• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bracketology 2017

DeacDiggler said:
I guess my point is that both of those teams suck empirically, and it's unreasonable to mathematically give the same "weight" to scheduling Morehead State (200) over App (300), as you would to scheduling Kentucky (4) vs. Georgia State (104). They are all in the very flat end of the curve.
Click to expand...

you are making a great argument for doing away with the RPI, as the difference between the #125 team and #325 team is ginormous for RPI purposes, and any bubble team should beat the #125 team in the country. smart schedulers have been exploiting this for decades
 
wsc8521s said:
I mean, is it worth it to play in Dayton -- even if you lose -- if it enhances your chances to win in the Round of 64? I'd say yes to that. I guess the question may become if it hurts your chances to win in the Round of 32, though three teams have managed that feat (two of which were underdogs in that Rd of 32 game).
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something. Let's say you start out as a 50% (toss up) in Dayton but you'd be a 40% dog (long shot) against your Rd. of 64 opponent. Let's say for the sake of argument that a win in Dayton makes you 25% more likely to win your next game, from confidence or getting rid of jitters or whatever.

Avoiding Dayton, you'd go straight to the 40% shot at going to the round of 32.

Heading into Dayton, you'd have a 25% shot of getting to the round of 32 (50% shot of losing and getting eliminated, 50% shot of winning and now having a boosted 50% shot in the round of 64).

I don't think anyone would ever "prefer" to play in Dayton, even if a win there theoretically boosts your chance in the next game. In the odds above, the break-even point would be if a win in Dayton boosts your chances by 80% in the next round (then you'd be a 40% long shot to get to the rd of 32 whether heading into Dayton or heading straight to the round of 64).
 
To me there's no real difference between losing in the play-in and losing in the Round of 64. It's all about trying to get as deep into the tourney as possible.

If there's any way we can boost our chances in the Round of 64, I'll gladly take it
 
Right, and I want a guaranteed 100% as my first game (which you get if you avoid the First Four), not a 50/50.
 
SpringChicken said:
Maybe I'm missing something. Let's say you start out as a 50% (toss up) in Dayton but you'd be a 40% dog (long shot) against your Rd. of 64 opponent. Let's say for the sake of argument that a win in Dayton makes you 25% more likely to win your next game, from confidence or getting rid of jitters or whatever.

Avoiding Dayton, you'd go straight to the 40% shot at going to the round of 32.

Heading into Dayton, you'd have a 25% shot of getting to the round of 32 (50% shot of losing and getting eliminated, 50% shot of winning and now having a boosted 50% shot in the round of 64).

I don't think anyone would ever "prefer" to play in Dayton, even if a win there theoretically boosts your chance in the next game. In the odds above, the break-even point would be if a win in Dayton boosts your chances by 80% in the next round (then you'd be a 40% long shot to get to the rd of 32 whether heading into Dayton or heading straight to the round of 64).
Click to expand...

This.

It's reassuring to see the stats about Dayton winners success (thanks for looking that up). But it doesn't support Dayton being a positive.
 
Sorry, the break even would be 100%. Then you'd go either straight to 40% or have a 50% shot at 0% and a 50% shot at the boosted 80% (which would mean your odds in round of 64 would have doubled from 40% to 80% by virtue of winning in Dayton). Don't blame me blame liberal arts.
 
Maybe you're arguing that a win in Dayton provides a huge boost (like, makes you twice as likely to win your next game). I doubt that is correct, but then the math would work out.

Otherwise, if you're talking a minor benefit, that's always going to be outweighed by the 35-65% or so chance that you never even make it out of Dayton (based on my guess of the likely range of odds between potential play-in teams).

It's not even about fatigue (although that could be included as an additional factor). It's just that each additional game is one more coinflip where you can get tails, get eliminated, and never sniff the next round.
 
The 2014 Tennessee/Massachusetts seeding was one of the biggest jokes in NCAAT history. Up there with Wichita State this year and last.
 
I suppose the possibility does exist that we would beat Cincinnati, but a loss to K-State would prevent the opportunity.

Whatever. I'm taking a glass half-full approach here. if we do get the W, hopefully it helps us get another one, and another one, and so on
 
wsc8521s said:
I suppose the possibility does exist that we would beat Cincinnati, but a loss to K-State would prevent the opportunity.

Whatever. I'm taking a glass half-full approach here. if we do get the W, hopefully it helps us get another one, and another one, and so on
Click to expand...

Totally with you on that. We've got what we've got, now let's just win the games!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top