Way Too Early 2019/20 Pre-Season Predictions

[onepost]

I have no information that's first hand. But I've talked to people who were at the banquet who said every player said they were excited to have the whole team back next year. Things can change, of course. But I'm not going to stress about it.

+1

[Cheeks]

The more I hear the more worried I'm getting.....

The one I have heard will be a senior and could go as a grad transfer.  Another could be someone that didn't play a bunch this year and would not shock many.

[BM1090]

The one I have heard will be a senior and could go as a grad transfer.  Another could be someone that didn't play a bunch this year and would not shock many.

You're talking about Jamal and Sacar. That's not who he is talking about.

[MU82]

False definition.  You keep using a definition of crapshoot that is not accurate for how it is being used here and you know it.

The definition of crapshoot is "something that has an unpredictable outcome".

That is how I used it, how Mark Few, Jay Wright, various journalists, etc. 

Why do you keep insisting on "equal chance or outcome"?

The term crapshoot is used for which the definition is given. 

Please find me a definition of crapshoot in the context it has been used in which it provides an equal outcome result.

Like you, chicos, I don't really agree with Lenny's "equal chance" definition. But what I really think Lenny is arguing is that the NCAA tournament actually is pretty damn predictable when it comes to nailing down the teams with realistic chances to win the title.

Although we can't predict the exact team that will win each year, anybody who pays attention can pick the handful of teams that have a legit shot at the championship in the vast majority of years.

Respectfully, if it really were "something that has an unpredictable outcome," wouldn't there be a lot more lower seeds making the Final Four a lot more years? Wouldn't there be a lot more "surprise" champions?

In the last 20 years, the only true surprise champion was UConn in 2014. Since the tournament went to 64 teams in 1985, only 5 of 140 Final Four teams have been double-digit seeds.

One would think a true "crapshoot" would give a double-digit seed more than 3.6% of a shot at the FF (let alone the championship).

The very first year of the 64-team field, 1985, an 8th-seeded Nova team won the title. Since then no team seeded that low has won. In other words, if a prognosticator had simply eliminated the bottom half of the field in each of the last 34 tournaments, he/she was "right" 100% of the time about those teams.

Seems like the outcome has been pretty darn predictable, as long as one doesn't define "pretty darn predictable" as actually picking the champion every year.

The Stanley Cup playoffs seem like much more of a crapshoot to me; the No. 1 team in the league loses amazingly often in early-round series (not once in history, as in NCAA basketball), and teams that were mediocre during the season play in the finals more than anybody would predict (not never, as in NCAA basketball).

When I can predict with 96% certainty that a double-digit seed won't make it to the Final Four, and with 100% certainty that a double-digit seed won't win the title, one could argue that's the opposite of "something that has an unpredictable outcome."

Oh, and just because you and Mark Few agree, it doesn't make it "true." I bet I can find many things that coaches have said over the years that you wouldn't agree with.

[goldeneagle91114]

You're talking about Jamal and Sacar. That's not who he is talking about.

Who is he talking about then?

[BM1090]

Who is he talking about then?

Well, we only have one set of brothers on our team.

But I haven't heard anything to suggest there's anything to it.

[onepost]

Well, we only have one set of brothers on our team.

But I haven't heard anything to suggest there's anything to it.

Again, I regret even posting it because I loathe offseason rumors as much as anyone and hate adding to it. Have heard there's a lot of frustration but hope it doesn't result in anything.

[Cheeks]

Like you, chicos, I don't really agree with Lenny's "equal chance" definition. But what I really think Lenny is arguing is that the NCAA tournament actually is pretty damn predictable when it comes to nailing down the teams with realistic chances to win the title.

Although we can't predict the exact team that will win each year, anybody who pays attention can pick the handful of teams that have a legit shot at the championship in the vast majority of years.

Respectfully, if it really were "something that has an unpredictable outcome," wouldn't there be a lot more lower seeds making the Final Four a lot more years? Wouldn't there be a lot more "surprise" champions?

In the last 20 years, the only true surprise champion was UConn in 2014. Since the tournament went to 64 teams in 1985, only 5 of 140 Final Four teams have been double-digit seeds.

One would think a true "crapshoot" would give a double-digit seed more than 3.6% of a shot at the FF (let alone the championship).

The very first year of the 64-team field, 1985, an 8th-seeded Nova team won the title. Since then no team seeded that low has won. In other words, if a prognosticator had simply eliminated the bottom half of the field in each of the last 34 tournaments, he/she was "right" 100% of the time about those teams.

Seems like the outcome has been pretty darn predictable, as long as one doesn't define "pretty darn predictable" as actually picking the champion every year.

The Stanley Cup playoffs seem like much more of a crapshoot to me; the No. 1 team in the league loses amazingly often in early-round series (not once in history, as in NCAA basketball), and teams that were mediocre during the season play in the finals more than anybody would predict (not never, as in NCAA basketball).

When I can predict with 96% certainty that a double-digit seed won't make it to the Final Four, and with 100% certainty that a double-digit seed won't win the title, one could argue that's the opposite of "something that has an unpredictable outcome."

Oh, and just because you and Mark Few agree, it doesn't make it "true." I bet I can find many things that coaches have said over the years that you wouldn't agree with.

In my opinion you are doing the reverse.  Sure, we can all say with 96% certainty a double digit seed won't make the Final Four.  But we can all say with that much certainty an 8 seed in the NBA playoffs won't make the final four teams either. 

You are correct, just because Mark Few, Coach K, Jay Wright, etc, etc and I agree doesn't make it true...except in this case we are correct....it's an expression and used properly in the confines of the definition of the word.  As it is defined, we are correct.  An unpredictable outcome.  This equal outcome nonsense that Lenny keeps bringing into it is absurd and not the definition of the word.

The consensus number one team going into the "playoffs" has won the NCAA title since 1985 only four times.  Four times in 35 tournaments.   Less than 12%.

The consensus top team in the NBA, has won it far greater.  To the point where odds of the Warriors winning it a few years ago before the playoffs started at 4/7.

NFL, the consensus top team comes out on top at a much higher rate.  I'm not talking the team with the best record, that's fool's gold...I'm talking about who is regarded as the best team.

You are right that baseball and hockey are where it gets dicey.  Especially in baseball when a team can get knocked out because in the regular season a 5 man rotation matters much more than in playoffs where it is really 4 at most, sometimes only 3.  Hockey is also one where it is wide open.  Having said that, Boston was picked to win it last year and they won it.

This article does a nice job of looking what sport does the best job in its playoffs of producing the best champion.  Guess who finished after the the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB?  That's right, the NCAA basketball tournament.

https://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/nba-playoffs-best-golden-state-does-team-with-best-record-win-mlb-ncaa-super-bowl-041516

[Lennys Tap]

The more I hear the more worried I'm getting.....

Can you please be a little more vague? The "facts" you've shared so far are so specific that I'm ready to jump.

[NickelDimer]

Sounds like crash was onta sumthin eh?

[lawdog77]

The one I have heard will be a senior and could go as a grad transfer.  Another could be someone that didn't play a bunch this year and would not shock many.

lies

[Cheeks]

lies

Which is why I said "COULD", no idea if will come to pass or how truthful the rumors could be.

[MU82]

In my opinion you are doing the reverse.  Sure, we can all say with 96% certainty a double digit seed won't make the Final Four.  But we can all say with that much certainty an 8 seed in the NBA playoffs won't make the final four teams either. 

You are correct, just because Mark Few, Coach K, Jay Wright, etc, etc and I agree doesn't make it true...except in this case we are correct....it's an expression and used properly in the confines of the definition of the word.  As it is defined, we are correct.  An unpredictable outcome.  This equal outcome nonsense that Lenny keeps bringing into it is absurd and not the definition of the word.

The consensus number one team going into the "playoffs" has won the NCAA title since 1985 only four times.  Four times in 35 tournaments.   Less than 12%.

The consensus top team in the NBA, has won it far greater.  To the point where odds of the Warriors winning it a few years ago before the playoffs started at 4/7.

NFL, the consensus top team comes out on top at a much higher rate.  I'm not talking the team with the best record, that's fool's gold...I'm talking about who is regarded as the best team.

You are right that baseball and hockey are where it gets dicey.  Especially in baseball when a team can get knocked out because in the regular season a 5 man rotation matters much more than in playoffs where it is really 4 at most, sometimes only 3.  Hockey is also one where it is wide open.  Having said that, Boston was picked to win it last year and they won it.

This article does a nice job of looking what sport does the best job in its playoffs of producing the best champion.  Guess who finished after the the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB?  That's right, the NCAA basketball tournament.

https://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/nba-playoffs-best-golden-state-does-team-with-best-record-win-mlb-ncaa-super-bowl-041516

You defined "crapshoot," and I explained how easily that definition supports the exact opposite of what you say a crapshoot is regarding the NCAA tournament.

Just because you disagree doesn't make you right. And just because you quote a coach in your tagline it doesn't make you right. When all of us know with 100% certainty that a double-digit seed won't win the national title, it is not a crapshoot.

So we'll agree to disagree.

One thing that isn't a crapshoot?

That you will throw out "crapshoot" as your explanation for everything that happens in the NCAA basketball tournament. I can predict that with 100% certainty.

[Cheeks]

That you will throw out "crapshoot" as your explanation for everything that happens in the NCAA basketball tournament. I can predict that with 100% certainty.

Luck.  Who you play, where you play, if you play (does another team in the bracket knock off someone that would give you trouble).  See, I can easily do it without saying the word.  So you are 100% wrong. 

[MU82]

Luck.  Who you play, where you play, if you play (does another team in the bracket knock off someone that would give you trouble).  See, I can easily do it without saying the word.  So you are 100% wrong.

Yes, a lot of luck involved in sports.

It was no crapshoot that you went there, though.

[lawdog77]

Which is why I said "COULD", no idea if will come to pass or how truthful the rumors could be.

so, you like spreading b.s. unfounded rumors...got it

[BCHoopster]

If kids where going to transfer the name would be inn the transfer portal already

[Cheeks]

Yes, a lot of luck involved in sports.

It was no crapshoot that you went there, though.

According to NickleDiner no luck in sports

[NickelDimer]

UVA's NCAA tourney MOP according to cheeks: luck. That's freaking outstanding

[Cheeks]

UVA's NCAA tourney MOP according to cheeks: luck. That's freaking outstanding

Part of it...yes.  All of it, no.

Not that hard really.  Luck on some calls.  Luck on a few missed free throws that could have won for other team. Etc.  Lick is part of sports, by no means is it the only reason a team wins, nor did I ever suggest that is the case.

[willie warrior]

Get real, no one is realistically saying national title.  People are just optimistic about next season. You should try it sometime

Right. All the comments here about "natty" are not realistic. I agree. And I am optimistic that others are overly optimistic  including you, chicks.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Lick is part of sports...

Yes, but only on the ass kissing, name dropping media side of sports.

[Heisenberg]

The more I hear the more worried I'm getting.....

Have you checked the private plane schedule in Gary?

[Lennys Tap]

False definition.  You keep using a definition of crapshoot that is not accurate for how it is being used here and you know it.

The definition of crapshoot is "something that has an unpredictable outcome".

That is how I used it, how Mark Few, Jay Wright, various journalists, etc. 

Why do you keep insisting on "equal chance or outcome"?

The term crapshoot is used for which the definition is given. 

Please find me a definition of crapshoot in the context it has been used in which it provides an equal outcome result.

How is it a "false definition"?

The #1 definition in the Urban Dictionary? The one that is its MOST common use?

1. A toss up, a roll of the dice.

You might not LIKE how the term "crapshoot" is most commonly used but there you have it. And based on that, you're wrong. Period.

[lawdog77]

How is it a "false definition"?

The #1 definition in the Urban Dictionary? The one that is its MOST common use?

1. A toss up, a roll of the dice.

You might not LIKE how the term "crapshoot" is most commonly used but there you have it. And based on that, you're wrong. Period.

I would have thought urban dictio ar would have had a much different definition