The Top 25 thread

[49r]

59 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Nebraska is predicted to finish 12th... Right?  What makes it worse is in that article above they say,  "it's terrible",  but no mention of Nebraska predicted to finish 12th.  The same Nebraska team that brings back all of it's core players of a team that finished 4th last year.  What a bunch of bull****!

 

To be honest I like it, because it gives this team motivation.  Even after last years screw job, we continue to get no love from ESPN!

 

The good news is we're only 6 spots behind last years' national runner-up Michigan (coached by future HOF Belein) and ahead of not-even-in-the-top-50 Ohio State.

 

So we got that going for us...which is nice.

[jimmykc]

I'm pretty sure that BPI stands for By Pinheaded Idiots. I am also virtually certain these ratings are picked from a hat somewhere.

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, jimmykc said:

I'm pretty sure that BPI stands for By Pinheaded Idiots. I am also virtually certain these ratings are picked from a hat somewhere.

 

I bet it's a good lookin' hat too.

[Chuck Taylor]

Bart Torvik's preseason ratings continue to change, and I'm not sure why. Maybe he looks at the team photos and sees who's beefed up? Anyway, we've moved up to 5th in today's version:

2019 T-Rank College Basketball Projections

RK	TEAM	CONF	REC	ADJOE	ADJDE	BARTHAG	PROJ. REC		RET MINS	RPMS	NC SOS
7	Michigan St.  Bid %: 98.7	B10	0-0	118.4 11	95.5 19	.9222	22-8	14-6	58.4%	59.0%	24 %
20	Michigan  Bid %: 89	B10	0-0	114.3 33	95.5 18	.8874	20-10	12-8	51.9%	51.9%	16 %
25	Indiana  Bid %: 80.1	B10	0-0	116.6 20	98.6 62	.8727	20-11	11-9	59.4%	56.7%	19 %
26	Wisconsin  Bid %: 75	B10	0-0	114.3 31	97.0 34	.8683	18-11	11-9	93.8%	95.2%	23 %
36	Nebraska  Bid %: 62.1	B10	0-0	113.9 35	98.1 53	.8486	19-12	10-10	64.4%	70.9%	14 %
38	Iowa  Bid %: 58.5	B10	0-0	118.0 12	101.8 123	.8452	19-11	10-10	90.5%	93.0%	12 %
39	Maryland  Bid %: 58	B10	0-0	113.9 36	98.4 56	.8430	19-12	10-10	50.9%	55.0%	14 %
40	Ohio St.  Bid %: 50.4	B10	0-0	111.8 54	97.0 33	.8365	19-12	10-10	48.6%	46.5%	16 %
43	Purdue  Bid %: 44.9	B10	0-0	110.9 64	96.4 29	.8335	16-13	10-10	42.7%	42.2%	21 %
46	Northwestern  Bid %: 39.3	B10	0-0	113.2 40	98.9 66	.8262	17-12	10-10	56.5%	47.5%	8 %
52	Penn St.  Bid %: 37.7	B10	0-0	109.8 75	96.4 30	.8163	16-14	9-11	55.9%	53.4%	20 %
54	Illinois  Bid %: 30.2	B10	0-0	114.9 25	101.2 111	.8121	16-13	9-11	41.1%	43.2%	21 %
75	Minnesota  Bid %: 5.3	B10	0-0	110.6 67	100.9 106	.7406	16-15	7-13	59.6%	60.6%	12 %
108	Rutgers  Bid %: 0.2	B10	0-0	102.9 179	97.4 40	.6529	13-18	6-14	54.2%	44.7%	16 %

[AuroranHusker]

7 hours ago, Chuck Taylor said:

Bart Torvik's preseason ratings continue to change, and I'm not sure why. Maybe he looks at the team photos and sees who's beefed up? Anyway, we've moved up to 5th in today's version:

2019 T-Rank College Basketball Projections

RK	TEAM	CONF	REC	ADJOE	ADJDE	BARTHAG	PROJ. REC		RET MINS	RPMS	NC SOS
7	Michigan St.  Bid %: 98.7	B10	0-0	118.4 11	95.5 19	.9222	22-8	14-6	58.4%	59.0%	24 %
20	Michigan  Bid %: 89	B10	0-0	114.3 33	95.5 18	.8874	20-10	12-8	51.9%	51.9%	16 %
25	Indiana  Bid %: 80.1	B10	0-0	116.6 20	98.6 62	.8727	20-11	11-9	59.4%	56.7%	19 %
26	Wisconsin  Bid %: 75	B10	0-0	114.3 31	97.0 34	.8683	18-11	11-9	93.8%	95.2%	23 %
36	Nebraska  Bid %: 62.1	B10	0-0	113.9 35	98.1 53	.8486	19-12	10-10	64.4%	70.9%	14 %
38	Iowa  Bid %: 58.5	B10	0-0	118.0 12	101.8 123	.8452	19-11	10-10	90.5%	93.0%	12 %
39	Maryland  Bid %: 58	B10	0-0	113.9 36	98.4 56	.8430	19-12	10-10	50.9%	55.0%	14 %
40	Ohio St.  Bid %: 50.4	B10	0-0	111.8 54	97.0 33	.8365	19-12	10-10	48.6%	46.5%	16 %
43	Purdue  Bid %: 44.9	B10	0-0	110.9 64	96.4 29	.8335	16-13	10-10	42.7%	42.2%	21 %
46	Northwestern  Bid %: 39.3	B10	0-0	113.2 40	98.9 66	.8262	17-12	10-10	56.5%	47.5%	8 %
52	Penn St.  Bid %: 37.7	B10	0-0	109.8 75	96.4 30	.8163	16-14	9-11	55.9%	53.4%	20 %
54	Illinois  Bid %: 30.2	B10	0-0	114.9 25	101.2 111	.8121	16-13	9-11	41.1%	43.2%	21 %
75	Minnesota  Bid %: 5.3	B10	0-0	110.6 67	100.9 106	.7406	16-15	7-13	59.6%	60.6%	12 %
108	Rutgers  Bid %: 0.2	B10	0-0	102.9 179	97.4 40	.6529	13-18	6-14	54.2%	44.7%	16 %

 

 

Six teams at 10-10 in the B1G seems like a lot of middle-ground in the conference to contend with for NU "being 5th."

 

 

[Chuck Taylor]

Top 144 countdown has us at 39, 6th in BIG:

 

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16621

[Handy Johnson]

To quote Eddie Albert from the Longest Yard, "That's the biggest crock of horses**t I've ever heard in my life."

[mewfert]

On 9/23/2018 at 8:34 AM, Chuck Taylor said:

Bart Torvik's preseason ratings continue to change, and I'm not sure why. Maybe he looks at the team photos and sees who's beefed up? Anyway, we've moved up to 5th in today's version:

 

 

It's more about the expressions on their faces. 

 

I did make a significant change to the underlying ratings system (LINK), which had some effect on the projections in that "program strength" could be affected. I'm also still incorporating actual rosters, juco guys, freshmen, etc -- that won't be fully complete for a few weeks. I do also make some manual adjustment to the playing time projections, which can affect the ratings as well. Feel free to let me know if you see any lineup projections, for Nebraska or anyone else, that are goofy.

 

I think Nebraska just sort of jiggled a few spots. But given that the projection for the Big Ten is so muddled, small jiggles can move them around in the projected conference order. To the extent you look at these at all, I think it's better to look at the overall rank and say this is projecting a bunch of Big Ten teams to be battling for tourney bids, Nebraska among them.

[Chuck Taylor]

2 minutes ago, mewfert said:

 

It's more about the expressions on their faces. 

 

I did make a significant change to the underlying ratings system (LINK), which had some effect on the projections in that "program strength" could be affected. I'm also still incorporating actual rosters, juco guys, freshmen, etc -- that won't be fully complete for a few weeks. I do also make some manual adjustment to the playing time projections, which can affect the ratings as well. Feel free to let me know if you see any lineup projections, for Nebraska or anyone else, that are goofy.

 

I think Nebraska just sort of jiggled a few spots. But given that the projection for the Big Ten is so muddled, small jiggles can move them around in the projected conference order. To the extent you look at these at all, I think it's better to look at the overall rank and say this is projecting a bunch of Big Ten teams to be battling for tourney bids, Nebraska among them.

Thanks for responding. Seems like "manual adjustments" to playing times would be subjective, although at some point that's unavoidable with preseason ratings based on nothing really. But saying preseason rankings are subjective kind of goes without saying, so I shouldn't have said it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

16 hours ago, mewfert said:

 

It's more about the expressions on their faces. 

 

I did make a significant change to the underlying ratings system (LINK), which had some effect on the projections in that "program strength" could be affected. I'm also still incorporating actual rosters, juco guys, freshmen, etc -- that won't be fully complete for a few weeks. I do also make some manual adjustment to the playing time projections, which can affect the ratings as well. Feel free to let me know if you see any lineup projections, for Nebraska or anyone else, that are goofy.

 

I think Nebraska just sort of jiggled a few spots. But given that the projection for the Big Ten is so muddled, small jiggles can move them around in the projected conference order. To the extent you look at these at all, I think it's better to look at the overall rank and say this is projecting a bunch of Big Ten teams to be battling for tourney bids, Nebraska among them.

 

Thanks, man.

 

Thanks for stopping by.  Feel free to join us any time.

 

We're partisan but usually not to the point of assholery, and we're about as chill as any passionate group of fans can be about their team.

 

Can you come up with a ratings system for our board's inside jokes?

 

Like recruits committing to southern teams in spite of the fact they have kudzu, and nothing being official until Brian Rosenthal tweets it?

[hskr4life]

 

 

Huskers at 16!

[HuskerFever]

40 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

 

Huskers at 16!

 

Katz is about the only guy who had our backs last season.

[AuroranHusker]

20 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Katz is about the only guy who had our backs last season.

 

Erik Haslam of haslametrics also was all 'N', but yeah, it wasn't many.....

 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by AuroranHusker

[hskr4life]

37 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Eric Haslem of haslemetrics also was all 'N', but yeah, it wasn't many.....

 

 

I know we went 2 and BBQ in the post season, but I still think we would have gotten the monkey off of our back last year had we been in the Dance.

 

Oh well-- this year we can all have Sweet 16 BBQ's in mid-march.  (Either that or we'll be shoveling snow at halftime)

[AuroranHusker]

7 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

I know we went 2 and BBQ in the post season, but I still think we would have gotten the monkey off of our back last year had we been in the Dance.

 

Oh well-- this year we can all have Sweet 16 BBQ's in mid-march.  (Either that or we'll be shoveling snow at halftime)

 

For sure. On both accounts.

[49r]

#16 is way too high.

[AuroranHusker]

5 minutes ago, 49r said:

#16 is way too high.

 

I don't know how that's determined. Katz has been high on NU for a while now....

 

[uneblinstu]

23 minutes ago, 49r said:

#16 is way too high.

Why's that?

[hskr4life]

30 minutes ago, 49r said:

#16 is way too high.

 

It may seem too high, but that is probably because this just doesn't happen to Nebrasketball.  You take, in terms of production, what players we have coming back, what players we added, and what players we lost and put Duke, UNC, ect. on the front of the shirts and they would be saying #16 is too low.

[49r]

5 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

It may seem too high, but that is probably because this just doesn't happen to Nebrasketball.  You take, in terms of production, what players we have coming back, what players we added, and what players we lost and put Duke, UNC, ect. on the front of the shirts and they would be saying #16 is too low.

 

Put Duke, UNC, Kentucky et al on the front of the shirt and you'd say it's probably the least talented Duke (UNC, Kentucky etc) team in the last 50 years.  It's just the reality of the thing

 

We went from bad to mediocre during the course of last season.  That doesn't equate to an offseason jump to elite level just because we're bringing so much back.  We'll be starting off at slightly above mediocre.  There's still plenty of work for these guys to do.

[OmahaHusker]

9 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

Put Duke, UNC, Kentucky et al on the front of the shirt and you'd say it's probably the least talented Duke (UNC, Kentucky etc) team in the last 50 years.  It's just the reality of the thing

 

We went from bad to mediocre during the course of last season.  That doesn't equate to an offseason jump to elite level just because we're bringing so much back.  We'll be starting off at slightly above mediocre.  There's still plenty of work for these guys to do.

 

I think Anton, Evan, and Jordy will be missed more than we think, hence I wouldn’t have them ranked preseason either 

[hskr4life]

33 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

Put Duke, UNC, Kentucky et al on the front of the shirt and you'd say it's probably the least talented Duke (UNC, Kentucky etc) team in the last 50 years.  It's just the reality of the thing

 

We went from bad to mediocre during the course of last season.  That doesn't equate to an offseason jump to elite level just because we're bringing so much back.  We'll be starting off at slightly above mediocre.  There's still plenty of work for these guys to do.

 

I think you missed this little tidbit....

 

"You take, in terms of production, what players we have coming back..."

 

I didn't say we had as much talent as Duke, UNC, or Kentucky.

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, OmahaHusker said:

 

I think Anton, Evan, and Jordy will be missed more than we think, hence I wouldn’t have them ranked preseason either 

 

Yeah, we still have something to prove before we get elevated to Sweet 16 status.

 

I mean, I'll take it ... but at the END of the season rather than the beginning.

[AuroranHusker]

5 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Yeah, we still have something to prove before we get elevated to Sweet 16 status.

 

I mean, I'll take it ... but at the END of the season rather than the beginning.

 

 

Of course, that's kind of obvious Normy....

[Chuck Taylor]

On 10/3/2018 at 5:28 PM, mewfert said:

 

It's more about the expressions on their faces. 

 

I did make a significant change to the underlying ratings system (LINK), which had some effect on the projections in that "program strength" could be affected. I'm also still incorporating actual rosters, juco guys, freshmen, etc -- that won't be fully complete for a few weeks. I do also make some manual adjustment to the playing time projections, which can affect the ratings as well. Feel free to let me know if you see any lineup projections, for Nebraska or anyone else, that are goofy.

 

I think Nebraska just sort of jiggled a few spots. But given that the projection for the Big Ten is so muddled, small jiggles can move them around in the projected conference order. To the extent you look at these at all, I think it's better to look at the overall rank and say this is projecting a bunch of Big Ten teams to be battling for tourney bids, Nebraska among them.

Now we've dropped to 37. I'm going to start obsessing over this.