Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jncuse, post: 5012392, member: 1969"] I'll just put my summary findings above ... so people don't have read the whole thing below. This isn't an argument for them getting in, but just showing how well Michigan St did in the margin game vs Syracuse. Michigan St vs Syracuse is a convenient comparison, because neither team piled on playing Q4 games which is the typical form of abuse (both only played 4) which is less than the average Q4 team -- especially a B12, but even a Pitt or a Wake. I don't they "tricked" or "gamed" the system because they didn't pile on Q4 which is the abuse. They just did very well in the margin game - you could then say the system itself is bad or stupid, but it wasn't really gaming. Michigan St vs Syracuse (adjusted to Syracuse's # of games in each quadrant) Q4 = 93 points better Q3 = 103 points better Q2 = 18 points better Q1 = 105 points better At eye level this makes sense - we did really bad against poor teams. But we did well against middle of the pack solid teams (Q2). And we got destroyed in Q1 games. Overall - 229 points better, over 31 games, That is 7.4 points per game, adjusted to 70 possessions, and our KP rating would be 10.6 higher. Add 10.6 to our current KP of 9.3, and we would raise to 19.9 and from #87 to #20. -------------------------- I don't think they did anything to game or trick the system. Unlike so many teams in the P6, they only played 4 games against Q4 - so they didn't go the B12 route either. It just came down to the margin game which they did well in. I think its worth looking into vs Syracuse, so I dug down Looking at their Quad's, looks like they did well in the "margin" game in Q1, Q3, and Q4. In fact it looks like Q3 margin is where they distinguished themselves vs others instead of Q4, which I don't mind as much as you can't control narrative as much against these "better" teams. I'll compare it to Syracuse, which is convenient since neither team piled on a bunch of Q4 games - we played the same amount of 4, which is lower than the average of a P6 team. Neither team did the B12 thing or what many P6 teams did. [B]Q4[/B] - (MSU went 4-0 winning by an average of 33, we won 4 games by an average of 9 points) Winning by 33 by MSU was better than the average tournament team, but its less than a lot of B12 teams and even a Pitt. What we did in our Q4 games hurt us as much as anything -- that is the system, as stupid as it is, but at the same time we have to take some blame for that. We let bad teams hang around all year. Anyway if we had been better by "93 points" in those 4 games, our KP would have increased from #87 to around #56 Q4 Impact vs Syracuse = +93 points [B]Q3[/B] - (MSU margin of 104 points over 6 games (6-0), Syracuse was 56 over 9 (8-1)). MSU's margin of 17 points in all Q3 games, I'd imagine is very strong compared to many teams. These games you tend not to be able to control the narrative as much. I actually don't mind rewarding these games compared to Q4 games. If Syracuse had done as wll If Syracuse had done as well as Michigan St in Q3 games, they win by 159 points instead of 53 points. Q3 Impact vs Syracuse = +103 points (adjusted to 9 games) [B]Q2[/B] - (MSU Margin of 47 points (6-5), Syracuse margin 16 points (4-4). Both teams overall did well in the margin game in Q2. We had the Oregon game that really helped us. Q2 Impact vs Syracuse = + 18 points (adjusted to 8 games) [B]Q1 - ( MSU Margin of negative 34 points (3-8) Syracuse margin of negative 136 points (3-7)[/B] We all know the story here. Michigan St also benefits from the 24 point win over Baylor. Q1 Impact vs Syracuse = +105 points (adjusted over 10 games) [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?