MBB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Like a lot of sports cliches, there's not a lot of evidence to support it other than anecdotal.

It isn't any tougher for Team A to beat Team B in February than it was in December, most often, and if it is tougher it's not usually because they played each other already.

What's tougher, and this is no surprise, is that it's more difficult to go 3-0 than 2-0, no matter the opponents.

[Gregory Sager]

GS,

No offense taken, but with all due respect it is not even close to the dumbest cliche in sports. To be more precise, in my opinion, CAP and ONU are so evenly matched, the more often they play, the higher the liklihood that the wins and losses are going to even out. CAP has an OT win and a four point win this season over the Bears. Both games could have gone the other way. As to thinking through the implications of the cliche, yes, people do think through them. Beating an opponent three times in a season that is evenly matched with you is difficult to do. Beating them twice is also difficult, but with each ensuing meeting the odds of emerging victorious are reduced. That was the point of the comment.

First of all, the cliche doesn't say anything about teams being "evenly matched". The cliche, as you quoted it (and as it's usually quoted), is this: It's tough to beat a team three times in one season. There's no "evenly matched" there. It isn't even implied. According to this cliche, the #1 team could whip the pants off of the #8 team twice in an eight-team league that plays a double round-robin, but that #1 team better watch out when it plays #8 in the opening round of an eight-team conference tournament!

And that's just plain silly.

Capital could have a hard time beating Ohio Northern in the OAC tourney for one simple reason: The two teams are fairly evenly-matched. The fact that Capital beat ONU twice already doesn't have anything to do with it, any more than if ONU had managed to win one or both of those games. Heck, you could make the argument that the two teams are fairly evenly-matched even if one of them had had a bad night and got whipped by the other in one of the regular-season games. Why? Because prior performances don't enter into current outcomes at all. Nobody gets a head start on the scoreboard when the clock reads 20:00 because they happened to have beaten the other team on an earlier occasion. It's the relative strengths of the two teams, plus their execution on game night in that third contest, that'll decide the outcome, not what happened in the two previous games.

Previous head-to-head contests are usually indicators of relative strength, of course, but they're often more indicative by virtue of closeness than by outcome. In other words, a team that sweeps the regular-season series over an opponent with an OT win and a four-point win may not be more dominant over that team than it is over a team that it beat by thirty but lost to by one. But it's very different to beat a team by four and in OT than it is to beat a team by thirty and by fifteen. All sweeps are not created equal, which is at the heart of why it's a dumb cliche.

Also, this statement:

Beating them twice is also difficult, but with each ensuing meeting the odds of emerging victorious are reduced.

... is demonstrably false. The odds of beating a team are not affected by prior performances any more than the actual outcome is affected by prior performances. What is true, and what you may have meant to say, is that with each ensuing meeting the odds of emerging victorious and undefeated against that particular opponent are reduced, because the more times that you play a team, the less likely you are to continue sweeping them. That's true even if you're an excellent #1 team playing a lousy #8 team, because each game is yet another opportunity for the better team to stumble.

[onefan]

,GS,

At the risk of beating a dead horse, you are correct that the cliche doesn't mention anything about the teams being evenly matched,however to say that it isn't even implied is a stretch. I seriously doubt the phrase was started at the Roman Colesium when the Christians and the lions were going at it on a daily basis. It more than likely reared it's ugly head after two opponents had experienced very evenly matched competitions on two prior occasions. Viewed in that context, it can hardly be referred to as the ''dumbest cliche in sports''. t can however be viewed as a cliche that is utilized by dumb people.

To say that the two prior outcomes between Cap and ONU this season has nothing to do with a third match-up couldn't be further from the truth. Talk to anyone with knowledge and experience in the game and they will tell you that those two prior games have a very definite impact on how the third game will be approached. The two teams strengths will try to be countered by what was learned from the previous two meetings and consequently the team that learned more from those prior two meetings and can also esecute their game plan will emerge victorious.

As to the odds of Cap emerging victorious in a third meeting being reduced,you are  mathematically correct. However, you then make the statement that ''the more times you play a team the less likely you are to continue to sweep them''which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you. I guess it really is tough to beat a team three times in one season after all.

[ScotsFan]

What is true, and what you may have meant to say, is that with each ensuing meeting the odds of emerging victorious and undefeated against that particular opponent are reduced, because the more times that you play a team, the less likely you are to continue sweeping them. That's true even if you're an excellent #1 team playing a lousy #8 team, because each game is yet another opportunity for the better team to stumble.

I wonder then, what the odds are of Wooster emerging victorious and undefeated against the EC this weekend to make it a perfect 45 for 45 all time against the Quakers?      

[Gregory Sager]

,GS,

At the risk of beating a dead horse, you are correct that the cliche doesn't mention anything about the teams being evenly matched,however to say that it isn't even implied is a stretch. I seriously doubt the phrase was started at the Roman Colesium when the Christians and the lions were going at it on a daily basis. It more than likely reared it's ugly head after two opponents had experienced very evenly matched competitions on two prior occasions. Viewed in that context, it can hardly be referred to as the ''dumbest cliche in sports''. t can however be viewed as a cliche that is utilized by dumb people.

It's not a stretch at all. That cliche has been used in all sorts of different contexts, by all sorts of people, referring to all sorts of different teams. There's no implication of "evenly matched" in it at all.

To say that the two prior outcomes between Cap and ONU this season has nothing to do with a third match-up couldn't be further from the truth. Talk to anyone with knowledge and experience in the game and they will tell you that those two prior games have a very definite impact on how the third game will be approached. The two teams strengths will try to be countered by what was learned from the previous two meetings and consequently the team that learned more from those prior two meetings and can also esecute their game plan will emerge victorious.

You're confusing outcome with performance. Coaches and players don't learn any more or any less from a win than they do from a loss. They learn strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, sets, rotations, etc., from having played a team (and from viewing film of that performance) not from the ultimate result on the scoreboard. In other words, the educational aspect of having played an opponent doesn't really have anything to do with which team ended up with the W and which team ended up with the L. Also, while "learning more from those prior two meetings" and "executing their game plan" count for a lot, good ol' talent is just as often the determining factor, if not more often.

As to the odds of Cap emerging victorious in a third meeting being reduced,you are  mathematically correct. However, you then make the statement that ''the more times you play a team the less likely you are to continue to sweep them''which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you. I guess it really is tough to beat a team three times in one season after all.

If that was the point you were trying to make, you made it poorly. You originally said:

The Bears got beat at Cap in OT and once again by four this past Saturday in Ada, but as they say, it is tough to beat a team three times in one season.

"Less likely" and "tough" are two unrelated concepts. It's a basic law of mathematics that the odds of an outcome remaining the same in a system with random variables (i.e., a basketball game) lessen as the number of instances are increased. In other words, to use ScotsFan's example, Wooster is and has been for many years a basketball power, while Earlham perennially fluctuates between mediocre and downtrodden on the hardwood. The odds of Wooster running off a long winning streak against Earlham are, thus, much better than are the odds of Wooster running off a long winning streak against Wittenberg (or of either Capital or Ohio Northern running off a long winning streak against the other, given the topsy-turvy world of the OAC). But the odds of Wooster winning ten in a row against Earlham are not nearly as good as are the odds of the Scots sweeping the Quakers in any given season. And the odds against Wooster running the table against EC over twenty games are even longer, and over 44 games even longer still.

So what are the odds that Wooster is going to beat Earlham on Saturday in Timken Gym? Excellent. And if Wooster wins that game, and then faces EC in the NCAC tourney, what will be the odds that the Scots will be the team celebrating after the final buzzer, the proud owners of a three-game sweep over the Quakers? Again, excellent. But what are the odds that Wooster would have won 45 in a row over the Quakers when the current streak started? Not all that great, actually. Even with a good program and a poor program involved, it's very hard to run off that long of a streak. Wooster beat Earlham by two in OT in a 2005-06 game, and on two other occasions over the past six seasons the final winning margin for the Scots was in single digits. The odds, therefore, of Wooster making it 46 in a row the next time that the two teams meet are less than the odds that Wooster will make it 45 in a row on Saturday.

That's what I meant by this statement:

What is true, and what you may have meant to say, is that with each ensuing meeting the odds of emerging victorious and undefeated against that particular opponent are reduced, because the more times that you play a team, the less likely you are to continue sweeping them. That's true even if you're an excellent #1 team playing a lousy #8 team, because each game is yet another opportunity for the better team to stumble.

You've completely misconstrued it. You've instead inserted the word "tough" into the statement, as in, "It really is tough to beat a team three times in one season." And that's not what I said at all. If you're Wooster and the opponent is Earlham, "tough" doesn't enter into the conversation. It's less likely, not "tough".

[onefan]

GS,

You are obviously quite passionate about proving your point concerning the "dumbest cliche" in sports. I will take your extensive diatribe on the subject in the spirit in which I am sure it was written,to-wit, to educate ,even though I continue to disagree with your position.Thank you. My only request is that if you feel the need to reply to this post, please keep the response to 500 words or less, otherwise you tend to come off  a "tad bit shrill". Also, I really don't have the time or attention span to read anything much longer than that and it would certainly seem that you and I are really the only two that give a damn about the topic anyway.Spending any more time on the subject would truly appear to be a waste of your time and mine. Thank you again.

[Gregory Sager]

"Shrill"? Hardly. "Passionate"? Believe me, I was more passionate about the white chili I had for dinner last Thursday -- granted, it was pretty good white chili. I was just trying to make a point, that's all. Yeah, I got wordy, but when you're trying to get a point across it's better to say too much than it is to say too little.

As for you and I being the only people who give a damn, let's remember where we are. Here in the OAC room, the motto is, "Where nobody's given a damn for over ten years and counting"!

[onefan]

GS,

Amen to that brother, good white chili is hard to beat and this site does have a very poor following despite the great effort those Dlll kids give us week in and week out. As to the basketball, underachieving ONU got beat by an inspired Muskie team Wednesday night. I must confess I haven't had the time to see how everyone else did, but I fear that ONU's problems of not being  able to perform well down the stretch will follow them in to the tournament. Their largest loss this season has been by nine, and it seems as though the trend has been for them to be unable to close a team out in the late stages of the game  and consequently lose the close ones in the final minutes. As a Bears fan, I hope they can turn that trend around.

[albertjackson]

ONE Fan - I didn't notice but your right about ONU losing games late. (Although I'd say they were a distant 2nd in that category to BW this year. ) Every since the year the Polar Bears got robbed & didn't make the tournament as a 2nd team from the OAC behind BW - they haven't seemed capable of winning big games or needed games late in the season. They just never seem to live up to their potential, but I'm still stcking with them as my tourny pick. I know it doesnt make sense but thats part of why I'm staying on Polar Bear Express.

Everyone else - I have tried starting conversations regarding OAC action. I guess there just isnt much appreciation or interest in the OAC. But please... if your a poster from another Conference, lets try to debate basketball not Cliches! Tell me my predictions suck! Tell me yours! Tell me about an OAC game you saw! Tell me an opinion about OAC basketball after reading the scores or checking the school websites! Tell me something I don't already know or dont tell me anything at all!

I was reading some old post and browsing the websites earlier. FYI - Heidelberg is not the only school without a full time asst. Duane Sheldon at BW is without one. Not sure why? The women have one. Not sure what's going on there!? What happened to Coach Bankson's assistant (Chris Kibbler)? Coach Kibbler recruited me out of high school. I should have listened and gone to BW.  Mike Moran has no full-time asst. I dont think Marietta's or Wilmington's assts. are full-time. Ott., ONU, Cap., Muskingum, and I think Mt. Union's Dan MacDuffie is full-time, though I could be wrong. If not, perhaps those schools are not giving the basketball coaches full-time assistants any more!? Hard to fathom when the football staff has plenty of assistants at these schools. Certainly would answer some of the questions about winning recruitng battles!

[onefan]

Albert,

I can appreciate your choice of the Bears in the OAC Tournament. I have a similar sentiment when it comes to them. They frequently get double digit scoring from five players, have a deep bench...they play sticky man to man defense and they haven't been blown out by anyone this season. Their achilles has been the lack of killer instinct down the stretch and at times inability to make crucial late game free throws when given the opportunity and during certain stretches have displayed a propensity of turning the ball over. In reality I expect the same trends to continue in the tournament, but it is a short road to the championship game so anything can happen, right? Go Bears!

[OC_SID]

An OAC game highlight from Wednesday night made SportsCenter's Top 10 plays this morning.

[Gregory Sager]

Everyone else - I have tried starting conversations regarding OAC action. I guess there just isnt much appreciation or interest in the OAC. But please... if your a poster from another Conference, lets try to debate basketball not Cliches! Tell me my predictions suck! Tell me yours! Tell me about an OAC game you saw! Tell me an opinion about OAC basketball after reading the scores or checking the school websites! Tell me something I don't already know or dont tell me anything at all!

My opinion is this: I have a tremendous amount of respect for OAC basketball. It has a great history of postseason success, and few if any leagues around D3 can rival it for its top-to-bottom competitiveness, year in and year out. As a CCIW fan, I've never had any problem with viewing the OAC as a peer in terms of being a power conference.

However, the excellence of the league on the hardwood doesn't seem to be matched by fan enthusiasm, at least as far as this room is concerned. And I've never understood that at all. I've given up on wondering why that is.

[ScotsFan]

Everyone else - I have tried starting conversations regarding OAC action. I guess there just isnt much appreciation or interest in the OAC. But please... if your a poster from another Conference, lets try to debate basketball not Cliches! Tell me my predictions suck! Tell me yours! Tell me about an OAC game you saw! Tell me an opinion about OAC basketball after reading the scores or checking the school websites! Tell me something I don't already know or dont tell me anything at all!

My opinion is this: I have a tremendous amount of respect for OAC basketball. It has a great history of postseason success, and few if any leagues around D3 can rival it for its top-to-bottom competitiveness, year in and year out. As a CCIW fan, I've never had any problem with viewing the OAC as a peer in terms of being a power conference.

However, the excellence of the league on the hardwood doesn't seem to be matched by fan enthusiasm, at least as far as this room is concerned. And I've never understood that at all. I've given up on wondering why that is.

I hear ya!  I too have had a great respect for the OAC over the years.  Having to see many teams on Wooster's schedule year in and year out and meeting up in the Tournament on several occasions, I have become very familiar with the OAC and try to follow what's going on in the conference throughout the season.  I have always felt that the OAC has to be considered one of the 3 toughest conferences in the country and I'm jealous of the fact that Wooster doesn't get that grueling conference schedule to test them come tournament time.  And I have often felt this has hurt Wooster more than a couple of time with early exits from the Tournament.

But, I too, for the life of me, can't figure out why there isn't more activity on this board?!  The OAC football board doesn't have a problem and that's not just because of MUC.  There are plenty of other OAC teams represented over there.  I just can't figure out why some of those fans of the football site can't get into basketball as well?  As GS said, it's futile to continue to wonder why this board doesn't garner more interest...

[Mr. Ypsi]

While I have no explanation for WHY it is, all the regular posters in OAC are football only (even this time of year the OAC football board is more active than this board.  In the CCIW (and seemingly the NCAC, MIAA, and a few others), I've rarely seen regulars who post in only one or the other; most are active on both.

[Dr. Acula]

I agree regarding the lack of activity on this board.  And yes, the OAC football board is more active right now than this board.  But as an OAC guy I read both almost every day (although this one I can do more like weekly).  The OAC football board right now is almost all MUC regulars along w/ staples like JK (Cap) and Reality Check (ONU).  The rest are mainly non-OAC folks.  Really there isn't a lot of representation for the other schools.  Even during football season it's really a MUC/Cap/ONU party for the most part.  I don't understand why BW & JCU don't have more posters on football, so I'm not even going to attempt to explain hoops.  But look at the bright side...it could be the OAC baseball board.