Keller6Ag91 said:

---

My Tech buddies love to remind me that Toppin was out for their loss against us.

---

My tech buddy said at the time that it was two mediocre teams. And that they were missing their best player.

PJYoung said:

---

94chem said:

---

fightintxag13 said:

---

94chem said:

---

1 and 2 are the same thing, pretty much.

---

No they're not. Sweet 16 matchup is more manageable playing against a 4 or 5 as opposed to a likely 3 seed.

---

Meh. The 4/5 teams are quite often teams like last year's Alabama. 1997 Arizona. When you get to the 2nd weekend, seeds don't matter. You either play your best or you go home.

---

No.

---

Yeah, you're still missing a huge part. I know all of those numbers, more or less. I'm talking about how teams are playing, not somebody's opinion of them. If you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed, there are up to 24 six through 11 seeds that can beat you on any given day. The 1's don't beat the 8/9 winner because the 8/9 winner is worse than the 6/11 winner or the 7/10 winner. The 1's win because they're that much better.

In other words, if you make Duke, Auburn, Alabama, and Florida 2 seeds, you wouldn't change their odds much of making the Final 4.

Bob is right as he often is. The KU fans have purchased a lot of the seats in anticipation of them being here in town (they were here the last time Wichita hosted ). It's why I hope KU keeps losing and we keep winning.

Charlie Moran said:

---

Bob is right as he often is. The KU fans have purchased a lot of the seats in anticipation of them being here in town (they were here the last time Wichita hosted ). It's why I hope KU keeps losing and we keep winning.

---

And Wichita is way closer than Denver. Wichita is actually on the way to Denver with just a slight increase in travel time. Much closer destination.

They were missing their best player. Doesn't mean we would have lost tho if he had been available and also says pretty much nothing about what would happen if the two teams were to meet again.

Missed by a mile saying they were both mediocre teams tho imo.

Not only is our out of conference schedule strong this year but our losses are more understandable minus t.u. We lost to Kentucky and Alabama in two close games without our best player

I think if we win out theres a chance we're national champs.

94chem said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

94chem said:

---

fightintxag13 said:

---

94chem said:

---

1 and 2 are the same thing, pretty much.

---

No they're not. Sweet 16 matchup is more manageable playing against a 4 or 5 as opposed to a likely 3 seed.

---

Meh. The 4/5 teams are quite often teams like last year's Alabama. 1997 Arizona. When you get to the 2nd weekend, seeds don't matter. You either play your best or you go home.

---

No.

---

Yeah, you're still missing a huge part. I know all of those numbers, more or less. I'm talking about how teams are playing, not somebody's opinion of them. If you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed, there are up to 24 six through 11 seeds that can beat you on any given day. The 1's don't beat the 8/9 winner because the 8/9 winner is worse than the 6/11 winner or the 7/10 winner. The 1's win because they're that much better.

In other words, if you make Duke, Auburn, Alabama, and Florida 2 seeds, you wouldn't change their odds much of making the Final 4.

---

What? That makes no sense at all. Statistically, any given 2 seed has much lower percentage odds of making the Final 4 than a 1 seed ... its right there in the data table. So if Duke, Alabama, Auburn and Florida were all 2 seeds, there odds of making the Final 4 would be lower than if they were 1 seeds.

If those 4 teams are 2 seeds, that means there are 4 teams that are deemed "better" than them and were made 1 seeds. And as a 2 seed, if chalk holds, on average you play a "better" team per game than the 1 seed, meaning your odds of losing are higher, and then you have to play the 1 seed to get to the Final 4.

Unless you are saying somehow that those 4 teams should be 1 seeds but they are just placed as 2 seeds for no reason?

Edit: If you are talking about "odds" in regards to betting, then I could see you being more right.

If we make our FT, look out.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. You know what to expect from our FT shooting.

Heck, I think it's baked into the DNA of Aggie Basketball. How many times in the last 20 years have we had a team shoot better than 70%?

Couple years ago we shot great.

It's very difficult to actually use those seed probabilities for anything because they don't measure what you want to actually know.

Presumably the question is whether our team, which has a certain specific level of quality, ie we are as good as we are, would have statistically significant variations in expected outcomes depending on where we are seeded.

However, just looking at the results from each seed line cant separate out the fact that the tournament is seeded by trying to put better teams on higher seed lines and worse teams on lower seed lines. You can tell what teams ended up doing as a certain seed, but there is no data on what those same teams would have done if they had been moved up or down a seed line given their quality.

94chem said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

94chem said:

---

fightintxag13 said:

---

94chem said:

---

1 and 2 are the same thing, pretty much.

---

No they're not. Sweet 16 matchup is more manageable playing against a 4 or 5 as opposed to a likely 3 seed.

---

Meh. The 4/5 teams are quite often teams like last year's Alabama. 1997 Arizona. When you get to the 2nd weekend, seeds don't matter. You either play your best or you go home.

---

No.

---

Yeah, you're still missing a huge part. I know all of those numbers, more or less. I'm talking about how teams are playing, not somebody's opinion of them. If you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed, there are up to 24 six through 11 seeds that can beat you on any given day. The 1's don't beat the 8/9 winner because the 8/9 winner is worse than the 6/11 winner or the 7/10 winner. The 1's win because they're that much better.

In other words, if you make Duke, Auburn, Alabama, and Florida 2 seeds, you wouldn't change their odds much of making the Final 4.

---

What an insane lack of statistical awareness

JJxvi said:

---

It's very difficult to actually use those seed probabilities for anything because they don't measure what you want to actually know.

Presumably the question is whether our team, which has a certain specific level of quality, ie we are as good as we are, would have statistically significant variations in expected outcomes depending on where we are seeded.

However, just looking at the results from each seed line cant separate out the fact that the tournament is seeded by trying to put better teams on higher seed lines and worse teams on lower seed lines. You can tell what teams ended up doing as a certain seed, but there is no data on what those same teams would have done if they had been moved up or down a seed line given their quality.

---

Amazing how difficult this is for people to understand. Two completely inextricable types of information. There is a 3rd type, which is where you get to play, but that really only comes in to play for a few one seeds.

People get bent out of shape over getting a 3 instead of a 2, or a 2 instead of a 1 based on a chart? If you took 2009 UNC or 2024 UConn and made them 11 seeds, it would have only decreased their odds of winning by a small amount, since they wouldn't have the first round gimme.