If Indiana adopted the oad model would you buy in?

[fpeaugh]

Anyone who doesn’t want top talent OAD players doesn’t understand basic statistics. You’re over 10x more likely to go to the Final Four with a OAD than without them. And you’re over 5x more likely to win a title than without one. It’s just basic math. It’s not complicated if you’re not biased.

 

[fpeaugh]

So since you can't show your face on the football board I see you need to double down on your IU trashing here.

I posted over there earlier today while you were in school kiddo. Catch up.

 

[ORG]

We currently have a player that averages 4 pts a game and didn’t even start that will probably leave for the nba. Frankly, Ill be glad when it’s over. Yes, you don’t get to know the players and their development over 4 years but 7 months. The bonus side is you get to make a deep run in the tournament every yr and recruiting handles itself. Given the current state of Indiana basketball, would you atleast try the oad model? I’m asking an honest question. No bs, no trolling. I’m halfway respected here more than some of the regulars so I’m curious if you would accept it if given the opportunity?

I find some faults in the way the choice you gave us is "set-up." Specifically, I find fault with your assertions that having OADs will allow IU to "make a deep run in the tournament every year" and that "recruiting handles itself."

For me, I like the "less is more" approach. ONE OAD per year is something I could handle.

Even the king of the OAD model (KY) has had a few years where it did not make a deep run. And, OAD schools still need to recruit. They do not just sit back and wait for the 5 stars to appear at their doors, hat in hand, begging for a ride.

 

[hondo314]

No one said they wouldn’t.

But if you only have one year and you want to be pushed in practice every day, you want to prepare for the NBA with other future NBA players, you want to be showcased on national TV as much as possible, and you want to be guaranteed to have a chance to make a deep NCAA run in that one single year, there’s nowhere better to go than UK, Duke, UNC, or Kansas. That’s what you don’t understand. And that’s why it continues to happen year after year after year. Because these kids don’t care about your biases.

Ya, NBA scouts won’t see their games unless they go to those four schools. Lol.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

No one said they wouldn’t.

But if you only have one year and you want to be pushed in practice every day, you want to prepare for the NBA with other future NBA players, you want to be showcased on national TV as much as possible, and you want to be guaranteed to have a chance to make a deep NCAA run in that one single year, there’s nowhere better to go than UK, Duke, UNC, or Kansas. That’s what you don’t understand. And that’s why it continues to happen year after year after year. Because these kids don’t care about your biases.

Does the UK environment provide for OAD’s a great place to showcase their talent? Without question - and I’d never argue otherwise.

The discussion was from your earlier claim:

Conservatively speaking Calipari has produced 5x the number of NBA players as Pitino has in the last 10

What is the definition of produce?

“Make or manufacture from components or raw materials.”

Calipari doesn’t take the majority of those NBA draftees and make them into draftable players. They come there already with that talent. He does help them maximize their exposure. But that is NOT producing draft picks.

As @T.M.P. noted, the majority of those kids are in NBA draft lists BEFORE they even get to Lexington. I’ll give Calipari credit; he’s a good coach, in fact does a really good job of getting guys to play together that are looking ahead to the next level. But he’s NOT some damn miracle worker. To suggest otherwise is to show bias.

 

[hondo314]

I posted over there earlier today while you were in school kiddo. Catch up.

And what you posted was utter bullshit. Lol. You can’t say it’s a good football season but you can say that ASU wouldn’t be interested in TA because the Big Ten is down. How would you know what other football programs are looking for? You don’t follow thatt sport either.

TA is way better than your boy Wilson. Not even close. But I understand the appeal of a dickhead coach to you.

Another lonely day?

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Anyone who doesn’t want top talent OAD players doesn’t understand basic statistics. You’re over 10x more likely to go to the Final Four with a OAD than without them. And you’re over 5x more likely to win a title than without one. It’s just basic math. It’s not complicated if you’re not biased.

So you can provide evidence that your claims of “10x more likely “ and “5x more likely” are actually grounded in fact as opposed to your opinion? Or is this gonna be another “you guaranteed!” without providing any evidence? Likely the latter . . .

 

[fpeaugh]

So you can provide evidence that your claims of “10x more likely “ and “5x more likely” are actually grounded in fact as opposed to your opinion? Or is this gonna be another “you guaranteed!” without providing any evidence? Likely the latter . . .

Get out your notepad kiddo.

Of teams where OAD’s have logged 30% or more of the minutes for a team in the OAD era:
100% have made the tournament
100% have made round of 32...yes, 100%
90% have made the Sweet 16...yes, 90%
70% have made the Elite 8
50% have made the Final Four
40% made the championship game
20% won the national title.

So if you have OAD’s log 30% or more of minutes, you have a 50/50 chance of making the Final Four and a 1 in 5 chance of winning it all.

Considering your odds of winning it all with 347 D1 teams is 0.29% each year, this would suggest that it’s not 5 or 10x, the facts show you’re almost 100x more likely to win it all with the OAD model than without it.

Maybe Coach K, Cal, Roy, Self, etc aren’t as dumb as you think. Maybe you just wouldn’t pass Statistics 101.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/sports/march-madness-one-and-dones/

 

[T.M.P.]

Does the UK environment provide for OAD’s a great place to showcase their talent? Without question - and I’d never argue otherwise.

The discussion was from your earlier claim:



What is the definition of produce?

“Make or manufacture from components or raw materials.”

Calipari doesn’t take the majority of those NBA draftees and make them into draftable players. They come there already with that talent. He does help them maximize their exposure. But that is NOT producing draft picks.

As @T.M.P. noted, the majority of those kids are in NBA draft lists BEFORE they even get to Lexington. I’ll give Calipari credit; he’s a good coach, in fact does a really good job of getting guys to play together that are looking ahead to the next level. But he’s NOT some damn miracle worker. To suggest otherwise is to show bias.

He does a great job of getting them to play defense and to accept that they are not going to be individual stars but part of a team. Not sure his developmental ability is that great though.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Get out your notepad kiddo.

Of teams where OAD’s have logged 30% or more of the minutes for a team in the OAD era:
100% have made the tournament
100% have made round of 32...yes, 100%
90% have made the Sweet 16...yes, 90%
70% have made the Elite 8
50% have made the Final Four
40% made the championship game
20% won the national title.

So if you have OAD’s log 30% or more of minutes, you have a 50/50 chance of making the Final Four and a 1 in 5 chance of winning it all.

Considering your odds of winning it all with 347 D1 teams is 0.29% each year, this would suggest that it’s not 5 or 10x, the facts show you’re almost 100x more likely to win it all with the OAD model than without it.

Maybe Coach K, Cal, Roy, Self, etc aren’t as dumb as you think. Maybe you just wouldn’t pass Statistics 101.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/sports/march-madness-one-and-dones/

Kiddo . . . lol

More likely? What is the goal (and we’ve been over this before)?

TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP.

Both of the teams that have won a championship (Duke, UK) won their title early in their school’s adoption of the OAD model - when they had veteran leaders on each team (Quin Cook, Darius Miller).

Since then? UK made the finals a couple of times when they were flat out loaded with top 10 RSCI players. And that’s it.

Let’s go back to the OP: IF Indiana adopted the OAD model would I buy in? Clearly, no. The numbers you have shown prove convincingly what I’ve said all along: to get enough OAD’s to make yourself a title contender, you have to promote yourself as UK does - as a one-year stop to the pros. And UNLESS you recruit multiple high ranked players (as UK used to do) you’re turning your roster over every year and staying perpetually young, without enough talent to overcome the lack of experience.

Hell, Coach K - arguably the greatest college basketball coach of all time - had THREE of the top 4 kids from the RSCI rankings. And still couldn’t get to the finals.

So you keep on worshiping at the Altar of St. John Calipari. I’ll take something similar to Villanova or Michigan State any day.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

He does a great job of getting them to play defense and to accept that they are not going to be individual stars but part of a team. Not sure his developmental ability is that great though.

He’s neither bad, nor outstanding.

On one hand, he’s taken a kid like Eric Bledsoe (Mr Alegebra 3 ) and had him get drafted HIGH above where he came in from his RSCI ranking. If you want to count that as “evidence” of Calipari’s “development” abilities, you have to ALSO count how guys like Skal and the Harrison twins dropped.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Clearly, these guys are excellent basketball players and a guy like Cal has the ability to win with them. That isn't the point. The point is; would this be the type of program you would want for your school?

I suspect that non-grad fans would show a higher percentage of thumbs up than grads and grads of a school like IU would have a lower percentage of thumbs up than those of other schools. I have no data to back that up other than extensive life experience with college basketball, but would confidently wager a substantial sum if it could be proven one way or the other.

 

[fpeaugh]

Kiddo . . . lol

More likely? What is the goal (and we’ve been over this before)?

TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP.

Both of the teams that have won a championship (Duke, UK) won their title early in their school’s adoption of the OAD model - when they had veteran leaders on each team (Quin Cook, Darius Miller).

Since then? UK made the finals a couple of times when they were flat out loaded with top 10 RSCI players. And that’s it.

Let’s go back to the OP: IF Indiana adopted the OAD model would I buy in? Clearly, no. The numbers you have shown prove convincingly what I’ve said all along: to get enough OAD’s to make yourself a title contender, you have to promote yourself as UK does - as a one-year stop to the pros. And UNLESS you recruit multiple high ranked players (as UK used to do) you’re turning your roster over every year and staying perpetually young, without enough talent to overcome the lack of experience.

Hell, Coach K - arguably the greatest college basketball coach of all time - had THREE of the top 4 kids from the RSCI rankings. And still couldn’t get to the finals.

So you keep on worshiping at the Altar of St. John Calipari. I’ll take something similar to Villanova or Michigan State any day.

So you’re choosing to once again ignore the facts?

Because I clearly showed you if you have OAD’s play more than 30% of your minutes you have a 20% chance of winning a title. 1 in 5. That’s astronomically better than not having OADs. To the tune of 100 times more likely. but go ahead and ignore the facts because of your biases.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

So you’re choosing to once again ignore the facts?

Because I clearly showed you if you have OAD’s play more than 30% of your minutes you have a 20% chance of winning a title. 1 in 5. That’s astronomically better than not having OADs. To the tune of 100 times more likely. but go ahead and ignore the facts because of your biases.

You didn’t “clearly” show any such thing.

You’re like the girl that wants to be liked by everyone - so she screws the football team. Want to go the OAD route? Go ahead. By doing so you’ll likely have good seasons year after year - but no more of a guarantee to win championships than by developing 3-4 year players.

“Since Duke’s last crown and Kentucky’s last Final Four trip in 2015, Villanova has won two titles, North Carolina one. North Carolina, Gonzaga and Michigan have been runners-up. So, that makes six teams in three title games, 30 starters. This is what you get:

Twenty-three upperclassmen, meaning juniors or seniors. Three freshmen.”

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...ll-veterans-succeeding-march-madnesss-biggest

 

[Courtsensetwo]

You didn’t “clearly” show any such thing.

You’re like the girl that wants to be liked by everyone - so she screws the football team. Want to go the OAD route? Go ahead. By doing so you’ll likely have good seasons year after year - but no more of a guarantee to win championships than by developing 3-4 year players.

“Since Duke’s last crown and Kentucky’s last Final Four trip in 2015, Villanova has won two titles, North Carolina one. North Carolina, Gonzaga and Michigan have been runners-up. So, that makes six teams in three title games, 30 starters. This is what you get:

Twenty-three upperclassmen, meaning juniors or seniors. Three freshmen.”

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...ll-veterans-succeeding-march-madnesss-biggest

Needless to say, and to no one's surprise Fraudy could not give a rat's ass about the integrity of IU and supports outsourcing the program to mercenaries. All you need to know.

 

[fpeaugh]

You didn’t “clearly” show any such thing.

You’re like the girl that wants to be liked by everyone - so she screws the football team. Want to go the OAD route? Go ahead. By doing so you’ll likely have good seasons year after year - but no more of a guarantee to win championships than by developing 3-4 year players.

“Since Duke’s last crown and Kentucky’s last Final Four trip in 2015, Villanova has won two titles, North Carolina one. North Carolina, Gonzaga and Michigan have been runners-up. So, that makes six teams in three title games, 30 starters. This is what you get:

Twenty-three upperclassmen, meaning juniors or seniors. Three freshmen.”

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...ll-veterans-succeeding-march-madnesss-biggest

Again, you either don’t understand very basic statistics or you choose to ignore them because of your biases. The stats are overwhelming. I can’t force you to accept reality though.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So you’re choosing to once again ignore the facts?

Because I clearly showed you if you have OAD’s play more than 30% of your minutes you have a 20% chance of winning a title. 1 in 5. That’s astronomically better than not having OADs. To the tune of 100 times more likely. but go ahead and ignore the facts because of your biases.

You really are a funny guy. The stats prove nothing of the kind. You don't even understand what you post and it's seriously pathetic - for you. For everyone else it's hilarious.

 

[fpeaugh]

You really are a funny guy. The stats prove nothing of the kind. You don't even understand what you post and it's seriously pathetic - for you. For everyone else it's hilarious.

What do you not understand about being 100 times more likely to win a title with OADs playing more than 30% of minutes vs not having OADs or them playing less than 30% of minutes?

100 times.

100-1

20% vs 0.2%

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Again, you either don’t understand very basic statistics or you choose to ignore them because of your biases. The stats are overwhelming. I can’t force you to accept reality though.

Again, you didn’t “prove” anything.

Two teams in the OAD era have won titles - but both did so early in the program’s embrace of the OAD. Each team (UK in 2012, Duke in 2015) had a veteran senior whose leadership played a significant role (Darius Miller; Quin Cook).

So how many teams featuring OAD players without a veteran senior have won titles? ZERO. Because they turn their roster over constantly, they be perpetually young. And YOUR facts show that catches up to you.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

What do you not understand about being 100 times more likely to win a title with OADs playing more than 30% of minutes vs not having OADs or them playing less than 30% of minutes?

100 times.

100-1

20% vs 0.2%

Your “facts” don’t say that.

Hell, Stevie Wonder can see that from 5 miles away.

 

[fpeaugh]

Again, you didn’t “prove” anything.

Two teams in the OAD era have won titles - but both did so early in the program’s embrace of the OAD. Each team (UK in 2012, Duke in 2015) had a veteran senior whose leadership played a significant role (Darius Miller; Quin Cook).

So how many teams featuring OAD players without a veteran senior have won titles? ZERO. Because they turn their roster over constantly, they be perpetually young. And YOUR facts show that catches up to you.

Every team, even heavy freshmen teams, have upperclassmen. You have been proven factually wrong. Just admit it.

No, you don’t actually know more about college basketball than Coach K, Calipari, Roy Williams, Bill Self, and every other coach who wishes they could get top end talent. Every. Single. Coach.

Get a clue.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Every team, even heavy freshmen teams, have upperclassmen. You have been proven factually wrong. Just admit it.

No, you don’t actually know more about college basketball than Coach K, Calipari, Roy Williams, Bill Self, and every other coach who wishes they could get top end talent. Every. Single. Coach.

Get a clue.

How many teams relying on OAD players have won a title without a veteran senior?

The answer is simple to understand - and no surprise you can’t grasp the concept of why, either.

 

[fpeaugh]

How many teams relying on OAD players have won a title without a veteran senior?

The answer is simple to understand - and no surprise you can’t grasp the concept of why, either.

That was never the question. I’m not sure there’s ever been a team without a senior. You’re getting desperate because you’ve been proven wrong. Again.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

What do you not understand about being 100 times more likely to win a title with OADs playing more than 30% of minutes vs not having OADs or them playing less than 30% of minutes?

100 times.

100-1

20% vs 0.2%

Dunce. You don’t have a clue. Funny as can be though.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

That was never the question.

It answers the OP: Would you “buy in” if IU adopted the OAD model? Clearly, no - if you don’t win a title early in the adoption process (as did UK and Duke), the lack of experience you’ll have every year from turning your roster over will be too much to overcome. Again, your data clearly defines that.

Wanna be the whore that gets all the attention from the boys (have good seasons, be in the spotlight)? Sure, go ahead. You might win a title, but there’s nothing that conclusively proves you’re more likely to do so.

You’re getting desperate because you’ve been proven wrong. Again.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I've been waiting all afternoon to post this because I wanted to be 100% sure. I got a text this morning about it and admittedly I thought it was a rumor at first. I've been waiting to make sure its 100% before posting.
I can say with 100% confidence that Billy and his wife were in Bloomington this morning.
I don't see any scenario where he and his wife come to town and he doesn't take the job. It's happening!!!

 

[fpeaugh]

It answers the OP: Would you “buy in” if IU adopted the OAD model? Clearly, no - if you don’t win a title early in the adoption process (as did UK and Duke), the lack of experience you’ll have every year from turning your roster over will be too much to overcome. Again, your data clearly defines that.

Wanna be the whore that gets all the attention from the boys (have good seasons, be in the spotlight)? Sure, go ahead. You might win a title, but there’s nothing that conclusively proves you’re more likely to do so.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

100x more likely to win a title. Those are the facts.

 

[hondo314]

100x more likely to win a title. Those are the facts.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

100x more likely to win a title. Those are the facts.

Lol . . . Tell yourself whatever helps prop up your pathetic self esteem. Everyone else knows better.

YDS

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

100x more likely to win a title. Those are the facts.

Seriously, that's NOT a fact. You don't understand statistics and your own post trying to prove you did proves you don't. At this point it's obvious that you're too stupid to know you're stupid.

 

[fpeaugh]

Seriously, that's NOT a fact. You don't understand statistics and your own post trying to prove you did proves you don't. At this point it's obvious that you're too stupid to know you're stupid.

Yes, it’s a fact. You just don’t want to accept it. Similar to a flat earther.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yes, it’s a fact. You just don’t want to accept it. Similar to a flat earther.

No it isn’t a fact. You don’t understand statistics and your attempt to explain your “fact” was pathetically inept. As I said, you’re too stupid to know you’re stupid.

 

[fpeaugh]

No it isn’t a fact. You don’t understand statistics and your attempt to explain your “fact” was pathetically inept. As I said, you’re too stupid to know you’re stupid.

Do you also deny that the Earth is round?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Do you also deny that the Earth is round?

It's hilarious that you think your statistical analysis was accurate. It's not even close.

 

[fpeaugh]

It's hilarious that you think your statistical analysis was accurate. It's not even close.

Please tell me what you think 20% means.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Please tell me what you think 20% means.

Go back and make another pathetic attempt at explaining your statistics. You're obviously wrong and you're too dumb to know it.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

Please tell me what you think 20% means.

Grossly inflated assessment of your residual mental capacity.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

100x more likely to win a title. Those are the facts.

But not the point. THAT went right over your head.

 

[fpeaugh]

But not the point. THAT went right over your head.

You were surprised by the facts and are now backtracking. Color me shocked.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

You were surprised by the facts and are now backtracking. Color me shocked.

Uhhhh look Ace, I never got into your little sidebar. I stuck with the premise of the thread. My posts stand and are unaffected by your irrelevant rant.

 

[twenty02]

Get out your notepad kiddo.

Of teams where OAD’s have logged 30% or more of the minutes for a team in the OAD era:
100% have made the tournament
100% have made round of 32...yes, 100%
90% have made the Sweet 16...yes, 90%
70% have made the Elite 8
50% have made the Final Four
40% made the championship game
20% won the national title.

So if you have OAD’s log 30% or more of minutes, you have a 50/50 chance of making the Final Four and a 1 in 5 chance of winning it all.

Considering your odds of winning it all with 347 D1 teams is 0.29% each year, this would suggest that it’s not 5 or 10x, the facts show you’re almost 100x more likely to win it all with the OAD model than without it.

Maybe Coach K, Cal, Roy, Self, etc aren’t as dumb as you think. Maybe you just wouldn’t pass Statistics 101.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/sports/march-madness-one-and-dones/

That's maybe the worst attempt at statistical analysis I've ever seen attempted. The predictive nature of such analysis is comparable to stating that it rained last Tuesday, so it's much more likely that it will rain on Tuesdays.

Have you ever actually run a multivariate regression? Do you even know what that is? Can you tie your shoes without shitting your pants? We all know the answer to all of the above is negative.

You are a very stupid person that believes themselves very smart....a witches brew that makes for something comparable to a modern-day court jester.