15% of our wins are against Pitt

[EastCoast2]

Another 10% from BC. Make sure to send some gift baskets to our "ACC rivals" who supplied 25% of our wins so far this season.

 

[Ajflood12]

Who would have thought 3-4 years ago we could go 3-0 vs Pitt. they had our number under Dixon. Nice to see.

 

[jgeorge322]

Always tough to beat a team 3 times in a year.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We have beat Pitt 5 times in a row. Have to make up for all those times they clutched, grabbed and fouled their way to beating some of our best teams for 15 years.

 

[Eric15]

Always tough to beat a team 3 times in a year.

 

[SBU72]

Another 10% from BC. Make sure to send some gift baskets to our "ACC rivals" who supplied 25% of our wins so far this season.

I'm sure it's the same (or even higher!) For a lot of other teams both in the ACC and other leagues. What would have been horrible would be if it was lower!

 

[Brooky03]

I would like to take this opportunity to show my appreciation for the ACC's unbalanced scheduling. Without it, we'd be in bubble city.

 

[Fat tire 13]

To be fair, pretty much every ACC team has beat up on Pitt the past couple years. So really the good part here is the schedule, as first mentioned

On a related note, the timeline of the graying of Jamie Dixon's hair has been interesting to follow. Pat Riley did much better over time

 

[Newhouser]

And Pitt and BC are no worse than Wake or ND or the other bottom feeders. Bottom of this league is bad

 

[Cuseball]

Another 10% from BC. Make sure to send some gift baskets to our "ACC rivals" who supplied 25% of our wins so far this season.

true and 100% of Washington's wins are against non tournament teams. Okay maybe 1 vs ASU but you can only play against whose on your schedule.

Cuse!

 

[cliftonparksufan]

And if we beat Duke tonight then 9.5% of our wins are vs them.

 

[Brooky03]

And when we beat Duke tonight then 9.5% of our wins are vs them.

Fify

 

[Ajflood12]

And Pitt and BC are no worse than Wake or ND or the other bottom feeders. Bottom of this league is bad

This year really was about surviving against multiple bad losses in the ACC. I had done a comparison of UNC, VA and Duke in another thread and all of them had about 2/3 of wins against bad teams. Only difference is they beat NC state and Florida state and we didn't.

 

[Briancuse]

Always tough to beat a team 3 times in a year.

That's actually a bit of a fallacy. Don't know the college bball stats but In the NFL 21 times a team played another team 3 times. The team that won the first two is 14 and 7.

 

[djorange1989]

This year really was about surviving against multiple bad losses in the ACC. I had done a comparison of UNC, VA and Duke in another thread and all of them had about 2/3 of wins against bad teams. Only difference is they beat NC state and Florida state and we didn't.

the other difference is that UVA beat every single team not named Duke on their schedule and we went 1-3 against them/UNC/Duke.

 

[HakAttack]

Always tough to beat a team 3 times in a year.

The number point out that no, it's actually not. I forget which thread someone posted it in, but the team who won the first two games has about a 71% of winning the third.

 

[Maxsumm]

8 of 11 wins against seeds 10-15

 

[Fat tire 13]

Not to harp on this beating the same team 3 times topic, but think all the statistics cited are not the best way to do the study.

You want to see how the record in the "third game" would compare to the probability of beating the team in any other random game. Common sense would dictate if it is already 2-0, one team is likely much better than the other team. Therefore, winning 70% of the time doesn't say anything.

The best argument for the 70% is that you won't play an out of conference team 3 times, and conference games tend to be more evenly matched than out of conference

 

[billsin01]

8 of 11 wins against seeds 10-15

Always have to win games against the lower tier in a tough conference like this and then steal as many as you can against the upper tier. Would be nice though to do a bit better job against the middling teams. If you throw VA Tech out as a bit of a schedule loss, you'd like to do a bit better than 2-4 against Clemson x2, L'ville, at NC State, FSU and Ga Tech at home. 4-2 against those teams would have made for a pretty impressive conference seasons (12-6 vs. 10-8).

 

[Alsacs]

Jamie Dixon Pitt Era they went 15-6 against SU.
Since Dixon left we are 6-1 against Pitt.
We need 2 more sweeps then Dixon Era is evened up.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Another 10% from BC. Make sure to send some gift baskets to our "ACC rivals" who supplied 25% of our wins so far this season.

Gift basket should go to Kevin "The Destroyer of Programs" Stallings.

 

[Delmar]

True, we have an easier ACC schedule than most of the other teams. But there is a virtue in taking care of business. Both Pitt and BC beat Florida State. BC also beat Louisville. Thankfully, we didn't have any of that.

 

[jgeorge322]

The number point out that no, it's actually not. I forget which thread someone posted it in, but the team who won the first two games has about a 71% of winning the third.

Gotta win the first two though, didnt do that math

 

[HoustonCuse]

As awesome as it is to be smacking Pitt around, it did make me wonder:

Would I rather have the days of us being the Top 5 nationally but not being able to beat Pitt or being mediocre as we have been but beating Pitt repeatedly?

 

[jgeorge322]

That's actually a bit of a fallacy. Don't know the college bball stats but In the NFL 21 times a team played another team 3 times. The team that won the first two is 14 and 7.

As i was telling my man jake, you have to take my comment in context. If i said prior to the game that beating pitt would be difficult, that is one thing. But all i said was its a nice accomplishment, despite what others say. Thus, your math really has to say what the chances of are beating a team three times in a row, not what the percentage of a win would be had syracuse won the first two games.

Moreover, the stat you say really is hard to decipher any meaning from. The team that wins the first two wins the 2/3 of times the third game. Well, is that a better percentage than what that team’s percentage for the first meeting? Does it tet progressively better or worse as you play more?