Super, I like this stuff and I'll say why.

Folks who don't have a basic understanding of statistics and probability are likely to say: "You never know what will happen. Someone has to win the MAC tourney. Any team can win it."

Without a basic understanding of probability folks get way off base.

E.g., assume all 12 teams are roughly equal (for illustration) that mean each team would have approximately 8 - 9% chance to win (assuming there are no byes).

There are 1st round byes so those teams without a bye there probs are reduced from say 8 to 6%. Teams which open on the road for the first round see their probs decrease further. Down to maybe 4 or 5%. Teams seeded #11 or 12 see their odds reduced further.

So this year, a team like WMU (hate to beat them and then pick on them. Lol) might have say a 3% chance of winning the MAC tourney. 3% is pretty small.

To use the Horizon League as another example, because of Valpo, some teams may have say a 1 or 2% chance. A team unfortunate enough to be seeded in the same bracket as Valpo faces near certain defeat early on.

(02-23-2016 10:35 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  Solid opponents for the final 3 games but if EMU can win out there's still a chance for the 4 seed and a first round bye.

Wooden,

I can't believe you have me going down this route. But let's say EMU closes out with 3 wins to finish 10-8. And let's say Ball St closes out 1-2 to also finish 10-8. If I recall how MAC tie breakers work from recent years:

First tie breaker would be head to head. obviously a tie here.

Second tie breaker would be division record. this too would be a tie at 7-3.

Third tie breaker would be winning % versus top confence teams. Both lost to Akron. Both lost to Ohio. But EMU beat Kent St and Buffallo at least once, Ball State did not.

EMU would win the tie breaker, receive the division title. Division leader is guaranteed at least the fourth seed and first round bye.

Again, this scenario requires EMY to win all three remaining games and Ball St to go 1-2. Not inconceivable, but almost certainly not going to happen. Regardless it makes this Saturday's game a little more exciting....

So we have a 5.9% chance of winning out...

(02-24-2016 11:46 PM)holybovine Wrote:  So we have a 5.9% chance of winning out...

Sounds silly or whatever, but the chances of a 3 (or in our case more) win streak among equal opponents isn't good.

Assume we are 50 - 50 to win each game:

the calculation to win 3 straight 50 - 50 games: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1 / 8 or 12%.

In our case it would be less as we have road games where are prob of win is much less than 50%.

To use simple example let's presume win probs for @BSU, NIU, @UT: 1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3 = 2 / 27 or about 7.5% or very similar to the quoted 5.9%.

Sorry for going geek... Lol.

(02-24-2016 04:28 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Super, I like this stuff and I'll say why.

Folks who don't have a basic understanding of statistics and probability are likely to say: "You never know what will happen. Someone has to win the MAC tourney. Any team can win it."

Without a basic understanding of probability folks get way off base.

E.g., assume all 12 teams are roughly equal (for illustration) that mean each team would have approximately 8 - 9% chance to win (assuming there are no byes).

There are 1st round byes so those teams without a bye there probs are reduced from say 8 to 6%. Teams which open on the road for the first round see their probs decrease further. Down to maybe 4 or 5%. Teams seeded #11 or 12 see their odds reduced further.

So this year, a team like WMU (hate to beat them and then pick on them. Lol) might have say a 3% chance of winning the MAC tourney. 3% is pretty small.

To use the Horizon League as another example, because of Valpo, some teams may have say a 1 or 2% chance. A team unfortunate enough to be seeded in the same bracket as Valpo faces near certain defeat early on.

I subscribe to the news letter. This site is much more informitive and useful.

(02-24-2016 11:46 PM)holybovine Wrote:  So we have a 5.9% chance of winning out...

I can't see us winning in Savage. That place has always given us fits. That's why I feel this Ball State game is huge. Win that one and the home game against NIU, and we will almost certainly get the home game. I'd love to get to 7th or 6th, but that would require some help from WMU knocking off the team above us. Don't hold your breath.

(02-24-2016 10:56 PM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 10:35 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  Solid opponents for the final 3 games but if EMU can win out there's still a chance for the 4 seed and a first round bye.

Wooden,

I can't believe you have me going down this route. But let's say EMU closes out with 3 wins to finish 10-8. And let's say Ball St closes out 1-2 to also finish 10-8. If I recall how MAC tie breakers work from recent years:

First tie breaker would be head to head. obviously a tie here.

Second tie breaker would be division record. this too would be a tie at 7-3.

Third tie breaker would be winning % versus top confence teams. Both lost to Akron. Both lost to Ohio. But EMU beat Kent St and Buffallo at least once, Ball State did not.

EMU would win the tie breaker, receive the division title. Division leader is guaranteed at least the fourth seed and first round bye.

Again, this scenario requires EMY to win all three remaining games and Ball St to go 1-2. Not inconceivable, but almost certainly not going to happen. Regardless it makes this Saturday's game a little more exciting....

I'll correct you one one detail. The byes go to the top 4 seeds regardless of division. The west champ doe not automatically get a bye. I believe the top 4 right now are Kent, Buffalo, OU, and Akron.

The BSU debacle from last month really hurts EMU in this discussion.

(02-25-2016 08:30 AM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 11:46 PM)holybovine Wrote:  So we have a 5.9% chance of winning out...

I can't see us winning in Savage. That place has always given us fits. That's why I feel this Ball State game is huge. Win that one and the home game against NIU, and we will almost certainly get the home game. I'd love to get to 7th or 6th, but that would require some help from WMU knocking off the team above us. Don't hold your breath.

I need to 'correct' you, Sam: Ball State game is (h)uge!

Sanders has introduced a misarticulation phoneme /h/ into the American English language. (one of the others is /r/ and in New England I have an 'idear').

I like it. Whatever emphasizes the importance of Saturday's game.

If we win two of our last three games, the standings will get pretty messy. Lots of tie breakers to throw around. Right now, NIU would have an edge over us with tie breakers even if we split. It goes to record vs best common opponent, and they beat Akron. We would need Buffalo or Kent to pass Akron in that scenario to get the advantage over NIU.

Toledo would have us dead to rights in a tie breaker scenario (assuming we split), with their wins over Akron and Kent. We would have advantages over CMU (head to head) and Ball State, assuming we win Saturday. Ball didn't beat any of the top teams out west.

Like I said, things could get crazy. We could make it easier by just winning our three remaining games, however unlikely that is, but a little help in the tie breaker department can't hurt either.

(02-25-2016 08:51 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  I'll correct you one one detail. The byes go to the top 4 seeds regardless of division. The west champ doe not automatically get a bye. I believe the top 4 right now are Kent, Buffalo, OU, and Akron.

The BSU debacle from last month really hurts EMU in this discussion.

I think you have that detail slighty off. In the past, the 2 division leaders were given the 1 and 2 seeds. No longer, it is done by overall conference record. You are right to this extent. HOWEVER, there is a clause that guarantees the division leader to receive no lower than the 4th seed. This is my understanding of rules in recent past. Not sure what it is this year.

In any case, yes the Ball St stolen game could come back to haunt us.

(02-25-2016 11:47 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 08:51 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  I'll correct you one one detail. The byes go to the top 4 seeds regardless of division. The west champ doe not automatically get a bye. I believe the top 4 right now are Kent, Buffalo, OU, and Akron.

The BSU debacle from last month really hurts EMU in this discussion.

I think you have that detail slighty off. In the past, the 2 division leaders were given the 1 and 2 seeds. No longer, it is done by overall conference record. You are right to this extent. HOWEVER, there is a clause that guarantees the division leader to receive no lower than the 4th seed. This is my understanding of rules in recent past. Not sure what it is this year.

In any case, yes the Ball St stolen game could come back to haunt us.

Everything I read said it is straight seeding from 1 thru 12 this year. I haven't seen anything about seeding guarantees for winning the division.

(02-25-2016 01:24 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:47 AM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 08:51 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  I'll correct you one one detail. The byes go to the top 4 seeds regardless of division. The west champ doe not automatically get a bye. I believe the top 4 right now are Kent, Buffalo, OU, and Akron.

The BSU debacle from last month really hurts EMU in this discussion.

I think you have that detail slighty off. In the past, the 2 division leaders were given the 1 and 2 seeds. No longer, it is done by overall conference record. You are right to this extent. HOWEVER, there is a clause that guarantees the division leader to receive no lower than the 4th seed. This is my understanding of rules in recent past. Not sure what it is this year.

In any case, yes the Ball St stolen game could come back to haunt us.

Everything I read said it is straight seeding from 1 thru 12 this year. I haven't seen anything about seeding guarantees for winning the division.

I could be wrong. Thought I read that somewhere at some point. Probably a moot point for EMU's case. But someone in the west might be in the position this to a test.

Right now the road loss to NIU is hurting more. Win that and EMU controls its destiny.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

BTW, I'm glad EMU is playing better for many reasons...

When we play well the mood on this board improves immensely. When we play poorly, the mood is 'dark'.

(02-26-2016 08:35 AM)emu steve Wrote:  BTW, I'm glad EMU is playing better for many reasons...

When we play well the mood on this board improves immensely. When we play poorly, the mood is 'dark'.

Amen to that!

(02-26-2016 09:11 AM)EAGLE KING Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 08:35 AM)emu steve Wrote:  BTW, I'm glad EMU is playing better for many reasons...

When we play well the mood on this board improves immensely. When we play poorly, the mood is 'dark'.

Amen to that!

Thanks, the (late) Ken Beatrice, great sports radio host in Boston and D.C. used to say sports are a DIVERSION from life. It is a hobby. A love. A passion.

Please do not turn it into an emotional burden like where Rhoda Rossey was "suicidal" (I think what she said was too strong, maybe better to say 'very depressed') after her loss last year.

A rule of thumb for sports: Try not to get too high or too low. Both success and failure are fleeting (unless one was a Cubs fan for decades). Like the weather, things change for the better and also for the worse...

Steve,

In the spirit of continuity, I believe if we ran a structured offense (plays to JT4 and screens for Ray Lee) plus played man to man defense we would have won 11games in conference.

I know we score a lot, but when we have to absolutely have a good look at the basket, a screen play for Lee would do wonders. Lee went for 46 against Miami's zone. If our Lee played against EMUs zone, he would average 30pts. Y'all know how I feel Man to Man gives you the best chance on defense.

I noticed that the BSU fans seem to think that the ref-gate game at the convo was not truly influenced by refs. They claim the should've got the ball on a held ball tie-up with about 5 secs left. Amazing how loyalty to your team can cause blindness.

(02-26-2016 09:56 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  I noticed that the BSU fans seem to think that the ref-gate game at the convo was not truly influenced by refs. They claim the should've got the ball on a held ball tie-up with about 5 secs left. Amazing how loyalty to your team can cause blindness.

Not to mention the BSU player had his arms around Naz while fighting for the tie up. Even if they called a jump ball, which would have been awful, it would've at least been a call. They would've had time on the clock, but there is virtually no chance that their best shooter would've got a wide open look like he did. The players expected a whistle (as did everyone), so they froze. We were robbed of a justifiable ending, at the very least. Basically every unbiased fan saw it that way.

Let the BSU fans think that. It is what it is. We shot terribly in that game, Thompson and Bond both fouled out early in the first OT, we played the entire 2nd OT with Blake Brown and Ethan Alvano on the floor, and they STILL needed the refs help to beat us. I don't know why I'm so confident about this upcoming game, and it could come back to bite me in the ass. They're a good team, but I just think we are better than they are. We shall find out.

(02-26-2016 09:56 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  I noticed that the BSU fans seem to think that the ref-gate game at the convo was not truly influenced by refs. They claim the should've got the ball on a held ball tie-up with about 5 secs left. Amazing how loyalty to your team can cause blindness.

Why is this even a discussion (amongst them)?
When the conferences suspends the refs and bans them from the postseason, judgment has come down.