Re: Look at 2014 again...
| January 22, 2017 03:42PM |
Quote
dzrams
Quote
zn
Quote
dzrams
That year, 3 of 4 had top offenses and only 1 with a top defense. The slight difference this year is 4 of 4 had top offenses and only 1 with a top defense.
Yeah I screwed up didn't I.
So my fallback position is this. This year has 4 top offenses. That's an anomaly and certainly not proof that you absolutely need a top 10 offense to be a contender.
In fact of my 16 teams before 2016, 8 had top 10 offenses.
So is having a top 10 offense an unconditional pre-req for going to the final 4? No.
I wouldn't say this year is anomaly anymore than last year being an anomaly on the defensive side. Besides, when on average 3 of 4 teams (last 3 years only) have a top offense, it's not a stretch to get 4 of 4 some years. But how it's described could be a matter of semantics. Not worth a drawn out discussion...
While I agree that having a top 10 offense is not a pre-req, what did surprise me on these numbers is how often the final 4 had top offenses versus top defenses. I assumed it would be more weighted towards the D side.
But...over 5 years, 13 of 20 teams had top offenses which is 65% of the time. Only 9 had top defenses. That's 45%. I didn't expect that type of disparity.
So you have 2 choices.
You can say it is not anomaly and back that up by stating it will happen again. Like, next year. If it's not an anomaly it's the new norm.
Or you can say you don't know what will happen next year, in which case it's much more random and there is no high probability that it will happen again soon.
Which are you down for.
.
