what would you rather?
- Thread starter proisu
- Start date
Espn's opinion on us
With bracketological debates reaching a fever pitch, here are the nation's 10 most vulnerable Giants, as projected by our 2012 Giant Killers statistical model.
A few reminders: A Giant Killer is any team that beats an NCAA tournament opponent seeded at least five spots higher in any round, except for squads from the six BCS power conferences plus Butler, BYU, Gonzaga, Memphis, Temple, UNLV and Xavier, who are ineligible. And a Giant is simply any team that could lose to a Killer.
Our model doesn't care about RPI, quality wins or any kind of wins. Instead, through regression analysis of tempo-free, team-level statistics, we determine which of this season's programs most closely resemble teams who have slain Giants or fallen to Killers since 2004. Our model rates all possible Giants from zero to 100, based on their likelihood of falling to a hypothetical Killer; we will proceed to matchup scores once we get actual tournament seedings.
We have rated all Giants among the top 36 teams in Joe Lunardi's latest S-curve. These have a 90 percent or better chance to make the tournament, and are likely to get seeded ninth or higher in their brackets, according to Lunardi.
Look out below! Here are the top 10 potential Goliaths who could go down:
Like Vanderbilt or Florida State, Iowa State is a much better team than Giant. The Cyclones let opponents take a lot of shots, and a lot of good shots, but amp up their efficiency by crashing the defensive boards. Unfortunately, our model finds that forcing turnovers and stifling 2-point shots are important for warding off Killers, while limiting opponent offensive rebounds doesn't add much to a Giant's survival chances. This means Iowa State will probably have an easier time against Texas in the Big 12 tournament on Thursday night than it would against, say, Belmont.
Key stats: The Cyclones generate turnovers on just 18 percent of opponent possessions (ranking 288th in the NCAA), and allow opponents to shoot 50.3 percent from inside (267th).
With bracketological debates reaching a fever pitch, here are the nation's 10 most vulnerable Giants, as projected by our 2012 Giant Killers statistical model.
A few reminders: A Giant Killer is any team that beats an NCAA tournament opponent seeded at least five spots higher in any round, except for squads from the six BCS power conferences plus Butler, BYU, Gonzaga, Memphis, Temple, UNLV and Xavier, who are ineligible. And a Giant is simply any team that could lose to a Killer.
Our model doesn't care about RPI, quality wins or any kind of wins. Instead, through regression analysis of tempo-free, team-level statistics, we determine which of this season's programs most closely resemble teams who have slain Giants or fallen to Killers since 2004. Our model rates all possible Giants from zero to 100, based on their likelihood of falling to a hypothetical Killer; we will proceed to matchup scores once we get actual tournament seedings.
We have rated all Giants among the top 36 teams in Joe Lunardi's latest S-curve. These have a 90 percent or better chance to make the tournament, and are likely to get seeded ninth or higher in their brackets, according to Lunardi.
Look out below! Here are the top 10 potential Goliaths who could go down:
Like Vanderbilt or Florida State, Iowa State is a much better team than Giant. The Cyclones let opponents take a lot of shots, and a lot of good shots, but amp up their efficiency by crashing the defensive boards. Unfortunately, our model finds that forcing turnovers and stifling 2-point shots are important for warding off Killers, while limiting opponent offensive rebounds doesn't add much to a Giant's survival chances. This means Iowa State will probably have an easier time against Texas in the Big 12 tournament on Thursday night than it would against, say, Belmont.
Key stats: The Cyclones generate turnovers on just 18 percent of opponent possessions (ranking 288th in the NCAA), and allow opponents to shoot 50.3 percent from inside (267th).
Sweet 16 - more people are watching and it gets our brand out there to a hell of a lot more people.
But can't we just do both?
But can't we just do both?
For myself, I would love the Big 12 tourney title. Nationally and recruiting wise, sweet 16.
Sweet 16, final answer.
Sweet 16, final answer.
this is kind of like asking would you rather win the big 12 outright and lose in the first round of the NCAA's? Wait that happened - and it sucked. Option 2 for sure. Big 12 Tourney Championship is nice and has a 12 hour news cycle until the brackets are announced, but a sweet 16 has a week long news cycle and is much more memorable to the fans for years to come and has more impact on the fans to be
C
CyBer
Guest
Agree, lots of great pub - only 4 games that day, and big stories on Royce and Fred at least. Plus, you get a 3rd game and a shot at something more.
Any question is fair game, and either answer is acceptable, since it's opinion.
But I can't believe roughly one-third of respondents (at time of this post) chose conference title over Sweet 16.
Especially since poll doesn't stipulate "reach Sweet 16 and then lose" (although I'm sure that's the assumption with that choice).
But I can't believe roughly one-third of respondents (at time of this post) chose conference title over Sweet 16.
Especially since poll doesn't stipulate "reach Sweet 16 and then lose" (although I'm sure that's the assumption with that choice).
