27 Feb 2006 14:03:52
Edward M. Kennedy
Parity

Central Mean Simple Average
1. B10 ACC
2. BEast BEast
3. ACC B10

Thanks. B10 gets the Big Belly Award. ACC is prettiest
top to bottom.

--Tedward




27 Feb 2006 14:07:52
Geoffrey F. Green
Re: Parity

In article <dtvhi1$q1b$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu >,
"Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com > wrote:

> Central Mean Simple Average
> 1. B10 ACC
> 2. BEast BEast
> 3. ACC B10
>
> Thanks. B10 gets the Big Belly Award. ACC is prettiest
> top to bottom.

If the ACC is the prettiest, then college hoops is pretty damn ugly
this year.

- geoff


27 Feb 2006 19:12:04
Fred Dehl
Re: Parity

"Geoffrey F. Green" <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com > wrote in news:geoff-
usenet2-7B269F.14075227022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com:

> In article <dtvhi1$q1b$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>,
> "Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>> Central Mean Simple Average
>> 1. B10 ACC
>> 2. BEast BEast
>> 3. ACC B10
>>
>> Thanks. B10 gets the Big Belly Award. ACC is prettiest
>> top to bottom.
>
> If the ACC is the prettiest...

... that makes JJ the Johnny Weir of CBB.


27 Feb 2006 11:38:48
Re: Parity

Pardon my interuption from the usual ACC >>Big East>>Big Ten>>ACC>>Big
East >>Big Ten>>ad naseum, but is anyone surprised by how close the SEC
rates to these three? In fact, I'm willing to bet that the top four
conferences are in a statistical tie.

Of course, I'm sure UT-Knox, UF, etc. will flame out early in the big
dance, but look out NIT!



27 Feb 2006 14:41:35
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: Parity

"Geoffrey F. Green" <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com > wrote

>> Central Mean Simple Average
>> 1. B10 ACC
>> 2. BEast BEast
>> 3. ACC B10
>>
>> Thanks. B10 gets the Big Belly Award. ACC is prettiest
>> top to bottom.
>
> If the ACC is the prettiest, then college hoops is pretty damn ugly
> this year.

It's not so much the ACC is pretty, but that we don't have
any dogs. All 12 teams are in the top 100. Every other
conference has at least two ugly ducklings.

The B10 can brag about 7 in the top 40. Picking a different
cherry, the ACC has 9 in the top 75, while the B10 now has
"only" 8. Not a good recipe for either conference in the
tournament though -- the BEast has 6 in the top 25, 7 in the
top 30, and 9 in the top 50.

I'm still going with the B10 though, but it will be close.

--Tedward





27 Feb 2006 14:44:14
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: Parity

<i_like_sockeye@mailandnews.com > wrote

> Pardon my interuption from the usual ACC>>Big East>>Big Ten>>ACC>>Big
> East>>Big Ten>>ad naseum, but is anyone surprised by how close the SEC
> rates to these three? In fact, I'm willing to bet that the top four
> conferences are in a statistical tie.

Nah, the SEC is no slouch, but they are off by about a point
with both metrics. A point for a conference average is a
significant amount.

> Of course, I'm sure UT-Knox, UF, etc. will flame out early in the big
> dance, but look out NIT!

Agreed.

--Tedward




27 Feb 2006 12:33:00
Re: Parity


Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> <i_like_sockeye@mailandnews.com> wrote
>
> > Pardon my interuption from the usual ACC>>Big East>>Big Ten>>ACC>>Big
> > East>>Big Ten>>ad naseum, but is anyone surprised by how close the SEC
> > rates to these three? In fact, I'm willing to bet that the top four
> > conferences are in a statistical tie.
>
> Nah, the SEC is no slouch, but they are off by about a point
> with both metrics. A point for a conference average is a
> significant amount.

Yeah, your write. Stupid Central Limit Theorem.



28 Feb 2006 02:51:13
navin
Re: Parity

i_like_sockeye@mailandnews.com wrote:
> Pardon my interuption from the usual ACC>>Big East>>Big Ten>>ACC>>Big
> East>>Big Ten>>ad naseum, but is anyone surprised by how close the SEC
> rates to these three? In fact, I'm willing to bet that the top four
> conferences are in a statistical tie.
>
> Of course, I'm sure UT-Knox, UF, etc. will flame out early in the big
> dance, but look out NIT!

Maybe Dave Odom will win another NIT title, that's what he's good at.
(Because he sure isn't good at recruiting or forming an actual contender.)