Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Performance Indicators 2016-17

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #61
    Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

    https://www.biola.edu/division2?_ga=...205.1487370451

    They are in their first year of transition to the NCAA, sponsored by the PWC. In past years, first year provisional members weren't counted in records for regional rankings. But it appears that they are including them in the calculations this year...So I've added them to my list, even though I disagree with it. This year they played two D2 games to open the season. And they happened to be wins against good teams.

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

      Originally posted by tsull View Post
      Biola? What the heck? They're not D2 and they're 25-3, not 2-0. Biola isn't in the NCAA, certainly not the PWC as indicated.

      This was addressed in the previous post. They will be in the PWC next year. I think we all agree they shouldn't be included in the ranking's, but they are.

      Comment

      • #63
        Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

        Originally posted by schnautza View Post
        https://www.biola.edu/division2?_ga=...205.1487370451

        They are in their first year of transition to the NCAA, sponsored by the PWC. In past years, first year provisional members weren't counted in records for regional rankings. But it appears that they are including them in the calculations this year...So I've added them to my list, even though I disagree with it. This year they played two D2 games to open the season. And they happened to be wins against good teams.
        Take them out of the spread sheet. They haven't played a D2 schedule. It's misleading. Again, if this is going to be posted all the time on this board, it needs to be accurate ... don't care who originated it. Having Biola on the spreadsheet is misleading.

        Comment

        • #64
          Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

          Just ignore them. I'm using the results that are being included in the regional rankings whether you like it or not. If you want to see accurate results, they must be included. Like I said, I disagree that they are included as well, but I'm trying to match the committee as best as possible.

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

            If you want different results, I suggest you build your own spreadsheet and run it how you like.

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

              Originally posted by schnautza View Post
              If you want different results, I suggest you build your own spreadsheet and run it how you like.
              Why are you including Biola on this list since they are ineligible for D2 playoffs this year?

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                Originally posted by tsull View Post
                Why are you including Biola on this list since they are ineligible for D2 playoffs this year?
                I've explained myself multiple times. Please read.

                Comment

                • #68
                  Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                  Your explanations don't make sense. So if Concordia was 2-0 vs. D2, but played an NAIA slate the rest of the way and went 25-3, they'd sit atop this poll? I still don't understand it.

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                    I think you think this is a poll. It's not. It's computer-generated rankings based on a formula as provided by the NCAA used in part to determine regional rankings. If the regional committee has decided to include Biola in their W/L counts (they have), then I'm including them in the calculation to match exactly what they are doing. Otherwise, this entire exercise is all invalid.

                    Please tell me we are speaking the same language.

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                      Originally posted by schnautza View Post
                      I think you think this is a poll. It's not. It's computer-generated rankings based on a formula as provided by the NCAA used in part to determine regional rankings. If the regional committee has decided to include Biola in their W/L counts (they have), then I'm including them in the calculation to match exactly what they are doing. Otherwise, this entire exercise is all invalid.

                      Please tell me we are speaking the same language.
                      The regional committee is wrong and misleading. Biola should not be included this year. So Biola could go 2-0 and just end the season there and they would be at the top of this poll. It makes no sense. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                        There are other teams across the nation that also skew these results. Take Oakland City in the Midwest. They are a legit full D2 member but only play 3 to 5 D2 games EVERY YEAR, but they are still counted. Also, the committee seems to be counting Purdue-Northwest, who has only played a single D2 game this season (and lost), but that also skews the results of the team that beat them.

                        Like I said, I don't agree with it, but I'm trying to simulate EXACTLY what the regional committee is doing, whether or not I (or anybody else) agree with the methodology.

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                          Originally posted by tsull View Post
                          The regional committee is wrong and misleading.
                          I'll agree to that, but ultimately, they have final say on seeding and we do not.

                          It is worth noting that even though Biola is "top ranked" according to these numbers, it is all irrelevant as they are not eligible for post-season. It does, however, affect CSUSM and Chico State, but not by much.

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                            Originally posted by schnautza View Post
                            There are other teams across the nation that also skew these results. Take Oakland City in the Midwest. They are a legit full D2 member but only play 3 to 5 D2 games EVERY YEAR, but they are still counted. Also, the committee seems to be counting Purdue-Northwest, who has only played a single D2 game this season (and lost), but that also skews the results of the team that beat them.

                            Like I said, I don't agree with it, but I'm trying to simulate EXACTLY what the regional committee is doing, whether or not I (or anybody else) agree with the methodology.
                            I finally accepted this power ranking last week, looked at it, went with it ... and then they throw freaking Biola to the top. PLEASE! We're just sports fans and we don't want to pull out a calculus book to understand why some NAIA team sits atop the rankings after playing 2 games. :at-wits-end:

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                              Originally posted by tsull View Post
                              I finally accepted this power ranking last week, looked at it, went with it ... and then they throw freaking Biola to the top. PLEASE! We're just sports fans and we don't want to pull out a calculus book to understand why some NAIA team sits atop the rankings after playing 2 games. :at-wits-end:
                              Mathematically, this one is very easy to explain. As the PI is an average of a value assigned to every game, both games that Biola won were worth 19 pts as they were a neutral court against a team between 50 and 75%. They haven't played any bottom-dwellers to bring their average down like everyone else has. But all you have to do is look past them, knowing that they can't get a bid and knowing that their sample set is too small to be meaningful.

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                                There's a reason why some scrub can go 10 for 10 at the FT line and not be included in the final stats. Biola should be held to the same formula. First, you need to be D2 and eligible for D2 playoffs. Secondly, you have to have X amount of games vs. D2 competition. Very simple to put in.

                                Can't wait to see that last guy on the bench hit his only 3-pointer of the year and be proclaimed the best shooter in America.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X