KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

17-12
10-8
67.35
EC Matthews 15.9
5,678

19-10
12-6
72.45
EC 17.8
5754

1. 18-11
2. 11-7
3. 70.15
4. E.C. Matthews, 18.2
5. 4680

1. 18-11
2. 11-7
3. 70.12
4. EC Matthews, 18.8
5. 6,034

EDIT: Didn't look at anyone else's prediction before submitting, but mine was eerily close to the submission above. Scrolling through, many of us have the same general range of 17-19 wins.

1. 19-10
2. 12-6
3. 68.88
4. Elbert Clark Matthews, 15.9
5. 5,647

My prediction

1. 20-9
2. 13-5
3. 75.82
4. Matthews, 18.1
5. 5829

Here it is...

1. 16-13
2. 10-8
3. 69.92
4. Matthews, 15.7
5. 5925

1. 16-13

2. 10-8

3. 64.85

4. EC Matthews 14.15

5. 5048 average attendance

1) 19-10
2) 11-7
3) 71.88
4) EC Matthews 17.2 ppg
5) 4762

1. 19-10
2. 12-6
3. 71.93
4. Gilvydas Biruta 15.2
5. 5,337

1) 21-8
2) 13-5
3) 74.41
4) Elbert 18.1
5) 5,432

(AND A #9 SEED IN THE EAST REGIONAL, BABY!!!)

1. 14-15
2. 8-10
3. 67.37
4. Matthews, 16.2
5. 5,119

URI_IEP wrote:1. 14-15
2. 8-10
3. 67.35
4. Matthews, 16.2
5. 5,119

Ha!

1. 18-11
2. 11-7
3. 68.05
4. Matthews, 17.4
5. 5,555

1. 19-10
2. 11-7
3. 67.14
4. Matthews, 18.3
5. 5,664

20-9
12-6
70.20
Agent Zero, 16.2
5,450

16-13
11-7
65.01
EC. 17.3
4701

18 - 11
11 - 7
70.60
Mathews - 17.11
5265

You might as well message me right now for my contact info, because I am winning this contest.

16-13
10-8
70.62
EC - 16.4
5169

For an added bonus, here is the game by game breakdown (in case we need to show our work). ha.

Date - Opponent - Result
Nov. 14 - Pace - W
Nov. 16 - UMass Lowell - W
Nov. 22 - Nebraska - L
Nov. 27 - Kansas - L
Nov. 28 - Santa Clara/TN - L
Nov. 30 - TBD - W
Dec. 6 - at Southern Miss - L
Dec. 10 - at Providence - L (Looking for a reverse jinx on this)
Dec. 13 - Delaware State - W
Dec. 20 - Detroit - W
Dec. 31 - Brown - W
Jan. 3 - at Saint Louis - L
Jan. 7 - Fordham - W
Jan. 10 - at Duquesne - L
Jan. 13 - VCU - L
Jan. 17 - at Massachusetts - L
Jan. 22 - La Salle - W
Jan. 25 - St. Bonaventure - W
Jan. 28 - at Fordham - W
Jan. 31 - G. Washington - W
Feb. 8 - at Richmond - L
Feb. 11 - at Saint Joseph's - L
Feb. 14 - Saint Louis - W
Feb. 18 - Massachusetts - L
Feb. 21 - at George Mason - W
Feb. 25 - Davidson - W
Feb. 28 - at La Salle - W
Mar. 3 - at Dayton - L
Mar. 7 - Saint Joseph's - W

(Mistyped A-10 losses in. Sorry)

spookydog, that looks like a worst case scenario.

If we only win 16 games, the sky will fall on here.

Spooky I don't think you are mathematically capable of winning. Check your numbers again.

18-11
11-7
70.27
EC 16.3
5,225

Thanks!

Go Rhody!

bjornsupremacy wrote:

Easily a contender for best user name on the board.

Spookydog and RIHoopZ
There are 18 A10 Games this year - not 16.
Spooky, in looking at your detail it looks like you meant to say 10-8 not 10-6.

15-14
11-7
69.25
EC 16.9
6002

Essam

ramster wrote:Spooky, in looking at your detail it looks like you meant to say 10-8 not 10-6.

It was a mistype, I have edited. Thanks for catching.

I was over by 3 wins last year, am hoping to be under by 3 wins this year.

19-10
12-6
72.44
EC 18.4
4788

RhodyO

spookydog wrote:

ramster wrote:Spooky, in looking at your detail it looks like you meant to say 10-8 not 10-6.

It was a mistype, I have edited. Thanks for catching.

I was over by 3 wins last year, am hoping to be under by 3 wins this year.

i hope you're under by a lot more

1. Regular Season Record (based on 29 games) 21-8
2. A-10 Conference Record (based on 18 games) 12-6
3. Team Scoring Average, ppg (to two decimals, based on 29 games). This is the bonus prediction, hence the two decimal request. requirement. 74.88
4. Top Scorer & Scoring Average, ppg (to one decimal, based on 29 games) E.C. Matthews 18.6 (Question: Is there a minimum number of games played that qualifies eligibility for being the leading scorer?)
5. Average Home Attendance, regular season only (15 games - 9 conference, 6 OOC) 5,588

I have one question. Since category 3 is a bonus category and our numbers must all be different, and since category 3 is also tiebreaker number 3, doesn't that make categories 4 and 5 meaningless?

Not really. Let's say two posters have identical regular season record and conference record, and let's say that one had team scoring of 71.54 and the other had team scoring at 71.44. Let's now say the the actual team scoring was 71.49 which makes both posters' predictions exactly .05 points off. So now the tiebreaker moves to top scorer and ppg to break the tie. Let's say that component of prediction also produces a tie, then the tiebreaker factor moves to attendance. If that also produces a tie, the prize is shared. The reason for five components is it increases the number of possible permutations which improves the odds of not having a tie, but it is still possible to have a tie.

Since there is a sub contest on team scoring, I asked for two decimals to minimize the chance of a tie, but a tie is again still possible.

Sorry If I have not been articulate enough on the process.

Also, it's just fun to predict stuff so don't worry too much about the tiebreakers and just see how the final result squares with your guess. To me, winning is a bonus to the prediction contest

Obadiah wrote:Not really. Let's say two posters have identical regular season record and conference record, and let's say that one had team scoring of 71.54 and the other had team scoring at 71.44. Let's now say the the actual team scoring was 71.49 which makes both posters' predictions exactly .05 points off. So now the tiebreaker moves to top scorer and ppg to break the tie. Let's say that component of prediction also produces a tie, then the tiebreaker factor moves to attendance. If that also produces a tie, the prize is shared. The reason for five components is it increases the number of possible permutations which improves the odds of not having a tie, but it is still possible to have a tie.

Since there is a sub contest on team scoring, I asked for two decimals to minimize the chance of a tie, but a tie is again still possible.

Sorry If I have not been articulate enough on the process.

Good point. I didn't even think of that about the possible tie. And, you do a great job with this, btw. It's a lot of fun and greatly appreciated.

Thanks Billyboy78 for the comment.

To URI96: The guideline on minimum number of games to be played to be eligible for top scorer component is 80%. So for Matthews to qualify he must play in no less than 23 games.

22-7
13-5
70.42
Mathews - 17.6
4,994

Here's my best guess:

Overall record: 20-9
A-10 record: 12-6
Team Avg.: 72.11
Top Scorer: EC 18.2
Attendance: 5,222

21-8
13-5
71.66
EC 16.2
6052

bpaz11: check your private messages.

Andrew wrote:

bjornsupremacy wrote:

Easily a contender for best user name on the board.

First Hare is gone and now this.
"I coulda been a contender. I could have been somebody, instead of a bum...''

1. 18-11 (this is my post-Hare era prediction...RIP NCAA Tournament Hopes...would've added 2 or 3 more wins if he was still with rhody.)
2. 11-7
3. 71.59
4. E.C. Mathews 17.4
5. 4672

1. 19-10
2. 12-6
3. 72.20
4. EC 18.8
5. 5036

1. 19-10
2. 11-7
3. 73.30
4. Elbert 16.9
5. 5271

21-8
13-5
75.07
martin - 14.8
5,757

18-11
10-8
69.97
EC 17.2
5249

1. 18-11
2. 11-7
3. 73.50
4.EC-16.7
5. 5050

Rhodyrob

1. 19-10
2. 13-5
3. 72.17
4. Matthews 16.3
5. 5,492

1. 20-9
2. 13-5
3. 73.45
4. Matthews 19.1
5. 5,319

1. 18-11

2. 11-7

3. 71.12

4. EC Mathews 17.6

5. 5272

21-8
14-4
75.3
Ec 18.57
6123

Where is reef, the betting man???