Real Record and PSU's Case for the NCAA Tournament

by ckmneon on Mar 11, 2011 9:58 AM EST

How exactly does one go about judging a team's NCAA Tournament resume? Most established bracketologists (especially Bracketology 101) are extremely accurate. Jay Coleman's DanceCard algorithm does a very good job also. But these only tell you who will get in, not who should.

Computer rankings are OK, but all they really give you is a very macroscopic snapshot of a team's body of work. They don't comb through the fine details, and it's those fine details that are necessary to separate the >9 seeds from the NIT teams. Also, most of the major ones (Colley, Sagarin) give a team more credit for beating #300 than a narrow loss to #3. RPI does the opposite. Both have their merits and demerits. I'm not trying to debate them.

Something I've done for a few years now is a method that I call "real record." I've found it useful for three things: determining what teams / leagues the committee was overly kind / mean to and picking "upsets" in the NCAA tournament. Real Record is over .700 when it picks an upset in the last two years. Just sayin'. It's good.

Here's how real record is calculated:

1. Start with a team's overall record.
2. Take away all wins against teams ranked #230 in RPI or worse and any lower division opponents. Nobody should care.
3. Take away all losses against teams ranked #50 in RPI or better. These are easy to forgive.
4. Give a team two bonus wins for all top 50 wins.
5. Give a team one bonus win for all wins over teams ranked 51-100.
7. Give a team two bonus losses for all losses to teams ranked #230 or worse.
8. Give a team one bonus loss for all teams ranked #101-229.

Here's the real record of some teams, all of whom, according to Bracketology 101 (as of Thursday), are more likely to make the tournament than PSU. The current Bracketology 101 (as of Thursday) seed is in parenthesis.

UCLA (7) 27-6
Marquette (9) 26-2
Alabama (12) 19-10
Colorado (12) 26-9
USC (First Four Out): 29-16
Michigan State (12): 26-5
Michigan (11): 25-5
Virginia Tech (First Four Out): 19-7
Penn State (Next Four Out): 28-8

Conclusions:

--I really didn't think Marquette deserved as much love as they were getting from Bracketologists. I was wrong. Impressive resume.
--In contrast, why isn't UCLA much more on the bubble than they currently are? And a 7 seed? Seriously? Their real win% isn't anywhere close to Marquette's, and isn't as good as Michigan State or Michigan's, two teams who are allegedly on the bubble.
--I didn't understand why Michigan State was getting more love than PSU. Now I do. PSU may have 2 more real wins, but PSU also has 3 more real losses.
--Anyone who thinks USC, Alabama, Colorado, or Virginia Tech is more deserving of a bid than PSU is flat out wrong. Yes, Va Tech beat PSU head to head. So did Ole Miss. Virginia beat Va Tech head to head (twice!). Is anyone going to try and argue that Ole Miss has a better resume than PSU or that Virginia has a better resume than Va Tech? I'd welcome the hilarity of such an argument.

Aww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

UCLA is a projected seven seed for the same reason Arizona got in the tournament in 2009.

"Yeah! I'll take a walk....over to Kirk Douglas's house!"

by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2011 11:55 AM EST reply actions

That and

the assumption that the committee will probably make: “The Pac 10 can’t really be that much worse than the Big Ten, Big East, ACC, and Big 12, can they?”

I've got the brains. You've got the looks. Let's make lots of money.

by ckmneon on Mar 11, 2011 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

I tried to make this argument that the PAC-10 sucked

when that whole Steve Lavin news dropped (since he did so “spectacularly” at UCLA… Fugi told me I was dead wrong and that the PAC-10 was way better than i was giving it credit for. Not sure what his reasoning was.

John has a long moustache

Fugimaster24 is the better Adam.

by AdamShell on Mar 11, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions

Like THAT was your argument

"Yeah! I'll take a walk....over to Kirk Douglas's house!"

by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2011 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

Part of it

the thesis was Ed DeChellis is better than Steve Lavin.

John has a long moustache

Fugimaster24 is the better Adam.

by AdamShell on Mar 11, 2011 9:37 PM EST up reply actions

Which is bound to get you an A.

"Yeah! I'll take a walk....over to Kirk Douglas's house!"

by ReadingRambler on Mar 12, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

In Lavin's day,

the Pac 10 was a much, much better league than it’s been in the last 3ish years. That the Pac 10 is now perennially closer to the SEC and Mountain West than it is to the Big Ten and ACC is one of the mysteries of college sports.

As far as judging Lavin’s tenure at UCLA, I don’t know what to say. The record is decent, but it should be decent. UCLA basketball (with the exception of Arizona), like USC football or PSU volleyball, is the only program that has had any real, sustained success in an entire 1/3 of the country (for UCLA / USC, it’s west of the Rockies. For PSU, it’s east of the Mississippi). High school kids from that entire third of the U.S. were just waiting for a call from UCLA. When you dominate a recruiting base that big and that fruitful, you should be successful.

Lavin’s last couple years were talent laden and disappointing to be sure, and without question, Ed’s 2009 and 2011 teams were less talented and accomplished more. So I guess you could argue that Ed’s a better coach, but that doesn’t factor in individual dynamics like Battle and Cornley being fierce leaders with steel cantaloupes and Lavin being burdened with mercenaries like Jon Crispin and “it’s all about me” crybabies like Jason Kapono. It’s complicated.

He’s put together a better season at St. Johns much more quickly than Ed has at PSU, but St. Johns has a ton of advantages over PSU (a fanbase that cares, bigger, more talented recruiting base, a school dedicated to winning that doesn’t care as much about NCAA compliance, a league bottom 25% that’s much, much softer) so that’s not really fair either.

Bottom line, I like Steve Lavin and think he was thrown under the bus at UCLA by John Wooden et al because he had a couple disappointing seasons and wouldn’t cheat to be successful. He has done more with less at St. Johns than Ben “I parlayed having Jamie Dixon as an assistant into one of the premier jobs in sports” Howland has at UCLA, and success is always the best revenge. I like Ed DeChellis because he has vastly improved PSU, doesn’t appear to be slowing down in doing so, done it against all odds, and done it the right way. Making a call on who is “better” doesn’t interest me.

I've got the brains. You've got the looks. Let's make lots of money.

by ckmneon on Mar 13, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions

so who would you say is better, then?

by The JuggerNitt on Mar 13, 2011 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions

If Northwestern can somehow beat OSU

They’ll have a Real Record of 20-4. In terms of percentage, that’s as good or better than every team up there except Marquette and Michigan State.

I've got the brains. You've got the looks. Let's make lots of money.

by ckmneon on Mar 11, 2011 1:03 PM EST reply actions

So close

A 1 point loss in the final minutes in Evanston and an OT loss in the BTT. Win either of those and Northwestern would likely have a much better resume than anyone is giving them credit for.

Not that a 17-4 Real Record is any less respectable than that of Alabama or USC anyway, but whatever.

I've got the brains. You've got the looks. Let's make lots of money.

by ckmneon on Mar 11, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

How do you exactly go about ranking those teams, though?

Some are obvious (Marquette good, Bama bad) but the others depend on what you rank as more important, wins or losses (like you said, PSU has more wins than MSU, but also more losses).

by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2011 5:15 PM EST reply actions

Oops

Should have mentioned it in the post. Didn’t.

3 criteria: win%, most wins, and net wins (wins minus losses). Whichever team has an advantage in 2 or 3 of the 3 criteria has a better resume / would be picked to win a tournament game.

It can come out tied, as in a comparison of USC (29-16) and Northwestern (17-4). USC has a big advantage in number of wins, Northwestern in win%, but the net wins is even at 13.

For example, after PSU’s win over Wisconsin, PSU is now 31-8; UCLA is 27-6. UCLA has an advantage in win%, but PSU has the advantage in both number of real wins and in net wins (23 vs 21), therefore, I would now say that 1) PSU has a more deserving resume than UCLA and 2) PSU should be picked to win a head to head against UCLA.

I've got the brains. You've got the looks. Let's make lots of money.

by ckmneon on Mar 11, 2011 11:19 PM EST up reply actions

This is all I needed to read

For example, after PSU’s win over Wisconsin

and I can’t stop smiling.

I REALLY hope Talor gets to dance. Broke out in the middle of an EL bar dancing with my gf after the win to celebrate Talor’s hopeful dance coming up.

by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2011 11:42 PM EST up reply actions

vs. Temple

Temple’s RR is 29-3, PSU’s is now 34-5. Temple has the advantage in win%, but PSU has both more wins and a higher net. PSU should be favored to beat Temple.

FWIW, SDSU’s is 45-0. Tall order for PSU.

I've got the brains. You've got the looks. Let's make lots of money.

by ckmneon on Mar 13, 2011 9:50 PM EDT reply actions