Head scratcher

Ugly game. I saw the score and flipped it on with about 7 minutes left and Temple was up 55-48. Final was 56-55.

Been obvious they aren't great and have offensive problems. The metrics overrate teams like Houston and Gonzaga. A loss like that should put them out of #1 seed contention.

That said Gonzaga 21' was a great team and this Hou team is good just not great. But good teams have a shot this year with no standout.

It is so hard to be great week in and week out in MBB right now. Even since COVID there has been more parity, in my opinion. Maybe it has something to do with recruiting during that time or maybe the portal-NIL is impacting it more but strange times, to me.

Bakersdozen said:

---

It is so hard to be great week in and week out in MBB right now. Even since COVID there has been more parity, in my opinion. Maybe it has something to do with recruiting during that time or maybe the portal-NIL is impacting it more but strange times, to me.

---

It's the portal. The portal has changed things like crazy. People can't keep talent hostage anymore

But thank God its now interesting, as opposed to an annual 3 way race between Duke, KS, Ky, etc.

Quinton said:

---

Been obvious they aren't great and have offensive problems. The metrics overrate teams like Houston and Gonzaga. A loss like that should put them out of #1 seed contention.

That said Gonzaga 21' was a great team and this Hou team is good just not great. But good teams have a shot this year with no standout.

---

I'd still side with the metrics over the eye test. This is a terrible loss for Houston, but there aren't many teams in America this year without at least one terrible loss.

Their margin for error just shrunk considerably, but with what's happening elsewhere, I can't say they should be disqualified for a No. 1 seed.

That said, I do agree that they aren't an elite team. But no one else is either, so they can't be judged against that standard this year.

Quote:

---

It starts with free throws. The Cougars made 11 of 21, while Temple was 20-of-22 from the line.

"Frustrating for sure," Sampson said. "It's not a fair fight when one team goes 20-for-22 and the other goes 11-for-21."

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Been obvious they aren't great and have offensive problems. The metrics overrate teams like Houston and Gonzaga. A loss like that should put them out of #1 seed contention.

That said Gonzaga 21' was a great team and this Hou team is good just not great. But good teams have a shot this year with no standout.

---

I'd still side with the metrics over the eye test. This is a terrible loss for Houston, but there aren't many teams in America this year without at least one terrible loss.

Their margin for error just shrunk considerably, but with what's happening elsewhere, I can't say they should be disqualified for a No. 1 seed.

That said, I do agree that they aren't an elite team. But no one else is either, so they can't be judged against that standard this year.

---

Its a known and documented flaw. You utilize all the metrics but have to also pay attention to what is driving things by watching the teams in action. Good teams with weaker schedules max out on poor teams and run numbers up. The "adjustments' are unable to accurately account for it and overrates efficiencies. This is a known documented thing. It overrates teams in this situation.

Its pretty good for every other teams but there is a flaw for teams in weaker conferences that are good to very good. Even assuming decent outcome after our Covid pause Gonzaga would still have ended up significantly higher than us in 21' which just isn't an accurate assessment.

Most high level teams don't have a sub 125 (they probably moved up since) home loss with a fully healthy team. That's different than letting a game get away from you (15+ point loss) to a good team.

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

Been obvious they aren't great and have offensive problems. The metrics overrate teams like Houston and Gonzaga. A loss like that should put them out of #1 seed contention.

That said Gonzaga 21' was a great team and this Hou team is good just not great. But good teams have a shot this year with no standout.

---

I'd still side with the metrics over the eye test. This is a terrible loss for Houston, but there aren't many teams in America this year without at least one terrible loss.

Their margin for error just shrunk considerably, but with what's happening elsewhere, I can't say they should be disqualified for a No. 1 seed.

That said, I do agree that they aren't an elite team. But no one else is either, so they can't be judged against that standard this year.

---

Nope. Its a known and documented flaw. Good teams with weaker schedules max out on poor teams and run numbers up. The "adjustments' are unable to accurately account for it. This is a know documented thing. Its pretty good for every other teams but there is a flaw for teams in weaker conferences that are good to very good.

---

You say that, but both Gonzaga and Houston have lived up to their seeding more often than not in the recent past. Good teams are good teams.

There aren't very many power conference teams that can boast the tournament success Gonzaga has had the past 25 years (and especially the last 10) ... or what Houston has done since 2018.

Those teams have earned the respect they've gotten. And this year shows that it's not unconditional. It's not a coincidence that Gonzaga's worst team in a long time is currently ranked No. 17 in the KenPom rankings.

You didn't address the issue though. It does overrate teams in that situation. Again Gonzaga should be fully respected as they have played for titles multiple times and are on a 20 yr run. Gonzaga 21' was a great team that would have rolled the field this year. But that doesn't change they were probably 3 to 4 points too high on the analytics.

Gonzaga this year lost to Loyola Marymount (sub 100 until the win) and their schedule is essentially a top tier D1 schedule at this point in the year since they are not too deep into conference play. So the phenomenon I cited wouldn't apply. They have played Xavier, Texas, BU, Purdue, Bama, Mich St, Kentucky. Not that the last 2 are that good but that is essentially a very high major conference schedule which just supports my point.

Im arguing the metrics.. not the quality of team. If you play teams consistently that are capable of somewhat matching skill and athleticism you are going to have inefficient outings... multiple times unless you are an ATG level like a 21' BU or something. You will also have games where things get away from you. The adjustments don't come close to make up for that.

This could apply to Big East teams to a lesser extent sometimes but not this year. The environments are crazy, teams are highly skilled, and it is a physical grind.

Quinton said:

---

You didn't address the issue though. It does overrate teams in that situation. Again Gonzaga should be fully respected as they have played for titles multiple times and are on a 20 yr run. Gonzaga 21' was a great team that would have rolled the field this year. But that doesn't change they were probably 3 to 4 points too high on the analytics.

Gonzaga this year lost to Loyola Marymount (sub 100 until the win) and their schedule is essentially a top tier D1 schedule at this point in the year since they are not too deep into conference play. So the phenomenon I cited wouldn't apply. They have played Xavier, Texas, BU, Purdue, Bama, Mich St, Kentucky. Not that the last 2 are that good but that is essentially a very high major conference schedule which just supports my point.

Im arguing the metrics.. not the quality of team. If you play teams consistently that are capable of somewhat matching skill and athleticism you are going to have inefficient outings... multiple times unless you are an ATG level like a 21' BU or something. You will also have games where things get away from you. The adjustments don't come close to make up for that.

This could apply to Big East teams to a lesser extent sometimes but not this year. The environments are crazy, teams are highly skilled, and it is a physical grind.

---

My point is if they were overrated/overseeded that would show up in the tournament. It hasn't. It would appear they've been rated and seeded correctly based on the performance of other power conference teams that have have had similar seeds.

And they don't get the same benefit of the doubt/margin for error teams from power conferences do. Strength of schedule is baked into every computer ranking and human seeding process. Gonzaga has never gotten a No. 1 seed with more than one conference loss. And they've failed to get one with one WCC loss on many occasions. Like everyone else, they're judged against the schedule they play and on the quality of their wins/losses.

You can't appropriately adjust for that. That is the point and is a known flaw with many of the metric rankings. You can't just bake it in. Its an inherent flaw that slightly overrates very good mid D1 conference teams. For the most part the analytical rankings are sound when you reach a certain threshold of decent opponents.

In Gonzaga's case in 21' they would simply have been 1B instead of 3 points higher than a superior team. In Hou case this year they should probably be 4-7 instead of 1 with room to spare. Again, its not crazy overhype as it still gets the general idea right. Gonzaga close to ATG in 21'.. Hou good team 23'.

I would agree with that and we'll see if Hou is held to that this year. Rightfully so. Many of the teams Gonzaga played in their up years (and Hou this year) simply cannot beat them or even play it that close.. Even if they really "don't show up." So naturally there will be little room for error.