Updated Resume (2/24)
- Thread starter BFieldHusky
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2020
- Messages
- 3,323
- Reaction Score
- 10,137
I think it's only "gigantic" for us if we lose one of the other 2. If we beat Marquette and G'town again, we're probably in.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,964
- Reaction Score
- 39,523
"Yes, it's the same for all roster changes. What you are describing is more common with a player addition than subtraction, but it does not matter how it happens. The rule of thumb is that teams get evaluated a little more on what they did with the roster it is taking into the tournament than otherwise. The key word there is "little." If a team's resume isn't good enough to get it selected, it won't get selected. The adjustment, if any, typically comes in seeding. Again, don't expect much."Jerry Palm article. He touches on the injured player / roster addition scenario
Talk to the Palm: Bracketology mailbag answers whether NCAA Tournament field should be expanded
Bracketology Expert Jerry Palm answers your questions about the NCAA Tournament field potentially growingwww.cbssports.com
Palms bracketology has us as a 9-seed BEFORE the Gtown game
2024 NCAA Tournament Bracket Predictions - Bracketology - College Basketball
CBS Sports is helping you get ready for March Madness with the latest news, picks, and predictions for the 2024 NCAA Basketball Tournament Bracket.www.cbssports.com
So, basically, the Committee might weight our games with Bouknight a little more than our games without Bouknight, but isn't going to give us a significant boost over our overall resume.
If we don't win 3 more games, they're not going to give us the benefit of the doubt.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
Said another way, the team looking to finally win lost 100% of the time the first time they played and lost 100% the time the second time they played. Winning over a quarter of the games the third time they play would seem to prove the point that it is far more difficult the third time around.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
LOL. How does me being a scalitohole make you a better person exactly?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction Score
- 6,105
More great math from you!
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
If you think I'm wrong, educate me.
Dutch Boyd
A fine place to live
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2014
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction Score
- 2,619
I know all is right in the world when Nelson is in a pissing match with someone. Lol
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction Score
- 13,119
Are you being serious? If you are, please rephrase your position more clearly. If you're saying what I think you're saying, it's easy to explain why it's nonsense. But maybe you aren't saying that.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
I am being serious and I asked politely. If you think I am wrong, please explain.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction Score
- 13,119
Let's call the team trying to avoid the 3-game sweep Team A, and the team trying for its 3rd win Team B.
If you are saying:
Team A had a 0% chance to win games 1 and 2, but they have a 27.6% chance to win game 3.
Therefore it will be harder for Team B to win game 3 than it was to win games 1 and 2.
Then I can't even believe you are making that argument. Obviously Team A had a better than 0% chance to win games 1 and 2.Either you're just being cheeky, or one of us is a dummy.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
I'm not saying team A had a zero per cent change of winning games 1 and 2. I'm saying that team A won 0% of games one and two, and managed to win over a quarter of games three. If it wasn't harder to beat a team a third time, even allowing for some randomness of distributions, you wouldn't expect Team A to win 27% of the time against a team they hadn't yet beaten.
More likely we're disagreeing over syntax, but if that makes me a dummy so be it.
.-.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction Score
- 5,036
If I get divorced I’m hiring you.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction Score
- 5,036
So what happens if UConn is in the tourney, makes it past the first weekend, but someone on the staff tests positive for Covid before the second weekend of games?
Do they follow Connecticut covid rules, in which case they can’t play?
Or do they follow Indiana covid rules, whatever they are?
Or does the NCAA have their own covid rules?
Do they follow Connecticut covid rules, in which case they can’t play?
Or do they follow Indiana covid rules, whatever they are?
Or does the NCAA have their own covid rules?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 2,273
- Reaction Score
- 6,025
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction Score
- 13,119
The fact that Team A lost the first two matchups says nothing about their likelihood of winning game 3. Basketball games are not dice rolls, but the statistical truism "past results do not affect future outcomes" is still applicable.
The data set I referenced only looked at scenarios where Teams A had lost twice to Teams B. It is unknown (to us anyway) which team was favored in any of those already-completed games, but we can safely say Team A had a better-than-0 chance in every game. We can certainly not say that team A had a lower-than-27% chance of winning games 1 and 2, but your assertion requires that we can.
At the risk of repeating myself, I cannot believe you actually hold this position. You're doing that thing they do in law school where you are asked to argue for the side that you disagree with, aren't you?
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
I do understand your point, and we're arguing about syntax. You are fully correct that I am not arguing that Team A, coming in, had a zero per cent chance to win either game one or game two.
I am, however, saying not as a matter of hard statistics but common sense, that if you line up 200 teams on 100 courts, and you tell someone that the team in the left get swept in the first two games, how many of the 100 games that we're about to play do you expect the team on the left to win, without knowing more about how close the games were or computer rankings or anything else, most people using common sense would answer higher than 72.
But I acknowledge that is neither provable nor statistical science.
olehead
Atomic Dogs!
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,447
- Reaction Score
- 3,297
I Agree, this would be a fun game. Watched Arkansas quite a bit. Really solid team with explosive players. Beat Bama last night. Moses Moody against Bouk, that is must see TV, though Jackson and Martin would probably matchup defensively.
.-.
olehead
Atomic Dogs!
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,447
- Reaction Score
- 3,297
Not all. In my estimation it's a drag on the legal community, but I understand your sentiments.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 20,224
- Reaction Score
- 115,930
Not sure this adds anything to the conversation but figured I'd post it. Aren't the St. John's and PC losses worse than the Seton Hall loss?
Best wins: vs. USC, at Xavier
Worst losses: vs. Seton Hall
Gimme the funk: There's not a lot of bad on the low end, but UConn's record is a mixed bag. The reason the team is listed is because it's entirely different with vs. without James Bouknight, the potential future first-round NBA pick who alters the equation for Dan Hurley's team. UConn is 7-2 with him, 4-4 without him. He's back. He's Stevie Wonder-valuable. UConn's trending in the right way. But it has work to do and will need sweeps of Marquette, Seton Hall and Georgetown to work its way into the field. Those are its final three regular-season opponents. That USC win is invaluable.
www.cbssports.com
UConn (11-6, NET: 41)
How funky? Stevie Wonder-funky.Best wins: vs. USC, at Xavier
Worst losses: vs. Seton Hall
Gimme the funk: There's not a lot of bad on the low end, but UConn's record is a mixed bag. The reason the team is listed is because it's entirely different with vs. without James Bouknight, the potential future first-round NBA pick who alters the equation for Dan Hurley's team. UConn is 7-2 with him, 4-4 without him. He's back. He's Stevie Wonder-valuable. UConn's trending in the right way. But it has work to do and will need sweeps of Marquette, Seton Hall and Georgetown to work its way into the field. Those are its final three regular-season opponents. That USC win is invaluable.
Court Report: Use the NIT as insurance for NCAA Tournament, plus weird resumes and coaches have new concerns
Matt Norlander's weekly college hoops insider notebook looks at the role of the NIT this year and much more
www.cbssports.com
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,874
- Reaction Score
- 61,156
Not sure this adds anything to the conversation but figured I'd post it. Aren't the St. John's and PC losses worse than the Seton Hall loss?
UConn (11-6, NET: 41)
How funky? Stevie Wonder-funky.
Best wins: vs. USC, at Xavier
Worst losses: vs. Seton Hall
Gimme the funk: There's not a lot of bad on the low end, but UConn's record is a mixed bag. The reason the team is listed is because it's entirely different with vs. without James Bouknight, the potential future first-round NBA pick who alters the equation for Dan Hurley's team. UConn is 7-2 with him, 4-4 without him. He's back. He's Stevie Wonder-valuable. UConn's trending in the right way. But it has work to do and will need sweeps of Marquette, Seton Hall and Georgetown to work its way into the field. Those are its final three regular-season opponents. That USC win is invaluable.
Court Report: Use the NIT as insurance for NCAA Tournament, plus weird resumes and coaches have new concerns
Matt Norlander's weekly college hoops insider notebook looks at the role of the NIT this year and much more
Yes, that reads as poorly as the FOX resume graphic during the Xavier game that listed Marquette and Butler as their best wins of the season. Let's just hope that the Selection Committee actually does their homework since I don't agree with a lot of the write-up here.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction Score
- 6,105
Strange article because I usually find norlander to be knowledgeable And generally a good read.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,964
- Reaction Score
- 39,523
OK, so would you expect Team A to win Game 3 0% of the time? 1% of the time? 10% of the time?
What's the expected winning percentage of Game 3 such that the actual 27% suggests that it is harder to win Game 3 than the others?
OkaForPrez
Really Popular Poster
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,234
- Reaction Score
- 27,357
Fellas, the common ground here is that the statistic as presented is inconclusive. If expressed as a change in % likelihood from the first two games we may be able to conclude. The reality is the sample set of teams who have beaten a team twice already may or may not average to a likelihood of winning more than 73% of the time in the first two games.
.-.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction Score
- 13,119
This is a good way of challenging his premise to show that it's nonsensical. I don't think he will concede though. I gave it a try and have since given up.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
Your question is unanswerable. That is why my statement, as I said, is not at all scientific. It can only be answered by one's feel of what would happen based on their prior observations. I still think that 27%, to me, feels like a high number if one has to estimate based on admittedly insufficient data. But if it feels to you like that would be perfectly expected, your conclusion is no less reasonable than mine.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction Score
- 13,119
It would help if you would express your conclusion unambiguously. When I asked to do that before, you declined. Is it your position that the data I quoted above supports the thesis that it is indeed more difficult to beat a team a third time than it was to have beaten them the first two times?
I am arguing that the data do not support that. I am not arguing that the data prove or even strongly the opposite (that it's easy to beat a twice beaten team a third time). I'm just saying that, in light of data like the ones I quoted, it is meaningless to use the cliché without context.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,962
- Reaction Score
- 20,923
Good God. If you are asking what the "data" of knowing the two time loser wins 27% of the third games proves, I agree that it doesn't actually prove or disprove anything. To prove or disprove the original statement -- that the old saying is wrong -- requires either speculation or additional data setting for what the odds were of the teams winning the first two games. Is that unambiguous enough.
My original post was that the two time loser winning 27^ of the time does not disprove the old statement that it's hard to beat a team for the third straight time. It does not. You can not prove anything from the limited data provided.
Yeah I agree I think people are underestimating our seeding. We beat gtown and Marquette and lose a close one to seton hall I think we re good. We beat seton hall , were in. Plus -I kno the ncaa hates us- but gotta figure we get a little extra boost from not having Bouk fir 8 games. Finishing top 4-5 in big East has got to get us in.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 13,457
- Reaction Score
- 35,958
On one level I agree. On another level it is sort of silly to talk about seeding when the team could put up another half like the first half against Georgetown and lose. They absolutely need to beat Georgetown and Marquette. Losing to Seton Hall may not be enough. 13-7 with 1 good win? They'd need to do some work in the BET.
If the season ended today I think they're in pretty easily. But all that's left are landmines.
.-.