just what the Pistons need: a third string center. Joe Dumars was replaced by a mean ol' alien a few years back you guys.
- Member for
- 4 years 43 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
- USC v. Baylor - slight advantage Oregon
- Arizona v. Air Force - very slight advantage TCU
- Washington v. SDSU - about even
- Oregon St v. Oregon St - even
- Arizona St v. BYU - advantage Oregon
- Cal v. SMU - advantage Oregon
- Tennessee v. Colorado St - huge advantage Oregon
- UCLA v. Wyoming - advantage Oregon
- Wazzu v. UNLV - slight advantage Oregon (though at this point, does it really matter? both are going to get absolutely railed)
- 1-AA v. 1-AA - even
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Yost is what college hockey crowds should be.||
Of all the college hockey arenas I've been to, the only one that even comes close is Mariucci. I wish the crowd at Munn was half as good.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||There have been explosions on||
There have been explosions on site, mostly hydrogen explosions from the reaction of zircalloy cladding with water (producing zirconium oxide and hydrogen). However, a criticality accident causing a massive power surge and explosion (which happened at Chernobyl) can't happen here because the system is shut down with the control rods fully inserted.
Aside from the fact that everything is shut down, these reactors are of a much better design than Chernobyl. Modern water-cooled reactors have a negative void coefficient (which basically means that in case of loss or boiling of coolant, the reaction slows down); Chernobyl had a large positive void coefficient (so if the water starts to boil, the reaction speeds up and you can very easily get thermal runaway).
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Colorado was always going to get left out.||
The committee weighs non-conference strength of schedule fairly heavily; it you go out and play seven teams rated #294 or worse like Colorado did, you'd better absolutely blitz your conference because the committee is going to look for any excuse to leave you out. Just ask 2010 VT, 2009 Penn State, or 2008 Arizona State. You can argue whether that's fair or not, but it's been stone obvious for years and any coach who schedules like that knows (or should know) that he just punched his ticket to the NIT.
VT seems like the only serious snub to me, although you could make an argument for Harvard or St. Mary's.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Pay no attention to his seeding||
Lunardi really isn't that good at this, for a guy whose only job is to make the bracket. Of those the Bracket Project tracks, he's 23rd out of 32 "regulars" (last year and two of the four previous), and just slightly below average even if you count the one-year guys who give it a shot and then find out they really suck. He also seems to very strongly overreact to whatever the last thing that happened was (jumping us from last-in to a 9 on beating Purdue, for instance).
His educated guess probably isn't much better than anyone who's put more than an hour into it. I've been doing a series of bubble posts over at The Only Colors, and for what it's worth I have Michigan and Michigan State both in the 10-11 range (two of the three immediately above "last four byes" along with Marquette).
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Hockey uses the Pairwise pretty strictly.||
So they don't really need to exile anyone for discussions because it's all objective and they don't need much discussion. (Whether it's the right objective method is another matter entirely.)
|2 years 14 weeks ago||You can get a vague idea of it||
But the difference between what the advanced metrics predict and what actually happens isn't all luck. I think bad luck in basketball has a tendency to correlate very strongly with bad free throw shooting; certainly the least "lucky" team I've ever seen (2008 Illinois, had three overtime losses and four more by 4 points or less) fit this profile, as they blew at least three late leads (and opportunities to win another game) by bricking free throw after free throw (notably, Pruitt had two free throws with less than 5 seconds left in regulation and a tie game against Indiana and bricked both, then same thing happened in the first OT).
|2 years 14 weeks ago||The committee doesn't weigh head-to-head much||
If it comes down to the last spot and we're the only two teams in consideration, maybe. But they focus more on the overall resume - and MSU has the better wins, slightly less bad losses, and better strength of schedule.
I do think you'll make it even if Illinois beats you (though it will be a very nervous Sunday). But head-to-head counts for little when we're two teams among 15 fighting for those last 10 or so spots.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||I'm honestly not sure it does.||
If there's one way to get the committee to look for excuses to leave you out, it's by having a 300+ non-conference SOS. Virginia Tech learned that to their sorrow last year, as did Penn State in 2009.
Honestly, if they don't beat Kansas I don't think they get in over Illinois, MSU, or Michigan regardless of Big Ten results tomorrow.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Certainly not terrible losses.||
Those were all the losses outside the Kenpom top 50 for both teams (and PSU is not too far from the top 50 either).
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Most bubble teams have a wart or two on their resume||
It's why they're on the bubble.
It'll count against you, but if it were enough to disqualify you on its own there wouldn't be enough eligible teams to select 37 at-larges. I think you need one more decent-or-better win (MSU or a quarterfinal win over Wisconsin/Purdue) to make it.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||I'm not sure||
Maybe I'm looking at it through green-tinted glasses, but even if Michigan wins that game it looks to me like the two resumes would be pretty similar. MSU would have the better wins overall (your sweep of us would probably be your two best wins in that scenario) and fewer bad losses (@Iowa, @PSU vs. @Ind, @NW, Minn, UTEP); head-to-head would probably pull you even but not noticeably ahead going into the B10 tourney.
My best guess: If MSU wins, MSU is a lock and Michigan needs at least two in the Big Ten tournament (may have to get to the final, depending on number of surprise auto-bids). If Michigan wins, both teams are probably in barring a bad loss in the first round of the B10 tourney (which Michigan would avoid by virtue of not playing in that round). Right or wrong, the committee tends to look for excuses to put a team with a strong non-conference schedule in, and 9-9 in a very deep Big Ten plus a win over Washington would be such an excuse, so I don't think it's really a must-win for MSU's tourney chances.
|2 years 16 weeks ago||"Ethics Are For Losers and Vanderbilt"||
Redundant statement is redundant. (For football, anyway. Vandy's actually not completely useless at basketball, somehow.)
|2 years 16 weeks ago||I don't think multiplying is what you want to do.||
A replacement-level guy on offense who is ridiculously good on defense (or vice versa) is worth a lot more than a guy who's replacement level on both ends. I think what you want is additive, maybe something like:
DPORPAG = (avg pace) * %Min * (%Blk/2 + %Stl - 2.45%)
as an estimate of the number of points saved on defense per game played at some average pace (every block, on average, saves half a point since the offense gets half of them back and averages one point on those possessions; steals save a full point since they by definition don't get it back). Then add this to the offensive number.
The other problem, of course, is that there is much more to defense than just blocks and steals; forcing difficult shots, taking charges, rebounding (though that would have to be adjusted on account of position), avoiding fouls are all components of defending well and aren't really accounted for. I don't know a good way to do so, though, so we may be stuck with the simpler version above for now.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||That's still an improvement.||
At least then they know they need to look for a spot elsewhere - and it's more of a risk for Saban & Co. to boot kids before they have an official commitment from a recruit because 1) the kid could change his mind, and 2) you don't get to watch them compete at spring practice before deciding who to "encourage" to transfer.
As for grayshirting, I don't think it's bad as long as the kid knows up front (and not in the "sign here, great, oh BTW you might not get the scholarship for the first year" sense, but more of a "we don't know yet if we'll have room, you can sign on for next year if you want or we can wait until we know there's a spot"). I think it would help if there were separate LOIs for normal recruits and grayshirts - normal ones guarantee a scholarship starting that year (revokable by the school only in case of academic ineligibility, failure to meet admission requirements, or criminal acts by the recruit), grayshirt LOIs can be revoked by the student at any time prior to the next year's signing day if they do not play (if they do play that year as a walk-on, it's as with a normal LOI except that the guarantee of a scholarship is postponed to the next year). A school can "upgrade" their offer from a grayshirt to an immediate LOI if a spot opens but cannot do the reverse (hence, the 85 cap applies at all times, not just in-season).
|2 years 25 weeks ago||That was just as big a joke.||
Don't blame us for the Freep's vendetta against you.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Recently added rule||
Mostly in response to coaches like Bill Self hiring a player's dad as "director of basketball operations", that player coming to Kansas ... and then the player's dad "resigns" as soon as his kid leaves for the NBA or graduates.
Repeat offenses have to be within five years and/or on probation to get hit harder. And even then if it's not an offense of a similar nature you won't always get much extra. And secondary violations (which this is) never get anything more than a slap on the wrist.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Honestly, I think what got||
Honestly, I think what got you guys hammered hardest over that is the fact that the tracking forms were about as far from "timely" as possible. That remains ridiculous, as does this incident (from the few details we have; if it comes out that it was a parent of a player that ends up at MSU and there was any sort of understanding that this was a prerequisite for their commitment, then I will have to revise that conclusion).
|2 years 26 weeks ago||I don't think any details have come out.||
And the NCAA release on the topic said that the "individual associated with a prospect" was not in contact with the prospect while at the camp and was not accompanied by the prospect.
Given the extreme vagueness of the rule regarding who counts as an IAWP, I would be very surprised if it's a close relative or coach of the player in question. Those are too obvious, and the quotes coming out indicate a disagreement over interpretation of the rules.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||"Vague" doesn't begin to describe it.||
Who qualifies as an "individual associated with a prospect"? (This is apparently where the issue occurred; Izzo didn't think whoever the camp worker in question qualified and the NCAA disagrees.) Does it have to be someone associated with a prospect you're actively recruiting?
If this is the interpretation that the NCAA is going to use, every summer basketball camp is pretty much permanently ended now; you can't hire AAU or high school coaches even for camp unless there's absolutely no chance they'll ever be coaching a player you might want to recruit.
Frankly, it's an absolute joke that Izzo is getting more of a punishment for this than Calipari has for getting entire seasons wiped off the record books at two different schools. This is as overblown as the excess stretching at Michigan (not getting the forms in in a manner that could be considered even remotely "timely" might have brought the hammer down harder on you, but the actual violation seemed a difference of interpretation only).
|2 years 26 weeks ago||The BTN-derived one is||
The BTN-derived one is excellent - clean, and it matches what we have already. (The stacked version posted in the comments looks even better.)
The shield logo (with the school logos moved up to directly underneath) is great. And both can be tweaked to school colors (not as easily with the shield; you'd have to go with light and dark variations of the main color along with the lighter secondary color - for Michigan you'd just change the text to yellow and maybe a slightly different shade of blue, MSU would do dark green and light green background, etc.).
The first one would look great if we were a football-only conference, but it wouldn't really look right for basketball or anything else.
All three are infinitely better than the piece of crap we actually got.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||We're not a football-only conference.||
I wouldn't put the football in there (versions of it that could be used for different sports could each have their own sport represented there, but the main conference logo shouldn't single out any particular sport).
Otherwise, I like.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Think you need to pull the||
Think you need to pull the two lower left stars further to the left. But that's still at least 32,768 times better than the pile of crap they chose.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Dump the 12 and it's perfect||
Really, we don't need to hit people over the head with that.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Big difference between a penalty and a goal.||
I'm one of those who thought the Suarez "save" in the World Cup quarterfinals should have been an automatic goal (blatant intentional handball to clear a ball that is obviously going in), and I see this as the same (and would regardless of which team was involved). It has to be something where it's obviously going in (if there's any doubt make it a penalty shot, as I believe it's supposed to be for intentionally dislodging the net if the puck is in the crease at the time), but there was no doubt that puck was going in.
Would it have mattered? I doubt it. We have one line worthy of a tournament-level team, and that ain't gonna get it done against anyone good (which Michigan certainly is). But it's still a royal shafting that the net got knocked loose a nanosecond before the puck crossed the line.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Holy cow, you're right.||
I hadn't even noticed that the first half-dozen times I watched. I can't even imagine being in there and all of a sudden hearing the roof groaning and watching it sink down. That'd be terrifying enough without the snow suddenly pouring through in an avalanche where the roof failed.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Wasn't arguing that it was wrong by the rules||
I was arguing that the rule itself is dumb. By the rule, they got the call right. A horrible break for MSU (would it have swung the game? I doubt it, we'd have had the momentum for a little bit but that can only do so much when your second line would be a good match for the opponent's fourth), but if anyone outside of the teams involved is at fault it's the rules committee, not the referees who got the call right according to the letter of the law.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||RPI is the biggest joke known to mankind||
Purely adding up records of opponents (as the RPI does) tells you little. Going 12-0 against a schedule with four 11-1 teams, four 6-6 teams, and four 1-11 teams is much harder than doing the same against 12 6-6 teams, but RPI says the strength of schedule is the same. (On the other hand, going 0-12 against the varied schedule would be much worse than doing so against 12 average teams. The latter says you can't beat average teams; the former says you can't even beat awful ones.) How bad your cupcakes are shouldn't matter much at all; the difference between facing a team good enough to beat you one out of three times and one that would win one out of four is probably ten times as significant as the difference between playing one you would beat 99% of the time and one you would beat 99.99% of the time.
For what it's worth, I've been running the Bradley-Terry method (KRACH) this year and it puts Oregon's SOS at #12 and TCU's at #39. For teams with high winning percentages, your toughest opponent or two are the largest factors (and at the opposite end, teams that lose a lot are defined largely by their weakest opponents) because the win probability for that game is by far the most sensitive to changes in your rating. Oregon's is Stanford, TCU's is Utah. That's a pretty big difference. Even if you look at the lower games (which are really less significant):
Part of the difficulty, admittedly, is the recursive sort of nature of these judgments. SDSU finished two games better than Washington, but did so against a vastly weaker schedule themselves, so they come out about even. (The bottom of the MWC is so bad that beating them counts for almost nothing; BYU was SDSU's fifth-toughest opponent and Washington's ninth-toughest. And Washington's weakest opponent, Wazzu, would be favored against half of SDSU's schedule.)
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Head-to-head is ALWAYS the first tiebreaker||
If Michigan went 11-1 with a beatdown at the hands of Indiana as the only loss and Ohio State went 11-1 with the only loss a close game to Michigan, I guarantee you not one person here (or anywhere else) would be arguing that Ohio State should go to the Rose Bowl over Michigan.
This wasn't perfectly analagous because of Ohio State's involvement in the tie, but it's not really analagous to the 2008 Big XII South situation where somebody had to be ahead of a team that beat them either. There was a way to order the teams that made perfect sense with head-to-head.
(Honestly, Wisconsin jumping us doesn't even bother me as much as Ohio State doing so - partly because BREATHE IF YOU HATE OHIO STATE and partly because they don't have a single win over an end-of-season ranked team. At least Wisconsin has that.)
|2 years 27 weeks ago||As a State fan||
Our top line can compete with Michigan, but we have absolutely no depth and you can't get away with that in a sport where you're changing lines every 40 seconds.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Honestly, it's been our defense more than him||
Hagelin was camped out on the doorstep with nobody on him. First goal of the game was deflected off a defender's stick.