layups. ***** ******* ******You’all think I was making a joke? Very serious stuff this Pope’s connections > Villanova basketball. Just ask the Celtics how they lost 2 straight at home when they were up by 20 in each & hadn’t lost to the Knicks (4-0) during the regular season. You think it coincidental the Knicks roster has 3 Villanova guys on it, all from their Championship team? Ha!!!
Why New York Knicks fans are celebrating the selection of Pope Leo XIV
The election of the first ever American to the papacy is giving New York Knicks fans feelings of divine right ahead of the rest of the NBA playoffs.www.dailymail.co.uk
View attachment 18331
GT Hoops General Topics
- Thread starter dtm1997
- Start date
spdrama
Guest
okiemon
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,896
We live in a fallen world, sp. Hard to swallow, but true.
No that was processed garbage that gets put in our food.
- Messages
- 11,596
- Location
- Oriental, NC
I never saw that Abdoulaye Gueye when he played at GT. Not that he was bad, but terribly inconsistent.
lauraee
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,541
7 years of playing professional basketball should have improved that consistency. Also, no academic distractions.
RyanS12
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Flint Michigan
I’ll admit I had a few drinks today doing yard work and thought this was someone we were looking at in the portal or an overseas addition until I realized who it was.. Lol.
GTpdm
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,101
- Location
- Atlanta GA
I hope you weren't operating any machinery, like a chainsaw...wouldn't want you having to change your handle to "Lefty" or some such.
TechPhi97
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,029
- Location
- Davidson, NC
So the bias was because they won a bunch of games? I need some help understanding this line of reasoning.
stinger78
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 10,597
It creates a positive feedback loop in the SOS metric. It’s not human bias (necessarily), is algorithmic error which results in bias. When an algorithmic output then becomes input for the next run the risk of a positive feedback loop is created. The SEC had a very good week vs. the ACC early on and earned a lot of higher rankings and strength ratings (though a lot of those ACC teams turned out to be crappy teams). Then as they played each other, the strength outputs were used as inputs and so they got stronger and stronger and stronger SOS ratings, which moved them from 5/6 to 9 teams in the top 25 SOS by end of Feb, just playing with themselves. This SOS metric was a factor in the multiplicity of higher ranked teams and selections. It evened out again somewhat after the NCAAT, back down to 7.
GTpdm
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,101
- Location
- Atlanta GA
Don't they know they'll go blind if they keep doing that?
stinger78
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 10,597
TechPhi97
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,029
- Location
- Davidson, NC
Perhaps I don’t understand how those ranking frameworks work. Is SOS not based on performance?
- Messages
- 13,979
Some ratings estimate strength of schedule based on last year. As the season goes on, they reevaluate based on wins and losses. The early season estimates are arguably weeded out by the halfway point of the season.
Because the first half of NCAA basketball is out of conference games, you’re seeing an argument that the ACC started cold, and didn’t get a chance to improve their perception because by the time they were playing well, there were only conference games left.
There’s some argument that the schedule doesn’t really help find out who the most worthy teams are at the end of the season. But it’s still mostly true that the ACC didn’t have a good year. That is, the ACC got a weaker reputation than deserved, but even so they were still weaker than the other top conferences in 2024
Edit: you might have been wry in your post; if your were, it helps to put “/s” at the end of your post, or some indicator
stinger78
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 10,597
I think the risk is the early bump (not entirely undeserved, but certainly not understood) from their early OOC wins - particularly against a subpar ACC with many rebuilding teams. You can’t know all that up front, thus the bump. That’s OK but it must be addressed and corrected.
Look at the RPI from last season at 2-weeks periods. You’ll see it. There were 4/5 SEC teams in the SOS top 25 initially. That’s about right. It stayed 5/6 past NYD. Again, based on OOC results, not bad. But then by the end of Feb there were 9 SEC teams in top 25 SOS. How did that happen? They played only themselves and the feedback loop took over, IMO.
Anytime your output from one iteration of an algorithm is then fed back into it as input for the next iteration you risk this. A moderating feature should be added that senses and responds to dampen the feedback. It’s basic complex system dynamics: probe, sense, respond. You never know when a feedback loop might arise, so you have to probe for them and respond accordingly.
As it were, the NCAAT provided that moderating input. However, the bloated SOS numbers had already justified 14 of 16 SEC teams getting slots, several with horrible conf records. The only way to justify that, again IMO, was the hyped SOS ratings that weren’t corrected.
Not saying it was surely human bias (though there likely was), but it was the data error that was (apparently) not corrected prior to its use by the committee.
cpf2001
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,768
Yeah IMO the issue is that instead of the piles of conference losses convincing the model (and then the selection committee) that the teams at the bottom of the SEC’s OOC wins were probably fluky, they had nothing but “good losses” and so didn’t get penalized enough for those losses.
The conference records showed the separation between the top 3 or 4 SEC teams and the rest. They also showed the separation between 5-8 and the rest. And 9-12 vs 13-14.
The ACC did nothing to distinguish itself regardless, but it’s particularly hard to justify teams 13/14 in the SEC as having a good resume. If they’d been worthy, they would’ve won a few more games and clogged up the middle of the standings further, if not brought some of the top teams closer even.
The conference records showed the separation between the top 3 or 4 SEC teams and the rest. They also showed the separation between 5-8 and the rest. And 9-12 vs 13-14.
The ACC did nothing to distinguish itself regardless, but it’s particularly hard to justify teams 13/14 in the SEC as having a good resume. If they’d been worthy, they would’ve won a few more games and clogged up the middle of the standings further, if not brought some of the top teams closer even.
Root4GT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,025
The SEC went 59-19 against the other Power Conferences last season in OOC games. That is what drove their very high NET rankings and caused the feedback loop. They earned the NET rankings based on the games played in Nov-Dec.
Here are the Power Conference records against Top 25 teams thru December 2024:
SEC: 15-10
ACC: 5-31
Big East: 5-18
Big Ten: 11-26
Big 12: 9-22
cpf2001
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,768
Aggregates hide details.
Texas OOC, for instance, against better OOC teams:
Loss to Xavier in the tourney
Loss to tOSU
Loss to UConn
Beat St Joes (NIT team), looks like their most decent OOC win? They did also beat two bad ACC teams.
But Texas didn’t themselves do the work that earned the SEC that favor.
So do a couple upsets in conference, with a 6-12 record and a TON of “good” losses, really justify a bid?
The model says “they didn’t embarrass themselves, their losses were good!” But at some point loss quantity needs to matter