In general, I prefer a let it ride philosophy. But coaches like Huggy and Izzo will change my mind on that.
The key is flexibility. I think bad refs either let the game away from them (let too much go) or go the opposite extreme (insert themselves too much)
Remember in a referee political systemā¦ there really isnāt a centrist independentā¦ itās a binary choice. You canāt have it both ways! 
How about ref anarchy? No more refs. Players call their own, like in pickup. Then they just argue
I might feel differently if we had a team that could make free throws recentlyā¦
I feel icky voting Ticky Tack but then I think of a world where teams are incentivized to play like Huggy Bearās prime West Virginia teams and feel committed to stamping that out at any cost.
I think its a conundrum because I think in this scenarioā¦ a fan could switch referee political parties based on how the first 5 minutes of the game transpires.
I know as a soccer refereeā¦ the temperature of the game in the first 10 minutes or so can actually change my refereeing style to limit games getting out of hand. Iād much rather ālet it rideāā¦ but if the game gets a bit rough, fans and coaches start getting rowdyā¦ Iāll have a press conference at halftime to announce Iām changing parties mid-game.
Or the toughest ref political question: should you call the last minute of a close game for the championship the same way youād call the first half of a buy game / laugher.
CAROLINA REFS!
This is it exactly.
Both options create incentives for players and coaches that hurt the things that make basketball special. The balance of athletic skills required is broad and privileging one skill so heavily (strength or shooting accuracy) would make it far less so.
Allowing unfettered bully ball biases outcomes away from finesse teams and changes the way teams would construct rosters. The end game gets unwatchable fast. Imagine a Huggy vs Huggy game: might as well watch WWE.
Ticky tack is flat out unwatchable. Drives me crazy to watch repeated drives where the primary goal is to get fouled rather than put the damn ball in the hole. The games are boring, excruciatingly long, and farcical.
I realize Iām expounding too much on this since itās implicit in the poll question that both are sub-optimal, but I reject the question and throw my vote away like most others who responded.
Some good reading from KenPom about preseason ratings in the era of the portal:
TL;DR:
Random observation, but the minutes continuity chart (green line, right) surprised me in that I expected the recent change to be larger:
But then I realized, the change Iām āfeelingā isnāt minutes continuity, itās player continuity. Like, one year Jayden Gardner gave us a lot of minutes continuity, but he was still only a 2-year guy, which feels less like old-school continuity. Whereas Taine has had little effect on minutes continuity (because heās had small PT) but is a once-traditional 4-year guy.
Still, interesting that youāre kind of capped at 50% minutes continuity ā seniors were always getting half the PT. Itās just that now youāre losing a big chunk of the other guys too.
Also, I think minutes continuity only measures one year to the next. I bet that any measure of multiyear minutes continuity would go down more.
Also ā and Iām not sure how much this affects the data ā Iād prefer if Ken would cabin some of this stuff in to Power 5 or top 100 or whatever.
I too always would prefer to see āPower 5 or top 100 or whateverā, but especially when it comes to data involving transfers, since one presumes thatās roughly the dividing line between Givers and Takers in the transfer market.
In the spirit of deep-diving on meaningless subjects and overanalyzingā¦
I was curious if we could ādeduceā how much each player played at each position in the Georgetown scrimmage based on their minutes and their plus-minus.
I got the idea for this because I initially assumed Cofie backed up Buchanan, but then saw their plus-minusās were +2 and +3 and we lost by 11. So they mustāve overlapped a good bit. But did they overlap enough that Saunders had to be on the floor with them at the 3?
Turns out yes**. Itās not as conclusive as I was hoping, but it looks like we played Saunders at the 3, 4, and 5 during the scrimmage. Sanchez in experimentation mode? I mean it was a scrimmage, so probably. Still interesting he played Saunders, Cofie, and Buchanan together at all.
| player | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| blake_buchanan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 |
| jalen_warley | 0-16 | 0 | 0-16 | 0 | 0 |
| elijah_saunders | 0 | 0 | 2-16 | 6-30 | 2-13 |
| isaac_mckneely | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| tj_power | 0 | 0 | 4-17 | 4-18 | 0 |
| jacob_cofie | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5-16 | 0-11 |
| andrew_rohde | 2-18 | 2-10 | 0-20 | 0 | 0 |
| dai_dai_ames | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| taine_murray | 0 | 0-7 | 0-7 | 0 | 0 |
| ishan_sharma | 0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0 | 0 |
**IF I did the optimization right. Itās here if anyone is curious
The numbers in the table are minutes/minutes ranges?
Yep!
Who keeps the official Wins above Bubble list? Torvik?
Based on NET:
Team sheets with all the metrics available starting December 2.
Big fan of this being added, I think WAB is the metric that most lines up with a fair tournament selection procedure. Consider the 2024 tournament selection process:
The highest ranked teams by WAB (on Torvikās site) that missed the tournament:
The four lowest ranked at-larges in WAB:
Iād happily have swapped in Indiana St and Princeton for MSU and TAMU (both middling teams lifted up by strong conference).
Thanks! Forgot it was based on NET, so obviously canāt be released until the NET
