Big East women are doing better than men

Five of the eight are going to sweet 16. On the other hand, the overrated
Big 12 sent 8 but only 2 survived.

Big East women are doing better than men

(Ar*Q) offered up:
Five of the eight are going to sweet 16. On the other hand, the
overrated Big 12 sent 8 but only 2 survived.

-----------------------------

Wow! attacking Big 12 women BB. you really know how to hurt a guy. lmao.

btw... the field has been reduced to 16 teams or 1/4. the Big 12 has
been reduced to 1/4 of their teams. sounds pretty average to me,
assuming their are 64/65 teams to begin with. i wouldn't know for sure.

RCJHGOKU ... AND BIG XII

"Ar Q" <ArthurQ283@hottmail.com> writes:

> Five of the eight are going to sweet 16. On the other hand, the overrated
> Big 12 sent 8 but only 2 survived.

You just can't resist making a complete fool of yourself, can you,
Ar Q?

Let's look at the facts.

Texas, as a #8 seed, won its first round game against a #9 seed and
then lost its second round game to a #1 seed, as expected.

Iowa State, as a #7 seed, won its first round game against a #10 seed
and then lost its second round game to a #2 seed, as expected.

Nebraska, as a #8 seed, won its first round game against a #9 seed
and then lost its second round game to a #1 seed, as expected.

Baylor, as a #3 seed, won its first round game against a #14 seed and
then lost its second round game to a #6 seed. but see below.

Kansas State, as a #5 seed, won its first round game against a #12
seed and then lost its second round game to a #4 seed, as expected.

Oklahoma State, as a #3 seed, won its first round game against a #14
seed and then won its second round game against a #11 seed, as
expected.

Oklahoma, as a #4 seed, won its first round game against a #13 seed
and then lost its second round game to a #5 seed, but see below.

Texas A&M, as a #2 seed, won its first round game against a #15 seed
and then won its second round game against a #10 seed, as expected.

So, six teams played exactly according to their seed. That is, they
won the games they were expected to win and lost the games they were
expected to lose. The only "upsets" in the seeding sense are Baylor
and Oklahoma, but if you look at the Sagarin ratings for Notre Dame
and Oklahoma, you'll discover that Notre Dame is #8 while Oklahoma is
#15, so the Oklahoma loss was to expected. Notre Dame was underseeded.
Meanwhile, Baylor is #14 while Pittsburgh is #17, separated by fewer
than 2 points in their ratings, which is far less than the typical
inconsistency with which teams play. When two such teams play each
other five teams, the lower ranked team is expected to win two of the
five contests. That's the way probabilities work, Ar Q.

So, once again, it's trivial to disprove your "overrated" claim.

Who cares? The 100,000 women's hoops fans in America?


<tholen@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:47ea4ac8$0$12544$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "Ar Q" <ArthurQ283@hottmail.com> writes:
>
>> Five of the eight are going to sweet 16. On the other hand, the overrated
>> Big 12 sent 8 but only 2 survived.
>
> You just can't resist making a complete fool of yourself, can you,
> Ar Q?
>
> Let's look at the facts.
>
> Texas, as a #8 seed, won its first round game against a #9 seed and
> then lost its second round game to a #1 seed, as expected.
>
> Iowa State, as a #7 seed, won its first round game against a #10 seed
> and then lost its second round game to a #2 seed, as expected.
>
> Nebraska, as a #8 seed, won its first round game against a #9 seed
> and then lost its second round game to a #1 seed, as expected.
>
> Baylor, as a #3 seed, won its first round game against a #14 seed and
> then lost its second round game to a #6 seed. but see below.
>
> Kansas State, as a #5 seed, won its first round game against a #12
> seed and then lost its second round game to a #4 seed, as expected.
>
> Oklahoma State, as a #3 seed, won its first round game against a #14
> seed and then won its second round game against a #11 seed, as
> expected.
>
> Oklahoma, as a #4 seed, won its first round game against a #13 seed
> and then lost its second round game to a #5 seed, but see below.
>
> Texas A&M, as a #2 seed, won its first round game against a #15 seed
> and then won its second round game against a #10 seed, as expected.
>
> So, six teams played exactly according to their seed. That is, they
> won the games they were expected to win and lost the games they were
> expected to lose. The only "upsets" in the seeding sense are Baylor
> and Oklahoma, but if you look at the Sagarin ratings for Notre Dame
> and Oklahoma, you'll discover that Notre Dame is #8 while Oklahoma is
> #15, so the Oklahoma loss was to expected. Notre Dame was underseeded.
> Meanwhile, Baylor is #14 while Pittsburgh is #17, separated by fewer
> than 2 points in their ratings, which is far less than the typical
> inconsistency with which teams play. When two such teams play each
> other five teams, the lower ranked team is expected to win two of the
> five contests. That's the way probabilities work, Ar Q.
>
> So, once again, it's trivial to disprove your "overrated" claim.
>

Timothy Ace Holleran writes:

> Who cares? The 100,000 women's hoops fans in America?

Ar Q should care, Holleran, given that he started the thread. And you
cared enough to respond.