RedlessWardrobe said:
^
Exactly. That team with KJ and the boys might have won a game or two in the tourney. This year's team, if we won we would have needed the "luck" that onebearofpower is often referring to.
calumnus said:
Was Cal even one of the 16 or more invited to The Crown? Was that an option?
BearlyCareAnymore said:Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:vaderbear95 said:
We were definitely close. The whole bubble is filled w/ teams that are flawed. And our resume matched up pretty well. Obviously we didn't get in so that's that. But it's not being a loser to point out that we were just as deserving as some of the other teams that made it - especially with as much objective data that has been pointed to regarding the resumes of all of these bubble teams. True we could have won less games (they all could) and we could have won more (they all could), but we definitely had legitimate arguments that stand up against the resumes of several teams that made it.
I didn't say anyone was a loser for pointing out (incorrectly) that we were just as deserving as other teams that made it in. I said it was being a loser to cry about not getting the breaks, and oh they made half court shot and we got bad calls and the refs hate us.
On the "luck" point, it only seems like we have bad luck because we aren't very good. If Duke has bad luck, they get a three seed. We'd need to be the luckiest team in the history of sports to get a three seed. Cal lost three games by 5 points or fewer. Oh, how unlucky. If we win those three games we get selected. Except that we won 4 games by 5 points or fewer. We lose those 4 and we aren't in the NIT. We weren't particularly lucky or unlucky. Our record is in line with our NET ranking and our KenPom. We are what our record says we are.
Wins are wins losses are losses. Bad Luck is when things happen that you can't control. Things like heaves going in or a coach lobbying AP voters to vote for their team. I'm not claiming we are unlucky in the sense that we miss shots or whatever I don't consider that luck. I think we are unlucky in the sense that things never seem to go our way in terms of in big moments in the sport or not in the sport. You can deny that refs play a role in this but there are rules in place like targeting which are supposed to be objective and reviewed and they still make the wrong call and the whole nation watched it and agreed(non Cal fans).
In terms of this year in basketball I don't think we were unlucky in the sense that teams made lucky shots. I think we were unlucky in the sense of how basketball is very variance based and we would be lucky if any of the teams near the end of the season shot the ball very poorly regardless of the quality of defense. That did not occur and in fact the opposite occurred. If you watch the full replay of the Wake game and Pitt game and don't see bad officiating then you are choosing to be blind. That doesn't excuse the players it doesn't mean we played well or that we deserved to win but it does mean that we were unlucky because things out of our control didn't go our way.
I'm not mad about the SMU shot it's a great shot, but if you are VT you got unlucky and you can't deny that. There is nothing they can do there because contesting the shot more is not worth a risk of a foul and they just have to live with it.
People always wanna deny luck because they don't wanna admit how big a role it plays in games but it plays a big role when you are on the bubble of anything and you need small margins.
You want to talk about those 4 games won by 5 points or fewer? We beat Notre Dame because they tried to intentionally foul Dai Dai up 3 and fouled him on a shot. I already addressed this. We beat Miami by 1. Nothing lucky about this they missed the game winning shot that we altered just like Pippen missed the game winning 3 vs FSU and we missed a tying 3 vs VT. I don't think either is lucky or unlucky it is just shooting. We beat GT by 5 sort of. I am 95 percent sure Akai Fleming hit a contested three over John Camden right at the end when the game was an 8 point deficit with like a second remaining so I don't see how we were lucky that game. Both teams made and missed shots we are the more talented team the game appeared closer than it was. We beat SMU by 4. We were fortunate that they missed so many free throws. If you were there you know why. I don't think it was all luck but there is some luck when Boopie Miller misses multiple free throws.
The luck is not exactly just in the games. In the last 15 years the school's athletics(mostly football as basketball hasn't even been a talking point or played in any big games or moments so since 2013 for BBALL) as a whole or outside factors have not come through in a single game or moment where we needed it to either make a big time bowl or win a super monumental game for the program. That is not catching a break as a fan and as a program. Most of it is the program's fault but do you not agree that Cal was screwed out of the Rose Bowl in 2004? If you do not agree then I guess you just blame the team for everything.
Lastly to address the claim that our record is in line with our KenPom. It completely discredits that argument because it shows your clear lack of understanding once again of what they measure. Saying our record is in line with our KenPom makes no sense because the record has no impact on the KenPom and this whole entire time you're saying we are worse than our record and KenPom shows it.
If you actually understood KenPom your argument should be that our record appears better than our KenPom suggests it should be and that KenPom reflects our actual quality. But instead you are saying our record is reflected in our KenPom when KenPom would have had us going 17-15 which is not our record obviously. It is purely predictive your record has nothing to do with your Adj Efficiency rating. But KenPom isn't an all knowing god so our resume and record are not in line with KenPom because many wins and losses did not go according to the model.
Cal has not had 60 years of bad luck. They have had 60 years of sucking where there were some cases of good luck and some cases of bad luck that mostly evened out. Cal was unlucky in 2004. Cal was very lucky in 1982. Cal was very lucky when we stripped an Oregon player as he crossed the goal line and the ball happened to go out through the endzone. If the ball goes out short of the pylon, we almost certainly lose. The reason why 2004 is such a big deal is that in 66 years we only had one real shot at it. We only had one shot at it because we are rarely good. There is no way that the gods are screwing Cal for 60 years. The refs are not screwing us over and over. They have no motivation to do that. You see every time you think things by chance didn't go our way, every call you think screwed us and you don't see any of the things that went our way. Every fan of every team on the opposite side of every game would make a bunch of arguments of a bunch of other plays that in their biased view went against them. Yes, there are games where you get lucky and games when you get unlucky. Certainly decry 2004 as one instance where the universe did not smile on us. But I'm sorry the only ones that start making arguments that over a long period you are massively unlucky are losers.
The not catching a break in big moments point is not the universe hating us. We have had precious few such moments. We have almost always been the underdog in those moments. And it ignores the fact that to get those moments, we had luck in getting there. And it ignores the fact that usually we had those opportunities we lost because "we didn't come up big".
The "oh we are so unlucky" thing is a losers game.
Regarding the KenPom thing. First of all, I have been very clear that it is not the end all and be all. It is a tool. It is a good tool. It isn't perfect. I think that bracketologists that had Stanford ahead of us were incorrect and lazy. Yes, all the algorithms had then ahead of us, but barely. Most of the other factors were pretty equal. But head to head, we beat them twice. I think we proved on the court what was otherwise true - we were a little better than they are. I think if we were the last two in consideration the "Stanford was 6 points higher in NET" was not going to beat "Cal beat them twice".
But when you think that there is any argument that Cal is better than Santa Clara when they are 27 points difference in NET and 38 points difference in KenPom, I'm sorry. The algorithms aren't that far off. You are just wrong.
Your point that record doesn't impact KenPom is a fallacy. It is like saying that a pitcher's ERA doesn't impact his win/loss record. ERA is not part of the statistic, but it has a huge impact on the result. If you tell me a team has a 10-25 record, I will tell you their KenPom rating sucks and I will be correct 100% of the time.
calumnus said:
Was Cal even one of the 16 or more invited to The Crown? Was that an option?
Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:vaderbear95 said:
We were definitely close. The whole bubble is filled w/ teams that are flawed. And our resume matched up pretty well. Obviously we didn't get in so that's that. But it's not being a loser to point out that we were just as deserving as some of the other teams that made it - especially with as much objective data that has been pointed to regarding the resumes of all of these bubble teams. True we could have won less games (they all could) and we could have won more (they all could), but we definitely had legitimate arguments that stand up against the resumes of several teams that made it.
I didn't say anyone was a loser for pointing out (incorrectly) that we were just as deserving as other teams that made it in. I said it was being a loser to cry about not getting the breaks, and oh they made half court shot and we got bad calls and the refs hate us.
On the "luck" point, it only seems like we have bad luck because we aren't very good. If Duke has bad luck, they get a three seed. We'd need to be the luckiest team in the history of sports to get a three seed. Cal lost three games by 5 points or fewer. Oh, how unlucky. If we win those three games we get selected. Except that we won 4 games by 5 points or fewer. We lose those 4 and we aren't in the NIT. We weren't particularly lucky or unlucky. Our record is in line with our NET ranking and our KenPom. We are what our record says we are.
Wins are wins losses are losses. Bad Luck is when things happen that you can't control. Things like heaves going in or a coach lobbying AP voters to vote for their team. I'm not claiming we are unlucky in the sense that we miss shots or whatever I don't consider that luck. I think we are unlucky in the sense that things never seem to go our way in terms of in big moments in the sport or not in the sport. You can deny that refs play a role in this but there are rules in place like targeting which are supposed to be objective and reviewed and they still make the wrong call and the whole nation watched it and agreed(non Cal fans).
In terms of this year in basketball I don't think we were unlucky in the sense that teams made lucky shots. I think we were unlucky in the sense of how basketball is very variance based and we would be lucky if any of the teams near the end of the season shot the ball very poorly regardless of the quality of defense. That did not occur and in fact the opposite occurred. If you watch the full replay of the Wake game and Pitt game and don't see bad officiating then you are choosing to be blind. That doesn't excuse the players it doesn't mean we played well or that we deserved to win but it does mean that we were unlucky because things out of our control didn't go our way.
I'm not mad about the SMU shot it's a great shot, but if you are VT you got unlucky and you can't deny that. There is nothing they can do there because contesting the shot more is not worth a risk of a foul and they just have to live with it.
People always wanna deny luck because they don't wanna admit how big a role it plays in games but it plays a big role when you are on the bubble of anything and you need small margins.
You want to talk about those 4 games won by 5 points or fewer? We beat Notre Dame because they tried to intentionally foul Dai Dai up 3 and fouled him on a shot. I already addressed this. We beat Miami by 1. Nothing lucky about this they missed the game winning shot that we altered just like Pippen missed the game winning 3 vs FSU and we missed a tying 3 vs VT. I don't think either is lucky or unlucky it is just shooting. We beat GT by 5 sort of. I am 95 percent sure Akai Fleming hit a contested three over John Camden right at the end when the game was an 8 point deficit with like a second remaining so I don't see how we were lucky that game. Both teams made and missed shots we are the more talented team the game appeared closer than it was. We beat SMU by 4. We were fortunate that they missed so many free throws. If you were there you know why. I don't think it was all luck but there is some luck when Boopie Miller misses multiple free throws.
The luck is not exactly just in the games. In the last 15 years the school's athletics(mostly football as basketball hasn't even been a talking point or played in any big games or moments so since 2013 for BBALL) as a whole or outside factors have not come through in a single game or moment where we needed it to either make a big time bowl or win a super monumental game for the program. That is not catching a break as a fan and as a program. Most of it is the program's fault but do you not agree that Cal was screwed out of the Rose Bowl in 2004? If you do not agree then I guess you just blame the team for everything.
Lastly to address the claim that our record is in line with our KenPom. It completely discredits that argument because it shows your clear lack of understanding once again of what they measure. Saying our record is in line with our KenPom makes no sense because the record has no impact on the KenPom and this whole entire time you're saying we are worse than our record and KenPom shows it.
If you actually understood KenPom your argument should be that our record appears better than our KenPom suggests it should be and that KenPom reflects our actual quality. But instead you are saying our record is reflected in our KenPom when KenPom would have had us going 17-15 which is not our record obviously. It is purely predictive your record has nothing to do with your Adj Efficiency rating. But KenPom isn't an all knowing god so our resume and record are not in line with KenPom because many wins and losses did not go according to the model.
Cal has not had 60 years of bad luck. They have had 60 years of sucking where there were some cases of good luck and some cases of bad luck that mostly evened out. Cal was unlucky in 2004. Cal was very lucky in 1982. Cal was very lucky when we stripped an Oregon player as he crossed the goal line and the ball happened to go out through the endzone. If the ball goes out short of the pylon, we almost certainly lose. The reason why 2004 is such a big deal is that in 66 years we only had one real shot at it. We only had one shot at it because we are rarely good. There is no way that the gods are screwing Cal for 60 years. The refs are not screwing us over and over. They have no motivation to do that. You see every time you think things by chance didn't go our way, every call you think screwed us and you don't see any of the things that went our way. Every fan of every team on the opposite side of every game would make a bunch of arguments of a bunch of other plays that in their biased view went against them. Yes, there are games where you get lucky and games when you get unlucky. Certainly decry 2004 as one instance where the universe did not smile on us. But I'm sorry the only ones that start making arguments that over a long period you are massively unlucky are losers.
The not catching a break in big moments point is not the universe hating us. We have had precious few such moments. We have almost always been the underdog in those moments. And it ignores the fact that to get those moments, we had luck in getting there. And it ignores the fact that usually we had those opportunities we lost because "we didn't come up big".
The "oh we are so unlucky" thing is a losers game.
Regarding the KenPom thing. First of all, I have been very clear that it is not the end all and be all. It is a tool. It is a good tool. It isn't perfect. I think that bracketologists that had Stanford ahead of us were incorrect and lazy. Yes, all the algorithms had then ahead of us, but barely. Most of the other factors were pretty equal. But head to head, we beat them twice. I think we proved on the court what was otherwise true - we were a little better than they are. I think if we were the last two in consideration the "Stanford was 6 points higher in NET" was not going to beat "Cal beat them twice".
But when you think that there is any argument that Cal is better than Santa Clara when they are 27 points difference in NET and 38 points difference in KenPom, I'm sorry. The algorithms aren't that far off. You are just wrong.
Your point that record doesn't impact KenPom is a fallacy. It is like saying that a pitcher's ERA doesn't impact his win/loss record. ERA is not part of the statistic, but it has a huge impact on the result. If you tell me a team has a 10-25 record, I will tell you their KenPom rating sucks and I will be correct 100% of the time.
The 2004 example is nothing but getting screwed over because it really has nothing to do with the game and all to do with politics and as much as I mean the team got screwed over, I really mean we as fans got screwed over. They completely deserved it and we got hosed because the voting was manipulated by their coach.
In 2007 we won that game to move to number 2 in the nation. The number one team in the nation lost the following week. Do I need to remind you what happened when we needed to beat Oregon State to move to number 1 in the nation... That team wasn't great anyway and I don't view either of those things as unlucky or lucky. The targeting is different because they review it and it is supposed to be objective. The fumble is a play that has happened for and against us before and will happen in the future. I don't think the gods are screwing us when that happens because it is just a part of the game. But as fans it is all torture right, we got that just to run the clock out in our biggest moment. I agree that is not coming up big. Losing to Miami is not the same as that because no matter how much I think the game was mismanaged by damn Wilcox etc we still got hosed by a call that should have been objectively made.
It isn't a fallacy lol it is just a fact. It is in the methodology that KenPom posted, because the ratings are sorted by Adj. Efficiency and " the efficiencies are based purely on scoring per possession with no consideration of winning or losing". Yes teams that win more are likely to have better efficiencies speaking very generally but there are many examples of losing or very losing teams in the top 100.
Take 12-20 Marquette that's good for a .375 win percentage, they are ranked 84th. So...again I say the result of a win or a loss doesn't impact the rating. Marquette was 6-10 with a rating of +4.56. They then lost by 3 points to fall to 6-11 but their rating went up to +4.97 because the rating cares who you play but not the actual result of the game.
But even still this has many flaws. We went up more from beating Morgan State, a bottom 10 team in the nation, by 47 at home than we did beating a top 30 team in the nation by 1 on the road(0.89>0.7) and it really isn't that close. The difference in those two ratings (.19) is essentially the same as the rating increase we received from beating Stanford at home(.22).
Hope this helps you understand KenPom unless you are a huge fan of 12-20 teams!
Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:vaderbear95 said:
We were definitely close. The whole bubble is filled w/ teams that are flawed. And our resume matched up pretty well. Obviously we didn't get in so that's that. But it's not being a loser to point out that we were just as deserving as some of the other teams that made it - especially with as much objective data that has been pointed to regarding the resumes of all of these bubble teams. True we could have won less games (they all could) and we could have won more (they all could), but we definitely had legitimate arguments that stand up against the resumes of several teams that made it.
I didn't say anyone was a loser for pointing out (incorrectly) that we were just as deserving as other teams that made it in. I said it was being a loser to cry about not getting the breaks, and oh they made half court shot and we got bad calls and the refs hate us.
On the "luck" point, it only seems like we have bad luck because we aren't very good. If Duke has bad luck, they get a three seed. We'd need to be the luckiest team in the history of sports to get a three seed. Cal lost three games by 5 points or fewer. Oh, how unlucky. If we win those three games we get selected. Except that we won 4 games by 5 points or fewer. We lose those 4 and we aren't in the NIT. We weren't particularly lucky or unlucky. Our record is in line with our NET ranking and our KenPom. We are what our record says we are.
Wins are wins losses are losses. Bad Luck is when things happen that you can't control. Things like heaves going in or a coach lobbying AP voters to vote for their team. I'm not claiming we are unlucky in the sense that we miss shots or whatever I don't consider that luck. I think we are unlucky in the sense that things never seem to go our way in terms of in big moments in the sport or not in the sport. You can deny that refs play a role in this but there are rules in place like targeting which are supposed to be objective and reviewed and they still make the wrong call and the whole nation watched it and agreed(non Cal fans).
In terms of this year in basketball I don't think we were unlucky in the sense that teams made lucky shots. I think we were unlucky in the sense of how basketball is very variance based and we would be lucky if any of the teams near the end of the season shot the ball very poorly regardless of the quality of defense. That did not occur and in fact the opposite occurred. If you watch the full replay of the Wake game and Pitt game and don't see bad officiating then you are choosing to be blind. That doesn't excuse the players it doesn't mean we played well or that we deserved to win but it does mean that we were unlucky because things out of our control didn't go our way.
I'm not mad about the SMU shot it's a great shot, but if you are VT you got unlucky and you can't deny that. There is nothing they can do there because contesting the shot more is not worth a risk of a foul and they just have to live with it.
People always wanna deny luck because they don't wanna admit how big a role it plays in games but it plays a big role when you are on the bubble of anything and you need small margins.
You want to talk about those 4 games won by 5 points or fewer? We beat Notre Dame because they tried to intentionally foul Dai Dai up 3 and fouled him on a shot. I already addressed this. We beat Miami by 1. Nothing lucky about this they missed the game winning shot that we altered just like Pippen missed the game winning 3 vs FSU and we missed a tying 3 vs VT. I don't think either is lucky or unlucky it is just shooting. We beat GT by 5 sort of. I am 95 percent sure Akai Fleming hit a contested three over John Camden right at the end when the game was an 8 point deficit with like a second remaining so I don't see how we were lucky that game. Both teams made and missed shots we are the more talented team the game appeared closer than it was. We beat SMU by 4. We were fortunate that they missed so many free throws. If you were there you know why. I don't think it was all luck but there is some luck when Boopie Miller misses multiple free throws.
The luck is not exactly just in the games. In the last 15 years the school's athletics(mostly football as basketball hasn't even been a talking point or played in any big games or moments so since 2013 for BBALL) as a whole or outside factors have not come through in a single game or moment where we needed it to either make a big time bowl or win a super monumental game for the program. That is not catching a break as a fan and as a program. Most of it is the program's fault but do you not agree that Cal was screwed out of the Rose Bowl in 2004? If you do not agree then I guess you just blame the team for everything.
Lastly to address the claim that our record is in line with our KenPom. It completely discredits that argument because it shows your clear lack of understanding once again of what they measure. Saying our record is in line with our KenPom makes no sense because the record has no impact on the KenPom and this whole entire time you're saying we are worse than our record and KenPom shows it.
If you actually understood KenPom your argument should be that our record appears better than our KenPom suggests it should be and that KenPom reflects our actual quality. But instead you are saying our record is reflected in our KenPom when KenPom would have had us going 17-15 which is not our record obviously. It is purely predictive your record has nothing to do with your Adj Efficiency rating. But KenPom isn't an all knowing god so our resume and record are not in line with KenPom because many wins and losses did not go according to the model.
Cal has not had 60 years of bad luck. They have had 60 years of sucking where there were some cases of good luck and some cases of bad luck that mostly evened out. Cal was unlucky in 2004. Cal was very lucky in 1982. Cal was very lucky when we stripped an Oregon player as he crossed the goal line and the ball happened to go out through the endzone. If the ball goes out short of the pylon, we almost certainly lose. The reason why 2004 is such a big deal is that in 66 years we only had one real shot at it. We only had one shot at it because we are rarely good. There is no way that the gods are screwing Cal for 60 years. The refs are not screwing us over and over. They have no motivation to do that. You see every time you think things by chance didn't go our way, every call you think screwed us and you don't see any of the things that went our way. Every fan of every team on the opposite side of every game would make a bunch of arguments of a bunch of other plays that in their biased view went against them. Yes, there are games where you get lucky and games when you get unlucky. Certainly decry 2004 as one instance where the universe did not smile on us. But I'm sorry the only ones that start making arguments that over a long period you are massively unlucky are losers.
The not catching a break in big moments point is not the universe hating us. We have had precious few such moments. We have almost always been the underdog in those moments. And it ignores the fact that to get those moments, we had luck in getting there. And it ignores the fact that usually we had those opportunities we lost because "we didn't come up big".
The "oh we are so unlucky" thing is a losers game.
Regarding the KenPom thing. First of all, I have been very clear that it is not the end all and be all. It is a tool. It is a good tool. It isn't perfect. I think that bracketologists that had Stanford ahead of us were incorrect and lazy. Yes, all the algorithms had then ahead of us, but barely. Most of the other factors were pretty equal. But head to head, we beat them twice. I think we proved on the court what was otherwise true - we were a little better than they are. I think if we were the last two in consideration the "Stanford was 6 points higher in NET" was not going to beat "Cal beat them twice".
But when you think that there is any argument that Cal is better than Santa Clara when they are 27 points difference in NET and 38 points difference in KenPom, I'm sorry. The algorithms aren't that far off. You are just wrong.
Your point that record doesn't impact KenPom is a fallacy. It is like saying that a pitcher's ERA doesn't impact his win/loss record. ERA is not part of the statistic, but it has a huge impact on the result. If you tell me a team has a 10-25 record, I will tell you their KenPom rating sucks and I will be correct 100% of the time.
The 2004 example is nothing but getting screwed over because it really has nothing to do with the game and all to do with politics and as much as I mean the team got screwed over, I really mean we as fans got screwed over. They completely deserved it and we got hosed because the voting was manipulated by their coach.
In 2007 we won that game to move to number 2 in the nation. The number one team in the nation lost the following week. Do I need to remind you what happened when we needed to beat Oregon State to move to number 1 in the nation... That team wasn't great anyway and I don't view either of those things as unlucky or lucky. The targeting is different because they review it and it is supposed to be objective. The fumble is a play that has happened for and against us before and will happen in the future. I don't think the gods are screwing us when that happens because it is just a part of the game. But as fans it is all torture right, we got that just to run the clock out in our biggest moment. I agree that is not coming up big. Losing to Miami is not the same as that because no matter how much I think the game was mismanaged by damn Wilcox etc we still got hosed by a call that should have been objectively made.
It isn't a fallacy lol it is just a fact. It is in the methodology that KenPom posted, because the ratings are sorted by Adj. Efficiency and " the efficiencies are based purely on scoring per possession with no consideration of winning or losing". Yes teams that win more are likely to have better efficiencies speaking very generally but there are many examples of losing or very losing teams in the top 100.
Take 12-20 Marquette that's good for a .375 win percentage, they are ranked 84th. So...again I say the result of a win or a loss doesn't impact the rating. Marquette was 6-10 with a rating of +4.56. They then lost by 3 points to fall to 6-11 but their rating went up to +4.97 because the rating cares who you play but not the actual result of the game.
But even still this has many flaws. We went up more from beating Morgan State, a bottom 10 team in the nation, by 47 at home than we did beating a top 30 team in the nation by 1 on the road(0.89>0.7) and it really isn't that close. The difference in those two ratings (.19) is essentially the same as the rating increase we received from beating Stanford at home(.22).
Hope this helps you understand KenPom unless you are a huge fan of 12-20 teams!
calumnus said:Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:vaderbear95 said:
The problem we had is we had one of the easiest OOC schedules in the entire country, #325. We beat those teams but not by "enough" and being better than #330 is not the same as being in the top 40, where we need to be. NET does not use points, instead relative ranking, but the result is very similar. You can say it is a flaw in the methodology, and I won't disagree with you, but the flaw is known. You just cannot schedule OOC like we did this year and expect to make the Tournament as an at large, it is just a huge anchor.
BearlyCareAnymore said:
When you boil everything down it is score differential and strength of schedule. Record is baked into score differential. Not perfectly but it very much is. You don't have a good score differential without a good record. To say that a win or loss doesn't impact the rating is a total misunderstanding. If Marquette had won that game by 10, their rating would have gone up more. It cares about both who you play and the result. To say the rating does not care about the actual result is stupid. If what you say is true, Kansas would be the number 1 team in KenPom. They are number 21.
Taking anecdotal evidence from one result in one point in time is just wrong. You may go up when you lose one day because the teams on your schedule had very good results that day.
By and large, this works well except on the margins. I do agree that on the margins SOS can impact too much for very difficult schedule and very easy schedules. But that is why this is a tool and humans make the decision. Hence, Auburn is sitting at home. But off the extremes, the SOS works a lot better.
But the extremes is exactly why you don't schedule the easiest or most difficult nonconference schedule, This has been a trait over the algorithms since the beginning. I made the same argument one of the years under Ben Braun where we played stupidly low ranked nonconference games instead of reasonable cupcakes and that killed our RPI. For NET, it is just plain stupid. For KenPom, it is stupid, but you can at least mitigate by running those teams off the floor. We did that against Morgan State. We did not against Presby. Do I think that makes you a better team? No. But it is a known trait of the algorithms and you can avoid it by not scheduling those teams.
Edit:
The Marquette example is dumb. They were 6-10. They had 4 wins against terrible teams. 1 win against a bad team. 1 win against a mediocre team. Most of their losses were not that close or were close-ish. They had a good one point loss to a pretty good Oklahoma team. They then lost to a team who was 13-3 by 3 points. Well. that was by far a better result than their average result on the year to that point. which means that their rating should go up. Or another way to put it is that their KenPom ranking expected them to lose by a lot more. They exceeded the expectation of their KenPom rating so their rating went up. You keep trying to find examples of points and time where the ratings did something that you don't like instead of looking at it over the whole season. Pointing to an example where a team with a losing record lost and their rating went up and saying "they lost and their rating went up! That's crazy!" and using it to say that wins and losses don't matter is plain unthinking.
Do you not acknowledge that if you are 0-10 against teams like Presby and you lose to Duke by 1 point your rating should go up? Yes, if you have a substantially losing record, your rating is likely to go up with a close loss to a quality opponent. That should actually seem pretty obvious and should not seem like a bizarre result.
BearSD said:calumnus said:
The problem we had is we had one of the easiest OOC schedules in the entire country, #325. We beat those teams but not by "enough" and being better than #330 is not the same as being in the top 40, where we need to be. NET does not use points, instead relative ranking, but the result is very similar. You can say it is a flaw in the methodology, and I won't disagree with you, but the flaw is known. You just cannot schedule OOC like we did this year and expect to make the Tournament as an at large, it is just a huge anchor.
Madsen scheduled this season's games knowing that he didn't have one of the best teams in the ACC. He filled the nonconference scheduled with cupcakes to "build the program", on the theory that recruiting for the future (and getting donors to donate more) after a 20-win season, even one with a very weak schedule, should be easier than recruiting after a 10-win season.
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:calumnus said:
The problem we had is we had one of the easiest OOC schedules in the entire country, #325. We beat those teams but not by "enough" and being better than #330 is not the same as being in the top 40, where we need to be. NET does not use points, instead relative ranking, but the result is very similar. You can say it is a flaw in the methodology, and I won't disagree with you, but the flaw is known. You just cannot schedule OOC like we did this year and expect to make the Tournament as an at large, it is just a huge anchor.
Madsen scheduled this season's games knowing that he didn't have one of the best teams in the ACC. He filled the nonconference scheduled with cupcakes to "build the program", on the theory that recruiting for the future (and getting donors to donate more) after a 20-win season, even one with a very weak schedule, should be easier than recruiting after a 10-win season.
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
BearSD said:
KenPom is just one of many metrics, and not even the one the committee most looks at.
Play more good teams, both nonconference and conference, and beat at least a few of them, in addition to having a lot of wins overall.
Big C said:
NET and the quads have a "bs" aspect to them. It's people desperately searching to find quantitative measurements to give themselves credibility.
I don't need NET to tell me how good Cal is. We are Almost a Bubble Team. How do I know this? I watched the freaking games.
Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
You said a "power conference team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses." All of those teams have horrific nonconference schedules and at least 10 losses. This has nothing to do with Cal I am not saying we should get a bid over all of those teams.
*Btw you linked RPI SOS where you could play 20 win low rank teams but yeah same goes for NET.
SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
You said a "power conference team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses." All of those teams have horrific nonconference schedules and at least 10 losses. This has nothing to do with Cal I am not saying we should get a bid over all of those teams.
*Btw you linked RPI SOS where you could play 20 win low rank teams but yeah same goes for NET.
Texas played Duke, UCONN, NC State, Virginia in non conference. Not sure what you're talking about
calumnus said:Big C said:
NET and the quads have a "bs" aspect to them. It's people desperately searching to find quantitative measurements to give themselves credibility.
I don't need NET to tell me how good Cal is. We are Almost a Bubble Team. How do I know this? I watched the freaking games.
You are a Cal fan. NET is for the selection Committee. There are 365 teams. If they each play 32 games that is 365x32/2=5,840 games to watch.
I assume you have seen all of Cal's games, how many other teams have you seen ALL of their games? For any team you thought shouldn't get in ahead of us, have you seen ALL of their games? There is not that much time between the conference tournaments and Selection Sunday. The Committee HAS to rely on SOMETHING. That something is record, NET and the Quads, plus other predictive models, which are flawed but which are at least better than the RPI that they replaced.
Onebearofpower said:SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
You said a "power conference team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses." All of those teams have horrific nonconference schedules and at least 10 losses. This has nothing to do with Cal I am not saying we should get a bid over all of those teams.
*Btw you linked RPI SOS where you could play 20 win low rank teams but yeah same goes for NET.
Texas played Duke, UCONN, NC State, Virginia in non conference. Not sure what you're talking about
The last tab is NCSOS. They played those teams yes, but they also played 7 of the worst teams in Division 1 and a division 2 team.
SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
You said a "power conference team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses." All of those teams have horrific nonconference schedules and at least 10 losses. This has nothing to do with Cal I am not saying we should get a bid over all of those teams.
*Btw you linked RPI SOS where you could play 20 win low rank teams but yeah same goes for NET.
Texas played Duke, UCONN, NC State, Virginia in non conference. Not sure what you're talking about
The last tab is NCSOS. They played those teams yes, but they also played 7 of the worst teams in Division 1 and a division 2 team.
it's very common for teams to schedule a mix of power teams and "weak" teams in non-conf; you stated that Texas played a "horrific" non-conf schedule - which isn't true
Texas' top non conf teams were Duke, UConn, Virginia, NC State
Cal's were.. UCLA, KState and, gulp, Utah?
if Texas' was "horrific", what word would you use to describe Cal's?
6956bear said:SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
You said a "power conference team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses." All of those teams have horrific nonconference schedules and at least 10 losses. This has nothing to do with Cal I am not saying we should get a bid over all of those teams.
*Btw you linked RPI SOS where you could play 20 win low rank teams but yeah same goes for NET.
Texas played Duke, UCONN, NC State, Virginia in non conference. Not sure what you're talking about
The last tab is NCSOS. They played those teams yes, but they also played 7 of the worst teams in Division 1 and a division 2 team.
it's very common for teams to schedule a mix of power teams and "weak" teams in non-conf; you stated that Texas played a "horrific" non-conf schedule - which isn't true
Texas' top non conf teams were Duke, UConn, Virginia, NC State
Cal's were.. UCLA, KState and, gulp, Utah?
if Texas' was "horrific", what word would you use to describe Cal's?
The top teams Texas played were strong. No doubt. But Kansas St and Utah turning out to be as bad as they were was a bit unexpected. Normally both are solid and occasionally strong. Neither were expected to be good per se, but were worse than expected.
Cal also needs to get into a legit non conference tournament. Texas got NC St in a tournament in Hawaii and Virginia in the SEC/ACC challenge. Cal needs to be in that Challenge in 2026-2027.
You can still schedule weak teams at home but you need a few challenges. Not just good for your metrics but also for the program. You need to know what you actually have.
SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
You said a "power conference team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses." All of those teams have horrific nonconference schedules and at least 10 losses. This has nothing to do with Cal I am not saying we should get a bid over all of those teams.
*Btw you linked RPI SOS where you could play 20 win low rank teams but yeah same goes for NET.
Texas played Duke, UCONN, NC State, Virginia in non conference. Not sure what you're talking about
The last tab is NCSOS. They played those teams yes, but they also played 7 of the worst teams in Division 1 and a division 2 team.
it's very common for teams to schedule a mix of power teams and "weak" teams in non-conf; you stated that Texas played a "horrific" non-conf schedule - which isn't true
Texas' top non conf teams were Duke, UConn, Virginia, NC State
Cal's were.. UCLA, KState and, gulp, Utah?
if Texas' was "horrific", what word would you use to describe Cal's?
Onebearofpower said:SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:SFHorn said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:Onebearofpower said:BearSD said:
A "power conference" team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses.
Cough* Missou, TCU, A&M, UCF, Texas, Georgia, Iowa Cough*
Every one of those teams had a more difficult schedule than Cal. https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi
You said a "power conference team can get an at-large bid with a very soft nonconference schedule, but not with both a very soft nonconference schedule and 10 or more losses." All of those teams have horrific nonconference schedules and at least 10 losses. This has nothing to do with Cal I am not saying we should get a bid over all of those teams.
*Btw you linked RPI SOS where you could play 20 win low rank teams but yeah same goes for NET.
Texas played Duke, UCONN, NC State, Virginia in non conference. Not sure what you're talking about
The last tab is NCSOS. They played those teams yes, but they also played 7 of the worst teams in Division 1 and a division 2 team.
it's very common for teams to schedule a mix of power teams and "weak" teams in non-conf; you stated that Texas played a "horrific" non-conf schedule - which isn't true
Texas' top non conf teams were Duke, UConn, Virginia, NC State
Cal's were.. UCLA, KState and, gulp, Utah?
if Texas' was "horrific", what word would you use to describe Cal's?
That's just what it was statistically. It was statistically horrible. Tbh I'm not sure why it's so much better, they lost badly to two of the 5 and only beat NC State. They then played 7 bottom 70 teams 3 of which are bottom ten teams in the nation. Playing average D1 teams is exponentially different than bottom 10 teams, we should win either but that's not how statistics work. But I agree they had a harder schedule they just didn't win any games on it tbh we had the better win and it statistically is almost identical to ours.
SFHorn said:
you stated they played a horrific non-conf schedule - but it was demonstrably stronger than Cal's - it's not that complicated
no Texas fan is thrilled with how the season went and if we got left out of the tournament nobody would have been surprised or miffed; but to say that it had a weaker and more "horrific" non-conf than Cal is silly
Onebearofpower said:SFHorn said:
you stated they played a horrific non-conf schedule - but it was demonstrably stronger than Cal's - it's not that complicated
no Texas fan is thrilled with how the season went and if we got left out of the tournament nobody would have been surprised or miffed; but to say that it had a weaker and more "horrific" non-conf than Cal is silly
I was speaking statistically. On KenPom they have a very weak OOC SOS. I never even mentioned Cal before, someone said that no team could make it with a weak OOC SOS and ten losses and I said there were many teams that did. The only time I mentioned Cal was when you asked what word I would describe Cal's but I was never talking about Cal I was just questioning the idea of 10 losses + weak OOC SOS. The reason that stats are like that is because it is much harder to play a team like Pacific than it is to play Kansas City. Not that it is hard to play Pacific but they, as well as CSUF and Wright State, are much more likely (.04% to 3 percent or smth) to beat us than teams like Kansas City and Rider who lose on average by 25 to the average D1 team.
But don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. I just looked at teams with bad NCSOS and how many had ten losses and they were bottom 60 in the nation.
