|
|
Post by phil on Nov 22, 2022 9:11:46 GMT -5
Creme's latest bracket has no UT. Not the real one, in Texas, or the wannabe in Tennessee. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 22, 2022 9:25:35 GMT -5
I was surprised to see LSU as a three seed, But I see they are ranked 12th in the AP. Charlie doesn't have to mindlessly follow what the AP writers are saying but but at least it's an understandable selection given the AP.
Can we reach out to the AP voters and suggest they self impose a rule: no one can be ranked in the top 25 unless they beat at least one team in the top 100?
I think there are lots of good reasons for coaches to sprinkle in a few cupcakes in the early part of the schedule, but LSU's strongest opponent to date is ranked 310. That's mind-boggling for a team that things of itself as an elite team. I think the voters should punish them.
|
|
|
|
Post by semper on Nov 22, 2022 9:45:15 GMT -5
Premature to put Texas out of the whole dance, isn't it? Best player predicted to come back. We are amazing with a National Player of the year out, and our backup big out and our center out and a wing that is still pretty sick...Three starters out or temporarily out and a major bench player out for the year. How does Geno do it! I know, we have Azzi and they don't, but still look at how the other guys are stepping up. Just please NO MORE INJURIES.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 22, 2022 10:18:03 GMT -5
Premature to put Texas out of the whole dance, isn't it? I agree, but in defense of Charlie he did have an argument. His bracket is based on who deserves what position if the season were to end today. That means he can't give any weight to a player expected to come back, but more importantly, he applies the selection committee rules. The rules state that a team under 500 cannot be selected as an at-large team, so both teams are currently under 500 and therefore would not be eligible for the tournament if it were to happen today. He even concedes they are likely to be back on the list. |
|
|
|
Post by semper on Nov 22, 2022 10:20:33 GMT -5
Yeah, I see. Thanks, Phil.
|
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on Nov 22, 2022 11:27:15 GMT -5
I was surprised to see LSU as a three seed, But I see they are ranked 12th in the AP. Charlie doesn't have to mindlessly follow what the AP writers are saying but but at least it's an understandable selection given the AP. Can we reach out to the AP voters and suggest they self impose a rule: no one can be ranked in the top 25 unless they beat at least one team in the top 100? I think there are lots of good reasons for coaches to sprinkle in a few cupcakes in the early part of the schedule, but LSU's strongest opponent to date is ranked 310. That's mind-boggling for a team that things of itself as an elite team. I think the voters should punish them. I couldn't agree more on this. Intentionally scheduling really weak teams shouldn't be rewarded. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 11:29:16 GMT -5
Premature to put Texas out of the whole dance, isn't it? I agree, but in defense of Charlie he did have an argument. His bracket is based on who deserves what position if the season were to end today. That means he can't give any weight to a player expected to come back, but more importantly, he applies the selection committee rules. The rules state that a team under 500 cannot be selected as an at-large team, so both teams are currently under 500 and therefore would not be eligible for the tournament if it were to happen today. He even concedes they are likely to be back on the list. With all of the many good games coming up over the next few weeks, the landscape will change and Charlie will do yet another bracketologies. Texas, Louisville and even pathetic Tennessee will be able to regain entry or rise if their teams play better? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 11:32:41 GMT -5
I was surprised to see LSU as a three seed, But I see they are ranked 12th in the AP. Charlie doesn't have to mindlessly follow what the AP writers are saying but but at least it's an understandable selection given the AP. Can we reach out to the AP voters and suggest they self impose a rule: no one can be ranked in the top 25 unless they beat at least one team in the top 100? I think there are lots of good reasons for coaches to sprinkle in a few cupcakes in the early part of the schedule, but LSU's strongest opponent to date is ranked 310. That's mind-boggling for a team that things of itself as an elite team. I think the voters should punish them. I couldn't agree more on this. Intentionally scheduling really weak teams shouldn't be rewarded. The seasonal poll voters miss quite a bit of 'weak schedule' greatness, but The NCAA Selection Committee will punish teams such as LSU when it really counts? Even more brutal are the early NCAA Tournament failures many of these wannabees face....  |
|
|
|
Post by chicagogg on Nov 22, 2022 12:34:19 GMT -5
We all know that this is very early pie-in-the-sky bracketology, but wouldn't it be fun to watch the SDSU Jackrabbits beat the Cr** out of the Turtles?? I'd be loving it!
|
|
|
|
Post by swash on Nov 22, 2022 12:34:21 GMT -5
I was surprised to see LSU as a three seed, But I see they are ranked 12th in the AP. Charlie doesn't have to mindlessly follow what the AP writers are saying but but at least it's an understandable selection given the AP. Can we reach out to the AP voters and suggest they self impose a rule: no one can be ranked in the top 25 unless they beat at least one team in the top 100? I think there are lots of good reasons for coaches to sprinkle in a few cupcakes in the early part of the schedule, but LSU's strongest opponent to date is ranked 310. That's mind-boggling for a team that things of itself as an elite team. I think the voters should punish them. I couldn't agree more on this. Intentionally scheduling really weak teams shouldn't be rewarded. We have discussed this before. We all agree. But if the NCAA or the AP called you for advice, what would you recommend? Track wins and losses in tiers? The NCAA committee does that. Top 50 and top 100 in NET rating. They have the advantage that a lot of games have been played before they have to decide on their first reveal. I think they need a top 10 or 15 tier, because quality drops off fast after that. How about limiting credit for beating a certain opponent to their won/loss record? We had that, it was called RPI. Again not really required in selections by voters.... Massey ... of course, but it too suffers until at least mid-season. Besides, the purpose for the writers' and coaches' polls is to use knowledgeable humans to evaluate based on their own criteria and eye test. Problem is that some are too lazy to see enough games. Others carry strong feelings... Even we're not immune, discounting certain orange teams and over-crediting teams we want to see anchoring successfully. I've wondered about having voters rank only the teams they have seen play recently. Let's say 3-4 weeks max. They'd just line them up in relation to the other teams they have seen, ignoring the absolute position. With enough votes, we could line up the entire D1 with an algorithm that handles uncertainty and conflicting opinions. Hmmm. Might be fun to build that using machine-learning. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Nov 22, 2022 12:48:38 GMT -5
I'm not entirely (mostly, but not entirely) miffed at Kim for her scheduling. It's a fashion statement in its own way: she's saying she wants her motley crew to congeal and build confidence. In the age of the portal, it even makes some sense. If she's punished for it by SOS later and when her team suddenly faces real competition, that's the price she knows she'll pay.
What really pisses me off, however, is her running up the score on every game. And what really, really, really pisses me off is her trumpeting that stupid 100 point streak. Shame on her. Of course, she already carries so much shame that I guess a little more doesn't make a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 12:51:39 GMT -5
I'm not entirely (mostly, but not entirely) miffed at Kim for her scheduling. It's a fashion statement in its own way: she's saying she wants her motley crew to congeal and build confidence. In the age of the portal, it even makes some sense. If she's punished for it by SOS later, that's the price she knows she'll pay. What really pisses me off, however, is her running up the score on every game. And what really, really, really pisses me off is her trumpeting that stupid 100 point streak. Shame on her. Of course, she already carries so much shame that I guess a little more doesn't make a difference. Exactly, and running up the stats of both the team and the players' as if it's reasonable to compare them to teams and players who played tougher schedules? |
|
|
|
Post by semper on Nov 22, 2022 12:58:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree. She explained it cogently enough, trying to get them to jel without a lot of pressure and build their confidence. I get that. But the horse whipping of teams that are far far weaker is bullying really.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockymtblue2 on Nov 22, 2022 13:01:51 GMT -5
Creme's latest bracket has no UT. Not the real one, in Texas, or the wannabe in Tennessee. Apparently he thinks this is his equivalent of 6 Hail Mary's etc. It isn't. His stupid doesn't wipe off that easily. |
|
|
|
Post by rockymtblue2 on Nov 22, 2022 13:05:14 GMT -5
I'm not entirely (mostly, but not entirely) miffed at Kim for her scheduling. It's a fashion statement in its own way: she's saying she wants her motley crew to congeal and build confidence. In the age of the portal, it even makes some sense. If she's punished for it by SOS later and when her team suddenly faces real competition, that's the price she knows she'll pay. What really pisses me off, however, is her running up the score on every game. And what really, really, really pisses me off is her trumpeting that stupid 100 point streak. Shame on her. Of course, she already carries so much shame that I guess a little more doesn't make a difference. She does not recognize shame as something applying to her ... seriously. She's a pretty top notch coach, but in the ranks of human beings she's at the bottom of the totem pole. |
|
|
|
Post by swash on Nov 22, 2022 13:06:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree. She explained it cogently enough, trying to get them to jel without a lot of pressure and build their confidence. I get that. But the horse whipping of teams that are far far weaker is bullying really. More.... she could pick teams in the 100-150 range and still be virtually assured of winning them all. She's 200 points worse! You know that commercial with the two kids picking basketball teams, and the girl picks Barkley? That's the analog of her supposed "conservative schedule". |
|
|
|
Post by magic on Nov 22, 2022 13:16:11 GMT -5
Such a soap opera. The only team I care about is Uconn, and how they are handling their own team situations. One game at a time.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 22, 2022 14:21:05 GMT -5
I'm not entirely (mostly, but not entirely) miffed at Kim for her scheduling. It's a fashion statement in its own way: she's saying she wants her motley crew to congeal and build confidence. In the age of the portal, it even makes some sense. If she's punished for it by SOS later and when her team suddenly faces real competition, that's the price she knows she'll pay. I'm totally on board with the notion that you might want to have some softer games early to get the team to gel especially when you're putting new parts together (I would be surprised if Tennessee wishes they had considered that), but as Swash pointed out, you can do that with teams ranked 100 – 150, not worry about getting the win and having plenty of opportunity to let the team gel. I think victories against multiple teams ranked 300 or worse can encourage bad habits. You don't think you need to elevate much because you can shoot over someone and you will get surprised when you get blocked. You make a casual cut and easily get to the basket only to find out that against the better defender you get stopped. Etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Nov 23, 2022 0:08:34 GMT -5
I was surprised to see LSU as a three seed, But I see they are ranked 12th in the AP. Charlie doesn't have to mindlessly follow what the AP writers are saying but but at least it's an understandable selection given the AP. Can we reach out to the AP voters and suggest they self impose a rule: no one can be ranked in the top 25 unless they beat at least one team in the top 100? I think there are lots of good reasons for coaches to sprinkle in a few cupcakes in the early part of the schedule, but LSU's strongest opponent to date is ranked 310. That's mind-boggling for a team that things of itself as an elite team. I think the voters should punish them. I couldn't agree more on this. Intentionally scheduling really weak teams shouldn't be rewarded. LSU has even more of this type of game up till the Xmas holidays so when the first NET rankings come out their schedule will haunt them. |
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Nov 23, 2022 0:11:16 GMT -5
But if they can end up the 3rd best team in the SEC they will get no worse than a 4 seed. That's the reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by swash on Nov 23, 2022 7:34:57 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more on this. Intentionally scheduling really weak teams shouldn't be rewarded. LSU has even more of this type of game up till the Xmas holidays so when the first NET rankings come out their schedule will haunt them. Let's hope. In NET: The Team Value Index measures the quality of your wins and agony of your losses. Essentially, it punishes a bad loss and gives extra credit for an upset victory. This our barometer, but it is just one factor in NET. Kim's gang will rock the part that is net efficiency (Team's - opponent's). The third component, adjusted Won/Loss record will look fine for them too. While it factors a significant bonus for road vs home, it doesn't care who you beat. This will in fact be a big test of the NET to see if it punishes them enough to make Kim want to play even a marginally better schedule in future years. Frankly, the voters are the real deal-makers/breakers. If the tigers remain in the top 15 having played a series of exhibition games, she will use that in recruiting. If the poll participants recognize that she is playing them for fools and properly drop them out of sight, she would surely change her tune ASAP ... though not without spouting off about how terribly unfair they've been to her poor downtrodden team. In short: 1. TVI - very difficult to scam this one, but she is starting with avoiding any shocking setbacks. If her terrible opponents happen to pull off an upset here and there, that could help her considerably. If they can pull off an upset or three in the SEC, they this metric will credit them for that. I think she is putting all of her eggs into this basket. 2. Net Efficiency - Scam this one by playing a bunch of patsies - maximized by Kim 3. AWL - Scam this one by feasting on a significant portion of those cupcakes away or at "neutral" sites - she left room for "growth" here Finally, remember that NET isn't published until late December, and it is but one "consideration" the NCAA committee uses in seeding the tournament. I suspect it will only move a team a little away from their poll positions ... guessing no more than a seed line or maybe two. Some AP and coach voters may add the NET to their deliberations, but ... alas ... most probably will not |
|
|
|
Post by chicagogg on Nov 23, 2022 8:40:23 GMT -5
I'm not entirely (mostly, but not entirely) miffed at Kim for her scheduling. It's a fashion statement in its own way: she's saying she wants her motley crew to congeal and build confidence. In the age of the portal, it even makes some sense. If she's punished for it by SOS later and when her team suddenly faces real competition, that's the price she knows she'll pay. What really pisses me off, however, is her running up the score on every game. And what really, really, really pisses me off is her trumpeting that stupid 100 point streak. Shame on her. Of course, she already carries so much shame that I guess a little more doesn't make a difference. She does not recognize shame as something applying to her ... seriously. She's a pretty top notch coach, but in the ranks of human beings she's at the bottom of the totem pole. I am surprised that parents will trust their girls with her. She has not covered herself in glory by any means as a person. |
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on Nov 23, 2022 9:01:57 GMT -5
And she certainly hasn't shown support for females being the target of abuse by members of other athletic team members. Between that, her appalling lack of support and compassion for BG, and just in general being a drama queen, I would not send my daughter to play under her.
I wonder what the Hannah Gusters story is? Think we will ever find out? So odd that she followed Kim to LSU and then left. Hope that kid finds happiness somewhere else.
|
|
