2013-2014 Bracketology thread

[KC MVC FAN]

Add to my last.

What is the 295 you stated about am SMU rating/ranking? Did you lift an average of those 5 teams I mentioned. If so, bad numbers and insinuation

The numbers I find is that SMU was ranked # 70 with a 104.6
MVC team were ranked from102 to 175 with a range of 102.6 to 99.6.

Quoting numbers, rankings, ratings, etc., is dangerous. Your quotes numbers can be used against you. As Prof Smertz said in my econ class-"numbers lie and liars number".

Have a good day sir watching todays games, NCAA or NIT.

[rlh04d]

KC MVC FAN posted something, but I have no idea where it was in that giant block of unformatted junk.

[rlh04d]

What is the 295 you stated about am SMU rating/ranking? Did you lift an average of those 5 teams I mentioned. If so, bad numbers and insinuation

It's their nonconference SOS. How do you even ... are you looking at RPI?

http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/SMU.html

Maybe if you had more than one Economics professor you'd learn what a competent professor would have taught you: "Don't quote numbers you don't understand."

I feel like we're at the point in your posting time here that you should let someone know if you have a learning disability so we aren't unnecessarily mean to you.

[rlh04d]

This is why your bottom members must schedule better, Valley. There are repeat offenders who should be called out.

Aren't you a Bradley fan?

I would really like for there to be institutionalized conference penalties for poor SOS. The Valley has to play this game better.

[KC MVC FAN]

[quote="rlh04d"]KC MVC FAN posted something, but I have no idea where it was in that giant block of unformatted junk.[/quote]


See. I do know how to quote.

Lifted those numbers from NCAA College Basketball Strength Of Schedule Rankings 2014. It was on http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket ... ng-by-conf


Thank yew Thank Yew Thank Yew.

"rlh04d" should leave the building. Thank Yew Thank Yew.....

[KC MVC FAN]

[quote="rlh04d"][quote="TheAsianSensation"]

This is why your bottom members must schedule better, Valley. There are repeat offenders who should be called out.[/quote]
Aren't you a Bradley fan?

I would really like for there to be institutionalized conference penalties for poor SOS. The Valley has to play this game better.[/quote]


Not a statement but a question. If MVC or MVC teams agreed to "black list" (no pun intended) other (weaker) conferences and conferences/teams, and they are historical Southern black colleges, would not that possibly be approaching racial discrimination and anti-affirmative action? Could even talking, colluding, about it public result in law suits. Such a "black list" was mentioned on this forum a few weeks ago and named several of those conferences. If I was the lawyer for one of the conferences or teams am I seeing $$$$$$$?.

[KC MVC FAN]

[quote="rlh04d"][quote="KC MVC FAN"]

What is the 295 you stated about am SMU rating/ranking? Did you lift an average of those 5 teams I mentioned. If so, bad numbers and insinuation [/quote]
It's their nonconference SOS. How do you even ... are you looking at RPI?

http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/SMU.html

Maybe if you had more than one Economics professor you'd learn what a competent professor would have taught you: "Don't quote numbers you don't understand."

I feel like we're at the point in your posting time here that you should let someone know if you have a learning disability so we aren't unnecessarily mean to you.[/quote]


Its how things are worded. Ex: We won 50% of the time. You lost 50% of the time. Same result but with different meanings.

Dr. Smertz, really was his name, was a grad of the U. of Wisconsin School of Economics. Can't get any better than that in that field. Drew perfect supply and demand curves behind his back with without looking.

[Wufan]

KC MVC FAN posted something, but I have no idea where it was in that giant block of unformatted junk.

See. I do know how to quote.

Lifted those numbers from NCAA College Basketball Strength Of Schedule Rankings 2014. It was on http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket ... ng-by-conf


Thank yew Thank Yew Thank Yew.

"rlh04d" should leave the building. Thank Yew Thank Yew…..

What you linked says nothing about SMU.

[Wufan]

Add to my last.

Quoting numbers, rankings, ratings, etc., is dangerous. Your quotes numbers can be used against you. As Prof Smertz said in my econ class-"numbers lie and liars number".

It's "liars figure, but figures never lie." That's the saying.

[KC MVC FAN]

[quote="Wufan"][quote="KC MVC FAN"]Add to my last.

Quoting numbers, rankings, ratings, etc., is dangerous. Your quotes numbers can be used against you. As Prof Smertz said in my econ class-"numbers lie and liars number".

[/quote]

It's ." That's the saying.[/quote]

No one can track the origin of the statement. Most think it goes back to mid 1800. First may have been: was: "liars figure, but figures never lie, or it could have bee figures never lie, but liars figure. Can find several variations and twists, mix of the key words: figures, lie, and liars. Make what you want of it!. What I heard was figures lie and liars figure. What Prof Smertz was saying: do not accept figures (info, stats, data, etc.) at face value--question everything. Figures can and will be manipulated. How used and by whom used can prove or disprove an argument the same. Example: We won 50% (our games), but you lost 50% of your games.

Is this really worth the back and forth posts.