- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:03 am to Frankie Knuckles
quote:
I do like how Saban doenst bite on any of the media's leading questions and bullshite
I agree, he tells it like it is......
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:12 am to Cinci Tiger
Statistically, it is more likely for a win-win, than a win-loss. For example, look at the following scenarios:
1.) Team A is much greater than Team B -- Team A wins both games (probability approaches 1.0)
2.) Team B is much greater than Team A -- Team B wins both games (probability approaches 1.0)
3.) Team A is slightly greater than Team B -- Team A splits series (probability approximately 0.5)
4.) Team B is slightly greater than Team A -- Team B splits series (probability approximately 0.5)
In the above scenarios, the likely event that a team will win, given they have already won, is substantially greater. (1.0 + 1.0 + 0.5 + 0.5) vs. (0 + 0 + 0.5 + 0.5). That is a ratio of 3:1. Granted, the real numbers are somewhere in between a split and that, but to answer Nick's question, the statistics point to LSU.
1.) Team A is much greater than Team B -- Team A wins both games (probability approaches 1.0)
2.) Team B is much greater than Team A -- Team B wins both games (probability approaches 1.0)
3.) Team A is slightly greater than Team B -- Team A splits series (probability approximately 0.5)
4.) Team B is slightly greater than Team A -- Team B splits series (probability approximately 0.5)
In the above scenarios, the likely event that a team will win, given they have already won, is substantially greater. (1.0 + 1.0 + 0.5 + 0.5) vs. (0 + 0 + 0.5 + 0.5). That is a ratio of 3:1. Granted, the real numbers are somewhere in between a split and that, but to answer Nick's question, the statistics point to LSU.
This post was edited on 12/21/11 at 9:14 am
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:30 am to tigerbill002
quote:
Each game is different.
Hilliard had no carries in the November 5 game - he'll bring something new into the BCS game. (Recall Justin Vincent had no carries in the 03 regular season game against UGA - he was mvp in the SEC game with 201 yards rushing - expect something like that for Hilliard.)
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:47 am to Roux-Roux
Seems to be the norm in SEC matchups lately.
At least Saban is realistic. I don't care for the guy but I like the way he blasts the media every chance he gets.
At least Saban is realistic. I don't care for the guy but I like the way he blasts the media every chance he gets.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:49 am to Newgene
quote:
Statistically, it is more likely for a win-win, than a win-loss. For example, look at the following scenarios:
1.) Team A is much greater than Team B -- Team A wins both games (probability approaches 1.0)
2.) Team B is much greater than Team A -- Team B wins both games (probability approaches 1.0)
3.) Team A is slightly greater than Team B -- Team A splits series (probability approximately 0.5)
4.) Team B is slightly greater than Team A -- Team B splits series (probability approximately 0.5)
Your calculations assume that 1 and 2 are possible. And 2=1 and 3=4.
I think one can easily argue that LSU=Bama. Certainly not that either team is much greater than the other.
But the real factors are psychological. My thesis is that the winner of a close match is at a psychological disadvantage to the loser. A big winner is different. I think a big winner owns the loser but you won in OT so that's out. But the loser of a close match realizes if he worked just a little harder he would have won. The winner realizes how damn close it was to them losing and will be playing the next game not to lose.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:56 am to bama1989
quote:
I think a big winner owns the loser but you won in OT so that's out.
I think the opposite. Big winner in match one is more likely to slip up in match two due to being over confident.
quote:
The winner realizes how damn close it was to them losing and will be playing the next game not to lose.
I think LSU played not to lose in the first game. That was evident by the gameplan.
This time, you will see a completely different approach from both teams. Since Nov. 5th, LSU has been tested. Bama has not. LSU played an extra game. Bama did not.
I think those factors benefit LSU, regardless of the offensive struggles in the extra game.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:59 am to Roux-Roux
quote:
"Tough to beat a team twice"
This is correct. I'm sure Alabama won't be able beat themselves this time,LSU will do it for them.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:02 am to VOR
quote:
For frick's sake, you guys are silly sometimes. It has nothing to do with "ESPN progaganda" which, by the way, has become some sort of bogeyman in many of your minds
No, you're the one being silly. It's downright moronic to think that ESPN is anything but propaganda.
quote:
Actually, conventional wisdom has been that it's tough to beat a very good team twice in a row in a single season
Actually, it's nothing but an old wives' tale, and you attach the term "conventional wisdom" to it to make it sound more credible than it really is. There's no wisdom in conventional wisdom. "Conventional wisdom" is a fancy way of saying bullshite myth that people like to quote as fact when it's not.
Besides, we don't have to beat Alabama twice now. We only have to beat them on January 9th. It's considered hard to beat a team twice BEFORE you've played them the first time. That's just a simple matter of probabilities. There's a chance of losing each time you play, so playing twice creates a better chance of losing one than playing once does. You only have a 25% chance of flipping a coin and getting heads both times. But if you've already flipped it once and gotten heads, you have the same 50% chance of flipping heads the second time as you would on any other flip.
This post was edited on 12/21/11 at 10:04 am
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:12 am to rbdallas
quote:
yes it is,
it is obviously not 100%, but if the two teams are very close to each other in talent and ability the first winner is at a disadvantage.
Another example of just pulling something out of one's arse and claiming it's a fact. There's nothing to support this assertion but repetition.
quote:
the loser, learns of his weaknesses and plugs them up, while the winner is forced to try something new.
And so is the loser, only they are in the worse position of not having found as many weaknesses to start with. Also, weakness aren't necessarily plugged up. UGa didn't have the OL to protect Greene from our pass rush in 2003. That didn't change between the regular season game and the SECCG. South Carolina didn't have the defense to stop Cam Newton in the first game last year. That didn't change in the SECCG.
quote:
when the twp teams are close to each other in ability it becomes much harder to do so.
What a revelation. It's harder to beat a team that is about as good as you are than to beat a team that is far inferior to you. Wow. Alert the coaching staff immediately.
This post was edited on 12/21/11 at 10:29 am
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:14 am to Mayhawman
quote:
40-39 OT, 32-13 UA over UF, '99 I think
Close. It was 34-7 in the CG in '99. 32-13 was the '09 score.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:16 am to barry
quote:
Of course its tougher to beat a team twice. How much tougher, depends on the team. Its common sense. Its a 50/50 chance to flip a coin and land on heads once. Its a 1 in 4 chance to flip a coin and have it land on heads two times in a row.
Exactly. You beat me to it.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:24 am to bama1989
quote:
My thesis is that the winner of a close match is at a psychological disadvantage to the loser
Why? There's nothing to support this. Going into the game November 5th, Alabama was favored by almost a touchdown and all the Bama folks were supremely confident. Then they lost. This time, it's a pickem and I doubt Alabama is as confident. LSU players were probably confident on November 5th, and nothing about that game should change that for January 9th.
quote:
But the loser of a close match realizes if he worked just a little harder he would have won. The winner realizes how damn close it was to them losing and will be playing the next game not to lose.
Playing not to lose? Where in the world do you get that from? Do you honestly think LSU will play not to lose on January 9th? And Alabama benefits from realizing they would have won if they had worked a little harder? So, work ethic was the issue for Alabama in the game of the freaking century? Seriously?
This is nothing but pure bullshite rationalization. The teams are evenly matched, and either could win. There is no reason to think that our win in the first game makes an Alabama win more likely in this one, other than just the fact that you want to believe it.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:32 am to Nuts4LSU
We don't have to beat them twice.
This is a 1 game scenario.
The team that wins January 9th is the BCS National Champions.
This is a 1 game scenario.
The team that wins January 9th is the BCS National Champions.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:50 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Of course its tougher to beat a team twice. How much tougher, depends on the team. Its common sense. Its a 50/50 chance to flip a coin and land on heads once. Its a 1 in 4 chance to flip a coin and have it land on heads two times in a row.
Exactly. You beat me to it.
Aye, but you won the first game already and just like flipping a coin after the first flip regardless of what the first result was the next flip is still 50/50. So, from that perspective I don't see this game as any different. My point was one from a psychological perspective only.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:51 am to Roux-Roux
quote:
Saban responded "is there and statistic to that or is that something you guys make up?"
Even Saban nailed it.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:52 am to bama1989
quote:
Aye, but you won the first game already and just like flipping a coin after the first flip regardless of what the first result was the next flip is still 50/50.
That is correct.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:52 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
This is nothing but pure bull shite rationalization. The teams are evenly matched, and either could win. There is no reason to think that our win in the first game makes an Alabama win more likely in this one, other than just the fact that you want to believe it.
Its my thesis and I'm sticking to it until I see otherwise.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 11:02 am to bama1989
quote:
My thesis is that the winner of a close match is at a psychological disadvantage to the loser. A big winner is different. I think a big winner owns the loser but you won in OT so that's out. But the loser of a close match realizes if he worked just a little harder he would have won. The winner realizes how damn close it was to them losing and will be playing the next game not to lose.
Are you are pyscologist? That's got to be one of the dumbest dimestore pysco theories I've ever read
The underlined part is pure Bama delusion. In a game like 11/5, i see no advantage, because it was close. An easier win, but not an arse kicking, say 7-17 points, I could see saying it favors the team that lost because they will see what they did wrong and adjust. But the idea that LSU will play not to lose because they know they could have lost is comical. We played not to lose on 11/5
Posted on 12/21/11 at 11:12 am to H-Town Tiger
Then why all the talk about not wanting to play Bama? That just fuels my theory. You don't want to play us again. Admit it. Oh shite. Guess what? You have to whether you want to or not.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News