KenPom 2023-2024 KenPom Rankings Thread

[49r]

11 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

Explain

 

I'll let him go into more detail if he wants but essentially the NET favors large MOV over quality of competition it looks like.  For example last year Rutgers played an absolute garbage non-con schedule (338th strongest per KenPom) and they won a lot of those games by 30-40 points.  If they could have done better than 2-6 down the stretch last season they probably would have gotten in the NCAAs.

 

Same story for Penn State, they had the 304th non con SOS, won big in non con and didn't collapse down the stretch in conference play and got themselves a 10 seed.

 

Rutgers went 8-3 in non con and 10-10 in conference play.  Penn State went 9-2 and 10-10.

 

For comparison, Torvik has us with an expected NCSOS of 197 and predicts 9-2 and 10-10 for us.  KenPom doesn't have a NCSOS up yet and has us going 8-3 and 9-11.

[Norm Peterson]

So, @49r or @cozrulz, is MOV scaled? Or is it an absolute number? In other words, Drake had a top 15 ranking in MOV in absolute numbers, beating their opponents by an average of 10 ppg. But their SOS was barely in the top 200. Contrast with Arizona that also had 10 ppg MOV average, but a top 50 SOS. If you're playing a better schedule, you shouldn't be expected to have as high of an average MOV. If you're playing a bunch of cupcakes, you should be beating them by more. So, is MOV scaled based on SOS or is it just a raw number?

[cozrulz]

20 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

Explain

 

Do you remember last year when we would win a game and not move anywhere in the computer rankings?  Even against teams that lost?  Didn't that come down to scoring margin?  It seems like some of the higher teams had perfected their net through blow outs with softer schedules.  Maybe they fixed the weighting for this year?

[Norm Peterson]

27 minutes ago, cozrulz said:

 

Do you remember last year when we would win a game and not move anywhere in the computer rankings?  Even against teams that lost?  Didn't that come down to scoring margin?  It seems like some of the higher teams had perfected their net through blow outs with softer schedules.  Maybe they fixed the weighting for this year?

 

Right, but it sounded like you were saying it's even more enhanced this year. Maybe I misunderstood.

[cozrulz]

7 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Right, but it sounded like you were saying it's even more enhanced this year. Maybe I misunderstood.

 

New was relative.  I'm surprised this is the 5th year it has been around.

[Norm Peterson]

Apropos of nothing in particular, Grant McCasland's Texas Tech Red Raiders open at #43 in Kenpom, which is about 20 spots ahead of where T-Tech finished last season under their previous coach. 

[OmahaHusker]

18 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

Apropos of nothing in particular, Grant McCasland's Texas Tech Red Raiders open at #43 in Kenpom, which is about 20 spots ahead of where T-Tech finished last season under their previous coach. 

 

McCasland is the man

[49r]

KenPom rankings as of 11-1-23

=======================

 

B1G (0-0):
1. Purdue
13. Michigan State
19. Illinois
20. Wisconsin
22. Maryland
35. Ohio State
40. Northwestern
44. Michigan
49. Indiana
50. Iowa
58. Nebraska
59. Rutgers
85. Penn State
112. Minnesota

 

 

Non-Conference (0-0):
352. Lindenwood

344. Florida A&M

---Cornhusker Classic---
229. Rider
276. Stony Brook

---Sanford Pentagon---
175. Oregon State

 

---Cornhusker Classic---

89. Duquesne

 

174. Cal State Fullerton

12. Creighton
25. @Kansas State
255. North Dakota

345. South Carolina State

[hskr4life]

MOV and style points are going to be big due to the deliciousness of all those cupcakes in the non-con.

 

Beating Oregon State and Duquesne is a must.

 

Stealing one from the bluebirds or Kitty Cats would be really nice.

[Norm Peterson]

Kevin Sweeney, national hoops pundit on Twitter who went to Northwestern, has us among his expected worst 10 teams against the spread compared to our Kenpom rating.

 

So, he thinks Kenpom has us listed a lot higher than we should be.

 

 

[millerhusker]

12 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

Kevin Sweeney, national hoops pundit on Twitter who went to Northwestern, has us among his expected worst 10 teams against the spread compared to our Kenpom rating.

 

So, he thinks Kenpom has us listed a lot higher than we should be.

 

 

The Hunter Dickinson Kansas hype is weird. He's a very good player. But Michigan had NBA players around him last year and did nothing. This Kansas team has a lot of deficiencies. No shooters and no depth. Hunter needs shooters around him. They have the best transition point guard in America, but Dickinson is not a lob threat. I live in Kansas, and the thought here is their top 4 players played about as well as they could've played the other night, yet still lost to Illinois. 

[CrazyforNUHOOPS]

29 minutes ago, millerhusker said:

The Hunter Dickinson Kansas hype is weird. He's a very good player. But Michigan had NBA players around him last year and did nothing. This Kansas team has a lot of deficiencies. No shooters and no depth. Hunter needs shooters around him. They have the best transition point guard in America, but Dickinson is not a lob threat. I live in Kansas, and the thought here is their top 4 players played about as well as they could've played the other night, yet still lost to Illinois. 

The word I’ve heard out of Lawrence is that they’re not as good as people think they are. That showed a little on Sunday night in Champaign. 

[49r]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

Kevin Sweeney, national hoops pundit on Twitter who went to Northwestern, has us among his expected worst 10 teams against the spread compared to our Kenpom rating.

 

So, he thinks Kenpom has us listed a lot higher than we should be.

 

 

 

 

 

"Teams I gave out last year were 17-15 ATS in November."

 

So...basically a push then...not really that much of a ringing endorsement of his prognostication abilities there.

[HuscurAdam]

18 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

"Teams I gave out last year were 17-15 ATS in November."

 

So...basically a push then...not really that much of a ringing endorsement of his prognostication abilities there.

 

Logically, shouldn't these teams have been losers against the spread if he was right about them? Is he showing he was wrong, or am I completely misinterpreting this?

[Art Vandalay]

1 hour ago, millerhusker said:

The Hunter Dickinson Kansas hype is weird. He's a very good player. But Michigan had NBA players around him last year and did nothing. This Kansas team has a lot of deficiencies. No shooters and no depth. Hunter needs shooters around him. They have the best transition point guard in America, but Dickinson is not a lob threat. I live in Kansas, and the thought here is their top 4 players played about as well as they could've played the other night, yet still lost to Illinois. 

I don’t think they will be incredible either but Self can coach circles around Howard.

[millerhusker]

1 hour ago, CrazyforNUHOOPS said:

The word I’ve heard out of Lawrence is that they’re not as good as people think they are. That showed a little on Sunday night in Champaign. 

Yep, KU people aren't nearly as high on this team as the national media is. 

[thrasher31]

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

Kevin Sweeney, national hoops pundit on Twitter who went to Northwestern, has us among his expected worst 10 teams against the spread compared to our Kenpom rating.

 

So, he thinks Kenpom has us listed a lot higher than we should be.

 

 

 

 

This was his reasoning and I guess I can get that from an outside perspective. Boogie didn't play great at mizzou, so he's concerned about how he translates to a HM level again. And as I said before, Lawrence isn't being included in the equation imo. The big spot defensively will be a bit worse, but I think it'll be a similar scheme to what they ran last year. Double baseline post with a switch philosophy up top. With mast, you probably play a drop I imagine. 

 

I don't agree, but I can see the thought process at least

[k3s3i]

2 hours ago, thrasher31 said:

 

 

This was his reasoning and I guess I can get that from an outside perspective. Boogie didn't play great at mizzou, so he's concerned about how he translates to a HM level again. And as I said before, Lawrence isn't being included in the equation imo. The big spot defensively will be a bit worse, but I think it'll be a similar scheme to what they ran last year. Double baseline post with a switch philosophy up top. With mast, you probably play a drop I imagine. 

 

I don't agree, but I can see the thought process at least

yea i haven’t seen lawrence talked about at all on any team previews outside of the nebraska media realm, even prediction models (bart, ken, and evanmaya) aren’t acknowledging much of a contribution from him this year. to me he’s the wildcard, he’s capable of being one the best players on the team and elevating this team to tournament status, but switching to the hardest position in the game in such a well scouted conference is no easy feat. i’m excited and nervous to see how it all plays out 

[k3s3i]

2 hours ago, thrasher31 said:

 

 

This was his reasoning and I guess I can get that from an outside perspective. Boogie didn't play great at mizzou, so he's concerned about how he translates to a HM level again. And as I said before, Lawrence isn't being included in the equation imo. The big spot defensively will be a bit worse, but I think it'll be a similar scheme to what they ran last year. Double baseline post with a switch philosophy up top. With mast, you probably play a drop I imagine. 

 

I don't agree, but I can see the thought process at least

and i don’t agree with that guys analysis on defense, imo it was just as much scheme as it was personnel. was dw regarding as a good defender the year before? the buy in is what will be most important imo 

[Huskerpapa]

I do love our defensive scheme.  It is awesome to watch.  BUT, any scheme (offensively or defensively) is only as good as its weakest link.

We will soon learn if we have any of those links.

[jimmykc]

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, jimmykc said:

 

The links look good

[Art Vandalay]

14 hours ago, k3s3i said:

and i don’t agree with that guys analysis on defense, imo it was just as much scheme as it was personnel. was dw regarding as a good defender the year before? the buy in is what will be most important imo 

Agree, I love DW but he as very inconsistent on the Def end.

[aphilso1]

11 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

Agree, I love DW but he as very inconsistent on the Def end.

 

I actually think Walker was remarkably consistent on the defensive end, but was limited due to his stature.  He just didn't have the physical tools to hang with some of the skilled giants in the league.  Against guys closer to his own height/wingspan, or guys who solely wanted to try to outmuscle their defenders, he was great.

[cornfed24-7]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

 

I actually think Walker was remarkably consistent on the defensive end, but was limited due to his stature.  He just didn't have the physical tools to hang with some of the skilled giants in the league.  Against guys closer to his own height/wingspan, or guys who solely wanted to try to outmuscle their defenders, he was great.

And even against the giants I thought he did pretty good all things considered.