Unbeaten watch (01/06)

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Milt Epstein

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 11:43:39 AM1/6/03
to
Results from Saturday 01/04

Wake Forest 68
Richmond 62

Results from Sunday 01/05

Duke 89
Clemson 71

Just one change over the weekend, as Duke beat Clemson in a battle of
unbeatens.

Monday 01/06, 3 unbeaten teams:

Team Record Rk SOS T30 Toughest game Games this week
Connecticut 9-0 10 313 0 62 St. Bonaventure (95-78) 01/07 @Oklahoma, 01/11 Miami
Duke 9-0 4 248 0 44 Dayton (85-74) 01/08 Georgetown, 01/12 Wake Forest
Wake Forest 9-0 5 252 1 20 @Wisconsin (90-80) 01/07 Elon, 01/12 @Duke

1. All numbers (e.g. ranking, SOS) from Sagarin.
2. "T30" is games against Top 30 teams.
3. "Toughest game" is purely by ranking; in particular, it doesn't
take into account home/away, which it probably should. But hey,
I'm already running out of room with this :-).
4. There may be mistakes here, feel free to post any corrections.


More changes possible this week, with Connecticut having a tough road
game against #28 Oklahoma, and definitely by this coming weekend, with
two of the unbeatens playing each other, Wake Forest at Duke (each
also having a game earlier in the week).

--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu

Edward M. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 12:01:24 PM1/6/03
to
Milt Epstein wrote:

> Monday 01/06, 3 unbeaten teams:
>
> Team Record Rk SOS T30 Toughest game Games this week
> Connecticut 9-0 10 313 0 62 St. Bonaventure (95-78) 01/07 @Oklahoma, 01/11 Miami
> Duke 9-0 4 248 0 44 Dayton (85-74) 01/08 Georgetown, 01/12 Wake Forest
> Wake Forest 9-0 5 252 1 20 @Wisconsin (90-80) 01/07 Elon, 01/12 @Duke

You know it's just anti-Duke trolls when you don't see
them ragging on UCONN's or Wake's schedule. And of
course this illustrates the problem with polling logic
early in the season. But hey, 248 is moving on up!
Duke should crack 200 after this week...

I have a feeling the Wake game is gonna be close. Since
it is at Duke, I have them pulling away late. More so
if they stumble to Georgetown...

--Tedward

Milt Epstein

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 1:50:35 PM1/6/03
to
"Edward M. Kennedy" <T...@ccis1025.duhs.duke.edu> writes:

>Milt Epstein wrote:
>
>> Monday 01/06, 3 unbeaten teams:
>>
>> Team Record Rk SOS T30 Toughest game Games this week
>> Connecticut 9-0 10 313 0 62 St. Bonaventure (95-78) 01/07 @Oklahoma, 01/11 Miami
>> Duke 9-0 4 248 0 44 Dayton (85-74) 01/08 Georgetown, 01/12 Wake Forest
>> Wake Forest 9-0 5 252 1 20 @Wisconsin (90-80) 01/07 Elon, 01/12 @Duke
>
>You know it's just anti-Duke trolls when you don't see them ragging
>on UCONN's or Wake's schedule. And of course this illustrates the

Not sure I'd agree. First of all, UConn and Wake aren't being
considered for being ranked #1 (although UConn will be up there this
week with the losses at the top last week; but Wake is barely in the
Top 25), and generally don't get the pub Duke does. Second, it was
only after yesterday's game that Duke's SOS took a big (sort of :-)
jump up -- it was down around 300 until then -- Wake's has been around
250 for a while. Plus Duke has still not faced any real tough
opponents (Dayton was in the 50's but took a big jump up over the
weekend with the win over Marquette). You could argue that Duke
hasn't faced any tough teams yet, maybe one or two borderline
tournament squads. (That second point doesn't help UConn, whose
schedule is worse than Duke's both in overall SOS and toughest team
faced. So your point is more true about UConn than Wake.)

>problem with polling logic early in the season. But hey, 248 is
>moving on up! Duke should crack 200 after this week...

And they've moved ahead of Illinois (276) :-). Although their SOS is
going to be ramping up soon as well.


>I have a feeling the Wake game is gonna be close. Since it is at
>Duke, I have them pulling away late. More so if they stumble to
>Georgetown...

Wonder what Charlie feels about it :-).

--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu

Edward M. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 4:37:39 PM1/6/03
to
Milt Epstein wrote:
>
> "Edward M. Kennedy" <T...@ccis1025.duhs.duke.edu> writes:
>
> >Milt Epstein wrote:
> >
> >> Monday 01/06, 3 unbeaten teams:
> >>
> >> Team Record Rk SOS T30 Toughest game Games this week
> >> Connecticut 9-0 10 313 0 62 St. Bonaventure (95-78) 01/07 @Oklahoma, 01/11 Miami
> >> Duke 9-0 4 248 0 44 Dayton (85-74) 01/08 Georgetown, 01/12 Wake Forest
> >> Wake Forest 9-0 5 252 1 20 @Wisconsin (90-80) 01/07 Elon, 01/12 @Duke
> >
> >You know it's just anti-Duke trolls when you don't see them ragging
> >on UCONN's or Wake's schedule. And of course this illustrates the
>
> Not sure I'd agree. First of all, UConn and Wake aren't being
> considered for being ranked #1 (although UConn will be up there this
> week with the losses at the top last week; but Wake is barely in the
> Top 25),

UCONN was only 2 spots behind Duke in one poll, but...

I don't know anyone who isn't claiming Duke is kinda
over-ranked, so this isn't their beef. This jist I
get is that K did it on purpose, but I'd like to see
that SOS recalculated with UCLA and Ohio State at, say,
a rating corresponding to being ranked "merely" #40,
instead of 122 and 91. UCONN might deserve an "easy
schedule by intent" claim, though they do play OK,
because otherwise they only have St. Bonnie, George
Washington and UNC as OOC opponents.

Ironically, Wofford and Bethune Cookman have the top
2 SOSs in Sagarin. I guess cupcake fodder earns good
money.

> (Dayton was in the 50's but took a big jump up over the
> weekend with the win over Marquette)

And this reflects another problem using just Sagarin to
get a SOS indicator. Bethune Cookman's #1 SOS is a tad
higher than Dayton's rating, so the top programs can
have a great SOS *and* a relatively easy schedule. This
game is more properly played with the RPI...

Look at SOS to see if the school is cupcaking. But
you have to have some real opponents too, so you cannot
ignore individual games. And it works both ways --
Georgetowns SOS is ranked a suspicious 323 right now, but
I'll give them credit for UVA, the upcoming Duke game,
and you have to at least dress up for South Carolina...
The Hoyas still like them cupcakes though.

--Tedward

Charlie Board

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 8:20:33 PM1/6/03
to
Milt Epstein wrote:
>
> "Edward M. Kennedy" <T...@ccis1025.duhs.duke.edu> writes:
>
> >Milt Epstein wrote:
> >
> >> Monday 01/06, 3 unbeaten teams:
> >>
> >> Team Record Rk SOS T30 Toughest game Games this week
> >> Connecticut 9-0 10 313 0 62 St. Bonaventure (95-78) 01/07 @Oklahoma, 01/11 Miami
> >> Duke 9-0 4 248 0 44 Dayton (85-74) 01/08 Georgetown, 01/12 Wake Forest
> >> Wake Forest 9-0 5 252 1 20 @Wisconsin (90-80) 01/07 Elon, 01/12 @Duke
> >
> >You know it's just anti-Duke trolls when you don't see them ragging
> >on UCONN's or Wake's schedule. And of course this illustrates the
>
> Not sure I'd agree. First of all, UConn and Wake aren't being
> considered for being ranked #1 (although UConn will be up there this
> week with the losses at the top last week; but Wake is barely in the
> Top 25), and generally don't get the pub Duke does. Second, it was
> only after yesterday's game that Duke's SOS took a big (sort of :-)
> jump up -- it was down around 300 until then -- Wake's has been around
> 250 for a while. Plus Duke has still not faced any real tough
> opponents (Dayton was in the 50's but took a big jump up over the
> weekend with the win over Marquette). You could argue that Duke
> hasn't faced any tough teams yet, maybe one or two borderline
> tournament squads. (That second point doesn't help UConn, whose
> schedule is worse than Duke's both in overall SOS and toughest team
> faced. So your point is more true about UConn than Wake.)

And Wake *thought* they had a reasonably tough schedule....who knew Temple
would blow chunks or that St. John's would totally self-destruct after
losing to Wake. Even Richmond was supposed to be better. And hey..we *do*
have a win against a top 20 team. On the road.

We're not a top 5 team (regardless of what Sagarin says), but we're a solid
#12-15 team and have to be the odds on favorite to finish third in the
ACC. We're a lot better than Virginia, NC State or a May-less UNC. Assuming Howard
stays healthy, which is a big assumption.


>
> >problem with polling logic early in the season. But hey, 248 is
> >moving on up! Duke should crack 200 after this week...
>
> And they've moved ahead of Illinois (276) :-). Although their SOS is
> going to be ramping up soon as well.
>
> >I have a feeling the Wake game is gonna be close. Since it is at
> >Duke, I have them pulling away late. More so if they stumble to
> >Georgetown...
>
> Wonder what Charlie feels about it :-).

I think if we started with (Duke and @Mary) rather than (@Duke and Mary)
we'd make it to 12-0 and beyond. But we'll lose at Duke...I agree with
Tedward - reasonably close with Duke pulling away late. And I agree with
his Georgetown afterthought too....

Milt Epstein

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 11:47:04 PM1/6/03
to
Charlie Board <chab...@nc.rr.com> writes:

>Milt Epstein wrote:
>>
>> "Edward M. Kennedy" <T...@ccis1025.duhs.duke.edu> writes:

[ ... ]


>> >You know it's just anti-Duke trolls when you don't see them ragging
>> >on UCONN's or Wake's schedule. And of course this illustrates the
>>
>> Not sure I'd agree. First of all, UConn and Wake aren't being
>> considered for being ranked #1 (although UConn will be up there this
>> week with the losses at the top last week; but Wake is barely in the
>> Top 25), and generally don't get the pub Duke does. Second, it was
>> only after yesterday's game that Duke's SOS took a big (sort of :-)
>> jump up -- it was down around 300 until then -- Wake's has been around
>> 250 for a while. Plus Duke has still not faced any real tough
>> opponents (Dayton was in the 50's but took a big jump up over the
>> weekend with the win over Marquette). You could argue that Duke
>> hasn't faced any tough teams yet, maybe one or two borderline
>> tournament squads. (That second point doesn't help UConn, whose
>> schedule is worse than Duke's both in overall SOS and toughest team
>> faced. So your point is more true about UConn than Wake.)
>
>And Wake *thought* they had a reasonably tough schedule....who knew
>Temple would blow chunks or that St. John's would totally
>self-destruct after losing to Wake. Even Richmond was supposed to be

Well, you can (and some have) make a similar argument for Duke -- they
have UCLA, Ohio St, and Michigan on their schedule after all (although
I don't buy Michigan on that list, they've been bad a few years now
and weren't expected to be good this year).

>better. And hey..we *do* have a win against a top 20 team. On the
>road.

Except for that point :-).

But in any case, no need to get defensive :-), the point here is not
to try to argue these teams intentionally set up weenie schedules, but
rather just to observe that in fact they have played weak schedules.


>We're not a top 5 team (regardless of what Sagarin says), but we're a
>solid #12-15

[ ... ]

You know, my thinking about the Illini is kind of similar. I look at
them, and I don't think Top 10, certainly not Top 5 (like they were
the last two years). But then I think *who* should be in those
categories. And I can't see that many teams that legitimately are.
Arizona, Mississippi St. Maybe Indiana, maybe Duke, maybe Alabama,
maybe Pittsburgh. But who else? Maybe, in a wide open year like
this, teams like Illinois and Wake Forest are good enough to be Top 10
teams. (FWIW, I haven't seen much of Wake this year.)

--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu

Arthur

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 10:02:56 AM1/7/03
to

"Milt Epstein" <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:%miS9.11553$Vf3.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...

> Results from Saturday 01/04
>
> Wake Forest 68
> Richmond 62
>
> Results from Sunday 01/05
>
> Duke 89
> Clemson 71
>
> Just one change over the weekend, as Duke beat Clemson in a battle of
> unbeatens.
>
Gee, thanks, don't think we would've been able to find that without
your help.

--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu


Edward M. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 10:55:31 AM1/7/03
to
Milt Epstein wrote:

> You know, my thinking about the Illini is kind of similar. I look at
> them, and I don't think Top 10, certainly not Top 5 (like they were
> the last two years). But then I think *who* should be in those
> categories. And I can't see that many teams that legitimately are.
> Arizona, Mississippi St. Maybe Indiana, maybe Duke, maybe Alabama,
> maybe Pittsburgh. But who else? Maybe, in a wide open year like
> this, teams like Illinois and Wake Forest are good enough to be Top 10
> teams.

Beats me, but you're right about it being wide open.
The top teams generally have some bad losses, and
there's no shortage of "A > B > C > A". Texas only
has 2 close losses to top teams (as does Oklahoma,
but their offense seems to disappear too often for
the top 5). And who knows, Oregon could get its act
together,
maybe Kansas if Simian isn't out long.

Even Creighton is looking pretty darn good -- a two
point loss at Xavier is nothing to cry about.

--Tedward

Milt Epstein

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 12:35:41 PM1/7/03
to
"Arthur" <art...@hotmail.com> writes:

Hey, "Arthur", my pleasure, my man! You're quite welcome! Glad to
know my efforts are appreciated. And your contributions to the
newsgroup are, well, umm, nonexistent.


>--
>Milt Epstein
>meps...@uiuc.edu

Hey, nice sig! Keep up the good work!

--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu

Milt Epstein

unread,
Jan 14, 2003, 1:57:47 AM1/14/03
to
meps...@uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:

[ ... ]
>You know, my thinking about the Illini is kind of similar. I look at
>them, and I don't think Top 10, certainly not Top 5 (like they were
>the last two years). But then I think *who* should be in those
>categories. And I can't see that many teams that legitimately are.
>Arizona, Mississippi St. Maybe Indiana, maybe Duke, maybe Alabama,
>maybe Pittsburgh. But who else? Maybe, in a wide open year like
>this, teams like Illinois and Wake Forest are good enough to be Top
>10 teams. (FWIW, I haven't seen much of Wake this year.)

So there I go jocking Mississippi St., and they go and lose two in a
row. Sheesh!

(But perhaps supporting my larger point.)

--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu

Jeremy Chapman

unread,
Jan 14, 2003, 8:28:50 PM1/14/03
to
Yeah - thanks, Milt.
:)

Jeremy
MSU '92
WFU '94

"Milt Epstein" <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message

news:LxOU9.12481$Vf3.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages