For a 5 seed?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).