2-10

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Is it 32-16 now?

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

But at least we don't have to live in California.

End of thread.

(12-25-2017 12:38 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

But at least we don't have to live in California.

End of thread.

Couldn't agree more.

(12-25-2017 12:31 AM)Limebull Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Is it 32-16 now?

I think so. It is also 6-7 or 5-7 against the MW I believe.

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Fanhood suffers from AAC envy.

(12-25-2017 12:31 AM)Limebull Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Is it 32-16 now?

It is 32-16

(12-25-2017 08:11 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Fanhood suffers from AAC envy.

So jealous.

(12-25-2017 08:36 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 08:11 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Fanhood suffers from AAC envy.

So jealous.

You are on the AAC board on Christmas morning.

(I'm waiting for my coffee to perk so I have an excuse

We got three P5 bowls left to play.

(12-25-2017 09:05 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 08:36 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 08:11 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Fanhood suffers from AAC envy.

So jealous.

You are on the AAC board on Christmas morning.

(I'm waiting for my coffee to perk so I have an excuse

Christmas started at 6am at the Fanhood household, now I am avoiding cleaning up, as Mrs Fanhood and Mother in Law do their duty. It provides menwithbamolentime to contemplate AAC superiority.

(12-25-2017 07:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:31 AM)Limebull Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Is it 32-16 now?

I think so. It is also 6-7 or 5-7 against the MW I believe.

2014-2017, current AAC members are 9-8 vs current mwc members.

Then I realized 32-16 is only 2015-2017.and I don't feel like 36 more clicks to look for '14 data and subtract.

(12-25-2017 09:48 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 07:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:31 AM)Limebull Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Is it 32-16 now?

I think so. It is also 6-7 or 5-7 against the MW I believe.

2014-2017, current AAC members are 9-8 vs current mwc members.

Then I realized 32-16 is only 2015-2017.and I don't feel like 36 more clicks to look for '14 data and subtract.

Well, if you include Navy, you should include Wichita State's Final Four, and their numerous high seeds over the past six or seven years.. That's about as much sense as it makes.

Anyway, good superior record for the AAC either way.

(12-25-2017 09:09 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 09:05 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 08:36 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 08:11 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Fanhood suffers from AAC envy.

So jealous.

You are on the AAC board on Christmas morning.

(I'm waiting for my coffee to perk so I have an excuse

Christmas started at 6am at the Fanhood household, now I am avoiding cleaning up, as Mrs Fanhood and Mother in Law do their duty. It provides menwithbamolentime to contemplate AAC superiority.

Haha, great answer. Merry Christmas!

(12-25-2017 09:54 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 09:48 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 07:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:31 AM)Limebull Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:08 AM)fanhood Wrote:  2-10

Is it 32-16 now?

I think so. It is also 6-7 or 5-7 against the MW I believe.

2014-2017, current AAC members are 9-8 vs current mwc members.

Then I realized 32-16 is only 2015-2017.and I don't feel like 36 more clicks to look for '14 data and subtract.

Well, if you include Navy, you should include Wichita State's Final Four, and their numerous high seeds over the past six or seven years.. That's about as much sense as it makes.

Anyway, good superior record for the AAC either way.

Well if the point is to discuss relative conference strength, then yes it makes MORE sense to include Navy's (and Wichita State's) resume in the chosen window.
I defaulted to four years because that's the McMurphy tweet G4s have brought over here more than once. Although McMurphy omits the Navy SDSU result too. Four years also makes sense because it's this year's seniors - players in the Navy team that will play Virginia Thursday were on the field for that win over the G4 Aztecs.

Is the point to have a valid discussion about the performance of the AAC relative to other conferences? Then including Navy results which included some of today's AAC Navy players makes sense. It makes more sense than omitting relevant data when you ALREADY have a small sample size.
If the point is to cherry pick data to feed an anti-AAC bias, then go ahead and omit 8% of the data available to you.

(12-25-2017 11:58 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 09:54 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 09:48 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 07:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 12:31 AM)Limebull Wrote:  Is it 32-16 now?

I think so. It is also 6-7 or 5-7 against the MW I believe.

2014-2017, current AAC members are 9-8 vs current mwc members.

Then I realized 32-16 is only 2015-2017.and I don't feel like 36 more clicks to look for '14 data and subtract.

Well, if you include Navy, you should include Wichita State's Final Four, and their numerous high seeds over the past six or seven years.. That's about as much sense as it makes.

Anyway, good superior record for the AAC either way.

Well if the point is to discuss relative conference strength, then yes it makes MORE sense to include Navy's (and Wichita State's) resume in the chosen window.
I defaulted to four years because that's the McMurphy tweet G4s have brought over here more than once. Although McMurphy omits the Navy SDSU result too. Four years also makes sense because it's this year's seniors - players in the Navy team that will play Virginia Thursday were on the field for that win over the G4 Aztecs.

Is the point to have a valid discussion about the performance of the AAC relative to other conferences? Then including Navy results which included some of today's AAC Navy players makes sense. It makes more sense than omitting relevant data when you ALREADY have a small sample size.
If the point is to cherry pick data to feed an anti-AAC bias, then go ahead and omit 8% of the data available to you.

If the issue is to asses the performance of the AAC vs other conferences, it is completely invalid to include Navy or Wichita State results that were achieved before they joined the AAC, as those results were not AAC results vs other conferences, they are the results of whatever conferences those teams were members of at the time.

That's not debatable in any serious way.

Now, if we are looking to the future to predict how the AAC will do against other conferences, then sure, the track record of those schools, including results before they joined the AAC, is relevant and it's useful to include them.

(12-25-2017 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 11:58 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 09:54 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 09:48 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 07:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  I think so. It is also 6-7 or 5-7 against the MW I believe.

2014-2017, current AAC members are 9-8 vs current mwc members.

Then I realized 32-16 is only 2015-2017.and I don't feel like 36 more clicks to look for '14 data and subtract.

Well, if you include Navy, you should include Wichita State's Final Four, and their numerous high seeds over the past six or seven years.. That's about as much sense as it makes.

Anyway, good superior record for the AAC either way.

Well if the point is to discuss relative conference strength, then yes it makes MORE sense to include Navy's (and Wichita State's) resume in the chosen window.
I defaulted to four years because that's the McMurphy tweet G4s have brought over here more than once. Although McMurphy omits the Navy SDSU result too. Four years also makes sense because it's this year's seniors - players in the Navy team that will play Virginia Thursday were on the field for that win over the G4 Aztecs.

Is the point to have a valid discussion about the performance of the AAC relative to other conferences? Then including Navy results which included some of today's AAC Navy players makes sense. It makes more sense than omitting relevant data when you ALREADY have a small sample size.
If the point is to cherry pick data to feed an anti-AAC bias, then go ahead and omit 8% of the data available to you.

If the issue is to asses the performance of the AAC vs other conferences, it is completely invalid to include Navy or Wichita State results that were achieved before they joined the AAC, as those results were not AAC results vs other conferences, they are the results of whatever conferences those teams were members of at the time.

That's not debatable in any serious way.

Now, if we are looking to the future to predict how the AAC will do against other conferences, then sure, the track record of those schools, including results before they joined the AAC, is relevant and it's useful to include them.

Well, yeah that's what I meant about assessing relative conference strength today and moving forward, and saying that the '14 Navy results included today's AAC players.
Wahts the point if not to make an assessment about today and tomorrow?
G4s talk yesterday. P6 is about today and more importantly tomorrow.
I'd rather talk about today's results and ratings shaping the next contract; you feel free to focus on a contract negotiated when the conference was falling apart