TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
TobaccoRoadEagle {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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
don't be such a
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
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
don't be such a
when was that beauty added?!?!
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
don't be such a
when was that beauty added?!?!
Several months ago
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...
shockdoct {l Wrote}:Really no mpre room on the posting page for additional emoticons...they are being added to the pop up page
claver2010 {l Wrote}:Should leave:
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:claver2010 {l Wrote}:Should leave:
and his trusty companion say hello
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests