Early Entries and actual data Topic

reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
So after a weird EE session which saw the super dominant ACC lose only 7 players to the NBA (They had 3 of the final 4 and 6 of the Elite 8), while the Big 12 lost 6, I decided to compile some data.

Of the 22 Early entries in Allen, they ranged from 798 up to 980 overall.  

900+ players

ACC 7 of 10 (70%) stayed
Rest of world 9 of 11 (82%) stayed

850-900 players

ACC 10 of 12 (83%) stayed
Rest of world 25 of 31 (80%) stayed

800-850 players
ACC 34 of 36 stayed (94%)
Rest of world 57 of 64 (89%) stayed

So maybe its not all that terrible?
11/17/2011 10:39 AM
Iguana1
Posts: 369 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 65
Rookie
I thought it was very even this season.  And the ACC only lost 6 (1 player apparently quit BC) compared to the Big 12, with champion Kansas, leading the way by losing 7 as a conference.
11/17/2011 10:49 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect

Isn't there a problem with talent distribution in the first place though?  When the ACC has nearly as many returning 900+ rated players as the rest of the 350 DI teams in Allen, it's pretty indicative of an issue. 

I'm also arguing that teams with more talent should lose more early entries, which is a different argument than just overall distribution of early entries. 

11/17/2011 11:01 AM
asher413
Posts: 609 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 9 2 25 248 23 73 4
Rookie
Don't mind the math major-

11 or 10 isn't enough to be statistically valid in this case.  That being said, if one more ACC 900+ stayed, or one more non-ACC 900+ left, we're looking at less than a 5% difference on each category.  More valid data would obviously be tracking this over a few seasons to see if that's a problem.

Also, if we're testing the postseason success vs. EE's, shouldn't you break it up further, such as ACC Elite 8 or farther teams, ACC non-Elite 8, Rest of world Elite 8, Rest of world non-Elite 8?  The variable being tested isn't being in the ACC, it's postseason success.
11/17/2011 11:44 AM
cornfused
Posts: 1492 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 235 11
Prospect
Can't do that 'cause "Rest of world Elite 8" is just Kansas and Syracuse.
11/17/2011 11:49 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
Iguana was tracking the previous three seasons, and the loss rate for 900+ rated players over that sample size (which still isn't statistically significant) was much lower for ACC teams than non-ACC teams. 

At least f'ing Army didn't lose a 740 rated junior this time whilst NCState kept a 970 or whatever rated one. 
11/17/2011 11:52 AM
Iguana1
Posts: 369 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 65
Rookie
I think a reason reinsel brought this up is that over the past few seasons it was a larger disparity.   Somewhere around the ACC losing 40% of their top players and all the other schools combined losing about 65% of theirs.  Even with an ACC team winning the NT each of those seasons. 
11/17/2011 11:53 AM
asher413
Posts: 609 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 9 2 25 248 23 73 4
Rookie
Posted by cornfused on 11/17/2011 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Can't do that 'cause "Rest of world Elite 8" is just Kansas and Syracuse.
Okay, can we at least split out the 6 non-elite 8 ACC teams?

EDIT:  I'm not saying their isn't a problem, but this data isn't even testing the correct hypothesis.  It's not the conference, it's the postseason success, right?

11/17/2011 11:54 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie

Yeah there are still some crazy results though.  NT runner up Boston College retains a 997 overall junior.  Huh?

11/17/2011 11:58 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I'm just confused as to how KU lost four and the entire ACC lost six.  Granted, KU is stacked, but so is 75 percent of the ACC. 
11/17/2011 12:12 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
Just a random Allen observation that I just posted on our coaches corner: 

The ACC currently has eight (!!!!) teams with A+ prestige.  The rest of the world has four (Stanford, Arizona, Michigan State, Kansas).
11/17/2011 12:34 PM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 11/17/2011 12:12:00 PM (view original):
I'm just confused as to how KU lost four and the entire ACC lost six.  Granted, KU is stacked, but so is 75 percent of the ACC. 
I think they are just getting meaner to title teams.  I got hit with 5 early entries from my UCLA-Tark team, including 2 in the 740-770 range who had never started a game in their careers.
11/17/2011 12:36 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
Oh, no doubt that has been going around for awhile.  I had six drafted from my one and only title team, and I think four of them were EE's. 
11/17/2011 12:40 PM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 11/17/2011 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Oh, no doubt that has been going around for awhile.  I had six drafted from my one and only title team, and I think four of them were EE's. 
Wasn't that the season they ran the draft like 6 times, so you had gotten credit for 36 draftees until they fixed it.  Talk about A++++++++++++.
11/17/2011 12:47 PM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 11/17/2011 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Just a random Allen observation that I just posted on our coaches corner: 

The ACC currently has eight (!!!!) teams with A+ prestige.  The rest of the world has four (Stanford, Arizona, Michigan State, Kansas).
The rest of the ACC is comprised of 3 teams with A prestige and 1 with A-.
11/17/2011 12:49 PM
12 Next ▸
Early Entries and actual data Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.