|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 28, 2015 16:11:50 GMT -5
Or maybe the whole Big East is overrated by RPI? Creighton is the only team in the top 50 in Pablo. I don't think there is any doubt that's true, but that doesn't mean Creighton won't be a tough out. OK, they are at the level of an average at-large team. They aren't the pushover AQ that typically ends up facing Penn St. But I wouldn't over-interpret their results within the Big East.
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Nov 28, 2015 16:40:24 GMT -5
For perspective, Creighton lost at home in 4 to Pacific, who ended up being a sub .500 WCC team...
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 28, 2015 17:13:31 GMT -5
There is no evidence that these 6 upsets are non-randomly distributed, and irrespective of quality. What would constitute evidence that the upsets are randomly distributed? The best evidence is lack of a non-random distribution. Which you don't have, nor do I. If there's no evidence for it, either because you've not looked or because the data aren't sufficient to be able to establish it, then you can't just claim it is true. Then control for the level of competition. What does this have to do with good teams vs not as good teams? Yes. So it doesn't make sense to claim there ARE non-random effects. Those first quote you responded to was your own. For whatever reason, when I hit the quote button it took out the end quote. Regarding the last part, I didn't claim there were, I questioned it, then you said there wasn't enough data. However, that doesn't mean speculation is unfounded since that's an epistemological issue, not a probabilistic one. Common sense would tell us it's not random since almost nothing in the natural world follows a random distribution. But again, not a big enough sample to qualify/disqualify.
|
|