Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don’t like playing anyone 3 times, even Indiana.
Agreed - if we win out and WI dumps 3 straight to Ill and at Purdue and Iowa, we're 6th (they hold the tiebreaker over us). Very low probability though. I still say we should be 10-8 now if not for the refs stealing that game against OSU where we were pummeling them until MJ got whistled for the phantom fouls.would be nice to be #6 and get one of the four bottom feeders.
Yes, but tough to beat a team 3 times in the same season, especially in this conference. And it would be a home game for Indiana.Hmm but they would also be playing us three times.
Yes, but tough to beat a team 3 times in the same season, especially in this conference. And it would be a home game for Indiana.
That’s the old axiom - very hard to beat a conference foe three times in one season.Don’t like playing anyone 3 times, even Indiana.
I thought the Big Ten reseeded with highest seeded teams getting the lowest remaining seeds each round.... hmm.. but I suppose with different start times that doesn't really work.would sign on now
If you get around me with a crossover move twice, the third time I’m gonna pick your pocket and score on a breakaway. That’s not a matter of chance. It’s me learning how to beat you the third time.No (regarding the first point).
It's tough to win three coin flips in a row. That doesn't mean winning two makes the third one harder.
It is very hard to beat one team three times in one season.Hmm but they would also be playing us three times.
It is very hard to beat one team three times in one season.
.No (regarding the first point).
It's tough to win three coin flips in a row. That doesn't mean winning two makes the third one harder.
If you get around me with a crossover move twice, the third time I’m gonna pick your pocket and score on a breakaway. That’s not a matter of chance. It’s me learning how to beat you the third time.
Ugh, you have dredged up some awful memories. I was down in Greensboro for WRSU with my best friends from the sports department geared to win the region and get back to the final 4. I was slated to broadcast the regional final. The only damn time St. John’s was leading was with 2 seconds left. Duke and UNC losing in the sub regional opened the door for us. We would have beaten Penn and joined Magic and Bird in the final four. Needless to say it was a loooong car ride back to NB.I think the worse memory of playing a team for the third time after winning the first two was St. Johns in the 1978-79 NCAA tournament. Probably cost us a trip to our second final four.
Was at that game - we were far better but they got hot and RU was flat. Really tough loss.
If you get around me with a crossover move twice, the third time I’m gonna pick your pocket and score on a breakaway. That’s not a matter of chance. It’s me learning how to beat you the third time.
Because it's a charm. Just stating facts bro.Also, why is it the third time, specifically, that you are going to beat me in this made up hypothetical? What if I use a different move the third time? Why didn't you just steal the ball the second time? What happens the fourth time? Is it only the third time that is magical? What makes it so??
In the NFL, 1970 (NFL - AFL merger) through 2017 data supports the team going for the 3 game sweep accomplishing the sweep 67% of the time. It’s about who’s the better team and/or matchups..
Are you? It sounds great in that game you just made up.
Does anyone have any data to demonstrate that teams lose a 3rd matchup more often after winning 2 games against a team? Because we've seen them twice too. Why should their adjustments be any better than ours just because they lost before? There is no logic to support this.
Wait, shouldn’t the better team win 100% of the time? Or at least, say, 90% of the time? The lesser team winning 33% of the time seems to support the idea that it’s hard to beat the same team, even a lesser team, 3 times in the same season.In the NFL, 1970 (NFL - AFL merger) through 2017 data supports the team going for the 3 game sweep accomplishing the sweep 67% of the time. It’s about who’s the better team and/or matchups.
In the case of Rutgers - Indiana, Myles plays his best defensive basketball against TJD, and our Guard play is consistently better than Indiana. Now there’s the possibility that Franklin may miss the rest of the season. It’s a good matchup for Rutgers and has been for the past 2 years.
Wait, shouldn’t the better team win 100% of the time? Or at least, say, 90% of the time? The lesser team winning 33% of the time seems to support the idea that it’s hard to beat the same team, even a lesser team, 3 times in the same season.
That’s twisted logic. A 67% probability means the NFL team going for the sweep wins 2 out of every 3 games. It means it’s much more likely for the team going for the sweep to win compared to the team playing to avoid the sweep. It’s a game and 100% winning percentage in the NFL is not based on reality due to many factors including performance and injuries between the 2nd and 3rd games as examples.Wait, shouldn’t the better team win 100% of the time? Or at least, say, 90% of the time? The lesser team winning 33% of the time seems to support the idea that it’s hard to beat the same team, even a lesser team, 3 times in the same season.
I think the worse memory of playing a team for the third time after winning the first two was St. Johns in the 1978-79 NCAA tournament. Probably cost us a trip to our second final four.
Was at that game - we were far better but they got hot and RU was flat. Really tough loss.
Go back and look at my first comment. I never said anything about probabilities. I said it was tough to beat the same opponent 3 times in the same season, especially in this conference, and (since the game would be played in Indianapolis) that it would be a home game for Indy. I stand by my statement.The **** you talking about mate?
Let's say team A is slightly better than team B, such the the probability of team A winning a game between them is:
70% if team A is at home
60% neutral site
50% if team B is at home
If these teams play a home and home + a neutral site game, the chances of A winning all three are
70% * 60% * 50% = 21%
So by this token, it is "hard" to win all three games.
But if team A has already won both games in the home and home, their chance of winning the neutral site game is still 60%.
You are taking a true statement
"It is hard to beat a team three times in a row" <= true
and using it to support a false statement
"If you've already beaten a team twice, it is now more difficult to beat them again" <= almost certainly false
Go back and look at my first comment. I never said anything about probabilities. I said it was tough to beat the same opponent 3 times in the same season, especially in this conference, and (since the game would be played in Indianapolis) that it would be a home game for Indy. I stand by my statement.