What are you excited about for next year?

[Kung Wu]

Kung Wu (or anyone else for that matter)...

Is it fair to say that WSU is just as likely to get a top 4 seed next year as it is that they get a 9-12 seed? I'm looking to start at a point of agreement. Can we basically assume that WSU has an equal chance of any seed 1-12?

You're switching subjects entirely on me. Let's focus on WSU's ability to run the table on the MVC since that's what you were being smug about toward another poster.

[jdmee]

Kung Wu (or anyone else for that matter)...

Is it fair to say that WSU is just as likely to get a top 4 seed next year as it is that they get a 9-12 seed? I'm looking to start at a point of agreement. Can we basically assume that WSU has an equal chance of any seed 1-12?

Is it fair to say that if Grambling would go 28-0 next year, they would likely get a top seed? Or is a 28-0 Grambling, because they are not a Duke, KU, UK, etc, and Gonzaga as a mid-major top seed supposedly laid an egg, maxed out at a 5 seed? I can't answer your question with out defining the criteria you are using. If WSU is undefeated on Selection Sunday, no it is not equally likely for WSU to get a 12 seed as a 1 seed. WSU at the start of the season would be less likely to be a 1 seed as a 9 seed, due to not being one of the blue bloods. WSU at 29-5 with a loss to a team with an RPI of 238 would be less likely than a KU would be at getting 1 seed.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm not switching subjects at all. WSU's chances of running the table have everything to do with how good they are next year. I was looking for a point of agreement as a starting point for an argument I wanted to make.

As for "arbitrarily picking an exponential out of thin air", I was trying to keep it short and simple by posting a range of % and letting you (or anyone else) decide which one they felt was most appropriate. The point wasn't to lock into 75%, 80%, etc. It was to point out that the correlating chance of going undefeated was very low despite 3 or even 4 to 1 odds of winning each game individually.

I'd love to let the argument focus on whether 70%, 75%, 80%, 85% is the best number to use but I keep getting silly comments about the simple statistics that follow once you pick an original %. If the statistics that follow can't even be agreed on, we are wasting our time.

[jdmee]

I'm not switching subjects at all. WSU's chances of running the table have everything to do with how good they are next year. I was looking for a point of agreement as a starting point for an argument I wanted to make.

As for "arbitrarily picking an exponential out of thin air", I was trying to keep it short and simple by posting a range of % and letting you (or anyone else) decide which one they felt was most appropriate. The point wasn't to lock into 75%, 80%, etc. It was to point out that the correlating chance of going undefeated was very low despite 3 or even 4 to 1 odds of winning each game individually.

I'd love to let the argument focus on whether 70%, 75%, 80%, 85% is the best number to use but I keep getting silly comments about the simple statistics that follow once you pick an original %. If the statistics that follow can't even be agreed on, we are wasting our time.

So the question you are asking is just, how good do you think WSU is going to be next year, and what is the average likelihood for WSU winning an MVC game? Why didn't you just say that.

We have seen the replacements for the losses of MA and DWill. FVV, Baker, Cotton, EW have shown an ability to replace the two losses.

The losses of White, EO and Hall are less of a known.

I would say WSU is closer to the 85-90% than the 70-75% chance.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I would say WSU is closer to the 85-90% than the 70-75% chance.

Thank you. Exactly the type of thing I can actually debate. Comments like "Marshall doesn't follow statistics" have been making me think I'm wasting my time talking to middle school comedians.

I do have to disagree with 85-90% though... I'll post later with numbers to back up my case.

[tropicalshox]

Going undefeated in the Valley? I'm not going to look it up, but maybe it happened once or twice. Would be great but highly unlikely. And for percent of winning each Valley game next year, probably would average around no more than 60% or so even if we are great. That would make the sat on winning every game in the Valley about impossible but it is just a sat. LOL I remember many Creighton fans thinking they would go undefeated last year. And not very many years ago Illinois State after a fast non-conference start against weak teams were thinking along those lines. I'm not for sure why this debate is going, just because one poster said they were looking forward to a perfect mark in Valley play?

[giskard]

Don't forget, every Valley game we play will be the other team's Superbowl.

[Cdizzle]

Don't forget, every Valley game we play will be the other team's Superbowl.

Luckily, that will be the same as it has been the past 3 years, so there shouldn't be much change.

[Aargh]

I don't know. They beat DePaul by 8 at DePaul. We only beat DePaul by 11 on a neutral court.

January 20, 2013
Loyola - 66
Chicago State - 63

[Dave Stalwart]

January 20, 2013
Loyola - 66
Chicago State - 63

Haha even being in the same ball park as Chicago state is basically a loss. If you don't win by 30, it should still have an 'L' next to it on your schedule.

Loyola 66, Chicago State 63....L

:)

[rrshock]

Haha even being in the same ball park as Chicago state is basically a loss. If you don't win by 30, it should still have an 'L' next to it on your schedule.

Loyola 66, Chicago State 63....L

:)

Kinda like being within 10 of a MEAC team. Unless you're Missery St. CC then it actually is a loss... :)

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

if you are willing to imagine that we can beat Loyola twice, based on Creighton leaving

Top 50 teams lose to RPI 200ish teams almost 10% of the time. Ignore that chance twice and of course things are going to look a little more rosy. Ha.

if you can believe that we would have won three more game due to injuries

Maybe I'll give you one, but 3 games is extremely favorable. Once again, you are projecting the best possible outcome, not the average one.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

My average chance of winning % (70, 75, 80) really was too simplistic. If a team has a 90% chance to win one game and a 10% chance to win another, the average is 50%, making it look like they have a 25% chance to win both. However, 0.9 x 0.1 = 9% chance of both happening. Average chance only works well when most of the individual chances are grouped close together. The more variety, the less accurate average chance is.

The reason I mentioned top 50 was because I thought it would be a good representation of WSU next year. The Shox could be top 10 and a 3 seed, or they could be disappointingly out of the polls and barely in the NCAAs as a 12 seed. The point is that the top 50 as a whole should be a good place to gather stats:

Top 50 teams last year won:
90% of their games against teams 101-200
76% of their games against teams 51-100
55% of their games against teams 26-50

Based on recent years, and after subbing Loyola for Creighton, WSU is most likely to face the following in MVC play next year:

4 games vs 200+
8 games vs 101-200
4 games vs 51-100
2 games vs 26-50

The Valley’s 200+ teams are usually close to the 200 number, and there is no stat I could find on record vs 200-250. I don’t think it is fair to use stats vs 200+, so instead I’ll substitute a 95% chance of WSU winning those “easy games” against the bottom 2 Valley teams. After all this, we get the following:

(4 x 0.95) + (8 x 0.9) + (4 x 0.76) + (2 x 0.55) = 3.6% chance of going undefeated

Now that I did the math, I’m actually a little surprised it came out that high. I’m open to criticism about my technique, but can we please not get crazy and start talking about this as a 13% or 21% chance the way Kung Wu was.

Sincerely,
Your favorite math nerd

[Cdizzle]

The performance of Top 50 teams last year (or any year) against any subset of teams has 0% bearing on the performance of any given team against any given set of teams next year. Which makes any prediction just as valid as another. You used math that made you feel good about your decision. Which is great. But it doesn't mean anything about future performance.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Wow Cdizzle. I'm flabergasted. Are you really saying all projections based on history are absolutely worthless?