Based upon an interpretation of the Babblemur Rating Index:
1. Kansas
1. Kentucky
1. Syracuse
1. Duke
2. Villanova
2. Purdue
2. Texas
2. Michigan St
3. Wisconsin
3. Kansas State
3. West Virginia
3. Vanderbilt
4. Gonzaga
4. Florida State
4. Georgetown
4. Ohio State
5. BYU
5. Georgia Tech
5. Florida
5. Clemson
6. New Mexico
6. Temple
6. Tennessee
6. Baylor
7. Northern Iowa
7. Butler
7. Cincinnati
7. Wake Forest
8. UNLV
8. Mississippi St
8. Pittsburgh
8. Virginia Tech
9. Oklahoma St
9. Texas A&M
9. Mississippi
9. Illinois
10. North Carolina
10. Notre Dame
10. Missouri
10. California
11. UCONN
11. Dayton
11. Marquette
11. UAB
12.Northwestern
12. Sienna
12. St Marys
12. Cornell
13. Old Dominion
13. Tulsa
13. Murray State
13. Utah State
14. Akron
14. Weber State
14. Pacific
14. Oakland
15. Jacksonville
15. Western Carolina
15. Middle Tennessee
15. Coastal Carolina
16. Stoney Brook
16. Sam Houston State
16. Quinnipiac
16.5. Morgan State
16.5. Arkansas Pine Bluff
15 comments:
"Babblemur Rating Index" obviously = bullshit. UCONN is the 41st best team? That's after only a brief glance at the ratings.
Well, not really bs, as it works well for our system, in which it may be the 41st team. In no way shape or form to we claim that the BRI reflects how good a team is.
However, concerning UCONN, at some point you need to win games. 13-7 just isn't getting it done. You know, Marquette isn't going to make the tourney just because they lost to good teams. They're going to need to win a few - of which I think they finish the season strong.
And finally, the BRI obviously isn't all-inclusive, as it only reflects the teams that we were wise enough to select. New Mexico, for instance, just didn't make that preseason radar. That being said, of the teams that were selected, it seems that the BRI more so reflects the success of the season much more so than how good the team is. That isn't a bad thing.
Does the current BRI factor in points given up to other players? I think this should be taken into account. I don't know if a one to one point accounting is statistically reflective of the value of a team, but I thing it should count for something.
Following up on my above post, I think it would be interesting to track who gave up the most points to other players via. head to head matchups then to compare to their points recieved vis head to head. I suspect it would generally mirror the standings, but people who went with stratigies similar to mine might actually give up a high number of points in addition to getting them.
Just a thought.
you have our permission to develop this spreadsheet.
I have no access to past contests.
Plus I know that Ron's salivating at the thought of running the numbers. Children, Work, Candidacy, etc. be damned.
"I have no access to past contests."
Look on the Right side bar.
Every
Head
To
Head
Game
Last year I monkeyed around with a grid of how often each player played against each other player and their records, looking for rivalries. It wasn't worth it.
Wasn't worth it, hey, you could work this into a model that could determine the 65 team field, get on it Ron and Akaoni, I'll help market the final product
-The CEO
But I want it in a convinient spreadsheet format. Why don't you send me the file or unprotect the document?
Ha - I did it on paper with pencil.
Oh - here is what it resulted in:
http://babblemur.blogspot.com/2009/01/rivalries-heat-up-do-or-die-time.html
See the section under "Geeky Game Stats..."
I knew you couldn't resist if I stonewalled long enough!
Oh, I thought you did a new post, color me disapointed.
Fine, maybe I'll try to get motivated once I get home from work, but it's unlikely as I've been running 7-6 every day this week. (I do take occasional breaks to check babblemurbasketball however...
Well, Pacific is going to make it interesting by getting blasted and I mean blasted at home, the score would indicate they can't hit the broad side of a barn tonight,
-The CEO
Post a Comment