weis21

I love the classic on field hat but hate the high crown, so I cut out those fibers and now it's much more form fitting. I also have last year's BP hat as sort of a knock-around hat. It's comfortable and I never hated it's look like others.

Every projection worth nothing should be changed after two games Freudian slip? Seriously though, fine, go ahead and modify your projection after two games. Baseball seasons have ups and downs (not that two games would even qualify). Like SSR stated earlier, not every game has the same outcome probability. Playing a good team on the road is harder than playing a bad team at home and more times than not a team with .500 talent will probably end up somewhere around .500 after 162 games, that's all I'm saying.

What I'm talking about is that projections shouldn't be modified on account of two games. Edit: Well, projections worth noting anyway.

Slightly incorrect. The law of averages says that the most likely result as you roll more and more times is that the average *approaches* 3.5 but doesn't quite reach it. Fine, so then it's a split of single hair. It's hardly a worthwhile application in this context. It's precisely worthy of application. The difference between the expected average after the bad start and the ordinary expected average shrinks over time, and with an infinite number of rolls it eventually becomes infinitesimal. But we don't have an infinite number of games left. We have 160. So we know how big the difference is expected to be over our sample: About one win's worth. But a single win is not a large enough unit to realistically hold any weight. Referring back to your example of 162 coin flips and the first two were tails - yes - I would predict that 80 head flips would follow. However, although that may be the best guess possible, would I realistically expect it to fall on exactly 80? No, because a single number prediction is next to impossible to predict. That is my point. Within a sample of 162, two outcomes are barely significant. So, again, I technically understand your point. The cubs are slightly less likely to finish .500 (assuming that was their projection). However, that percentage is so small that it is not plausible here.

Slightly incorrect. The law of averages says that the most likely result as you roll more and more times is that the average *approaches* 3.5 but doesn't quite reach it. Fine, so then it's a split of single hair. It's hardly a worthwhile application in this context.

Look at it this way: If a 6-sided die were rolled 162 times, then you would expect that the average roll would be very close to 3.5. Let's say that the first two of the 162 rolls both landed on one. Or, they both landed on 6. The average at that point would obviously be heavily skewed. However, the law of large numbers states that if a large number of rolls are recorded, the average roll will still be 3.5 - because the first two rolls hold little weight in and of themselves.

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction. I understand your point. I just don't think it's practical in this scenario. It's a finite season. 2 losses in a period where most teams would expect one win should always subtract 1 win from a team's projected totals. I don't know what the odds are of one win making the difference for a playoff spot or not, but it's definitely non-zero. The Cubs' playoff odds are a little worse than they were before the season started. Similarly, any team that started out 2-0 can add one win to their projected total. Well of course they are in "worse" shape than if they had won a game or two. That's not the point. The point is that no one would realistically change their projections or perception of a .500 team after only two games. Perhaps your argument would hold more weight if the season were 16 games, but it's not. There are 160 more chances for the odds to even, or even swing into the positive. Once again, I understand your point - it's just not terribly applicable to the situation at hand.

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction. I understand your point. I just don't think it's practical in this scenario.

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction. This. The law of averages is a bunch of crap. Well that settles it.

The law of averages is usually misapplied and turns into gambler's fallacy. You expect a .500-team to play .500 for the future. You don't expect them to play better to make up for playing worse before. The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

You all realize most projects have this team around .500, and you can subtract one win from any early season projects thanks to the 0-2 start. i don't think that's how it works That's *exactly* how it works. Let's say you project a team to be .500. If they start out 0-2, you don't change your opinion of the team's abilities, but you can only apply it to the future. That .500 team should go 80-80 the rest of the year, finishing 80-82. If you think the team is going to be 81-81 going into the season and you don't change your mind at 0-2, then you are expecting them to go 81-79 the rest of the year. That's gambler's fallacy. How about the law of averages then? Nobody expects a .500 team to win-one lose-one for the whole year.

Apparently it's not about overall revenue. A football playoff would almost certainly have a greater interest, not to mention additional games, that would generate more money for television networks and NCAA as a whole. The issue that I have heard is about how the money is divided. Under the current format, each school and each school's conference stands to make a certain percentage depending on their particular bowl. If a playoff were to be created, it is believed that the schools and the school's conference would make considerably less because it would be spread out in a more even manner throughout NCAA. I guess kind of like the same assumption that Notre Dame doesn't join a conference because they already have the attention and benefits without having to share their profits with a dozen other schools.

good grief.

For those with mlb.tv, it looks like they will carry Arizona's coverage.

Still looking for another RT. Never really followed this guy much, but he's ranked decently high... Jason Fox - OT - Miami (FL) http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/mifl/sports/m-footbl/auto_action/3640418.jpeg

Gus makes my arm hairs stand up during a game I could have otherwise cared less about.

Gus Johnson is the Chuck Norris of sporting announcing.

Yeah, his 40 was slow, but this article had some nice things to say. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/02/28/combine.rbqb/index.html

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0720/ncf_g_dwyer_300.jpg The Chargers select: Jonathan Dwyer - RB - Georgia Tech I was hoping Matthews or Best would fall to me, but Dwyer seems like he would be nice compliment to Sproles (assuming he's still there next year).

Texas A&M game is gonna be huge too because I've got them upsetting Duke in round 3.

I've got St. Mary's over Nova. If that happens - then I'm looking REALLY good in my main bracket.

other than the specific nature of those texts (which can only be somewhat surprising), I thought this was all old news. I know the whole two abortion thing was.

I know this isn't your point, Soul, but I think that Zambrano and Soto can only benefit from their weight loss. I'm not saying that it will be anything world-changing with their performances, but it can only help. Time will tell, but with a game as strenuous as 162-game baseball season, any advantage you can gain is a positive.

Marquette and ND's seeds were both ridiculous (I was saying that before they lost). I don't think the other upsets really reflect on the seeds. It may, however, accurately reflect how ridiculously overrated the big east was this year. QFT I'd also like to use this time to toot my St. Mary's and Murray St (sweet 16) horn. Georgetown put a damper on my picks for the time, but if SDSU pulls their heads out of their collective arses, then it may be a great night after all.

Let's go NC State