Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="biobioprof, post: 3066979, member: 8869"] Complaining about a "just bunch of charts" makes me wonder if you’re familiar with 538.;) They don't have Duke as a team still on the rise. They have Duke as an example of a team where the rise came out of nowhere. The author calls out Duke as the exception to the group of sudden risers from the late 1990s/early 2000s who have remained near the top. And the others they include in that figure (UConn, Baylor, and Notre Dame), all have the same coach who oversaw the rise. I thought it was an OK read but not written for the kind of hardcore WBB fans who are on the Boneyard. It would have been nice if one could see the year by year seed points for every team; I was a little surprised that wasn't there given that it's 538. In terms of correlation and causation, I think there are plenty of "just so story" explanations that make intuitive sense in general but don't explain the fine details. I also think the explanations are not the same in different eras, especially the early history vs more recent. Despite the end of the story, La Tech, ODU, and Long Beach are very unlikely to rise from the ashes. In terms of the early champs who fell on hard times, I think Southern Cal is in a different group of explanations than La Tech (and I wonder how much is explained by Cheryl Miller). [/QUOTE]