BC: 15.8% Probable for the Dance

by **bobcarrington** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:37 pm

Not trying to be a downer, but I figure the previous "79% Probable" thread should probably be updated with the same website's current take on things.

http://statjunkie.org/

by **auggiebc** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm

seems low considering we have 4 very winnable games remaining. But even if they only win 3 of those, there is still the ACCT.

by **Hunta518** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:39 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

womp-wooommmpppppppp

by **2008Eagle** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:42 pm

That site has Harvard nosing us out for an at-large bid, which, as other posters and I said yesterday, is total horseshit. BC may have lost to them but BC has accomplished more. Their only Top 50 win was us. They only have 2 Top 100 wins (us and Colorado) while BC has 7. Harvard's strength of schedule is in the mid to high 100s while BC's is in the top 20. Harvard is still a longshot at best, so I don't put too much stock into what that site says.

by **BCMurt09** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:45 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

by **bobcarrington** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:24 pm

2008Eagle {l Wrote}:That site has Harvard nosing us out for an at-large bid, which, as other posters and I said yesterday, is total horseshit. BC may have lost to them but BC has accomplished more. Their only Top 50 win was us. They only have 2 Top 100 wins (us and Colorado) while BC has 7. Harvard's strength of schedule is in the mid to high 100s while BC's is in the top 20. Harvard is still a longshot at best, so I don't put too much stock into what that site says.

I'm not in any way vouching for the statjunkie site. I'd never heard of it before it was cited a few weeks ago here in the thread about us having a 79% chance.

But it is interesting to note that the 79% prediction has been up here for weeks with no one questioning the methodology behind it. And that within an hour or two of the 15% prediction, we have folks breaking down the data and comparing various bubble teams and opining that the site has some shortcomings. Just sayin

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:39 pm

bobcarrington {l Wrote}:
2008Eagle {l Wrote}:That site has Harvard nosing us out for an at-large bid, which, as other posters and I said yesterday, is total horseshit. BC may have lost to them but BC has accomplished more. Their only Top 50 win was us. They only have 2 Top 100 wins (us and Colorado) while BC has 7. Harvard's strength of schedule is in the mid to high 100s while BC's is in the top 20. Harvard is still a longshot at best, so I don't put too much stock into what that site says.

I'm not in any way vouching for the statjunkie site. I'd never heard of it before it was cited a few weeks ago here in the thread about us having a 79% chance.

But it is interesting to note that the 79% prediction has been up here for weeks with no one questioning the methodology behind it. And that within an hour or two of the 15% prediction, we have folks breaking down the data and comparing various bubble teams and opining that the site has some shortcomings. Just sayin

Aren't there 3 pages of the thread discussing just that? And then 2 pages commenting on the 15.8% that was posted yesterday in the same thread? Just sayin'.

by **2008Eagle** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:58 pm

bobcarrington {l Wrote}:
2008Eagle {l Wrote}:That site has Harvard nosing us out for an at-large bid, which, as other posters and I said yesterday, is total horseshit. BC may have lost to them but BC has accomplished more. Their only Top 50 win was us. They only have 2 Top 100 wins (us and Colorado) while BC has 7. Harvard's strength of schedule is in the mid to high 100s while BC's is in the top 20. Harvard is still a longshot at best, so I don't put too much stock into what that site says.

I'm not in any way vouching for the statjunkie site. I'd never heard of it before it was cited a few weeks ago here in the thread about us having a 79% chance.

But it is interesting to note that the 79% prediction has been up here for weeks with no one questioning the methodology behind it. And that within an hour or two of the 15% prediction, we have folks breaking down the data and comparing various bubble teams and opining that the site has some shortcomings. Just sayin

I didn't think BC had a 79% chance of making it, and I don't think they have a 15% chance of making it, either. I don't know how they compute those odds or what wrinkles they put in their formula, but a fair analysis of BC's tournament chances is to say they're probably about 50/50. Basically every bracketology site out there has BC as a 10, 11, or 12 seed, but we're close to the borderline. And again, Harvard definitely doesn't have a better shot than we do, and neither does Cleveland State for that matter (their best win was freaking Valpo).

by **GodofBeasts94** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:44 pm

bobcarrington {l Wrote}:
2008Eagle {l Wrote}:That site has Harvard nosing us out for an at-large bid, which, as other posters and I said yesterday, is total horseshit. BC may have lost to them but BC has accomplished more. Their only Top 50 win was us. They only have 2 Top 100 wins (us and Colorado) while BC has 7. Harvard's strength of schedule is in the mid to high 100s while BC's is in the top 20. Harvard is still a longshot at best, so I don't put too much stock into what that site says.

I'm not in any way vouching for the statjunkie site. I'd never heard of it before it was cited a few weeks ago here in the thread about us having a 79% chance.

But it is interesting to note that the 79% prediction has been up here for weeks with no one questioning the methodology behind it. And that within an hour or two of the 15% prediction, we have folks breaking down the data and comparing various bubble teams and opining that the site has some shortcomings. Just sayin

Re: the StatJunkie site, you can't argue with results (assuming the results claims are honest). Got all 34 at-large bids correct in 2010. Got ONE wrong in 2009. Just 3 wrong in 2008. The Iowa State grad student who created the system made refinements each year in the quest for perfection. Will be interesting to see how it fares this year.

by **GodofBeasts94** on Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:02 pm

GodofBeasts94 {l Wrote}:
bobcarrington {l Wrote}:
2008Eagle {l Wrote}:That site has Harvard nosing us out for an at-large bid, which, as other posters and I said yesterday, is total horseshit. BC may have lost to them but BC has accomplished more. Their only Top 50 win was us. They only have 2 Top 100 wins (us and Colorado) while BC has 7. Harvard's strength of schedule is in the mid to high 100s while BC's is in the top 20. Harvard is still a longshot at best, so I don't put too much stock into what that site says.

I'm not in any way vouching for the statjunkie site. I'd never heard of it before it was cited a few weeks ago here in the thread about us having a 79% chance.

But it is interesting to note that the 79% prediction has been up here for weeks with no one questioning the methodology behind it. And that within an hour or two of the 15% prediction, we have folks breaking down the data and comparing various bubble teams and opining that the site has some shortcomings. Just sayin

Re: the StatJunkie site, you can't argue with results (assuming the results claims are honest). Got all 34 at-large bids correct in 2010. Got ONE wrong in 2009. Just 3 wrong in 2008. The Iowa State grad student who created the system made refinements each year in the quest for perfection. Will be interesting to see how it fares this year.

Not to over-obsess about the Stat Junkie site.....but while the home page isn't updated beyond games played through the 13th, the conference pages are updated through the 15th. Whatever happened earlier in the week has caused the model to elevate us back up to 18.73%. Cleveland State dropped below us but is still predicted to get an at-large bid; Harvard dropped to 12.89 and is no longer getting a nod from the model. The interesting thing is to note what a significant signature win will do for a team's predicted chances. As of the 13th Kansas State was on the Bubble OUT at 10.80%. A big win over #1 Kansas on Monday and they're predicted into the Dance at a 91.8% likelihood.

If only we could beat UNC......
Laugh all you want. I think it's pretty cool.

by **Art Vandelay** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:19 am

auggiebc {l Wrote}:seems low considering we have 4 very winnable games remaining. But even if they only win 3 of those, there is still the ACCT.

We have 4 winnable games, but we also have 4 losable games. We will beat Wake and we are going to get smoked by UNC. Miami, UVA and VT are all a toss up. We should win Miami and we should lose at VT, but with as hot and cold as we've been (and all of them have been) I wouldn't bet on any of those either way. If we lose 3 of 5 and finish 8-8 in conference we are NIT bound. Win 3 and we are bubble and need to win at least 1 in the ACCT to get to 20 wins and then we still sweat it out selection Sunday.

by **pick6pedro** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:38 am

GodofBeasts94 {l Wrote}:
bobcarrington {l Wrote}:
2008Eagle {l Wrote}:That site has Harvard nosing us out for an at-large bid, which, as other posters and I said yesterday, is total horseshit. BC may have lost to them but BC has accomplished more. Their only Top 50 win was us. They only have 2 Top 100 wins (us and Colorado) while BC has 7. Harvard's strength of schedule is in the mid to high 100s while BC's is in the top 20. Harvard is still a longshot at best, so I don't put too much stock into what that site says.

I'm not in any way vouching for the statjunkie site. I'd never heard of it before it was cited a few weeks ago here in the thread about us having a 79% chance.

But it is interesting to note that the 79% prediction has been up here for weeks with no one questioning the methodology behind it. And that within an hour or two of the 15% prediction, we have folks breaking down the data and comparing various bubble teams and opining that the site has some shortcomings. Just sayin

Re: the StatJunkie site, you can't argue with results (assuming the results claims are honest). Got all 34 at-large bids correct in 2010. Got ONE wrong in 2009. Just 3 wrong in 2008. The Iowa State grad student who created the system made refinements each year in the quest for perfection. Will be interesting to see how it fares this year.

I'm sure the correct picks came after the last conference tournament buzzer had sounded...not in early-to-mid February. I'm sure the accuracy rate drops exponentially as you go back week by week from selection sunday.

by **DavidGordonsFoot** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:21 am

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
don't be such a

when was that beauty added?!?!

by **auggiebc** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:23 am

My thinking is this: If we can't beat Miami at home, Wake at home, and @ Virginia, then we don't deserve to be dancing anyway.
So for arguments sake, let's assume 3 wins right there.

The one wild card game would be @ VT. They don't impress me. They haven't beaten anyone all year and they've had a weak conference schedule (duke and unc only once each). they played nobody out of conference of any significance and their poor RPI confirms that. playing @VT is the key game to our chances of making the tournament, mostly because it would be considered a "solid win" by the talking heads given VT's conference standing. That win alone might even be enough to overcome a loss in one of the other 3 games.

And remember, given how poor the ACC is this year, we're gonna have a solid chance to win a 1st round game in the conference tournament.

I'd say 50/50 chance to dance is about accurate at the moment.

by **pick6pedro** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:32 am

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:I'm sure the correct picks came after the last conference tournament buzzer had sounded...not in early-to-mid February. I'm sure the accuracy rate drops exponentially as you go back week by week from selection sunday.

normally i respect your posts, pedro but this one is pretty ignorant. the stat junkie dude is reacting to actual activity and plugging it into his model. he's not using a remainder of the season prediction to determine that dook is going to choke one game away to virginia or villanova is going to lose to unranked teams and beat higher ranked teams. the only thing i would disagree with is the teams that he has marked at 100% would have to make it into the tournament but other than that the guy's working with what's available.

don't be such a

I'm aware. My point was only that BAMA was given to the site for its accurate prediction of the field - in other words the final prediction. There was no attestation to the accuracy of his pre-ejeculate projections. I will admit his model would probably be more accurate than a :chalupa

like me trying to get in the minds of such an august body as the selection committee.

by **pick6pedro** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:34 am

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
don't be such a

when was that beauty added?!?!

Several months ago

by **DavidGordonsFoot** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:44 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
don't be such a

when was that beauty added?!?!

Several months ago

nice...

by **eepstein0** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:36 am

Beat Miami, Wake & @ UVA and one in the ACCT and play in that Tuesday play-in game. Beat those 3 teams and 2 in the ACCT and we'll be dancing. Beat VT on the road (sweeps over VT and Maryland) and we're dancing. Losing any of those 3 games above is deadly unless we have plans on beating UNC on Saturday.

by **AdamBC** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:13 pm

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
don't be such a

when was that beauty added?!?!

Several months ago

nice...