tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22972768.post8352286519260427618..comments2023-09-01T06:51:04.030-04:00Comments on Basketball Predictions: How Well Did The Computers Predict The Field? Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12767101715737129123noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22972768.post-59285760134269059622013-03-19T07:31:06.318-04:002013-03-19T07:31:06.318-04:00Yeah, DMoore, I get that. Although what good is a ...Yeah, DMoore, I get that. Although what good is a tough schedule if you don't beat any of them? Also, Middle Tennessee's non-conference schedule wasn't quite as tough as the RPI makes it out to be. Other computer ratings have it near 40th, instead of 9th.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767101715737129123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22972768.post-61452841502045874302013-03-19T00:07:11.100-04:002013-03-19T00:07:11.100-04:00I think there is a pretty clear explanation for wh...I think there is a pretty clear explanation for why MTSU was picked, but if that's the case, I don't understand why it isn't the explanation we're being given. The biggest thing Middle Tennessee has going for it is how they scheduled in the non-conference. In the part of their schedule they had control over, they really tried to play lots of good teams.<br /><br />I think it makes perfect sense for the committee to reward teams for choosing to play a tough schedule. The biggest thing that supports this theory is that if you look at the teams that were close but not selected, a great many of them had Very weak non-conference schedules.<br /><br />But if that's what they were intentionally doing, I would think they'd want to trumpet it loud and clear. Instead, we get obvious evasions when the committee is asked to explain who got in and who got left out.DMoorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22972768.post-49490312842318921192013-03-18T20:23:45.124-04:002013-03-18T20:23:45.124-04:00I just found your blog this year and I am tremendo...I just found your blog this year and I am tremendously impressed. I agree with most of what you put up here. However, (always a "but" right?) I don't think I am with you on the SMiss over MTSU thing. "victories over top 100" just seems too darn arbitrary. Who is to say it is not harder to beat one 47 than 2 96s and a 65? I know your point was HOW MTSU was explained, but even if we accept that SM bad loss (RPI 208) is the same as MTSU's (164), we still have to weight the wins. 1 power conf sub 50 win in 4 tries not that bad in a weak bubble year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com