Utah state will be an interesting barometer for how good the MWC is. They won the reg season but have little else on their resume. Most brackets had them as a 6 or 7, ended up as an 8. TCU favored by 2.5 over them, which is in line with kenpom
I was living in Colorado at the time, and worked with quite a few CSU grads. Not fun.
It was also after that game that I was permanently banned from having a nerf ball in the house. On the play we lost in the last minute, I launched it across the living room and accidentally busted the glass exterior of our fireplace. Wife was not happy.
Agree with the first sentence, vehemently disagree with the second.
I want Reece to go out on a blaze of glory. I want to thrash Texas. I have no ill will towards Kadin, but I want him to foul out in this game with 0 points and four face mauls.
Kadin mustâve been talking a lot of shit to get a reaction like this, and he doesnât look thrilled to back it up. Very on brand, too soft, not a dawg.
These guys annoy me every year. Not because their model is wrong, but because they hype up their âproprietary Slingshot modelâ and then it pretty much just spits out what we already know. They ask âExcluding the 8-9 and 7-10 games, where are the most likely upsets?â And then every year the answer is âAll the 6-11 games and all the 5-12 games.â Well, duh.
(To their credit, they also included one 3-14 game this year, Akron-Creighton.)
And their percentages for those games tend to be roughly in line with KenPom and Torvik. Which again, theyâre not wrong! But they need to sort results by where they demonstrate incremental value. (Like: âHereâs a few games where the efficiency models are missing something.â That would be worthwhile. And maybe theyâve identified a few such games! But theyâre not showing it like that.)
Agreed. I think incremental value over existing efficiency models is the right way to look at it. Iâve always understood these models as identifying games that have higher variance to the potential outcomes (or is it variability? I get those confused). Also, these models should be able to predict regular season upsets too, no? Iâd love to see data on that.
Akron-Creighton is one where they could claim incrementality. Chance of upset: KenPom 13%, Torvik 10%, Slingshot 20%. But regardless of who wins that game (and the other 9), weâre not going to get enough data to evaluate whether Slingshot is adding or subtracting value. (Weâd have to go back to the Furman brainiacs to try to figure that out statistically.) Seeing this applied to the regular season is a good proposal.
Yeah, that was an interesting part of the selection show, just in terms of how far things have come. Someone asked if anything about the seeding surprised people, and they were all like âBasically noâ, once you allow for the committee having to move teams around a little on seed-lines for various reasons. They even made a point of noting how much better seeding has gotten in recent years compared to the travesties that used to be semi-common a decade ago.