And then there were ten…National Title team is on this list

#4
#4
This list could look a little different on March 17th when the bracket comes out. Still lots of games to play and efficiency rankings will ebb and flow with each result.
 
#5
#5
VolCalls said:
This list could look a little different on March 17th when the bracket comes out. Still lots of games to play and efficiency rankings will ebb and flow with each result.
Click to expand...
Not many teams actually…but Duke could slide off and 1-2 could join the list…take Duke off and 1 of those 9 will cut the nets down.
 
#7
#7
bleedingTNorange said:
I would suggest reading this article OP, that narrative is pushed every year and really isn’t totally accurate.

statsbywill.substack.com

Let's talk about the 20/20 Club and the power of a good narrative

Choose your fighter: accuracy or convenience
statsbywill.substack.com statsbywill.substack.com
Click to expand...
It’s a moving list..that is why it says as of March 2nd. At this point in the season very few teams can come off/on the list though regardless of future results. It would also rule out teams such as Bama and Kentucky who have piss poor defense. I will take the 9 teams. You can have Duke and the rest of the field. Bet?
 
#8
#8
volplaya8 said:
It’s a moving list..that is why it says as of March 2nd. At this point in the season very few teams can come off/on the list though regardless of future results. It would also rule out teams such as Bama and Kentucky who have piss poor defense. I will take the 9 teams. You can have Duke and the rest of the field. Bet?
Click to expand...
That literally has nothing to do with article I linked
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol
#9
#9
bleedingTNorange said:
That literally has nothing to do with article I linked
Click to expand...
Considering my list is top 40/25…I fail to realize why your article matters at all…are you taking a team outside of those 9/10 or not. The tournament games count in the final year numbers.
 
#10
#10
volplaya8 said:
Considering my list is top 40/25…I fail to realize why your article matters at all…are you taking a team outside of those 9/10 or not. The tournament games count in the final year numbers.
Click to expand...

He's saying if you read that article it debunks the myth of the 40/25 parameters as being accurate. Because they aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol
#11
#11
TheMookieMonster said:
He's saying if you read that article it debunks the myth of the 40/25 parameters as being accurate. Because they aren't.
Click to expand...
They are….the article says teams can move in and out based off tournament games. Of course they can. What you are ranked at end of all games played is what matters. If you think more than 2/3 teams max can join that list then you are kidding yourself. One of those teams listed will be the national champion. It just cool data to look at and to show people that some teams can already be ruled out (Bama, Kentucky) most notably for Sec purposes.
 
#12
#12
This team is very good and looks like the best squad that Barnes has had to date but I don't want to get my hopes up.

Barnes 2018-2019 team and the 2021-2022 team both looked like they could make runs and fell short. Even last year that was the case.

It isn't just Barnes, I got bit on some of Bruce Pearl's teams as well (he never made FF also). The Ohio State comeback still hurts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#13
#13
volplaya8 said:
Considering my list is top 40/25…I fail to realize why your article matters at all…are you taking a team outside of those 9/10 or not. The tournament games count in the final year numbers.
Click to expand...
And there’s the issue, you’re excluding teams based on their ranking today while using end of year rankings for champions…using those teams rankings at a similar date, or even as the NCAAT starts would give a more factual take, that’s the point of that article.

Your ranking would’ve excluded 8 of the last 25 champions had you gone off their rankings pre-NCAAT, which is obviously what’s relevant. Just looking at the Top 6 on KenPom has proven to be a more accurate way of picking the champion, hitting 22/26 times, and currently 8 years in a row.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lukusw, berryvol and orangejuice
#14
#14
bleedingTNorange said:
And there’s the issue, you’re excluding teams based on their ranking today while using end of year rankings for champions…using those teams rankings at a similar date, or even as the NCAAT starts would give a more factual take, that’s the point of that article.

Your ranking would’ve excluded 8 of the last 25 champions had you gone off their rankings pre-NCAAT, which is obviously what’s relevant. Just looking at the Top 6 on KenPom has proven to be a more accurate way of picking the champion, hitting 22/26 times, and currently 8 years in a row.
Click to expand...
Again it states as of March 2nd. It’s just data to look at. As that is also 40/25 and not some arbitray 40/22 then 3 more pre tournament teams would fall under that criteria. The list will continue to change slighly moving forward but as of March 2nd that is it. Weird article though. Of course tournament games count, why wouldn’t they…lol
 
#15
#15
volplaya8 said:
Again it states as of March 2nd. It’s just data to look at. As that is also 40/25 and not some arbitray 40/22 then 3 more pre tournament teams would fall under that criteria. The list will continue to change slighly moving forward but as of March 2nd that is it. Weird article though. Of course tournament games count, why wouldn’t they…lol
Click to expand...
You don’t see the issue with that? You’re excluding teams today based on a ranking that is done after the season ends. If you want to be accurate then the club would be more like 60/60 pre NCAAT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol and orangejuice
#16
#16
bleedingTNorange said:
You don’t see the issue with that? You’re excluding teams today based on a ranking that is done after the season ends. If you want to be accurate then the club would be more like 60/60 pre NCAAT.
Click to expand...
No I am saying those are the criteria for the last 22 national champions and it firmly states as of March 2nd. As this is nearing end of year very few teams are going to slide up on that list is all. Just a reminder to people that the Vols are firmly entrenched as a true title contender. Would you pick anyone outside of those team sir. I certainly won’t be. If I can find list next week I will post and keep it going.
 
#17
#17
Whatever our seeding when the bracket comes out, we'll see, has will everyone, some strong opponents ahead....

Blogging The Bracket has us now as the 1 seed in the West, with Iowa State as the 2 seed! That would be a DREAM bracket. Creigton is the 3 seed. We'd be playing the winner of Texas (8) vs. Michigan State (9) in the 2nd round. San Diego State as the 4 seed, South Carolina in our bracket as the 5. That's about as good as it could get....

BUT it won't happen! As Lunardi has pointed out, the committee has a history of wanting a west-coast team as a 1-seed. So we could beat SC and Kentucky and still not get a 1 seed unless Arizona loses.
 
#18
#18
volplaya8 said:
No I am saying those are the criteria for the last 22 national champions and it firmly states as of March 2nd. As this is nearing end of year very few teams are going to slide up on that list is all. Just a reminder to people that the Vols are firmly entrenched as a true title contender. Would you pick anyone outside of those team sir. I certainly won’t be. If I can find list next week I will post and keep it going.
Click to expand...
You should read the article he linked as it is quite fascinating and makes some very good points. Also, the 40/25 data is comparing two data sets based on two different points in time. A more accurate reference would be to look at the rankings during the last week of the season and compare them to the current data of the last week in the season and then extrapolate who won the championship. If you just simply compare current kenpom ratings to previous season ratings, the data is skewed because the previous years include the NCAA tournament results, therefore favoring the teams that get hot during the tournament to move up in the kenpom ratings. I would guess that a journalist came up with the 40/25 thing and not an actual data scientist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lankykong and berryvol
#19
#19
orangejuice said:
You should read the article he linked as it is quite fascinating and makes some very good points. Also, the 40/25 data is comparing two data sets based on two different points in time. A more accurate reference would be to look at the rankings during the last week of the season and compare them to the current data of the last week in the season and then extrapolate who won the championship. If you just simply compare current kenpom ratings to previous season ratings, the data is skewed because the previous years include the NCAA tournament results, therefore favoring the teams that get hot during the tournament to move up in the kenpom ratings. I would guess that a journalist came up with the 40/25 thing and not an actual data scientist.
Click to expand...
I read it..it does not even address the 40/25 chart I sent…it also just wants to state pre tournament before post tournament. Of course things change over the course of the tournament. This chart is put out each week. For the hundredth time at this point in the year not many teams have a possibility of being added or subtracted from the list. Just a cool thing to look out. Bur enjoy picking a different team than those listed in all your brackets…lol
 
#20
#20
volplaya8 said:
I read it..it does not even address the 40/25 chart I sent…it also just wants to state pre tournament before post tournament. Of course things change over the course of the tournament. This chart is put out each week. For the hundredth time at this point in the year not many teams have a possibility of being added or subtracted from the list. Just a cool thing to look out. Bur enjoy picking a different team than those listed in all your brackets…lol
Click to expand...

I just reposted this in Lawgators thread, but I ran some math on Teamrankings predictive ranking for years previous.

It could help narrow down the field a bit if you cross compare with the Kenpom stat.

THE TLDR is:

14 of the last 16 NCAA Tournament champions were top 6 in the team rankings predictive metric the day before the tournament began. Both outliers were the same team. UCONN

The Official “Regular Posters of the Basketball Forum” Thread

Butch Jones’ face just turned a new shade of purple.
www.volnation.com www.volnation.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoerner Fumbles, cardvolfan, orangejuice and 2 others
#21
#21
volplaya8 said:
I read it..it does not even address the 40/25 chart I sent…it also just wants to state pre tournament before post tournament. Of course things change over the course of the tournament. This chart is put out each week. For the hundredth time at this point in the year not many teams have a possibility of being added or subtracted from the list. Just a cool thing to look out. Bur enjoy picking a different team than those listed in all your brackets…lol
Click to expand...
I never said it addressed the 40/25 chart, I said "It's quite fascinating and makes some good points". I bolded the point that I am trying to make, as you spelled out my exact point. Creating a data analysis that compares data that will change due to the difference in points in time, will come to a different conclusion than the intent of the analysis. For the 40/25 chart to be statistically significant, and anything other than "cool thing to look at", it would need to compare the same points in time and remove those things that change over the course of the tournament.

I'll give you an example of how much the tournament favors the eventual champion and why this data is extremely skewed due to the winning team is going to most likely improve their statistics the most by the end of the tournament.

As of March 14, 2023, UCONN (pre-tournament) had the following Kenpom rating:
Offense: #6
Defense: #22

Now pull up the end-of-year Kenpom:
Offense: #3
Defense: #7

There is a massive difference between these rankings and it's because UCONN went on an absolute tear during the tournament, which is kind of what it takes to win the NC and the team that wins most likely significantly improved their statistical rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SN-A-C Orange
#22
#22
volplaya8 said:
No I am saying those are the criteria for the last 22 national champions and it firmly states as of March 2nd. As this is nearing end of year very few teams are going to slide up on that list is all. Just a reminder to people that the Vols are firmly entrenched as a true title contender. Would you pick anyone outside of those team sir. I certainly won’t be. If I can find list next week I will post and keep it going.
Click to expand...

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I think you are the one who is confused by the numbers. Your point about Tennessee being a national title contender is a valid one though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol
#23
#23
TheMookieMonster said:
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I think you are the one who is confused by the numbers. Your point about Tennessee being a national title contender is a valid one though.
Click to expand...
As it is with the other teams listed. Now move along,
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
orangejuice said:
I never said it addressed the 40/25 chart, I said "It's quite fascinating and makes some good points". I bolded the point that I am trying to make, as you spelled out my exact point. Creating a data analysis that compares data that will change due to the difference in points in time, will come to a different conclusion than the intent of the analysis. For the 40/25 chart to be statistically significant, and anything other than "cool thing to look at", it would need to compare the same points in time and remove those things that change over the course of the tournament.

I'll give you an example of how much the tournament favors the eventual champion and why this data is extremely skewed due to the winning team is going to most likely improve their statistics the most by the end of the tournament.

As of March 14, 2023, UCONN (pre-tournament) had the following Kenpom rating:
Offense: #6
Defense: #22

Now pull up the end-of-year Kenpom:
Offense: #3
Defense: #7

There is a massive difference between these rankings and it's because UCONN went on an absolute tear during the tournament, which is kind of what it takes to win the NC and the team that wins most likely significantly improved their statistical rankings.
Click to expand...
Either way UConn was within the criteria before and after the tournament. Yes teams close to criteria might be able to launch themselves into range, that is just very few teams at this point.Teams like Alabama and Kentucky will not be able to accomplish this and can be ruled out if 22 years keeps holding is all. It says as of March 2nd….not April 10th. Do you see any teams not on list being able to vault themselves within both of these numbers and cutting down the nets? I do not.
 
#25
#25
volplaya8 said:
Either way UConn was within the criteria before and after the tournament. Yes teams close to criteria might be able to launch themselves into range, that is just very few teams at this point.Teams like Alabama and Kentucky will not be able to accomplish this and can be ruled out if 22 years keeps holding is all. It says as of March 2nd….not April 10th. Do you see any teams not on list being able to vault themselves within both of these numbers and cutting down the nets? I do not.
Click to expand...
I think your completely missing the point or intentionally ignoring it. Do we just ignore that UCONN improved their defense by #15 spots from end of season to end of tournament? Does this mean the model should actually be called 40/25 +/- 15? Since there is an established deviation of 15 induced by using different data dates?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top