Are we locked into the #4 Seed VS UNLV now?

[LanderPoke]

Ya I don’t see this going well for us. We don’t win on the road in certain places and that is one of them.

I feel like the Basketball team falling apart might be related to so many games in a short period of time. But the games were lost put us on the bubble in a 12 seed so if we’re one and done at the tournament I don’t expect us to get in.

I’ve seen us as a 9 seed in most brackets. Seems like a stretch that one more loss to a good team would completely knock us out

I agree. We saved our asses yesterday. One and done may drop us to a play-in game, but I think the respect for the Mountain West this year will carry us in. Always depends what happens with other teams and conferences though

Yeah. It would help to have some key teams lose

[SDPokeFan]

We do match up well with Boise and that could be another fun one

Yah but they haven’t beaten Vegas in Vegas since I had a full head of hair 20 years ago. Unfortunately I think they are one done. Hope I’m wrong.

Why don't you go back to making your crappy imperialist maps on twitter and stop trolling our board. We know who you are.

What on god’s green earth are you talking about?

[Wyovanian]

We do match up well with Boise and that could be another fun one

Yah but they haven’t beaten Vegas in Vegas since I had a full head of hair 20 years ago. Unfortunately I think they are one done. Hope I’m wrong.

Serious question- are you descended from French military ancestry?

[SDPokeFan]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

[jwy_poke]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

There is also a thing that team B is due to win one eventually. Plus your year is wrong. 2002 or 2003 is the last time the Pokes won there.

[OrediggerPoke]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

If all you were to rely on is trends such as these in your betting and statistical analysis, your results would be very skewed from your prediction and you would lose big. This is because every year the various teams have different compositions of players. Has Wyoming struggled with UNLV historically at Vegas? Sure. But that is more related to UNLV often having better teams than Wyoming during the time period.

In any event, UNLV will be a tough challenge. But based on the fact that Wyoming just recently played them and can now adjust their gameplan and given Wyoming’s much needed rest, I like Wyoming’s chances of beating UNLV at roughly 48-52 odds.

I’ll put on my Cowboy hat , Wyoming wins this one!

[seattlecowboy]

As far as making the NCAA tournament goes, I looked up a lot of the updated brackets and most of them have us as a 11 or 12 seed and in a play in game.

So to get in for sure we need to beat UNLV. If we lose we could be in the NIT. A win over UNLV and we are in. Hopefully in enough, not having to play in one of those play in games.

[Wyo2dal]

I would love to see us get into the dance but i feel like those losses were all bad losses and took us from a 6 seed at the highest to an after thought.

Now if we had SDSU reputation than we would still be a 11-12 seed. However we’re Wyoming and I believe we have to win at least two in Vegas. One would be a bubble team that would have to fight with a bunch of other bubble teams that scenario is bad for us.

[jwy_poke]

I would love to see us get into the dance but i feel like those losses were all bad losses and took us from a 6 seed at the highest to an after thought.

Now if we had SDSU reputation than we would still be a 11-12 seed. However we’re Wyoming and I believe we have to win at least two in Vegas. One would be a bubble team that would have to fight with a bunch of other bubble teams that scenario is bad for us.

[jwy_poke]

I would love to see us get into the dance but i feel like those losses were all bad losses and took us from a 6 seed at the highest to an after thought.

Now if we had SDSU reputation than we would still be a 11-12 seed. However we’re Wyoming and I believe we have to win at least two in Vegas. One would be a bubble team that would have to fight with a bunch of other bubble teams that scenario is bad for us.

Disagree

[seattlecowboy]

I would love to see us get into the dance but i feel like those losses were all bad losses and took us from a 6 seed at the highest to an after thought.

Now if we had SDSU reputation than we would still be a 11-12 seed. However we’re Wyoming and I believe we have to win at least two in Vegas. One would be a bubble team that would have to fight with a bunch of other bubble teams that scenario is bad for us.

We only need to beat UNLV to be in for sure. The next game would be a quad 1 against Boise St. so we won’t be punished if we lose that game unless we got blown out but that won’t happen.

The only “bad” game we lost was the New Mexico game. If we had won that we would already be in for sure. San Diego St was a quad 1 and UNLV was a quad 2 on the road.

[WyomingAgJ]

http://bracketmatrix.com/

The updated bracket matrix website (updated as on March 6) shows 115 of 123 different projections have us in with an average seed of 10.5

Lunardi's latest has moved us down to the last 4 in and the play-in game.

Beating UNLV would be much better then losing to them again, to feel secure about making the tournament.

[307bball]

There is also a thing that team B is due to win one eventually. Plus your year is wrong. 2002 or 2003 is the last time the Pokes won there.

ah yes... the classic gamblers fallacy.

[McPeachy]

We. Are. Due.

Pokes by 4. Go WYO!

[laxwyo]

One thing is certain, if there’s ever a year to beat them, this is it. We’re the better team and we should win. This isn’t an inferior team hoping to win as in some years past. Great teams win big games, will this team be remembered for being great or crapping out? Let’s go pokes

[Wyovanian]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

Somewhere, William Wallace, all five pieces of him, just rolled over in his grave.

[307bball]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

Somewhere, William Wallace, all five pieces of him, just rolled over in his grave.

Could somebody enlighten us relative newcomers what is going on in this thread...I feel like I'm missing some background.

From what I can piece together... SDpoke is not confident that we can win against UNLV in the opening round of the tournament (a sentiment I share). SDpoke then says that the reason he is not confident has to do with a poor track record against UNLV in recent and not-so recent history (I agree that the history is terrible at the T&M but that is not the reason I'm lacking confidence). At this point the conversation devolves into areas that I can't understand involving imperialist map-making and Braveheart. What is the backstory here? Am I missing an inside joke?

[SDPokeFan]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

There is also a thing that team B is due to win one eventually. Plus your year is wrong. 2002 or 2003 is the last time the Pokes won there.

Ah you're right, had the year wrong. It's been 20 years, not 30.

[SDPokeFan]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

Somewhere, William Wallace, all five pieces of him, just rolled over in his grave.

Could somebody enlighten us relative newcomers what is going on in this thread...I feel like I'm missing some background.

From what I can piece together... SDpoke is not confident that we can win against UNLV in the opening round of the tournament (a sentiment I share). SDpoke then says that the reason he is not confident has to do with a poor track record against UNLV in recent and not-so recent history (I agree that the history is terrible at the T&M but that is not the reason I'm lacking confidence). At this point the conversation devolves into areas that I can't understand involving imperialist map-making and Braveheart. What is the backstory here? Am I missing an inside joke?

Wyovanian asked if I was from French military descent, questioning if I give up easily. This is because I pointed out Wyoming is going to have a hard time against the Rebels in Vegas, as they have historically. I replied that I was Scottish, as was Braveheart, aka William Wallace. So, that's why he said all five pieces of William Wallace were rolling over in their graves (which is actually pretty funny).

As far as the imperialist map and "everybody knowing who I am," I have absolutely zero idea what that guy is talking about. None.

[OrediggerPoke]

Nah I’m Scottish. Braveheart.

For those who don’t know, losing to a team every time on their home court since 1993 is a word called a “trend.” A trend is the general course or prevailing tendency. This could also be called a “pattern” or “theme.”

When determining what a most likely outcome is, one can rely on statistical and historical data, or as we discussed earlier, “trends.” If you forgot what that means already, jump back up to the first paragraph. For instance, if a team hasn’t defeated another team on its home court since Bill Clinton’s first term, the data would suggest that said team LIKELY won’t defeat the other team on its home court when they play again on that court.

These are not hard and fast rules. Team A could certainly defeat Team B on their home court, but history, or the “trend” tells us the opposite is more likely. If this isn’t clear I can explain further. Just let me know.

Somewhere, William Wallace, all five pieces of him, just rolled over in his grave.

Could somebody enlighten us relative newcomers what is going on in this thread...I feel like I'm missing some background.

From what I can piece together... SDpoke is not confident that we can win against UNLV in the opening round of the tournament (a sentiment I share). SDpoke then says that the reason he is not confident has to do with a poor track record against UNLV in recent and not-so recent history (I agree that the history is terrible at the T&M but that is not the reason I'm lacking confidence). At this point the conversation devolves into areas that I can't understand involving imperialist map-making and Braveheart. What is the backstory here? Am I missing an inside joke?

You must have missed the past 10+ years of SDPoke advocating for Wyoming to pack it in and drop to FCS in football.