PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

ACC is undefeated


#1

Currently, the only conference to be undefeated, having every one of it’s teams winning every one of it’s OOC games, is the ACC.

They are a perfect 22-0.

Looks like they will be dominant in the Sagarin and RPI rankings this year.

Tonights matchups…

Stetson @ FSU
Princeton @ NC St
Geo Southern @ WF
Clem @ Citadel

Is ther any chance of the ACC getting a loss tonight? Which team has the biggest chance of losing?


#2

I don’t see an L tonight.

Typically I’d worry about a road game early, but Clemson is a somewhat veteran team.


#3

Only chance I see is Princeton over NC State and even that is a very low chance. 18% according to KenPom.


#4

Princeton and NC State tied with 2:30 to play.


#5

ACC wins all 4. They are now 26-0.

Tomorrow, Maryland plays at #15 Alabama, and Georgia Tech plays at St. Joe’s.

Aside from those, I only see one other possible loss (#20 Vandy @ NC St on Sat) through the weekend.


#6

ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.


#7

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?


#8
ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.


#9
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

nobody aka our Nov 26th oppopent.


#10
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

Right - 2 ACC teams.


#11

Saw much of the MD - Bama game…Maryland is poor.


#12
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

Right - 2 ACC teams.

There are lots of ways to analyze team performances over the course of a season. Despite public fascination with it, head-to-head is one of the more faulty because it places too much emphasis on too few games and does not embrace the body of a team’s work.

Looking at the overall body of work, the ACC and the Big Ten have a similar record (the ACC is 26-2, the Big Ten is 29-2). The Big Ten is the only conference to have not lost a game to a non-BCS opponent. The Big Ten is also the only conference to have not had a team upset. An incomplete list shows, GTech lost to unranked St Joe’s, Pitt lost to unranked Long Beach St, Iowa St lost to unranked Drake, Miss St lost to unranked Akron, UCLA lost to unranked Mid Tenn St. The Big Ten’s sole losses were to then #1 and #6 ranked teams.

If you look at the two games where the ACC and the Big Ten went head-to-head, you might conclude that the ACC is better (a more rational decision might be that Duke and UNC are better than Michigan State). However, if you look at all 57 games that the two conferences have played, you might conclude that the Big Ten is better. At the moment, the RPI, Ken Pomeroy, and Sagarin, rating systems that look at the entire body of work, all have the Big Ten rated higher than the ACC with both Pomeroy and Sagarin saying the Big Ten is the top conference in the country (they have the ACC 3rd and 4th respectively).


#13
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

Right - 2 ACC teams.

There are lots of ways to analyze team performances over the course of a season. Despite public fascination with it, head-to-head is one of the more faulty because it places too much emphasis on too few games and does not embrace the body of a team’s work.

Looking at the overall body of work, the ACC and the Big Ten have a similar record (the ACC is 26-2, the Big Ten is 29-2). The Big Ten is the only conference to have not lost a game to a non-BCS opponent. The Big Ten is also the only conference to have not had a team upset. An incomplete list shows, GTech lost to unranked St Joe’s, Pitt lost to unranked Long Beach St, Iowa St lost to unranked Drake, Miss St lost to unranked Akron, UCLA lost to unranked Mid Tenn St. The Big Ten’s sole losses were to then #1 and #6 ranked teams.

If you look at the two games where the ACC and the Big Ten went head-to-head, you might conclude that the ACC is better (a more rational decision might be that Duke and UNC are better than Michigan State). However, if you look at all 57 games that the two conferences have played, you might conclude that the Big Ten is better. At the moment, the RPI, Ken Pomeroy, and Sagarin, rating systems that look at the entire body of work, all have the Big Ten rated higher than the ACC with both Pomeroy and Sagarin saying the Big Ten is the top conference in the country (they have the ACC 3rd and 4th respectively).

Relax. The only point I was trying to make was that the Big Ten’s only losses were to ACC teams. I wasn’t trying to suggest anyone was better or worse than anyone else. I guess I should know better than that when dealing with you. You will always have some statistical or logical explanation for the results. I’m glad I could open that door for you. ;D


#14
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

Right - 2 ACC teams.

There are lots of ways to analyze team performances over the course of a season. Despite public fascination with it, head-to-head is one of the more faulty because it places too much emphasis on too few games and does not embrace the body of a team’s work.

Looking at the overall body of work, the ACC and the Big Ten have a similar record (the ACC is 26-2, the Big Ten is 29-2). The Big Ten is the only conference to have not lost a game to a non-BCS opponent. The Big Ten is also the only conference to have not had a team upset. An incomplete list shows, GTech lost to unranked St Joe’s, Pitt lost to unranked Long Beach St, Iowa St lost to unranked Drake, Miss St lost to unranked Akron, UCLA lost to unranked Mid Tenn St. The Big Ten’s sole losses were to then #1 and #6 ranked teams.

If you look at the two games where the ACC and the Big Ten went head-to-head, you might conclude that the ACC is better (a more rational decision might be that Duke and UNC are better than Michigan State). However, if you look at all 57 games that the two conferences have played, you might conclude that the Big Ten is better. At the moment, the RPI, Ken Pomeroy, and Sagarin, rating systems that look at the entire body of work, all have the Big Ten rated higher than the ACC with both Pomeroy and Sagarin saying the Big Ten is the top conference in the country (they have the ACC 3rd and 4th respectively).

Actually, Sagarin is not looking “at the entire body of work”, it does not say that the BIG TEN is the best at all:

“For the first few weeks of the season, the starting ratings have weight
in the process(BAYESIAN), but once the teams are all WELL CONNECTED, then
the starting ratings are no longer used and all teams are started equal
and the ratings are then done in an UNBIASED manner from that point on.
The teams are now NOT WELL CONNECTED and so the ratings are BAYESIAN” <<<

Until the teams are “Well Connected”, Sagarin is not saying that.

Wow, I just did a “Lar correction” on Lar. !!! 8)


#15
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

Right - 2 ACC teams.

There are lots of ways to analyze team performances over the course of a season. Despite public fascination with it, head-to-head is one of the more faulty because it places too much emphasis on too few games and does not embrace the body of a team’s work.

Looking at the overall body of work, the ACC and the Big Ten have a similar record (the ACC is 26-2, the Big Ten is 29-2). The Big Ten is the only conference to have not lost a game to a non-BCS opponent. The Big Ten is also the only conference to have not had a team upset. An incomplete list shows, GTech lost to unranked St Joe’s, Pitt lost to unranked Long Beach St, Iowa St lost to unranked Drake, Miss St lost to unranked Akron, UCLA lost to unranked Mid Tenn St. The Big Ten’s sole losses were to then #1 and #6 ranked teams.

If you look at the two games where the ACC and the Big Ten went head-to-head, you might conclude that the ACC is better (a more rational decision might be that Duke and UNC are better than Michigan State). However, if you look at all 57 games that the two conferences have played, you might conclude that the Big Ten is better. At the moment, the RPI, Ken Pomeroy, and Sagarin, rating systems that look at the entire body of work, all have the Big Ten rated higher than the ACC with both Pomeroy and Sagarin saying the Big Ten is the top conference in the country (they have the ACC 3rd and 4th respectively).

Actually, Sagarin is not looking “at the entire body of work”, it does not say that the BIG TEN is the best at all:

“For the first few weeks of the season, the starting ratings have weight
in the process(BAYESIAN), but once the teams are all WELL CONNECTED, then
the starting ratings are no longer used and all teams are started equal
and the ratings are then done in an UNBIASED manner from that point on.
The teams are now NOT WELL CONNECTED and so the ratings are BAYESIAN” <<<

Until the teams are “Well Connected”, Sagarin is not saying that.

Wow, I just did a “Lar correction” on Lar. !!! 8)

That was awesome!!!


#16
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

Right - 2 ACC teams.

There are lots of ways to analyze team performances over the course of a season. Despite public fascination with it, head-to-head is one of the more faulty because it places too much emphasis on too few games and does not embrace the body of a team’s work.

Looking at the overall body of work, the ACC and the Big Ten have a similar record (the ACC is 26-2, the Big Ten is 29-2). The Big Ten is the only conference to have not lost a game to a non-BCS opponent. The Big Ten is also the only conference to have not had a team upset. An incomplete list shows, GTech lost to unranked St Joe’s, Pitt lost to unranked Long Beach St, Iowa St lost to unranked Drake, Miss St lost to unranked Akron, UCLA lost to unranked Mid Tenn St. The Big Ten’s sole losses were to then #1 and #6 ranked teams.

If you look at the two games where the ACC and the Big Ten went head-to-head, you might conclude that the ACC is better (a more rational decision might be that Duke and UNC are better than Michigan State). However, if you look at all 57 games that the two conferences have played, you might conclude that the Big Ten is better. At the moment, the RPI, Ken Pomeroy, and Sagarin, rating systems that look at the entire body of work, all have the Big Ten rated higher than the ACC with both Pomeroy and Sagarin saying the Big Ten is the top conference in the country (they have the ACC 3rd and 4th respectively).

Actually, Sagarin is not looking “at the entire body of work”, it does not say that the BIG TEN is the best at all:

“For the first few weeks of the season, the starting ratings have weight
in the process(BAYESIAN), but once the teams are all WELL CONNECTED, then
the starting ratings are no longer used and all teams are started equal
and the ratings are then done in an UNBIASED manner from that point on.
The teams are now NOT WELL CONNECTED and so the ratings are BAYESIAN” <<<

Until the teams are “Well Connected”, Sagarin is not saying that.

Wow, I just did a “Lar correction” on Lar. !!! 8)

Wrong.

Sagarin is looking at the entire body of work PLUS more, specifically his preseason rankings. He’s not looking at LESS, which is what you do if you just look at the two MSU losses.

When he says that the ratings are Bayesian, he is saying that there are some assumptions built in in addition to the data analysis. In the case of Sagarin’s ratings, the assumptions are that there is some validity to his own preseason ratings. I would suggest that Sagarin himself believes in his preseason ratings, and also believes in his mathematical analysis, therefore he also undoubtedly believes in the ranking that puts the Big Ten as the #1 conference.

Yes, Sagarin’s current ratings are biased, but they are biased by his own preseason rankings, so clearly he’s going to think the B10 is number 1.


#17
[quote="JohnT, post:6, topic:2837"]ACC now tied with the Big10 at 2 losses.[/quote]

Yeah, but what two teams gave the B1G it’s losses?

The #1 and #6 teams in the country while the ACC lost to a nobody and #16.

Right - 2 ACC teams.

There are lots of ways to analyze team performances over the course of a season. Despite public fascination with it, head-to-head is one of the more faulty because it places too much emphasis on too few games and does not embrace the body of a team’s work.

Looking at the overall body of work, the ACC and the Big Ten have a similar record (the ACC is 26-2, the Big Ten is 29-2). The Big Ten is the only conference to have not lost a game to a non-BCS opponent. The Big Ten is also the only conference to have not had a team upset. An incomplete list shows, GTech lost to unranked St Joe’s, Pitt lost to unranked Long Beach St, Iowa St lost to unranked Drake, Miss St lost to unranked Akron, UCLA lost to unranked Mid Tenn St. The Big Ten’s sole losses were to then #1 and #6 ranked teams.

If you look at the two games where the ACC and the Big Ten went head-to-head, you might conclude that the ACC is better (a more rational decision might be that Duke and UNC are better than Michigan State). However, if you look at all 57 games that the two conferences have played, you might conclude that the Big Ten is better. At the moment, the RPI, Ken Pomeroy, and Sagarin, rating systems that look at the entire body of work, all have the Big Ten rated higher than the ACC with both Pomeroy and Sagarin saying the Big Ten is the top conference in the country (they have the ACC 3rd and 4th respectively).

Actually, Sagarin is not looking “at the entire body of work”, it does not say that the BIG TEN is the best at all:

“For the first few weeks of the season, the starting ratings have weight
in the process(BAYESIAN), but once the teams are all WELL CONNECTED, then
the starting ratings are no longer used and all teams are started equal
and the ratings are then done in an UNBIASED manner from that point on.
The teams are now NOT WELL CONNECTED and so the ratings are BAYESIAN” <<<

Until the teams are “Well Connected”, Sagarin is not saying that.

Wow, I just did a “Lar correction” on Lar. !!! 8)

Wrong.

Sagarin is looking at the entire body of work PLUS more, specifically his preseason rankings. He’s not looking at LESS, which is what you do if you just look at the two MSU losses.

When he says that the ratings are Bayesian, he is saying that there are some assumptions built in in addition to the data analysis. In the case of Sagarin’s ratings, the assumptions are that there is some validity to his own preseason ratings. I would suggest that Sagarin himself believes in his preseason ratings, and also believes in his mathematical analysis, therefore he also undoubtedly believes in the ranking that puts the Big Ten as the #1 conference.

Yes, Sagarin’s current ratings are biased, but they are biased by his own preseason rankings, so clearly he’s going to think the B10 is number 1.

Then I guess you should make the distinction between Sagarin’s OPINION vs. Sagarin’s COMPUTER RANKINGS. When you talk about “the entire body of work”, the common assuption you are giving is that it is the Computer Rankings, when in reality, it is not.

Sagarin’s ranking does not solely use game results. It’s voids your point.


#18
Sagarin is looking at the entire body of work PLUS more, specifically his preseason rankings. He's not looking at LESS, which is what you do if you just look at the two MSU losses.

When he says that the ratings are Bayesian, he is saying that there are some assumptions built in in addition to the data analysis. In the case of Sagarin’s ratings, the assumptions are that there is some validity to his own preseason ratings. I would suggest that Sagarin himself believes in his preseason ratings, and also believes in his mathematical analysis, therefore he also undoubtedly believes in the ranking that puts the Big Ten as the #1 conference.

Yes, Sagarin’s current ratings are biased, but they are biased by his own preseason rankings, so clearly he’s going to think the B10 is number 1.

Then I guess you should make the distinction between Sagarin’s OPINION vs. Sagarin’s COMPUTER RANKINGS. When you talk about “the entire body of work”, the common assuption you are giving is that it is the Computer Rankings, when in reality, it is not.

Sagarin’s ranking does not solely use game results. It’s voids your point.

It voids nothing.

Sagarin’s computer ranking uses “the entire body of work”, just like I said. I thought that was patently obvious. The only reason that I went into the discussion about his opinion was a preemptive strike so that you couldn’t somehow argue that point. I certainly didn’t expect you to turn around and argue that the computers don’t use “the entire body of work”.

What his computer doesn’t do is use “the entire body of work” EXCLUSIVELY, but it most definitely uses it.


#19
[quote="UncleLar, post:16, topic:2837"]Sagarin is looking at the entire body of work PLUS more, specifically his preseason rankings. He's not looking at LESS, which is what you do if you just look at the two MSU losses.

When he says that the ratings are Bayesian, he is saying that there are some assumptions built in in addition to the data analysis. In the case of Sagarin’s ratings, the assumptions are that there is some validity to his own preseason ratings. I would suggest that Sagarin himself believes in his preseason ratings, and also believes in his mathematical analysis, therefore he also undoubtedly believes in the ranking that puts the Big Ten as the #1 conference.

Yes, Sagarin’s current ratings are biased, but they are biased by his own preseason rankings, so clearly he’s going to think the B10 is number 1.[/quote]

Then I guess you should make the distinction between Sagarin’s OPINION vs. Sagarin’s COMPUTER RANKINGS. When you talk about “the entire body of work”, the common assuption you are giving is that it is the Computer Rankings, when in reality, it is not.

Sagarin’s ranking does not solely use game results. It’s voids your point.

It voids nothing.

Sagarin’s computer ranking uses “the entire body of work”, just like I said. I thought that was patently obvious. The only reason that I went into the discussion about his opinion was a preemptive strike so that you couldn’t somehow argue that point. I certainly didn’t expect you to turn around and argue that the computers don’t use “the entire body of work”.

What his computer doesn’t do is use “the entire body of work” EXCLUSIVELY, but it most definitely uses it.

Unbelievable. ::slight_smile:

I’m so handsome, my smile is so attractive, I got a house becasue of it.*

    * ...well, my smile and a mortgage got me the house.  I never said it was my smile exclusively !!!

Give it a break, Lar. >:(


#20
[quote="UncleLar, post:16, topic:2837"]Sagarin is looking at the entire body of work PLUS more, specifically his preseason rankings. He's not looking at LESS, which is what you do if you just look at the two MSU losses.

When he says that the ratings are Bayesian, he is saying that there are some assumptions built in in addition to the data analysis. In the case of Sagarin’s ratings, the assumptions are that there is some validity to his own preseason ratings. I would suggest that Sagarin himself believes in his preseason ratings, and also believes in his mathematical analysis, therefore he also undoubtedly believes in the ranking that puts the Big Ten as the #1 conference.

Yes, Sagarin’s current ratings are biased, but they are biased by his own preseason rankings, so clearly he’s going to think the B10 is number 1.[/quote]

Then I guess you should make the distinction between Sagarin’s OPINION vs. Sagarin’s COMPUTER RANKINGS. When you talk about “the entire body of work”, the common assuption you are giving is that it is the Computer Rankings, when in reality, it is not.

Sagarin’s ranking does not solely use game results. It’s voids your point.

It voids nothing.

Sagarin’s computer ranking uses “the entire body of work”, just like I said. I thought that was patently obvious. The only reason that I went into the discussion about his opinion was a preemptive strike so that you couldn’t somehow argue that point. I certainly didn’t expect you to turn around and argue that the computers don’t use “the entire body of work”.

What his computer doesn’t do is use “the entire body of work” EXCLUSIVELY, but it most definitely uses it.

Unbelievable. ::slight_smile:

I’m so handsome, my smile is so attractive, I got a house becasue of it.*

    * ...well, my smile and a mortgage got me the house.  I never said it was my smile exclusively !!!

Give it a break, Lar. >:(

What’s unbelievable? The point is very simple. If you are going to judge the ACC vs the B1G at this point in the season based on just 2 games (MSU vs UNC and MSU vs Duke), clearly your analysis will be flawed. Using ALL the games gives you more data and almost assuredly a better analysis. RPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy all use every game. The fact that Sagarin factors some of his preseason rankings into his system in addition sure as hell doesn’t void the fact that he’s using one helluva lot more data than the two game comparison does.

::slight_smile: