College Basketball 2025-26 season thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 22K
  • Sports 
BillOfRights said:
I did discredit the graph. I must have missed your post where you acknowledged that.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry, yes it doesn’t include all relevant data if it’s missing rebounding data.

Now, would including UNC’s rebounding numbers help to bolster their predicted performance in March or not? I think so, if those numbers are good, and I think not, if the numbers are bad.

What are the numbers? (I’ve done a quick search but haven’t found anything. I do know that Greg has said that they haven’t been great, but not sure if he’s correct in his assessment.)
 
stankeylegjones said:
Oh, sorry, yes it doesn’t include all relevant data if it’s missing rebounding data.

Now, would including UNC’s rebounding numbers help to bolster their predicted performance in March or not? I think so, if those numbers are good, and I think not, if the numbers are bad.

What are the numbers? (I’ve done a quick search but haven’t found anything. I do know that Greg has said that they haven’t been great, but not sure if he’s correct in his assessment.)
Click to expand...
"Doesn't include all relevant data"??????

The graph indicated that Tulsa and George Washington would have a better chance in March than Carolina. Does that pass the smell test with you?

It was based simply on number of possessions and offensive efficiency, and even then, it was just using rebounding margin and not rebounding percentage. Besides misusing rebounding, turnovers were the only part of defense it considered. It was malarkey.
 
BillOfRights said:
"Doesn't include all relevant data"??????

The graph indicated that Tulsa and George Washington would have a better chance in March than Carolina. Does that pass the smell test with you?

It was based simply on number of possessions and offensive efficiency, and even then, it was just using rebounding margin and not rebounding percentage. Besides misusing rebounding, turnovers were the only part of defense it considered. It was malarkey.
Click to expand...
Ah, I don't think the graph was meant to be a "sufficient prediction." More of a "necessary prediction." Yes, I agree with you about Tulsa and GW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top