- When you play a team really needs to be taken into consideration. Say a star player gets hurt on a team and the team struggles after the injury occurs. A team that gets a win against that team before the injury should get more credit than one that does after. But in all metrics that I'm aware of, that is not a factor.
I like your point, but just to play devil's advocate...how is it determined who a "star" is? Is Ty Berry a "star?" Does NU get as much credit for gutting out a win over Penn State as Illinois did when they won games without Shannon? Is Barnhizer a star? He hasn't missed much time at all, but he played through an injury and the computers aren't going to pick that up because it didn't affect his minutes played, even as it affected his effectiveness.
Illinois destroyed NU without Shannon, so maybe they aren't so bad when he doesn't play. But then someone else beat them during Shannon's absence (I think...I'm not looking at their schedule right now). Do they get less credit for beating a Shannon-less Illinois because Illinois proved it could destroy a good NU without him?
I guess my point is: this is what the committee is for. They'll presumably seed Illinois appropriately next month and provide their own weights on various games and other low sample sizes. Maybe they'll know enough to say that Chicago State beat NU when a couple of guy guys were hurt (probably not), or that they'll give NU less credit for beating Illinois because it was in overtime, I have no idea.
All these metrics are fun to look at and use, but ultimately humans have to do the seeding. They'll make mistakes and bring their own biases in, but they're better than most in determining how much weight to give to players being in or out or hurt or whatever.
