MSU vs OU

[boogerlovejoy]

it actually does matter if you view your success beyond a national title. let's say MSU gets an 8 and has to play kentucky in the 2nd round, as opposed to being a 7 and having a better chance against a 2, it makes a big difference in terms of the season being a success.

I think you have a better chance against a stronger opponent with shorter prep, it brings a lot of other factors in play like fatigue, scouting, etc. the more that is randomized the better of a chance the underdog has

Both teams get the same amount of prep.....give or take a few hours. Good coaching wins out in those situations. I think MSU would have beaten UVA in ANY rounds this year. Just my opinion of course.....I just think MSU was the better team at this point of the season.

Seeding can work against you as easily as it can for you. Short turn arounds or not.....both teams go through it.

 

[Sbee]

Both teams get the same amount of prep.....give or take a few hours. Good coaching wins out in those situations. I think MSU would have beaten UVA in ANY rounds this year. Just my opinion of course.....I just think MSU was the better team at this point of the season.

Seeding can work against you as easily as it can for you. Short turn arounds or not.....both teams go through it.

agree to disagree on that one. I think the randomness of the short turnaround brings teams closer together, over time the better team has more of an advantage.

 

[tomdalton22]

If you are not a top 4 seed the seeds that I would least want would be an 8 or 9. I would rather be a 10 or 11...hell, even a 12.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

agree to disagree on that one. I think the randomness of the short turnaround brings teams closer together, over time the better team has more of an advantage.

Then why are the number of first round upsets so high every year? Seems like, with more time to prepare......a 12 should NEVER beat a 5 right? But it happens every year.

You don't think 6th seeded MSU would have preferred to be a 7th seed in 2006 instead of facing George Mason in the 1st round?

College basketball has come to the point where a better seed after the first round or two only gives you a very slight advantage.....if any. Prep time between games is a very small factor.....IMO.

 

[Sbee]

Then why are the number of first round upsets so high every year? Seems like, with more time to prepare......a 12 should NEVER beat a 5 right? But it happens every year.

You don't think 6th seeded MSU would have preferred to be a 7th seed in 2006 instead of facing George Mason in the 1st round?

College basketball has come to the point where a better seed after the first round or two only gives you a very slight advantage.....if any. Prep time between games is a very small factor.....IMO.

the tourney is imperfect in a lot of ways. This year i would have rather been an 11 instead of a 7, 8, 9, or 10 just due to all of the great teams at the top. i'd rather have to beat a 6 and a 3 to make the SS as opposed to a 10 and a 2.

 

[Sbee]

Just FYI I think we beat OU, the more I hear about them the more it plays into our hands. we can run them out of the gym, they have next to no depth, they play 8 but only 6 get real minutes. I think our bigs are going to run and move and keep their bigs moving (those guys play 36 minutes or so), we'll keep subbing Schilling, Costello, Dawson, and Clark.

I think we move on

 

[Spartanmack]

it actually does matter if you view your success beyond a national title. let's say MSU gets an 8 and has to play kentucky in the 2nd round, as opposed to being a 7 and having a better chance against a 2, it makes a big difference in terms of the season being a success.

I think you have a better chance against a stronger opponent with shorter prep, it brings a lot of other factors in play like fatigue, scouting, etc. the more that is randomized the better of a chance the underdog has

Exactly. Everyone knows fatigue favors the underdog - probably because they didn't exert as much effort during the regular season to get the better seed. Also, prep time favors the favorite, and not the coach 538 says is by far the best tournament coach. In general, the underdog coaches prep degrades with time - that's been proven. Like for example, look what happened to OSU in the college football playoff against Alabama with all that prep time....oh wait, well look what happened to them in the NC game with a week's worth of prep time...oh wait, just take my word for it, there's a positive correlation b/w prep time and the favorites' winning percentage. Plus, don't forget that the UVA players had to wear orange shoes while our guys were wearing sweet green ones - you can't discount factors that favor underdogs like fatigue, prep time and shoe color.

Fatigue and/or prep time weren't the reasons why MSU had 50% fewer turnovers than they average and it had little or nothing to do with why we shot 50% from 3 while UVA shot just 11%.

And seeding doesn't cost you a round in the tourney, at least not the diff b/w being a 7 or an 8. A 7 seed playing a 2 may be less of an underdog than an 8 playing a 1 but the 7 is still a big underdog. At best, it costs you a slightly better chance at making it through to another round. It definitely doesn't cost you another round.

 

[Spartanmack]

Both teams get the same amount of prep.....give or take a few hours. Good coaching wins out in those situations. I think MSU would have beaten UVA in ANY rounds this year. Just my opinion of course.....I just think MSU was the better team at this point of the season.

Seeding can work against you as easily as it can for you. Short turn arounds or not.....both teams go through it.

I'm not so sure we are a better team at this point in the year - i think we did what we needed to do to win the game which was not turn the ball over and hit free throws when it counted (overall, FT shooting was as bad as usual but when it mattered most, they hit them) and UVA had a horrible shooting night - they're not a great 3 pt shooting team but they only hit 11%.

agree to disagree on that one. I think the randomness of the short turnaround brings teams closer together, over time the better team has more of an advantage.

Time has NOTHING to do with it. If the odds are accurate, then the favorite has an advantage over a series, not over period of time that is equal for both teams. This is exactly why they play the games - sometimes the dog w/ a 36% chance of winning has one of those 36% nights. That's all you need in an one-and-done event and it looks like that's what happened on Sunday...

 

[Sbee]

I'm not so sure we are a better team at this point in the year - i think we did what we needed to do to win the game which was not turn the ball over and hit free throws when it counted (overall, FT shooting was as bad as usual but when it mattered most, they hit them) and UVA had a horrible shooting night - they're not a great 3 pt shooting team but they only hit 11%.



Time has NOTHING to do with it. If the odds are accurate, then the favorite has an advantage over a series, not over period of time that is equal for both teams. This is exactly why they play the games - sometimes the dog w/ a 36% chance of winning has one of those 36% nights. That's all you need in an one-and-done event and it looks like that's what happened on Sunday...

Hey, I totally get the fact that you feel the need to argue with me and disagree on everything I post. I let you go in the IL thread so you need to track me down somewhere else, i understand.

As for your 36% argument, you just don't get nuance. to say that those games have the same percentages under the same circumstances shows that you really don't know what you're talking about. I understand computer models or prediction methods making sense for coin flips or drawing a card in a card game, but there are other external factors that impact basketball games, turnaround time is one of them.

It's my opinion that short prep helped us, would we have won if we opened with them? maybe, maybe not but the short prep turned things in our favor. One is the fatigue factor, not just from game play but constant prep, practice, walk throughs, those wear on a player. the first thing to go with fatigue is the jump shot, we've seen it a million times in conference tournaments where teams don't shoot well from 3 late in tournaments. we played a similar pack line style to Virginia on sunday, forced them into outside shots and tried to close quicky on them. the result is that UVA shot for 17 in the game, they're not a great outside shooting team but if they shoot even their season average they make 6 3's and it's a different outcome.

Another factor that plays into Izzo's hands with short turnaround is depth. You rarely see a MSU player average over 30 minutes, when they do it's usually a player so critical to performance they simply can't play without him like 2007 Neitzel or 2012 Draymond. Our role players played a huge part in that game, Schilling playing 17 minutes (yes i know he's a starter but he plays reserve minutes), Ellis getting 11, Clark 11, and Forbes 27 (due to foul trouble on valentine). We played 2 guys over 23 minutes, UVA played 5. We have depth because we need depth, you can't spill it on the defensive end playing tough man to man D with constant switching and help defense and also look to run on offense and go 35 minutes, I guess you could do it, you just wouldn't do it well. we have guys who are experienced and ready to step in when someone gets tired or is in foul trouble.

My point is that short turnaround helps us and generally helps MSU.

 

[Spartanmack]

Hey, I totally get the fact that you feel the need to argue with me and disagree on everything I post. I let you go in the IL thread so you need to track me down somewhere else, i understand.

As for your 36% argument, you just don't get nuance. to say that those games have the same percentages under the same circumstances shows that you really don't know what you're talking about. I understand computer models or prediction methods making sense for coin flips or drawing a card in a card game, but there are other external factors that impact basketball games, turnaround time is one of them.

It's my opinion that short prep helped us, would we have won if we opened with them? maybe, maybe not but the short prep turned things in our favor. One is the fatigue factor, not just from game play but constant prep, practice, walk throughs, those wear on a player. the first thing to go with fatigue is the jump shot, we've seen it a million times in conference tournaments where teams don't shoot well from 3 late in tournaments. we played a similar pack line style to Virginia on sunday, forced them into outside shots and tried to close quicky on them. the result is that UVA shot for 17 in the game, they're not a great outside shooting team but if they shoot even their season average they make 6 3's and it's a different outcome.

Another factor that plays into Izzo's hands with short turnaround is depth. You rarely see a MSU player average over 30 minutes, when they do it's usually a player so critical to performance they simply can't play without him like 2007 Neitzel or 2012 Draymond. Our role players played a huge part in that game, Schilling playing 17 minutes (yes i know he's a starter but he plays reserve minutes), Ellis getting 11, Clark 11, and Forbes 27 (due to foul trouble on valentine). We played 2 guys over 23 minutes, UVA played 5. We have depth because we need depth, you can't spill it on the defensive end playing tough man to man D with constant switching and help defense and also look to run on offense and go 35 minutes, I guess you could do it, you just wouldn't do it well. we have guys who are experienced and ready to step in when someone gets tired or is in foul trouble.

My point is that short turnaround helps us and generally helps MSU.

Pretty funny coming from the guy who tried to drag out an argument for 2+ pages after i repeatedly told you i wasn't going to explain myself for a fifth time and didn't care what you thought about what i said. The best part of that was that you accused me of trying to get the last word. Now you're accusing me of trolling after you literally bumped a 3 week old thread then tried to carry on an argument over semantics for pages. Good one sbee. But don't flatter yourself - I don't feel the need to argue anything with you. When you act like an asshole and then say something as ridiculous as "short prep time favors underdogs" you should be prepared for people to disagree. I do get "nuance" but I don't think you know what that means. Obviously, there are multiple factors that go into sporting events and it's impossible for a mathematical model to capture all of them to accurately predict probabilities. That doesn't change the fact that prep time doesn't accrue an advantage to either team.

I don't have a "36% argument" or at least not the one you seem to think I have. I didn't say that the odds would be the same under any circumstances or that those were 100% accurate or anything like that. Those were the odds for THAT game and I used them to illustrate my point. They very likely could have been different under different circumstances, but prep time isn't one of them. For example, if Justin Anderson didn't miss several weeks due to injury and didn't come back 2 weeks earlier than predicted. They would also be different for a series and each game in the series would have at least slightly different odds - (however, the series odds would be a function of the individual game odds at the start of the series). If you want to once again hone in on one minor detail and pretend like I think the 36% chance the odds makers were giving MSU is 100% accurate or that the odds would be the same under any circumstance just because I used that one game as an example, go ahead.

Now you seem to be meshing your prep time and your fatigue argument to be the same point as if "prep time" is this catch all for multiple factors. It may be true that fatigue favored MSU in this one instance, but that's not your argument unless you're changing your argument so you can be right. You said:

I think you have a better chance against a stronger opponent with shorter prep, it brings a lot of other factors in play like fatigue, scouting, etc. the more that is randomized the better of a chance the underdog has

It's definitely not true that fatigue is some kind of equalizer that give underdogs a better chance. Scouting also doesn't accrue an advantage to the favorite or the underdog - they both have the same amount of time to look at tape. Depth does help the fatigue argument, but of course depth has nothing to do with prep time. And of course, we would have played at least two more guys well over 23 minutes if not for foul trouble. That's not a prep time issue - that was completely unplanned. Simply put, it's not true that prep time gives one team an advantage over another. Any advantage due to preparedness is a function of how good a coach is, not the amount of time they both have to prepare.

 

[Sbee]

Pretty funny coming from the guy who tried to drag out an argument for 2+ pages after i repeatedly told you i wasn't going to explain myself for a fifth time and didn't care what you thought about what i said. The best part of that was that you accused me of trying to get the last word. Now you're accusing me of trolling after you literally bumped a 3 week old thread then tried to carry on an argument over semantics for pages. Good one sbee. But don't flatter yourself - I don't feel the need to argue anything with you. When you act like an asshole and then say something as ridiculous as "short prep time favors underdogs" you should be prepared for people to disagree. I do get "nuance" but I don't think you know what that means. Obviously, there are multiple factors that go into sporting events and it's impossible for a mathematical model to capture all of them to accurately predict probabilities. That doesn't change the fact that prep time doesn't accrue an advantage to either team.

I don't have a "36% argument" or at least not the one you seem to think I have. I didn't say that the odds would be the same under any circumstances or that those were 100% accurate or anything like that. Those were the odds for THAT game and I used them to illustrate my point. They very likely could have been different under different circumstances, but prep time isn't one of them. For example, if Justin Anderson didn't miss several weeks due to injury and didn't come back 2 weeks earlier than predicted. They would also be different for a series and each game in the series would have at least slightly different odds - (however, the series odds would be a function of the individual game odds at the start of the series). If you want to once again hone in on one minor detail and pretend like I think the 36% chance the odds makers were giving MSU is 100% accurate or that the odds would be the same under any circumstance just because I used that one game as an example, go ahead.

Now you seem to be meshing your prep time and your fatigue argument to be the same point as if "prep time" is this catch all for multiple factors. It may be true that fatigue favored MSU in this one instance, but that's not your argument unless you're changing your argument so you can be right. You said:



It's definitely not true that fatigue is some kind of equalizer that give underdogs a better chance. Scouting also doesn't accrue an advantage to the favorite or the underdog - they both have the same amount of time to look at tape. Depth does help the fatigue argument, but of course depth has nothing to do with prep time. And of course, we would have played at least two more guys well over 23 minutes if not for foul trouble. That's not a prep time issue - that was completely unplanned. Simply put, it's not true that prep time gives one team an advantage over another. Any advantage due to preparedness is a function of how good a coach is, not the amount of time they both have to prepare.

Whether short prep favors one side or another is wholy subjective and I feel that it brings the two teams together somewhat. I see that a lot in conference tournaments as well, it seems like MSU had a better chance of beating a superior team like Wisconsin in a quick turnaround vs both teams having a week and being at their best. I'll agree to disagree with you on this and not dedicate twenty posts to the topic. feel free to argue this with yourself though

 

[lucke]

Trying to stay out of this, but it's getting annoying. At this point, this is nothing more than a pissing match between you two. Shut up and start talking basketball again, for the rest of our sanity. Thanks and go State!

 

[Sbee]

Trying to stay out of this, but it's getting annoying. At this point, this is nothing more than a pissing match between you two. Shut up and start talking basketball again, for the rest of our sanity. Thanks and go State!

hence my statement about agreeing to disagree and being finsihed with it

 

[JScottWriter]

Defense isn't playing well to start.

 

[LuciousGameWinner]

They can't miss.

 

[LuciousGameWinner]

Awful start...

 

[gotime909]

We look like total shit. Follow up a great game with not even showing up.

 

[LuciousGameWinner]

If they're extending their defense out just drive by them please!!!

 

[gotime909]

Gotta get back on D

 

[gotime909]

Get Tum back in there