trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,327
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2015 17:45:58 GMT -5
Pitt def. Virginia 3-0 Villanova leads Xavier 2-0 and 12-7. Arizona leads Arizona State 1-0. Xavier is getting shredded on the slide .. but Bessler is doing all she can to get X back in it. Back to back aces for her. 15-14 Nova Floor defense is horrible for Xavier 18-15 NOVA
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,327
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2015 17:54:36 GMT -5
Villanova looked really good. Tournament team. They could ensure it by beating Creighton tomorrow.
Xavier will be back again next year. They improved alot and beat Marquette twice, after starting the season 4-7!
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2015 17:54:17 GMT -5
Villanova wins -20, -19, -17
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Nov 27, 2015 17:57:45 GMT -5
Will this win get Nova in regardless of the outcome tomorrow? Creighton is in regardless, Marquette has a nice RPI and a few v good wins.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2015 18:34:03 GMT -5
Set 1: Northern Iowa 25, Wichita State 15
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2015 18:37:59 GMT -5
Arizona leads ASU 2-1
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,327
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2015 18:40:12 GMT -5
Set 1: Northern Iowa 25, Wichita State 15 UNI was down 4 or 5 early but now leads set 2 12-9. Wow. Make it 14-9. This is not the Wichita State team I've seen all season. If UNI wins, all 4 teams playing today in the MVC might get in, Wichita St, Mo State, Southern Ill, Northern Iowa..
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2015 18:54:14 GMT -5
Northern Iowa takes a 2-0 lead.
|
|
|
Post by gouci on Nov 27, 2015 19:12:17 GMT -5
Arizona finishes off Arizona St. 3-1.
|
|
|
Post by flyingMoose on Nov 27, 2015 19:32:18 GMT -5
After some lineup changes, Wichita State take set three by 25-17 and trail Northern Iowa, 2-1.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2015 19:49:16 GMT -5
Wichita State forces a 5th set against Northern Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Nov 27, 2015 20:09:17 GMT -5
Wichita State forces a 5th set against Northern Iowa. Wichita State completes the comeback, after being down 2-0, with a 15-7 5th game win.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 27, 2015 20:16:00 GMT -5
Wichita State forces a 5th set against Northern Iowa. Wichita State completes the comeback, after being down 2-0, with a 15-7 5th game win. UNI with 34 attack errors (23 of which were unforced), 5 service errors, and 9 receive errors. Might as well have wrapped it up in festive paper and a bow for WSU
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 27, 2015 20:33:02 GMT -5
The argument would be because who you were yesterday correlates more strongly with who you are today as opposed to who you were 2 months ago correlating with who you are today. Have you actually investigated this? I have. A lot. If you look at teams who play early in the season and then play again, there is very little difference in the outcome of the second match if it is played 1 week after the first vs 2 months later. There is a couple percent dropoff, but that's about it. So in the end, yeah, it's ok to weight later season matches slightly more than early season matches, but only very slightly, and far less than most people are wont to do. And you most certainly should not discount early matches completely. They need to be considered. On the whole, it's far better to just treat them equally than to try to weight them, because most people are going to weight them wrong. Alternatively, we could ask the question, if teams change a lot, then why do Pablo rankings from the third week of the season predict the rest of the season matches nearly as well as it predicts the upcoming week? This is true. Beginning of October Pablo rankings might predict 80.5% of the matches in the next week. And for the rest of the season, the prediction rate drops to maybe 80.2%. If teams changed a lot (relative to others) during the season, you wouldn't see this. However, that result is robust, and it is persistent throughout the season. Then again, it's not really surprising. Shoot, teams don't change relatively much over YEARS much less within a season. You can take Pablo rankings from 3 years ago and get a non-embarrassing result for predicting matches this year. On the whole, team changes are typically very, very slow. Arizona St is a good counter-example, but that is a situation with a known cause. And even there, you can't say for sure they would have maintained the same level. Variation happens. You're making a different argument. Maybe they beat them for different reasons the second time. It can be exclusive minus further quantification and qualification. I don't think weighting them would be difficult as long as linearly and not power law. The only issue issue would be how small of a coefficient. Re: Pablo. It could be because a few variables are much stronger than others in the algorithm. Have you run a regression to see if true? I haven't looked into Pablo enough to see if it's been reverse-engineered. ASU is an example of what I'm talking about. However, sometimes injuries to role players are just as critical yet wouldn't be common sense like Gardener and ASU.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2015 22:34:29 GMT -5
Missouri State sweeps Southern Illinois.
Long Beach leads Pacific 1-0.
|
|