SOS crisis averted, UConn munches through the morass of crusty creampuffs

[DobbsRover2]

So the theory has been that UConn's prowess would start to wither on the vine as it spent yet another year playing nobodies, similar to the situation for the last 25 years only now a lot more so. But though the chicken littles have been running amuck with the message of doom before they got snapped up by Buffalo Wild Wings for its 83 point special offer, some great news has filtered through. UConn actually wound up with the #2 SOS on the season in the one scheduling index that's worth a rodent's tokus.

Massey's SOS has the top 5 team schedules rated on its scale as 1. ND 51.73, 2. UConn 51.03, 3. Duke 49.86, 4. UTenn 49.85, 5. KY 49.81, with UCLA next at 49.71.

So how could Massey have UConn's SOS rated so high when other indexes like RPI and Sagarin have it listed way back? Simple, Massey uses a more refined relational system that judges teams based on its performance against teams roughly at its power level rather than the "who your cousin's girlfriend's masseuse played" and brute number system that is central to brain-dead RPI or the just brute numbers compilation that is a much more minor component of some of the Sagarin tools (which is why Sagarin can have Princeton at #7 despite a #149 SOS).

So a top team that plays two games in a row versus #300 and #2 will get a substantially better SOS kick in Massey than a top team that plays #100 and #101 back to back (it would be the opposite in RPI and Sagarin SOS), and UConn's trio of games against Notre Dame #2, UCLA #69, and UC Davis #136 would be rated much stronger than a USCar trio of #22 Syracuse, #65 USC, and San Diego State #80 mainly because of that top level comparison of the Irish and the Orange. Likewise, on a different level, a #150 team gets a better SOS adjustment in Massey for playing a #100 and then a #101 team than for playing a #300 and #2 team.

Also of course, the scandalously low level of the AAC was much exaggerated by the chicken littles, as a USF team that could play UConn closer than USCar in one of its games plus a quartet of decent strivers among the teams with winning conference records that included Temple, Tulsa, East Carolina, and Tulane helped to keep the AAC from plummeting down among the Missouri Valleys and Big South conferences of the land. And in fact as the #6 conference, it's top two tandem of UConn and USF put the top two of the B12 to B10 to shame and also has a much better value than the PAC's top two.

So yes, the SOS doomsday must certainly be looming on the horizon for next year when the other ten AAC teams drop dead of unknown causes and all the top teams decide to avoid UConn, and we will be hearing fully about that gloomy scenario on April 8, but for one more year the competitive fires rage on.

 

[hussybulldog]

I hope a third team from AAC will be granted to play in the NCAA tournament this year.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I hope a third team from AAC will be granted to play in the NCAA tournament this year.

At one time it looked like there was a decent chance with Tulane, but it has fallen to the #6 seed in the AACT. They are probably still the only possible candidate since the other team out on the fringe is ECU which would get UConn for its second game. If Tulane beats Tulsa and then upsets USF before losing to UConn in the ACCT final, it would have a 22-10 record and a Sagarin ranking likely in the low 40s. Then it just comes down to hoping that no high ranking mid majors get upset and that the P5 teams in the 40-50 Sags ranking don't look impressive.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Was thinking that last night: USF played us as well as South Carolina, though it was on their home court; and the UConn-USF combo at the top can't be the worst top two even amongst the P5 conferences.

 

[Fightin Choke]

So the theory has been that UConn's prowess would start to wither on the vine as it spent yet another year playing nobodies, similar to the situation for the last 25 years only now a lot more so. But though the chicken littles have been running amuck with the message of doom before they got snapped up by Buffalo Wild Wings for its 83 point special offer, some great news has filtered through. UConn actually wound up with the #2 SOS on the season in the one scheduling index that's worth a rodent's tokus.

Massey's SOS has the top 5 team schedules rated on its scale as 1. ND 51.73, 2. UConn 51.03, 3. Duke 49.86, 4. UTenn 49.85, 5. KY 49.81, with UCLA next at 49.71.

So how could Massey have UConn's SOS rated so high when other indexes like RPI and Sagarin have it listed way back? Simple, Massey uses a more refined relational system that judges teams based on its performance against teams roughly at its power level rather than the "who your cousin's girlfriend's masseuse played" and brute number system that is central to brain-dead RPI or the just brute numbers compilation that is a much more minor component of some of the Sagarin tools (which is why Sagarin can have Princeton at #7 despite a #149 SOS).

So a top team that plays two games in a row versus #300 and #2 will get a substantially better SOS kick in Massey than a top team that plays #100 and #101 back to back (it would be the opposite in RPI and Sagarin SOS), and UConn's trio of games against Notre Dame #2, UCLA #69, and UC Davis #136 would be rated much stronger than a USCar trio of #22 Syracuse, #65 USC, and San Diego State #80 mainly because of that top level comparison of the Irish and the Orange. Likewise, on a different level, a #150 team gets a better SOS adjustment in Massey for playing a #100 and then a #101 team than for playing a #300 and #2 team.

Also of course, the scandalously low level of the AAC was much exaggerated by the chicken littles, as a USF team that could play UConn closer than USCar in one of its games plus a quartet of decent strivers among the teams with winning conference records that included Temple, Tulsa, East Carolina, and Tulane helped to keep the AAC from plummeting down among the Missouri Valleys and Big South conferences of the land. And in fact as the #6 conference, it's top two tandem of UConn and USF put the top two of the B12 to B10 to shame and also has a much better value than the PAC's top two.

So yes, the SOS doomsday must certainly be looming on the horizon for next year when the other ten AAC teams drop dead of unknown causes and all the top teams decide to avoid UConn, and we will be hearing fully about that gloomy scenario on April 8, but for one more year the competitive fires rage on.

It is true that Massey has UConn's schedule ranked as the second toughest, but I do not know how he arrives at that ranking. Just a cursory review of the schedules of UConn and the team with the 4th highest SOS reveals that Tennessee has faced what almost anyone would call a tougher schedule (at least based on Massey's own ranking system). I typed the opponents rank for each team and the sorted them by rank so we could compare the schedule more easily. I apologize for the formatting, but I hope the trend is easy to see. The first column is the rank of each UConn opponent, the second is the rank of each Tennessee opponent, and the final column is the difference (UConn - Tenn). A positive number indicates that Tennessee's opponent was higher ranked, whereas a Negative number would indicate that UConn's opponent was higher ranked. For example, UConn's 3rd toughest opponent was USF (ranked 15th) whereas Tennessee's was Oregon State (ranked 8th) so 15-8 = 7.

2 __ 2 __ 0
4 __ 4 __ 0
15 __ 8 __ 7
15 __ 17 __ -2
18 __ 17 __ 1
20 __ 18 __ 2
25 __ 19 __ 6
34 __ 27 __ 7
48 __ 28 __ 20
48 __ 33 __ 15
53 __ 38 __ 15
53 __ 40 __ 13
67 __ 52 __ 15
69 __ 54 __ 15
72 __ 55 __ 17
84 __ 55 __ 29
85 __ 68 __ 17
85 __ 71 __ 14
97 __ 84 __ 13
97 __ 84 __ 13
146 __ 89 __ 57
150 __ 109 __ 41
150 __ 121 __ 29
276 __ 143 __ 133
276 __ 205 __ 71
279 __ 230 __ 49
297 __ 345 __ -48
297 __ 387 __ -90
396 __ 501 __ -105
419

The two toughest slots are equal, as both UConn and Tennessee played Notre Dame (ranked 2nd) and South Carolina (ranked 4th). Both Tennessee and UConn played in South Bend, but UConn faced South Carolina in Gampel whereas Tennessee faced them in Columbia.

The only significant place where UConn's opponent was tougher was in the 4th spot, and that difference of 2 is more than compensated by the difference in the 3rd slot. UConn's has some negative numbers at the bottom of the rankings, but part of that is due to UConn playing one more game than the Lady Vols, so UConn's weakest opponent (ranked 419th) never gets considered in this comparison.

I realize that the toughest opponents matter the most, but Tennessee's SOS differential is highest (or equal) throughout the ranking. Thus I am confused how UConn's SOS can be considered tougher than the Vols. I think a more reasonable SOS would be that of Sagarin (43rd) or RPI (33rd). While UConn has played many excellent teams, they have also faced a lot of significantly weaker opponents due to their conference schedule.

Regardless of their SOS, UConn has clearly played better than any other team this season, and are the overwhelming NCAA tourney favorites. But their schedule is not the 2nd toughest schedule in the country.

 

[DobbsRover2]

It is true that Massey has UConn's schedule ranked as the second toughest, but I do not know how he arrives at that ranking. Just a cursory review of the schedules of UConn and the team with the 4th highest SOS reveals that Tennessee has faced what almost anyone would call a tougher schedule (at least based on Massey's own ranking system). I typed the opponents rank for each team and the sorted them by rank so we could compare the schedule more easily. I apologize for the formatting, but I hope the trend is easy to see. The first column is the rank of each UConn opponent, the second is the rank of each Tennessee opponent, and the final column is the difference (UConn - Tenn). A positive number indicates that Tennessee's opponent was higher ranked, whereas a Negative number would indicate that UConn's opponent was higher ranked. For example, UConn's 3rd toughest opponent was USF (ranked 15th) whereas Tennessee's was Oregon State (ranked 8th) so 15-8 = 7.

2 __ 2 __ 0
4 __ 4 __ 0
15 __ 8 __ 7
15 __ 17 __ -2
18 __ 17 __ 1
20 __ 18 __ 2
25 __ 19 __ 6
34 __ 27 __ 7
48 __ 28 __ 20
48 __ 33 __ 15
53 __ 38 __ 15
53 __ 40 __ 13
67 __ 52 __ 15
69 __ 54 __ 15
72 __ 55 __ 17
84 __ 55 __ 29
85 __ 68 __ 17
85 __ 71 __ 14
97 __ 84 __ 13
97 __ 84 __ 13
146 __ 89 __ 57
150 __ 109 __ 41
150 __ 121 __ 29
276 __ 143 __ 133
276 __ 205 __ 71
279 __ 230 __ 49
297 __ 345 __ -48
297 __ 387 __ -90
396 __ 501 __ -105
419

The two toughest slots are equal, as both UConn and Tennessee played Notre Dame (ranked 2nd) and South Carolina (ranked 4th). Both Tennessee and UConn played in South Bend, but UConn faced South Carolina in Gampel whereas Tennessee faced them in Columbia.

The only significant place where UConn's opponent was tougher was in the 4th spot, and that difference of 2 is more than compensated by the difference in the 3rd slot. UConn's has some negative numbers at the bottom of the rankings, but part of that is due to UConn playing one more game than the Lady Vols, so UConn's weakest opponent (ranked 419th) never gets considered in this comparison.

I realize that the toughest opponents matter the most, but Tennessee's SOS differential is highest (or equal) throughout the ranking. Thus I am confused how UConn's SOS can be considered tougher than the Vols. I think a more reasonable SOS would be that of Sagarin (43rd) or RPI (33rd). While UConn has played many excellent teams, they have also faced a lot of significantly weaker opponents due to their conference schedule.

Regardless of their SOS, UConn has clearly played better than any other team this season, and are the overwhelming NCAA tourney favorites. But their schedule is not the 2nd toughest schedule in the country.

So instead of making up some kind of brain-dead RPI type SOS comparative of two teams just so that you can as usual come to a conclusion that UConn's schedule is up around 33rd or 42nd like most Irish fans would think, why not check out how Massey does compute SOS in his non-brain-dead way, which I know does not satisfy Irish fans who think that 8-5 is better than 9-0, and who apparently thinks like RPI does state that St. Josephs and Iowa State play a tougher schedule than UConn?

I understand that you would typically think that the brain-dead ratings that put UConn at #5 among teams would also have an SOS system that works. But it doesn't, at least if you're a Husky fan rather than an Irish or UTenn fan. Massey has a nuanced SOS system that he explains well if you understand statistics and probability functions rather than a brain-dead "let's add up some teams out of context and put together an SOS score" type system used by RPI or the example you just concocted. Maybe you should read about it, and I could ask "What part of . . . .

n*EW(X) = EW(actual schedule played)

. . . . do you not understand?" Clearly everything, since you bothered to put together your list to discount Massey's system while running to your own RPI preference. Massey's system involves offensive and defensive ratings, expectancy of beating teams at different power levels, differing home and away advantages based on a team's actual results instead of some standard default applied across the board, plus other factors like recent results versus long ago results. Nothing really new or shocking about the high SOS ranking for the Huskies since Massey has had UConn high all year since the OOC sked time and kept it there because the SOS formulation did not see much difference between the mediocre SEC whose top team UConn dismantled and an AAC that at least could keep UConn under a 25 point margin. A system like the RPI one you tout for UConn's SOS has the Ivy League rated way above the AAC, not to mention the Atlantic 10 that is right behind the P5. Of course that works well for you so that you can push a #33 SOS for UConn. But yeah, we used to hear the same cluelessness from SEC pundits about the BEast, even when it was putting 9 teams in the Tourney.

Is Massey maybe a little too complex for a lot of fans to grasp so that they run to a brain-dead RPI system that says St. Joseeph's top 5 of ND-Rutgers-GW-Dayton-SetonHall earns them a #16 ranked SOS ahead of #33 UConn with ND-USCar-Stanford-USF(x2) as the big 5, with Duke, Green Bay, and DePaul opponents not far behind? Let's see, UConn has 7 teams in the top 25 on its sked and St. Joes has 4, but clearly the Huskies are inferior. Makes huge sense -- to everyone except a Husky fan.

Fact is is that two of the conferences -- the B12 and SEC -- were loaded down with a lot of teams playing really really poor OOC schedules that a system like Massey's picks up on, so UTenn does not get the same conference competition kick it used to get and is now playing the last two months against mainly medicore SEC teams that can all beat just each other, though they didn't really beat anybody else when putting together those sparkling 14-0 but #300+ SOS slates. Sure it gets a bunch of them winning conference and overall records and assured places in the Tourney, but it doesn't help UTenn's true SOS in Massey, which is what their job is supposed to be.

I guess all it really does allow is fans from other teams who love RPI and its SOS to post their pet theories about why the RPI system makes so much more sense.

 

[Fightin Choke]

So instead of making up some kind of brain-dead RPI type SOS comparative of two teams just so that you can as usual come to a conclusion that UConn's schedule is up around 33rd or 42nd like most Irish fans would think, why not check out how Massey does compute SOS in his non-brain-dead way, which I know does not satisfy Irish fans who think that 8-5 is better than 9-0, and who apparently thinks like RPI does state that St. Josephs and Iowa State play a tougher schedule than UConn?

I understand that you would typically think that the brain-dead ratings that put UConn at #5 among teams would also have an SOS system that works. But it doesn't, at least if you're a Husky fan rather than an Irish or UTenn fan. Massey has a nuanced SOS system that he explains well if you understand statistics and probability functions rather than a brain-dead "let's add up some teams out of context and put together an SOS score" type system used by RPI or the example you just concocted. Maybe you should read about it, and I could ask "What part of . . . .

n*EW(X) = EW(actual schedule played)

. . . . do you not understand?" Clearly everything, since you bothered to put together your list to discount Massey's system while running to your own RPI preference. Massey's system involves offensive and defensive ratings, expectancy of beating teams at different power levels, differing home and away advantages based on a team's actual results instead of some standard default applied across the board, plus other factors like recent results versus long ago results. Nothing really new or shocking about the high SOS ranking for the Huskies since Massey has had UConn high all year since the OOC sked time and kept it there because the SOS formulation did not see much difference between the mediocre SEC whose top team UConn dismantled and an AAC that at least could keep UConn under a 25 point margin. A system like the RPI one you tout for UConn's SOS has the Ivy League rated way above the AAC, not to mention the Atlantic 10 that is right behind the P5. Of course that works well for you so that you can push a #33 SOS for UConn. But yeah, we used to hear the same cluelessness from SEC pundits about the BEast, even when it was putting 9 teams in the Tourney.

Is Massey maybe a little too complex for a lot of fans to grasp so that they run to a brain-dead RPI system that says St. Joseeph's top 5 of ND-Rutgers-GW-Dayton-SetonHall earns them a #16 ranked SOS ahead of #33 UConn with ND-USCar-Stanford-USF(x2) as the big 5, with Duke, Green Bay, and DePaul opponents not far behind? Let's see, UConn has 7 teams in the top 25 on its sked and St. Joes has 4, but clearly the Huskies are inferior. Makes huge sense -- to everyone except a Husky fan.

Fact is is that two of the conferences -- the B12 and SEC -- were loaded down with a lot of teams playing really really poor OOC schedules that a system like Massey's picks up on, so UTenn does not get the same conference competition kick it used to get and is now playing the last two months against mainly medicore SEC teams that can all beat just each other, though they didn't really beat anybody else when putting together those sparkling 14-0 but #300+ SOS slates. Sure it gets a bunch of them winning conference and overall records and assured places in the Tourney, but it doesn't help UTenn's true SOS in Massey, which is what their job is supposed to be.

I guess all it really does allow is fans from other teams who love RPI and its SOS to post their pet theories about why the RPI system makes so much more sense.

Dobbs, I have no idea why you are so demeaning in your replies. On top of that, you didn't read my post or follow my argument at all. I never mentioned RPI except at the end of my post when I simply mentioned UConn's SOS according to the RPI. All of those rankings were Massey's own rankings, not RPI's or Sagarin's. I clearly stated that in my post. Massey's argument for SOS does not require that one understand functions; at its basis is the simple idea that we should not average the difficulty of all the opponents but rather give more weight to opponent's that are the team's peers. Massey writes "As a consequence of this definition of schedule strength, a team's schedule is judged primarily by the "peers" that appear on its schedule. A good team has a hard schedule if it must play other good teams, while a bad team has a hard schedule if it does not play any other bad teams."

What my comparison examined was the schedule of 2 teams whose schedules are ranked 2nd (UConn) and 4th (Tennessee) by Massey himself. This comparison revealed that considering the 25 toughest opponents each team has faced (as ranked by Massey), UConn's schedule was less difficult than Tennessee's schedule for all but 3 cases: 2 ties with a single comparison favored UConn. I never averaged rankings of each team to make my argument. That would be precisely the procedure that Massey argues against. However, if Tennessee has tougher opponents for almost every comparison, how can UConn's schedule be considered more difficult?

 

[uconnell]

Blah, blah,blah. Why do you care so much Choke?

 

[Suebird10fan]

Choke seems to make a valid point. Unless he/she typed in the wrong info, or unless adjusting for home vs road changes things dramatically it looks like on Massey's own rankings UT had a tougher schedule.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I have to say I am beginning to think that Dobbs thinks it is disrespectful to UConn to rank their schedule other than one of the toughest. He makes the point that it is important to use the right system as a "UConn fan".

I have to say - as you folks are UConn fans - I don't think it matters what system you use, because, ultimately, everyone has UConn as the number 1 number 1 seed. Regardless of what RPI says about the schedule strength, regardless of the conference you are in, pretty much based on your performance. DUH.

The committee isn't brain dead (well, sometimes) and certainly rewards teams that schedule tougher OOC schedules, places weight on wins vs. top 50 or whatever teams, and doesn't blindly sit looking at RPI (although Dobbs tried to tell me a few days ago that I seem to think they do). But, as a factor in their consideration, until they replace it with something else, it matters to those schools whose seeding line isn't obvious and where every factor needs to be considered.

Oh, and I have to ask - how on earth is a team rated in the 400's??? There are not that many D1 teams or does Massey rate DII as well?

 

[Orangutan]

Seems like Massey comes to the same conclusion most of us have already reached - just from a mathematical perspective. That is, it doesn't matter what conference UConn is in because they'd crush any conference. As long as they are playing top teams out-of-conference, their schedule is difficult in the way that matters - they are playing a relatively large amount of the teams that can seriously challenge them (on paper, at least).

 

[DobbsRover2]

Dobbs, I have no idea why you are so demeaning in your replies. On top of that, you didn't read my post or follow my argument at all. I never mentioned RPI except at the end of my post when I simply mentioned UConn's SOS according to the RPI. All of those rankings were Massey's own rankings, not RPI's or Sagarin's. I clearly stated that in my post. Massey's argument for SOS does not require that one understand functions; at its basis is the simple idea that we should not average the difficulty of all the opponents but rather give more weight to opponent's that are the team's peers. Massey writes "As a consequence of this definition of schedule strength, a team's schedule is judged primarily by the "peers" that appear on its schedule. A good team has a hard schedule if it must play other good teams, while a bad team has a hard schedule if it does not play any other bad teams."

What my comparison examined was the schedule of 2 teams whose schedules are ranked 2nd (UConn) and 4th (Tennessee) by Massey himself. This comparison revealed that considering the 25 toughest opponents each team has faced (as ranked by Massey), UConn's schedule was less difficult than Tennessee's schedule for all but 3 cases: 2 ties with a single comparison favored UConn. I never averaged rankings of each team to make my argument. That would be precisely the procedure that Massey argues against. However, if Tennessee has tougher opponents for almost every comparison, how can UConn's schedule be considered more difficult?

Demeaning? You state flat out that the Husky's SOS is more like around the laughable #33 of the RPI, the system that rates UConn as the #5 team, you ignore that you state that, then you get huffy about it when being called on it? Yes we know that the Irish fans would love to just use an "add up the numbers like in RPI" for the Husky SOS instead of using an intelligent system like Massey's. For you, having a conclusion like that UConn's schedule does not quite meet up to UTenn's by your definition of Massey's SOS means that instead of saying "Well no, they're not as good as the #4 SOS of UTenn, maybe they're #5" but rather "so naturally they must be #33." As always Choke, I love your logic because it reminds me of so much of what I read on the ND sites.

As noted, there is a formula that Massey uses to determine the ratings of schedules of teams based proportionately largely on a team's peers, when they played them, where they played them, and the relative strength of all those teams, along with a lesser proportionate inclusion of teams that are much stronger and weaker. There is an expected win percentage involved for the schedule played. It has its complexities, and it is certainly not the "count the difference between teams and add'em up" method that you are proposing. But what I would suggest is that you contact Massey to explain to him that you have found a flaw in his system and that if he fixes it according to your directions than we can get UConn properly placed way behind teams like St. Joes and Iowa State. I'm sure that Notre Dame will remain with the #1 SOS regardless.

 

[Uhuru]

Blah, blah,blah. Why do you care so much Choke?

Take it easy on Choke. He cares because it makes him happy. He has to find some way to make ND look better than UConn.

And don't forget - ND has won 7 of its last 11 games with UConn.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I have to say I am beginning to think that Dobbs thinks it is disrespectful to UConn to rank their schedule other than one of the toughest. He makes the point that it is important to use the right system as a "UConn fan".

I have to say - as you folks are UConn fans - I don't think it matters what system you use, because, ultimately, everyone has UConn as the number 1 number 1 seed. Regardless of what RPI says about the schedule strength, regardless of the conference you are in, pretty much based on your performance. DUH.

The committee isn't brain dead (well, sometimes) and certainly rewards teams that schedule tougher OOC schedules, places weight on wins vs. top 50 or whatever teams, and doesn't blindly sit looking at RPI (although Dobbs tried to tell me a few days ago that I seem to think they do). But, as a factor in their consideration, until they replace it with something else, it matters to those schools whose seeding line isn't obvious and where every factor needs to be considered.

Oh, and I have to ask - how on earth is a team rated in the 400's??? There are not that many D1 teams or does Massey rate DII as well?

Yes, unless you set the filter to just D1 schools, it pulls in every women's basketball team at any level. Teams like Tufts could beat a lot of D1 teams. But in any case, Choke didn't bother to to stick with D1 teams, so yeah, you can get very far up in the numbers insted of 349 or so.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Take it easy on Choke. He cares because it makes him happy. He has to find some way to make ND look better than UConn.

And don't forget - ND has won 7 of its last 11 games with UConn.

I do understand that Irish fans need some sympathy along with the respect, but placing the Huskies with the 33rd rated schedule is a sure method for keeping both the sympathy and respect at a low level.

 

[Buzzyboy]

I do understand that Irish fans need some sympathy along with the respect, but placing the Huskies with the 33rd rated schedule is a sure method for keeping both the sympathy and respect at a low level.

I could see Choke making a pretty fair argument UNTIL the mention of the Huskies at 33rd. That's pretty crazy, no matter how you look at it.

 

[DobbsRover2]

And it's not exactly a secret that there's always somewhere between 340 and 350 basketball teams in D1 as the number is frequently used as a comparative when saying that a team say ranks 250th in FT shooting or defensive scoring (of 349), so if you cite a number of teams at 501 or 397, it signals that someone is either clueless or disingenuous. Also, there's a reality that the sum of the parts don't always equal the whole, and you can pull out specific pieces and numbers to support your opinion on anything while conveniently ignoring the numbers you don't like that are used to build the overall score. Massey has run his SOS scores evaluation for years, and most knowlegable fans not from places like UTenn generally recognize that is light years better than the RPI SOS that Choke touts as better for UConn.

But yeah, take a look at Iowa State's schedule versus UConn's and you will see the kind of comparison that ND fans like Choke want to play up against the Huskies. RPI says that Iowa State's sked with a top 5 slate of Baylor (9) x 2, Iowa (12), and OK (32) x 2 (all Massey ratings) is better than UConn's with a top 5 of ND (2), USCar (4), USF (15) x 2, and Stanford (18). Again, that works for Irish fans. The BY mods have probably wisely prevented the display of some of the outlandish and spiteful stuff about UConn on the ND sites, but it is really cringe-worthy.

 

[uconnell]

Numbers, smumbers, I only care who is #uno at the end of the NCAA tourney.

 

[boontonbomber]

Who had toughest schedule? Well I sort of like Duke's, followed by N.D. , but this is just from looking at the recent USA Coaches Poll, and not at all of these fancy statistical messes. Duke has played 11 games against top 25 teams, N.D. 8, and, oh, Uconn 4.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Yeah but in Sagarin and Massey the numbers for UConn jump to 7. That's because a team like USF that just played well against UConn gets ignored by the AP and Coaches rankings, while Massey and Sagarin have it at 15\16. Green Bay is also in both ratings system's top 25.

It's all in how you rate the teams. Heck, RPI considers both Cal and Texas to be top 25 teams, and they are not in that region for Massey, Sagarin or either of the rankings polls. If you look hard enough you can find the stats to back almost any opinion, but definitely every type of ratings index has Duke with a high SOS.