Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-16-16 10:12 AM - Post#204633
In response to SomeGuy
Well, I think that there is a major fallacy in the "Fallacy of 'bad' losses" section. The problem is that Monmouth isn't that good in Pomeroy's ratings. They're in danger against Canisius and Army largely because they're only ranked around 70 in Pomeroy. If they were better, they'd have a better win expectation.
By my count, there were 16 schools ranked ahead of Monmouth on Pomeroy who did not get in. Temple is the only at large who was ranked worse. Would Tulsa have lost those 3 games to sub 200 teams?
I don't think so. But if they did have that on their resume, I would leave them out.
As Andy explains, the odds are yes, Tulsa would have a similar road record against sub-200 teams if forced to play that many games against them.
Let's turn this a little differently though. Why is Monmouth a better choice for an at large than Princeton? Princeton played those types of games too, and they didn't lose any of them.
Well actually, both would have been better at large candidates than the major dreck who made it. It wasn't a Monmouth vs. Princeton choice that was made. It was crap like Vanderbilt, Tulsa, and Syracuse who were chosen over them.
The major difference between the Monmouth and Princeton resumes is that Monmouth challenged itself more on the road, with exactly one non-conference home game. And Princeton's best road win was what, Columbia? Monmouth had at least 4 road wins better than that - and according to the committee's stated criteria, quality road wins are supposed to earn you super special extra cred. Except when they don't.
|
