MBB: St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Gregory Sager]

about beating a team 3 times in a season, it is hard and it really boils down to odds. the more you play a team the more the odds go up that you will lose.

Again, not true, for the reasons that I stated last night. And the "familiarity" defense doesn't work, either, because the team that won the first two games is just as familiar with the team that lost the first two as is true in reverse.

And citing anecdotal evidence that teams can win the third time around doesn't work, because, as I again said last night, there are examples of just about everything out there in terms of sports outcomes. In the vast majority of cases in college basketball, I'll wager, the team that won the first two wins the third if and when the teams meet up again.

[Gregory Sager]

Although Sager's logic is correct, I am still of the company as well that it is tough to beat a team 3 times.  I mean, this isn't some probability and stats exam, if so, Sager passed, because his hypothesis was correct.  But as buncheriffic already noted, FC has been around this league and seen the "playing the 3rd game after losing 2" scenario much more than probably anyone on this board.  When two rival schools, who are about 5 miles apart, meet for a third time, I agree that many factors set in which are not accounted for including, perhaps, a letdown by the team who has won the first 2 games, changes in personal and styles of play etc.  While I obviously hope this isn't the case shall Webster and Fontbonne meet again, I know it remains a possibility -- as already noted, it happened last year.  And my last note on the topic, I believe that the first game between the schools was an aboration (the lopsided defeat), and that last night's game was more indicative of what is to come if these schools meet again.

I certainly agree that there could be extenuating circumstances, BunchTime, and I pointed out some of them last night (homecourt advantage, injuries and illness, etc.). From what I understand, Fontbonne was missing a key player last night, so that could've entered into the final result. And I agree with you that rivalry games between campuses in close proximity can be one of those extenuating circumstances.

My grievance is more with using that "tough to beat a team three times" saying as a general, unqualified rule.

[Mr. Ypsi]

about beating a team 3 times in a season, it is hard and it really boils down to odds. the more you play a team the more the odds go up that you will lose.

Again, not true, for the reasons that I stated last night. And the "familiarity" defense doesn't work, either, because the team that won the first two games is just as familiar with the team that lost the first two as is true in reverse.

And citing anecdotal evidence that teams can win the third time around doesn't work, because, as I again said last night, there are examples of just about everything out there in terms of sports outcomes. In the vast majority of cases in college basketball, I'll wager, the team that won the first two wins the third if and when the teams meet up again.

As the resident (retired) stat prof nerd, I'll tackle this one.

depew24, you are wrong on TWO counts:

IF teams are absolutely equal (so the odds of winning are .5), the odds do not change with past history: they are still .5.  (Admittedly, this case applies much better to flipping coins (who have no memory or ability to adjust) than to teams!)  To assume that an occurrence is "long overdue" (if in fact it is random) is called the "gambler's fallacy".

Since we are talking basketball teams, not coins, Greg is absolutely correct: while I have no historical stats to back it up, I will guarantee that the winner of the first two is more likely to win the third (regardless of many specific examples to the contrary).  As Greg points out, familiarity is not a reason (they have each played each other twice), and the motivations you cite can all be countered with equal motivating factors the other way (close out a tourney bid, achieve one of the best-ever school seasons, etc.).  I would make an exception for significant injuris, but that is about it.

[pantherpride06]

For heaven's sakes...

[BunchTime]

I ditto pantherpride, good grief.  Who gives a damn about all these stats.  Here, I will say it, we don't know what the outcome will be until, and if, the game is even played.  It will be tough game for both Fontbonne and Webster.

[y_jack_lok]

Thank you, BunchTime.

[WU_SID]

I agree. There are still six regular season games to play. Let's worry about the here and now instead of forecasting possible match-ups down the road. I agree it would be a great game if the two schools play again but there are no guarentees that that would happen. A great game last night by both squads and arguably the best defense I've seen the Gorloks play in that final 10 minute stretch all season. Officiating or not when you hold a team to only 1 of its last 10 that's still pretty impressive considering the first 10 minutes of the second half Fontbonne was 8-of-14. Good luck to both squads this weekend.

[fcnews]

I am starting to wonder if maybe we could arrange a chat area through our new conference website. I'm sure there are possibilities.

[Pat Coleman]

I think most conferences would rather us close our message board altogether. Not sure too many leagues are willing to take on the moderation responsibilities and headaches. If you don't like the topic, CHANGE the topic. Five posts on how people don't like the topic isn't moving on, it's perpetuating the problem.

[fcnews]

Wow, my karma is dropping faster then our lead did last night.

I would also like to add that the Griffin's played a very good defensive game as well. Holding the first place team to 23 points the first half and 50 total. As well as 33% field goal shooting. As I said prior to the game that these two teams were as evenly matched as you get. Amd it turned out that was the case. That makes for good basketball.

[BunchTime]

Pat, I disagree that it "perpetuates the problem."  When one makes a comment that "enough is enough" and 4 others agree with it, it does not perpetuate the problem, but instead says, Lets move on already.  Perpetuating the problem would be to say "I have had enough but..." which would thus give the original responder further ammo and incentive to respond.

[fcnews]

Bunchtime - Spoken like a man who has argued an issue or two. Have you ever considersd political office. I'm looking for a candidate. "Bunchtime For President"

[Pat Coleman]

Pat, I disagree that it "perpetuates the problem."  When one makes a comment that "enough is enough" and 4 others agree with it, it does not perpetuate the problem, but instead says, Lets move on already.  Perpetuating the problem would be to say "I have had enough but..." which would thus give the original responder further ammo and incentive to respond.

Yeah, no, it's not as bad as your alternative but it's still bad and it is definitely not moving on.  I've read more than half a million posts (yeah, seriously) on this board and I've seen what works and what doesn't.

[iwumichigander]

Pat, I disagree that it "perpetuates the problem."  When one makes a comment that "enough is enough" and 4 others agree with it, it does not perpetuate the problem, but instead says, Lets move on already.  Perpetuating the problem would be to say "I have had enough but..." which would thus give the original responder further ammo and incentive to respond.

[fcnews]

Yeah, no, it's not as bad as your alternative but it's still bad and it is definitely not moving on.  I've read more than half a million posts (yeah, seriously) on this board and I've seen what works and what doesn't.

Now there is a topic for discussion. 500,000 post read has got to be in the World Record Range of something.