Blogpoll Ballot: Week One

by rockchalk on Feb 8, 2009 11:30 PM CST in Basketball Comment 11 comments

If any of you have been around the college blogosphere, I'm sure you've heard of the BlogPoll by now. In football, at least. It was started a few years back by Brian of the Michigan blog, MGoBlog. It quickly became a huge hit, and was picked up midway through this past season by CBSports, who put it side-by-side with the AP and Coaches' polls on their polls page.

Well, CBSports is now doing the same, exact thing with college basetkball. And, I was lucky enough to be chosen as a participant, so every Sunday afternoon/night, I will put up my ballot and justify it. You can give me any feedback or opinions or roast me (boom. roasted.) or whatever you feel like, and I can then make changes as a I see fit. Ballots are do Monday morning.

I know this one is late, but I've had a crazy-busy day. In any case, here is my ballot.

Rank	Team

1	Connecticut
2	Duke
3	North Carolina
4	Pittsburgh
5	Memphis
6	Oklahoma
7	Louisville
8	Michigan St.
9	UCLA
10	Missouri
11	West Virginia
12	Clemson
13	Wake Forest
14	Purdue
15	Xavier
16	Villanova
17	Kansas
18	Gonzaga
19	Marquette
20	Butler
21	Arizona St.
22	Washington
23	Syracuse
24	Illinois
25	Brigham Young

Basically, I got the ball combining the two statistical rankings I think are the best: KenPom and Sagarin. For the most part, the procedure was simple enough. I combined the totals for each relevant team, and the lower the number, the higher you were ranked. Of course, this didn't work out perfectly, and there were a couple of human changes I made. For instance, both Duke and Connecticut tied with 3 points (both were first in one and second in the other), but given their records and their respective weeks (Duke getting plastered and going to OT at home, while Connecticut destroyed L'Ville and beat Michigan), I gave the nod to the Huskies. West Virginia, computer-wise, would actually be higher, but I had a hard time putting a 7-loss team in the Top 10.

Usually, these explanation-type posts will be much longer, but I wanted to get it done with and post it this time, so I can move on to bigger and better things.

Fire away with any comments or concerns. I'm sure me ranking Missouri at 10 will draw some ire, but the computers love 'em. Memphis > Oklahoma might get me some disapprovals, too, but I kind of think the Tigers are a better team, anyways. I'm really not all that sold on Boomer Sooner.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Pretty good

Obviously the computers aren’t perfect, so there are some mistakes, but overall, pretty good. I think it will look drastically different in a couple of weeks, though.

Insanity is just a state of mind.

by giants9107 on Feb 8, 2009 11:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I want to spend more time on it in future weeks.

This week, it was mostly just computers, but in future weeks, I’ll include more human input, too.

Still haven’t completely decided how I’ll do it week-to-week…

by rockchalk on Feb 9, 2009 12:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How Is OU in the top 10?

Pomeroy has them #18, and Sagarin has them #5? Clemson, Louisville, even Missouri should be higher.

Their 8-0 conference record has more to do with playing in the South, than being better than KU or MU. I would rank them at the moment:

1. KU
2. MU
3. OU

Let’s examine comparable games.

Colorado @

Missouri 107-62 +45
Kansas 66-61 +5
Oklahoma 77-72 +5

@KSU

Oklahoma 61-53 +8
Missouri 72-88 -16

Baylor @

Oklahoma 95-76 +19
Missouri 89-72 +17

@OSU

Oklahoma 89-81 +8
Missouri 97-95 +2

@Nebraska

Kansas 68-62 +6
Missouri 51-56 -5

@ ISU

Kansas 82-67 +15
Missouri 82-68 +14
Oklahoma 78-68 +10

Texas A&M

Kansas 73-53 +20
Oklahoma 77-71 +6

Against Common B-12 Opponents with no venue discrepancies:

Missouri (4-1) v. Oklahoma (5-0), Missouri outscored Oklahoma by 12

Kansas (3-0) v. Oklahoma (3-0), KU outscored OU by 19

Kansas (3-0) v. Missouri (2-1), MU outscored KU by 28

OU plays in the South, and this year the North is the stronger division ((2 of the top 3 teams 4 of the top 5, at this moment in time), ). Missouri’s two losses were against North teams. If OU had played KSU later in the season, like MU did, the result might have been different. OU didn’t play Nebraska at Lincoln, and if they did, they might have lost. They had trouble with Colorado and Nebraska at Norman. Missouri has played 4 home games and plays in the tougher division. OU has played 5 home games and in the weaker division. The second best South team has just lost 3 straight to the North, and two of those games were in Austin!

Another point in MU’s favor, Missouri doesn’t have a bad loss like OU (Arkansas currently #113 POM #96 Sag ).

If you combine Pomeroy and Sagarin, you should use Sagarin’s predictor and not his combined stats. ELO Chess is too similiar to the RPI. Unless you like that sort of ranking system, not that there is anything wrong with that type of ranking system…

I can’t fault you for leaving WVU out of the top 10. West Virginia is really good but it is hard to take a team that lost twice at home seriously as one of the best teams. Except, those two losses were to your #1 and #4 team. KU lost 8 times in 1988 by the end of the first week of Feb (I believe they were 13-8) and they were a top ten team by the end of the season, if I remember correctly.

WVU has beaten Ohio St. by 28 in Columbus, beat Georgetown by 17 in D.C. when Georgetown was still in the top 10 (before they became a bubble team). They lost on the road to Syracuse, Louisville, and Marquette, and lost to UK and Davidson at Neutral sites. They are the only BCS team that played more than 1 true road game after playing three neutral games in the OOC portion of the season (a few teams like Cincinatti played 1-2 neutral games and 2 road games). WVU played 3 true road games and 3 neutral games.

They will probably lose to Pitt tonight and then win at least 5 out of 6, and all the “talking heads” will be yapping about how they turned the season around or how player X is really defending well. The real reason will be they finally got to the easier part of their schedule.

by sleepyhawk on Feb 9, 2009 3:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

First of all, absolutely incredible comment.

Fantastic stuff, right there.

But, as far as OU being #5, it’s hard to turn away a 22-1 team. I wanted to slide them down further, but that was one of the human bump-ups; I think the pure numbers would have put them at 11 or 12.

For the most part, I wholeheartedly agree on Boomer Sooner; I really don’t think they are Final Four caliber, maybe not even Sweet Sixteen caliber. But, they have enough solid wins (vs. Purdue, vs. Utah, vs. Davidson, vs. UAB, vs. Texas, @ K-State) to stay up there for now.

Thanks for the input, though. And, like I’ve said before, I really do think we beat them.

by rockchalk on Feb 9, 2009 3:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I semi-disagree, respectfully

I don’t think point differentials is the way to look at OU. They’re not a team that blows other teams out. But with Patillo now, I consider them a legit Final Four threat, whereas a couple weeks ago I wasn’t so sure. Their motto seems to be “just win, baby,” and right now they’re doing just that. Learning how to grind out close wins will help them come tournament time, too.

We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats

by TB on Feb 9, 2009 8:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Have to say I agree...

For a long while I didn’t think they were elite and they still don’t come off that way. But when you have Blake Griffin, everyone else just needs to be decent and let him take care of the rest. Patillo gives them that extra depth and presence to absorb foul trouble, off-nights, etc. and that may be good enough to take them a long way in this very down year of CBB across the board.

by hiphopopotamus on Feb 9, 2009 8:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

nice post

but no way….they’re 22-1 man. However they’ve won their games doesn’t matter, they’ve won them. Until they lose, I don’t see how they aren’t in the top 5.

by I need more Esteban on Feb 9, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like it!!!

certainly as you said when you’ve got more time to look at it besides just the computers this could be pretty good stuff.

Some people are like Slinkies...not really good for anything but they make you smile when pushed down the stairs.

by Denverjhawk on Feb 9, 2009 7:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

As for the poll...

I’m a big fan of kenpom as well, but come on now.

Memphis had themselves a nice win Saturday, but you or anyone else can’t possibly believe they’re a top 5 team. Even Calipari couldn’t sell that…

by hiphopopotamus on Feb 9, 2009 8:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

yeah I think for this one...

due to time constraints he went completely off the computer polls, the way I read it is going forward he’ll start mixing in his opinion which I think is when the conversation can get good.

To your point though, you’re absolutely right kenpom doesn’t tell the full story right now.

Some people are like Slinkies...not really good for anything but they make you smile when pushed down the stairs.

by Denverjhawk on Feb 9, 2009 9:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs