Jump to content

mewfert

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mewfert

  • Rank
    Walkon

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. mewfert

    Way too early Top 25

    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.
  2. mewfert

    Selection Committee Games of Interest

    That one is interesting, actually: what's happening there is that if Maryland loses to Rutgers, its projected RPI falls to 78, which means that Nebraska's home win over Maryland falls from Q2 to Q3, which drops their "resume" rank. The Rutgers win would indeed raise Nebraska's raw RPI, but my model obviously thinks the loss of a Q2 win would be more important. Subjectively, I agree with that, especially in Nebraska's situation where the lack of committee-defined "quality wins" is the gaping hole in their resumé. But overall I definitely agree none of this is to be taken seriously.
  3. mewfert

    Selection Committee Games of Interest

    Definitely a goofy result, mostly driven by the fundamental goofiness of RPI: KSU losing would drop Nebraska one spot in the projected RPI and projected resume rank (two of the five inputs to the model), which is enough to have that effect. RPI creates a lot of essentially random, chaotic interactions. Just from eyeballing this, I'd say anything under 3% leverage, maybe even 5%, is probably not "real"—but maybe still fun to have a rooting interest in some Atlantic Sun games.
  4. One thing about the "Teamcast" tool is that the projected efficiency rating (T-Rank) is not dynamic, so you should change it if you're gaming out scenarios that differ a lot from the expectations. E.g., Nebraska is currently 61st, and that weighs them down both because it effects the projections for unplayed games and because efficiency rating is part of the algorithm for predicting the tourney. The other thing is that it's not a crystal ball—it's very good at showing relative movement, but the absolute predictions obviously have a margin of error. This is especially true for a team like Nebraska that will have an unusual resume (if it keeps winning).
×