For a 5 seed?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Does UK have the easiest path to final four in history?
2,497 Views |
26 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by brandonh
we're gonna go out and make ours look like the easiest
According to 538, thier opening round matchup is/was the toughest they have before the final four.
Yes. Next question?
Yes. And according to 538, Donald Trump had little chance of becoming president. They were worth something at one point but they became corporate shills.amercer said:
According to 538, thier opening round matchup is/was the toughest they have before the final four.
How about not for a 5 seed, just generally?bobinator said:
Yes. Next question?
Anyone who says 538 didn't give Trump much of a chance of becoming president doesn't understand how 538 works or how odds work.
But "easiest path to the final four in history" could be a complicated question if you take the quality of the team itself into account. Like, if I'm the Golden State Warriors, it doesn't really matter who you put in my way because I'm going to be overwhelming favorites the whole way. Kentucky isn't a perfect team, so is their run easier compared to a truly elite team in year's past even though their opponents are seeded lower?
But that's really overcomplicating a fairly simple question just to do it, I can't imagine that, independent of their own quality, that anyone has had a (theoretically) easier path to the Final four.
But "easiest path to the final four in history" could be a complicated question if you take the quality of the team itself into account. Like, if I'm the Golden State Warriors, it doesn't really matter who you put in my way because I'm going to be overwhelming favorites the whole way. Kentucky isn't a perfect team, so is their run easier compared to a truly elite team in year's past even though their opponents are seeded lower?
But that's really overcomplicating a fairly simple question just to do it, I can't imagine that, independent of their own quality, that anyone has had a (theoretically) easier path to the Final four.
lolAggies2009 said:Yes. And according to 538, Donald Trump had little chance of becoming president. They were worth something at one point but they became corporate shills.amercer said:
According to 538, thier opening round matchup is/was the toughest they have before the final four.
So far, Kentucky has defeated a 12 and a 13 seed. Tey will have to beat a 9 or a 7/11 to advance to San Antonio.
Kansas's path in 2011 was 16-9-12-11
Michigan's path in 1993 was 16-9-12-7
North Carolina's path in 1991 was 16-9-12-10
UNLV's path in 1990 was 16-8-12-11.
This is as far back as I went - Kentucky's is probably the easiest for a 5-seed (assuming they make it there).
Kansas's path in 2011 was 16-9-12-11
Michigan's path in 1993 was 16-9-12-7
North Carolina's path in 1991 was 16-9-12-10
UNLV's path in 1990 was 16-8-12-11.
This is as far back as I went - Kentucky's is probably the easiest for a 5-seed (assuming they make it there).
I understand both. IIRC come election day he was at 27% there. I followed Nate Shillver closely during the 2012 election and was pretty impressed with how accurate he was, and I did some research into his past as a baseball analyst. He, like many others, changed along the way and echoed the same talking points word-for-word in attempts to set up some self-fulfilling prophecy by swaying the election.bobinator said:
Anyone who says 538 didn't give Trump much of a chance of becoming president doesn't understand how 538 works or how odds work.
But "easiest path to the final four in history" could be a complicated question if you take the quality of the team itself into account. Like, if I'm the Golden State Warriors, it doesn't really matter who you put in my way because I'm going to be overwhelming favorites the whole way. Kentucky isn't a perfect team, so is their run easier compared to a truly elite team in year's past even though their opponents are seeded lower?
But that's really overcomplicating a fairly simple question just to do it, I can't imagine that, independent of their own quality, that anyone has had a (theoretically) easier path to the Final four.
Regarding easiest path to the Final Four, in terms of seeds played, Kentucky definitely has it easy.
I remember Kansas one of those years played a 16, 9, 12, and 11 seed (who they lost to). Heck, I'm wanting to say they had something similar in 2008 when they won it all.
Damn.Con Spirito said:
So far, Kentucky has defeated a 12 and a 13 seed. Tey will have to beat a 9 or a 7/11 to advance to San Antonio.
Kansas's path in 2011 was 16-9-12-11
Michigan's path in 1993 was 16-9-12-7
North Carolina's path in 1991 was 16-9-12-10
UNLV's path in 1990 was 16-8-12-11.
This is as far back as I went - Kentucky's is probably the easiest for a 5-seed (assuming they make it there).
If the Ags pull it off this year, they will have beaten a 10-2-3-(likely)4.
For simplicity sake, I would consider "easiest path" to only apply to the higher/highest seeds and be based on how low the opponents were seeded. Kentucky could be considered a high seed since the 4/5 seed game is kind of a push. Kentucky has beaten the 12 and 13 seeds and faces a 9 seed. They have a 7 or 11 to face should they advance.
If you go back to Baylor's 2012 Elite 8 run, they were a 3 seed and faced the 14, 11, and 10 seeds to get to the Elite 8. Unfortunately for them, Kentucky was waiting for them on the other side of the region and took them down. Had Baylor not had to face Kentucky but another scrub, then their 2012 run could've been considered for the easiest path ever.
If Kentucky does win and faces the 11 seed, it would be hard to say this wasn't the easiest path ever.
If you go back to Baylor's 2012 Elite 8 run, they were a 3 seed and faced the 14, 11, and 10 seeds to get to the Elite 8. Unfortunately for them, Kentucky was waiting for them on the other side of the region and took them down. Had Baylor not had to face Kentucky but another scrub, then their 2012 run could've been considered for the easiest path ever.
If Kentucky does win and faces the 11 seed, it would be hard to say this wasn't the easiest path ever.
I think you're mixing up Nate Silver the person (who I agree got out of his lane a bit in 2016) with his 538 election prediction model. The model is based on polls and other data. The polling had trump close, but behind, in several key states, thus the overall odds of winning were fairly low. However, changing the odds in a couple of those states even 1 or 2% would have changed the overall odds quite a bit. But the data is the data, they don't create it, they just model it.Aggies2009 said:
I understand both. IIRC come election day he was at 27% there. I followed Nate Shillver closely during the 2012 election and was pretty impressed with how accurate he was, and I did some research into his past as a baseball analyst. He, like many others, changed along the way and echoed the same talking points word-for-word in attempts to set up some self-fulfilling prophecy by swaying the election.
But, 27% is still a fairly good chance of something happening. If I say there's a 27% chance you're going to be shot in the face if you go outside today, you're probably going to stay in.
Now, I agree that I think he personally got a little out of his lane because they started doing opinion pieces based on the polls which I think got away from the whole point of 538.
Yeah, there's also an "expected" element to it right? Like you expect a 1 seed to have a fairly easy road since they can't even play anyone better than an 8 until the Sweet 16.
The national (not state by state) polling was on target with Trump because that basically mirrored the popular vote, which was Clinton by 2%.
The state-by-state polls were pretty awful, at least for swing states.
But the truth is, the 2016 election was freakshow for so many reasons, and people are going to be analyzing it for decades.
The state-by-state polls were pretty awful, at least for swing states.
But the truth is, the 2016 election was freakshow for so many reasons, and people are going to be analyzing it for decades.
that's why there is an element of luck in most postseason sports.
back in 2003...the year the horns made it to the Final Four...
t.u. was the # 1 seed in their region...but the #2, #3, and #4 all got upset.
the sips played the #16, #9, #5, and #7
back in 2003...the year the horns made it to the Final Four...
t.u. was the # 1 seed in their region...but the #2, #3, and #4 all got upset.
the sips played the #16, #9, #5, and #7
and let's not get started on Baylor's cupcake trips to the Elite 8...
Easiest path taking only opponents into account is what I meant.bobinator said:
Anyone who says 538 didn't give Trump much of a chance of becoming president doesn't understand how 538 works or how odds work.
But "easiest path to the final four in history" could be a complicated question if you take the quality of the team itself into account. Like, if I'm the Golden State Warriors, it doesn't really matter who you put in my way because I'm going to be overwhelming favorites the whole way. Kentucky isn't a perfect team, so is their run easier compared to a truly elite team in year's past even though their opponents are seeded lower?
But that's really overcomplicating a fairly simple question just to do it, I can't imagine that, independent of their own quality, that anyone has had a (theoretically) easier path to the Final four.
Eh, I understand the idea of easy runs and sure, some have it "easier" but don't over-blow the concept. Behind all of these "cupcake" runs is a lot of high seeds that apparently found it hard to take care of business.
Luck of the draw is a HUGE component of the NCAA tournament. You can get an easy path to the F4 or you can be in the path of the 4 most dangerous teams in the tournament
Taken as a whole I think A&M had the toughest 1st and 2nd round opponents. Only team that had a tougher path was Providence.
ETA Lipscomb
ETA Lipscomb
I think some of the teams that pulled legitimate upsets in the first round have a pretty good argument for toughest first weekend.
The 2007-2008 KU team beat a 16, 8 (UNLV), 12 (Villanova), 10 (Steph Curry-led Davidson), then two 1 seeds in UNC and Memphis (during Callipari's tenure). Not an easy road to a national championship.Aggies2009 said:I understand both. IIRC come election day he was at 27% there. I followed Nate Shillver closely during the 2012 election and was pretty impressed with how accurate he was, and I did some research into his past as a baseball analyst. He, like many others, changed along the way and echoed the same talking points word-for-word in attempts to set up some self-fulfilling prophecy by swaying the election.bobinator said:
Anyone who says 538 didn't give Trump much of a chance of becoming president doesn't understand how 538 works or how odds work.
But "easiest path to the final four in history" could be a complicated question if you take the quality of the team itself into account. Like, if I'm the Golden State Warriors, it doesn't really matter who you put in my way because I'm going to be overwhelming favorites the whole way. Kentucky isn't a perfect team, so is their run easier compared to a truly elite team in year's past even though their opponents are seeded lower?
But that's really overcomplicating a fairly simple question just to do it, I can't imagine that, independent of their own quality, that anyone has had a (theoretically) easier path to the Final four.
Regarding easiest path to the Final Four, in terms of seeds played, Kentucky definitely has it easy.
I remember Kansas one of those years played a 16, 9, 12, and 11 seed (who they lost to). Heck, I'm wanting to say they had something similar in 2008 when they won it all.
That's wild. One of the easiest roads ever to the final four going by opponent seeding then the toughest possible final four matchups.Jayhawk said:The 2007-2008 KU team beat a 16, 8 (UNLV), 12 (Villanova), 10 (Steph Curry-led Davidson), then two 1 seeds in UNC and Memphis (during Callipari's tenure). Not an easy road to a national championship.Aggies2009 said:I understand both. IIRC come election day he was at 27% there. I followed Nate Shillver closely during the 2012 election and was pretty impressed with how accurate he was, and I did some research into his past as a baseball analyst. He, like many others, changed along the way and echoed the same talking points word-for-word in attempts to set up some self-fulfilling prophecy by swaying the election.bobinator said:
Anyone who says 538 didn't give Trump much of a chance of becoming president doesn't understand how 538 works or how odds work.
But "easiest path to the final four in history" could be a complicated question if you take the quality of the team itself into account. Like, if I'm the Golden State Warriors, it doesn't really matter who you put in my way because I'm going to be overwhelming favorites the whole way. Kentucky isn't a perfect team, so is their run easier compared to a truly elite team in year's past even though their opponents are seeded lower?
But that's really overcomplicating a fairly simple question just to do it, I can't imagine that, independent of their own quality, that anyone has had a (theoretically) easier path to the Final four.
Regarding easiest path to the Final Four, in terms of seeds played, Kentucky definitely has it easy.
I remember Kansas one of those years played a 16, 9, 12, and 11 seed (who they lost to). Heck, I'm wanting to say they had something similar in 2008 when they won it all.
WARNING:Continuing threadjack below...
In reality that's a pretty decent chance, but people don't think of it in the same terms that they think of other statistical things.
27% is a .270 batting average. .270 is right around the historical total league batting average most years (its lower than that the past 10 years or so). So if on one random night, you flipped onto MLB network for whatever game was on, and whoever just happened to be batting for that first official at bat that you see gets a hit, would it be shocking? Would you say someone had no credibility and was wrong if before you did so they said "73% chance we put this on and whoever bats makes an out." No, because batting stats are well understood (probably the most well understood of all stats).
It's also just like flipping a coin. If you say Hillary is heads, and Trump is tails, but Trump has to win two flips in a row, that would be 75% chance of Hillary and 25% chance of Trump. But would it be shocking if you flipped Tails twice in a row? No we've all seen that happen.
I'm not sure why people interpreted 73% chance as a slam dunk, it was anything but.
27% just is not that unlikely. It's dumb for people to say that was "little chance"bobinator said:I think you're mixing up Nate Silver the person (who I agree got out of his lane a bit in 2016) with his 538 election prediction model. The model is based on polls and other data. The polling had trump close, but behind, in several key states, thus the overall odds of winning were fairly low. However, changing the odds in a couple of those states even 1 or 2% would have changed the overall odds quite a bit. But the data is the data, they don't create it, they just model it.Aggies2009 said:
I understand both. IIRC come election day he was at 27% there. I followed Nate Shillver closely during the 2012 election and was pretty impressed with how accurate he was, and I did some research into his past as a baseball analyst. He, like many others, changed along the way and echoed the same talking points word-for-word in attempts to set up some self-fulfilling prophecy by swaying the election.
But, 27% is still a fairly good chance of something happening. If I say there's a 27% chance you're going to be shot in the face if you go outside today, you're probably going to stay in.
Now, I agree that I think he personally got a little out of his lane because they started doing opinion pieces based on the polls which I think got away from the whole point of 538.
In reality that's a pretty decent chance, but people don't think of it in the same terms that they think of other statistical things.
27% is a .270 batting average. .270 is right around the historical total league batting average most years (its lower than that the past 10 years or so). So if on one random night, you flipped onto MLB network for whatever game was on, and whoever just happened to be batting for that first official at bat that you see gets a hit, would it be shocking? Would you say someone had no credibility and was wrong if before you did so they said "73% chance we put this on and whoever bats makes an out." No, because batting stats are well understood (probably the most well understood of all stats).
It's also just like flipping a coin. If you say Hillary is heads, and Trump is tails, but Trump has to win two flips in a row, that would be 75% chance of Hillary and 25% chance of Trump. But would it be shocking if you flipped Tails twice in a row? No we've all seen that happen.
I'm not sure why people interpreted 73% chance as a slam dunk, it was anything but.
UK is not responsible for the failures of Virginia and Arizona along the way. They can only play the winner of the game they are bracketed with. Is luck favoring them right now? Yes. If they win it all, they will have a championship banner in Rupp and it will not have an asterisk next to it.
However, #1 Kansas lost their fourth game to #11 VCU, so they did not make it to the Final Four.Con Spirito said:
So far, Kentucky has defeated a 12 and a 13 seed. They will have to beat a 9 or a 7/11 to advance to San Antonio.
Kansas's path in 2011 was 16-9-12-11
Michigan's path in 1993 was 16-9-12-7
North Carolina's path in 1991 was 16-9-12-10
UNLV's path in 1990 was 16-8-12-11.
This is as far back as I went - Kentucky's is probably the easiest for a 5-seed (assuming they make it there).
#1 Michigan had to play two #1 teams in the Final Four losing to #1 UNC in the final.
#1 UNC lost in the semis to #3 Kansas. They never played a #1 or #2 seed.
#1 UNLV beat #4 Georgia Tech in the semis and #3 Duke in the finals. This has to be the easiest path in modern history to the Championship. They never played a #1 or #2 seed.
#5 Kentucky beat or will have to beat at best a #12, #13, #7, and #3 to get to the Championship Game.
They have a fairly easy path to the Championship Game. They will not have to play a #1 or even a #2 seed to get to the final.
And if the Aggies have another miracle game, UK will not even have to play a #3 to get to the final.
Yes. Cal whined like a baby about their draw after the seedings were announced and ends up with this! This one will probably have to be vacated too...not really. But he is slimy.