Daily KenPom ranking...critical for Madness seeding
- Thread starter chipb
- Start date
-
- Tags
- https://kenpom.com/
If msu is really 9th, then this ranking service is garbage.
From a predictive standpoint, there isn’t much better (especially that’s publicly available).
Predictive of what? Tournament seedings or actual quality of the team?
Last edited:
Aaahhhhh.......sounds like the looks test.
It is literally the opposite of the looks test considering it is all done by data-crunching and computers
Bingo. Anyone putting OSI on the top 12 is being paid for that gift
How many teams in the country do you think would be favored over Ohio State on a neutral court today?
(I’ve got them around 17th right now, but Carton comes back and 12th sounds about right)
Nice to see Syracuse as low as 60. Still not low enough for that POS coach they have.
That would explain why MSU and UMd are ahead of PSU, since we beat them both (and MSU in their house).
Wait a second.....
Wisconsin is also 14-10 (7-6). PSU at 19-5 (9-4) has a much better record, is only a game behind UMd, and has a better record than MSU. I figured.
Sports books have been known to use kenpom to help set lines. Anyone think they care about the eye test? It's not supposed to be a poll.
Looking at the number of people in this thread who are pooh pawing KenPom once again reminds me how much of the Penn State fan base is totally clueless when it comes to college hoops.
The NCAA NET rankings have MSU and MD ranked pretty high as well I think 11 and 7 respectively last I looked and PSU is 18th, which is another ranking system relied upon for ncaa tourney seeding and selection from what I hear.
If it was looks test MSU and OSU wouldn't be there. They don't pass any looks test.
Last edited:
Just because a ranking is based on supposed objective criteria doesn’t make it so. A subjective individual still decided what makes up the rankings. These rankings that have MSU or OSU ahead of us are clearly broken. And shouldn’t we be ahead of Wisconsin? We have a much better record. Against common opponents!! And they are currently tanking
Last edited:
Right. was confused about that but we certainly have a better record against common opponents. Not the case for OSU or anyone else in the B1G. Only UMd has a case and we did beat them head to head. These computer rankings only make sense to use with teams that haven’t played a common set of opponents
Why are they broken? If we played Michigan St on a neutral court tonight, do you think we’d be favored?
Seeing this in 2020 is shocking to me, even by Penn State basketball fan standards.
Ken Pomeroy's ratings have been the gold standard of college basketball ratings for a decade plus. As Grant Green mentioned, they tie in very closely to the lines you see out of Vegas for both spreads and totals (note that Ken doesn't account for injuries, recent form, specific matchups, so it's not a complete copy, but it's very close).
About a decade ago, you'd see threads like this on college basketball forums questioning the ratings, laughing about where Ken has certain teams ranked, etc. But, I haven't seen a thread like this in years. Ken's ratings are pretty much universally accepted based on their merit by fans, announcers/writers, and coaches themselves (believe that even Pat mentions some of their components from time to time).
Laughing about Ken's ratings, questioning their validity, saying that something must be "wrong" with them because of the rating for team "x", asking if he's using the eye test, etc (and seeing all of the "thanks" along with those posts) just shows again the ignorance of many PSU basketball fans. Ken's ratings aren't something new, they've been around for a long time now. And the $20 subscription to his site each year is about the best deal that you can get if you follow college hoops (I'd still be subscribing if he charged 20x that price).
About a decade ago, you'd see threads like this on college basketball forums questioning the ratings, laughing about where Ken has certain teams ranked, etc. But, I haven't seen a thread like this in years. Ken's ratings are pretty much universally accepted based on their merit by fans, announcers/writers, and coaches themselves (believe that even Pat mentions some of their components from time to time).
Laughing about Ken's ratings, questioning their validity, saying that something must be "wrong" with them because of the rating for team "x", asking if he's using the eye test, etc (and seeing all of the "thanks" along with those posts) just shows again the ignorance of many PSU basketball fans. Ken's ratings aren't something new, they've been around for a long time now. And the $20 subscription to his site each year is about the best deal that you can get if you follow college hoops (I'd still be subscribing if he charged 20x that price).
These computer rankings are useful but I think their weakness is assessing a team that has improved as the year has progressed.
I think these computer programs undervalue teams like PSU that have improved and overvalues teams like OSU who started out strong and have stayed the same or regressed.
And to be fair I think the human “eye test” overvalues the most recent performance.
So each method has its strengths and weaknesses.
Plus We humans aren’t always objective while computers don’t actually watch the games and can’t tell if a team’s recent success is due to them getting better or lucky bounces.
Neither is perfect and both have their advantages.
Computers are really useful for setting betting lines though, no human watches all the games and can asses the strength of each team, but with a computer one can plug in the raw data and it cranks out its assessment and prediction.
I think these computer programs undervalue teams like PSU that have improved and overvalues teams like OSU who started out strong and have stayed the same or regressed.
And to be fair I think the human “eye test” overvalues the most recent performance.
So each method has its strengths and weaknesses.
Plus We humans aren’t always objective while computers don’t actually watch the games and can’t tell if a team’s recent success is due to them getting better or lucky bounces.
Neither is perfect and both have their advantages.
Computers are really useful for setting betting lines though, no human watches all the games and can asses the strength of each team, but with a computer one can plug in the raw data and it cranks out its assessment and prediction.
Last edited:
What should they have been ranked at that point?
I don’t keep track so I can’t say for sure, but I think I also had them as the highest rated team at one point.
After beating Villanova, Kentucky and what everyone thought would be a strong North Carolina. Probably a fair rating.
At the time it was fair but OSU has falling flat on its face mostly due to the lack of quality guard play. The B1G has the possibility of getting 11 to 12 teams in the dance this year which is wide open. The Lions have as good of a shot of winning it all as anyone. The tournament this year is a total crap shoot.
