Should Oklahoma be number 1

[uk78]

I see the occasional post where someone will point out how a team we beat by a wide margin either beat someone else, or lost in a much closer game (and interpret that to mean how we would automatically beat whatever other team was involved). Well, using that same logic, we had a tough game at home in a close contest against Texas, and Oklahoma absolutely destroyed them on Texas's own home court. So, would that mean Oklahoma therefore would beat Kentucky?

O.K> yes I am being sarcastic but to also point out the folly of that type of logic in these other posts. As most of us know, match-ups influence outcomes and even an inferior team with particular personnel can be lousy against one team but good against another, or have someone get super hot for one game, etc.

 

[.S&C.]

Yes. Oklahoma should be number one. My top five is.

1. Oklahoma
2. Coach Kay
3. Texas
4. Michigan State
5. Albania
...
.....
.........
12. Kentucky

 

[funKYcat75]

Not sure about number 1, but that post is definitely a number 2.

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

Oklahoma has 3 losses. Please stop with the none sense ....

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Originally posted by uk78:
I see the occasional post where someone will point out how a team we beat by a wide margin either beat someone else, or lost in a much closer game (and interpret that to mean how we would automatically beat whatever other team was involved). Well, using that same logic, we had a tough game at home in a close contest against Texas, and Oklahoma absolutely destroyed them on Texas's own home court. So, would that mean Oklahoma therefore would beat Kentucky?

O.K> yes I am being sarcastic but to also point out the folly of that type of logic in these other posts. As most of us know, match-ups influence outcomes and even an inferior team with particular personnel can be lousy against one team but good against another, or have someone get super hot for one game, etc.

People on here post stupid and illogical stuff all the time...thanks for adding to it.

 

[FiveStarCat]

Originally posted by uk78:
I see the occasional post where someone will point out how a team we beat by a wide margin either beat someone else, or lost in a much closer game (and interpret that to mean how we would automatically beat whatever other team was involved). Well, using that same logic, we had a tough game at home in a close contest against Texas, and Oklahoma absolutely destroyed them on Texas's own home court. So, would that mean Oklahoma therefore would beat Kentucky?

O.K> yes I am being sarcastic but to also point out the folly of that type of logic in these other posts. As most of us know, match-ups influence outcomes and even an inferior team with particular personnel can be lousy against one team but good against another, or have someone get super hot for one game, etc.

If Kentucky only had that Kansas blowout on its resume (which I assume you are referring to for the most part in your post) then you would have a point. But as a whole, Kentucky has proven by its resume on a whole that is the #1 team. Duke may have had a small claim prior to Kentucky's win at Louisville, since Kentucky hadn't proven itself on the road against a good team yet, but not anymore.

 

[JC CATS]

Well yes, um Oklahoma should be no. 1. They should be by a wide margin. Not even close. Duke no. 2, then well no one else even deserves to be ranked

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by funKYcat75:
Not sure about number 1, but that post is definitely a number 2.

hahaha

 

[uk78]

O.K> yes I am being sarcastic but to also point out the folly of that type of logic in these other posts. As most of us know, match-ups influence outcomes and even an inferior team with particular personnel can be lousy against one team but good against another, or have someone get super hot for one game, etc.

I guess no one got to the second paragraph.

And, funKYcat75 even I agree that was a funny post.

 

[Smashcat]

Originally posted by uk78:
I see the occasional post where someone will point out how a team we beat by a wide margin either beat someone else, or lost in a much closer game (and interpret that to mean how we would automatically beat whatever other team was involved). Well, using that same logic, we had a tough game at home in a close contest against Texas, and Oklahoma absolutely destroyed them on Texas's own home court. So, would that mean Oklahoma therefore would beat Kentucky?

O.K> yes I am being sarcastic but to also point out the folly of that type of logic in these other posts. As most of us know, match-ups influence outcomes and even an inferior team with particular personnel can be lousy against one team but good against another, or have someone get super hot for one game, etc.

Oklahoma is certainly the team with three early losses already that is #1 (in Norman).

 

[BigBlueEmpire]

Before this thread completely derails, my two cents on Oklahoma. Their style is conducive to taking losses to teams that shouldnt beat them and killing teams that are better than them. You never know which Oklahoma is coming into the gym.

 

[CB3UK]

Should OP lay off the bourbon before 5pm? Sources say yes.

 

[preacherfan]

Originally posted by uk78:
O.K> yes I am being sarcastic but to also point out the folly of that type of logic in these other posts. As most of us know, match-ups influence outcomes and even an inferior team with particular personnel can be lousy against one team but good against another, or have someone get super hot for one game, etc.

I guess no one got to the second paragraph.

And, funKYcat75 even I agree that was a funny post.

Welcome to the internet. A lot of posters never bother to read past the subject line.

 

[runt#69]

Sharks in the water, smellin' blood in this thread. You piranha and other barracuda types leave UK78 alone and just let the other bigger sharks stir the chum filled portion of the thread for now. Big bites first for the big uns' and then the little chompers get a taste' m'mkay?

Sorry, UK78, I don't think there's any stopping them now. I'd try to give you some credit (and a hand) in keeping them from a full on feeding frenzy but they'd just literally bite my hand off now.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Margin of Victory is a better predictor of future success compared to W-L record. Up to a certain point then W-L becomes more predictive.

There's no fallacy in that logic at all. This is true for all sports too.

In baseball in the beginning of a season and towards the middle......the difference between runs scored and allowed predict future success better than W-L. It's a simple fact. I forget the actual number but it takes around 130 games till that actually becomes a better predictor.

What your saying tho......no one says that lol. The reason why margin of victory is a better predictor is simply because there's a small sample of games. So you can't just take one game and say well UK beat team A by 30 and another team beat them by 50 so naturally they are better than UK. it doesn't work that way lol.

Just look at FSU in football this year........yeah sure they won all their games but they won by such small margins. It wasn't surprising Oregon trashed them.

Look at Colorado St this year in basketball........they were undefeated until last week......but they won my such small margins. No one thinks Colorado St is a top team.

I just think that if you look at W-L without considering margin of victory your making a huge mistake.
This post was edited on 1/6 6:46 PM by The_Answer1313