The Bills over Dav by 1

[billikenbill]

Love The Wiz’s pre-game commentaries and predictions. Time to nuke the c2d part though. It’s worthless. We can figure it out for ourselves.

[MichaelC]

2 hours ago, CenHudDude said:

I agree Davidson is a terrible matchup.  What other A-10 teams, if any, do you think have better players than SLU?

Depends on what you mean by "better". Better skilled? Better talent? Better BBALL IQ? All of the above?

[Schasz]

44 minutes ago, MichaelC said:

Depends on what you mean by "better". Better skilled? Better talent? Better BBALL IQ? All of the above?

You forgot better HC!

[CenHudDude]

1 hour ago, MichaelC said:

Depends on what you mean by "better". Better skilled? Better talent? Better BBALL IQ? All of the above?

 

41 minutes ago, Schasz said:

You forgot better HC!

I’ll take whatever definition of “better” that you used in evaluating Davidson’s players.

[billiken_roy]

2 hours ago, MichaelC said:

Depends on what you mean by "better". Better skilled? Better talent? Better BBALL IQ? All of the above?

Better at the coach utilizing and maximizing the skills, size and those players athleticism 

[CenHudDude]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

Better at the coach utilizing and maximizing the skills, size and those players athleticism 

I interpreted the post by Schasz that McKillop had recruited better players than Ford did.

[The Wiz]

4 hours ago, Schasz said:

I thinks it's fun to look at what the Wiz does before the games. I'm glad I don't bet on the predictions as my bank account might be suffering a bit. Let's face it, computers don't win basketball games...players do. Davidson was a terrible match up for the Bills in both games. They have better players and have a Hall of Fame HC.

I think it is important to know how to use the various computer projections. I use it as a tool to measure what is going on with The Bills. When the spreads are on the money  then that is an indication that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing ...good or bad.  If the spread is off by a good amount that  is an indication that something is is out of whack...again good or bad...if it happens multiple times then it may show that a trend is changing....again good or bad.

As for betting, it is not designed as a betting model, though I know some on here use it that way.  The ones who tell me about it  and are successful say they don't use it all the time  ...just when there is a discrepancy between my numbers and the betting line.  As gamblers say...you put your money down and take your chances.

As for the Chance to Dance part...that is a little more complex than figuring out what a 3 pt spread is but not all that much.  I have had Kansas and Baylor as 90% bid chances for awhile . Does that mean there is 180% chance for a bid ...of course not.   It is a way of spotting conferences that can receive  multiple bids...how many bids they might receive and who has a chance at those bids... In the A-10,  C2D was showing a possibility of multiple bids (1-4 ) that dissipated as the conference devoured  itself.     3 or 4 teams in the 50%s is going to generate 1 or 2 bids...In the Big 10 where you have 7 or 8 teams in the 60, 70 or 80%s ...you are going to generate 7 or 8 bids.  Again a tool to figure things out .  Is it accurate? ...at least as good as the best bracketologists and better than the rest.  For those that don't understand it or don't like it , it is easy to skip that section as I Bold the title every thread. The part I don't understand, is if posters don't like or understand it , why do the have to ruin it for those who enjoy it.

Finally, ...23 wins...with the core of players coming back with another year of experience ...plus improvements on the way...The question is... can we win more than 23 games next year?...The computers says ...good chance. 

[juniorbill76]

24 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

The question is... can we win more than 23 games next year?...The computers says ...good chance. 

[Schasz]

1 hour ago, CenHudDude said:

I interpreted the post by Schasz that McKillop had recruited better players than Ford did.

No, I don't believe that is what I meant. Billiken Roy who commented on your earlier post captured exactly what I meant. I think if a HC is recruiting well that is step No. 1. The HC and Coaching Staff still have to Coach up the good players they recruit. I see examples of that every year. I follow another schools team closely, and I saw an example of what I mean. The HC recruited a 5 Star Point Guard, and early in the season the HC had to give this kid what I'll call tough love...time on the bench. Well the good news is that player was just named MVP in the Tourney his team just won. 

[CenHudDude]

Thanks for clarifying my mis-interpretation of your post.

[Dr. Holly Hills]

2 hours ago, The Wiz said:

I think it is important to know how to use the various computer projections. I use it as a tool to measure what is going on with The Bills. When the spreads are on the money  then that is an indication that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing ...good or bad.  If the spread is off by a good amount that  is an indication that something is is out of whack...again good or bad...if it happens multiple times then it may show that a trend is changing....again good or bad.

As for betting, it is not designed as a betting model, though I know some on here use it that way.  The ones who tell me about it  and are successful say they don't use it all the time  ...just when there is a discrepancy between my numbers and the betting line.  As gamblers say...you put your money down and take your chances.

As for the Chance to Dance part...that is a little more complex than figuring out what a 3 pt spread is but not all that much.  I have had Kansas and Baylor as 90% bid chances for awhile . Does that mean there is 180% chance for a bid ...of course not.   It is a way of spotting conferences that can receive  multiple bids...how many bids they might receive and who has a chance at those bids... In the A-10,  C2D was showing a possibility of multiple bids (1-4 ) that dissipated as the conference devoured  itself.     3 or 4 teams in the 50%s is going to generate 1 or 2 bids...In the Big 10 where you have 7 or 8 teams in the 60, 70 or 80%s ...you are going to generate 7 or 8 bids.  Again a tool to figure things out .  Is it accurate? ...at least as good as the best bracketologists and better than the rest.  For those that don't understand it or don't like it , it is easy to skip that section as I Bold the title every thread. The part I don't understand, is if posters don't like or understand it , why do the have to ruin it for those who enjoy it.

Finally, ...23 wins...with the core of players coming back with another year of experience ...plus improvements on the way...The question is... can we win more than 23 games next year?...The computers says ...good chance. 

I would have to admit, I have been slightly frustrated lately with the C2D portion of the Wiz’s posts.  However, if you look at it in the light that it is intended (highlighted above) it is pretty accurate and if nothing else, interesting.  If you look at the final C2D, essentially 4 coin flips for 2 NCAA bids in A10. If you replace Dayton with Richmond’s unlikely A10 championship run, half of the coin flips got in. Which is statistically on par.

[Taj79]

McKillop recruits kids who he thinks can play in his system.  It's all picks, and screens, and cuts, and defense, and shooting and rebounding.  Hmmmm ... sounds like a former HoF coach now dead (not named {dead}) who had a life on a napkin.  Guys don't coach 30 years at a small southern school and go to post seasons 50% of their 30-year career without something more than a crapshoot.  His system leads me to question what our offense is all the time.  

I don't think there is anything we can do that drastically differently over two Davidson games to change the outcomes of those games.  We can only hope to get closer and pray they miss.  That is what Richmond did.  Against Richmond, Lee went 1 for 7; Loyer 1 for 4; Jones 3 for 9; Huffman 0 for 1 (5 of 21 for 24%).  Against us, Lee was 2 of 6; Loyer 3 of 5; Jones 2 of 4 and Huffman 2 of 2 (9 of 17 for 53%).  Of those 9 threes, seven came in the first half (78%).  They got ahead and we panicked.  We outscored them in the second half .... but not enough to overcome the first half barrage.  Our defense seems fine enough; but when the house is on fire, our squirt guns seems to fall short in putting the fire out.  They only took six three in the second half ... because they weren't needed.  For those screaming our three point defense needs to get better .... why?  Works fine against other temas not bouncing shite in off their heads and other body parts.  Some days you're the bug.  Hello windshield.  And with the kind of players Mckillop recruits and the system he runs,we better figure something otu fast and pray for off shooting nights to boot.