Kolek planning to go pro
What mystifies me more than anything is almost no one(I did) even thought this MU team would be this good.. I honestly think that's because people have a hard time judging Talent that's not a knock on anyone it's definitely a unique skill I saw how talented this team was..so it doesnt surprise me at all they are a top 10 team. It took almost the entire fanbase..over half a season to finally see it..and a lot still don't believe it. I told many people privately long before the season started that they were going to be talented enough to be a top-10 team at some point..lo and behold..here we are. So while it's fun and trendy for all of you to be excited because this team is "exceeding" expectations.. that's simply because you didn't realize how talented they were before the season started so for me I'm not the least bit surprised this is where I thought they would be at some point this year.
I think this is patently false
I think this is patently false, lots of people had them winning a lot this season.
It is patently false. This is where Jay Bee would scream "LIAR" or something similar.https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56683.0It looks like most predictions had 24-26 wins. Even the most pessimistic had us in the 22-23 range. guru is trying again to prop himself up as the "best" fan when pretty much everyone had them as one of the top teams in the country (I said 26-5 in the regular season and earning a 2-seed, which still seems realistic).
They certainly didn't win emphatically. When you make a case as strongly as you did and the game is decided in overtime, you come out looking really bad. Like it or not, Pomeroy's model was far more accurate than your own prediction.
I never said KU would win emphatically(ie a blowout). I was simply emphatic that KU would win they game. At the end of the day...they did. I come out looking bad?? I stated unequivocally that KU would win the game. Pomeroy's model was more accurate?? Boy you really drink the f'n kool aid don't you?? Pomeroy's model had the probability that TCU would win the game...they didn't. I said that was wrong, and it was proven out. So if you want to slobber all over a "model" that says the probabilities of a lessor talented team beats a more talented team, be my guest. Any predicative model that more often then not, has a lessor talented team beating a more talented team simply because the lessor talented team is on their home floor, is absolutely flawed.The perfect example as I cited previously was last years MU@UW game. UW was like a 3 or 4 point favorite if I remember right. Who in the F made that line?? Pomeroy's "wonderful" model had UW winning that game as well. His model is broken. there was ZERO possibility a That UW team was going to beat MU. Especially after both Guards were declared out. Simply the easiest $$ I have ever made in my life. Now, Pomeroy is also wrong tonight...MSU WILL beat UW. Why? Because MSU has more talent. It's that simple. Period.
You called "heads" on a coin flip. It came up "heads". Congratulations, you're a genius. If your "eye test" is really better than the computers that set the Vegas line why don't you withdraw all your money from your bank, drive to Vegas, set up residence and proceed to bust all the sport's books out there? My prediction? You'll arrive in a $40,000 car and leave in an $800,000 bus. Good luck.
I just still am in shock that you are basing your entire defense of your “talent” argument over one game that resulted in an overtime win.How about those Net Rankings by the way?
I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not.
K whatever..his MODEL gave TCU a better chance of winning that game than Kansas..his model was WRONG. There should never be a model that gives the Lesser talented team regardless of venue a better chance of winning then the more talented team ever that's what I'm saying. Numbers don't judge talent..case in point..Houston..there #'s are all pretty good..now maybe some of you are guillable enough to believe that "well the #'s say they are the 10th most talented team in the country..so they must be". All you have to do is watch them play and you will see that yes they are a good basketball team are they as talented as their numbers make them out to be hell no!
I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not. Great example...Ron Wolf traded a first round pick for a QB that most had never heard of..Brett Favre. Not a single # he could have looked at would have told him to do that, none of them. Not even close. Yet, he did it, because...wait for it...he SAW the talent in him that many others didn't. Your eyes tell you things...or at least they should. The key is not being tricked into thinking your eyes see something they don't really see.
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold. He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.
I would like to wager something if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Let me ask you a question, and answer it honestly...does MSU have more talented players than UW??
I don't bet on games..I don't care about $$, that's not what motivates me. never has been, never will be. I guess I'm baffled that people don't seem to think "the eye test" is a real thing. It is..if it wasn't, there wouldn't be scouting departments in pro sports etc.
You don't seem to understand probabilities vs predictions, that is your fundamental flaw. Pomeroy didn't predict Kansas would lose, it gave the probability of it happening at 51%, but you ignore the 49% that said it would win. Fundamental. If Pomeroy says Marquette will win tonight 77% probability, it still means 23% of the time we will lose. Do you not understand this?
Did Michigan have better talent than App State? Marquette vs Miami (OH)? Virginia vs Chaminade?
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and attempt to better explain your point with an example.Before I do that though, I completely understand your argument of “the eye test” but I think it would benefit you to give the computers a bit more credit and try to meet in the middle. These computers these days are pretty darn impressive in the masses of data they collect and put together, and they are correct much more often than they are wrong. As another poster said, you could spend every hour of your day for months studying sports and game lines and still not be able to break Vegas for precisely that reason.As for eye test, that is developed by watching many hours of the team or teams in question. A good example is this current Nevada squad. That team is loaded with talent, there’s no way around it. They’ve become my second favorite team because I just enjoy watching them play- there is something about a large collection of talented transfers/castaways all joining at the same smaller program to show that they can play that appeals to me (a la MU under buzz?)Now, the computers aren’t high on that team, they are projected as a 4 seed. Knowing what I know after seeing them play many times I would argue that they will be one of the best 4 seeds in history if they stay on that line. That is a nightmare matchup for a 1 seed any way you slice it. They’ve got multiple talented players (upperclassmen) and 3 that are borderline NBAers and a seasoned head coach that shouldn’t get rattled, he showed that last yr. They play in a crapty conference, their OOC games ended up being worse than expected and the computer numbers reflect it. Some argued that they shouldn’t have even been on the 4 line because of the numbers. Here lies the rub- you have to take the computer numbers with a caveat and know what they are telling you first and foremost and why they are telling you what they are. That’s where the eye test comes in and it is indeed important, but you can’t completely dismiss the data either.
Guru, I'm going to try to find some common ground here.So you say there is a difference between talented teams and good teams. Tell me if I'm wrong, but how I'm reading this is that in your mind a "talented" team is one that has a really high ceiling. If they are playing near what they are capable of, only another talented team will be able to beat them. A "good" team on the other hand has a really high floor. They are very rarely going to have a bad game and their average is going to beat most teams....but when faced with a "talented" team that is playing near their ceiling, they are going to lose.I'll use two teams that you've already mentioned as examples. Duke strikes me as a "talented" team. When they are playing at their ceiling, they are unbeatable because they are the most talented team in basketball. But they are a little more volatile and more susceptible to an "anomaly" (I think that's the word you used) performance and that's how they every once in awhile they put up a stinker like their loss at home to Syracuse. Virginia on the other hand is a "good" team. Their floor is so high that even if they play poorly they are still going to beat most teams, even talented teams if they are having an average or bad night. But when they ran into Duke playing at a high level, they couldn't win.Is this an accurate summary of what you are trying to say?