Hope Quad

The only thing I can answer definitively is that Mitt Romney winning Michigan has no bearing on the election in any way whatsoever.

Typically most teams have swam off events at this meet, either just for fun or to see what people can do for a 3rd event at MIAAs. We’ll see if that holds true this year, but I wouldn’t expect to see all the matchups you want to. I did once see Mike Arce race a heat of girls in the 200 breast… he won the heat but failed to beat the top girls at the meet. Quite sad.

Also, Mitt got the win because he knows the economy and has proven business leadership. He should be put in charge of GM or maybe be governor, but that doesn’t mean he’ll win, or should win, the nomination for President.

i do believe that my heat was the “mixed” heat with both men and women racing, not just me slaughtering a bunch of helpless women in my best event. after looking at the results, i would have tied for 4th in the women’s race, doesn’t that keep me at least with the top women?

mitt romney’s first name is mitt……he’s a republican, so he really likes money (nothing wrong with this) and michigan could use a little or actually a lot of money. I’m basically just restating what silentp said, although the dude’s name is mitt, is it short for something? maybe mitternuts romney?

The political duo which I think has the potential to be a real Cinderella story in the 2008 elections is the Sean Kingston/Dan Kovacs campaign, running under the American Socialist Party ticket. Future vice president Kovacs has recently proposed a “free money for everyone” campaign which consists of printing off all the money they can possible make from the US mint and delivering it in the mail to American consumers. It’s a fool-proof plan, I don’t know why no one’s ever thought of it before.

Mitt is actually his middle name, and it doesn’t appear to be short for anything. His first name is Willard, and if I were him, I would go with Mitt, too.

(thank you, Wikipedia…)

Just wondering what Fonzy’s status will be for the Quad?? If he does not swim the 4 med, can Hope give K a race? Ok, ok, calm down, I know you all think it’s impossible, but we just got done talking about K beating Hope in the 2 fr relay. Anyway, let’s just looks at some possible splits….

K
Ellis- 53.5
Booms- 1:00
Dekker- 53.0
Fleming/Bazzel- 47.8
3:34.3

Hope
Heyboer- 54.6
??- 1:00 (bet you can’t guess who can go this fast, but he did it at our intrasquad last Fri….)
Nelis- 52.5
Kurti- 47.5
3:34.6

Stewie wrote: whatever he wrote….

Seems how you have Kurti anchoring and much of the discussion today has centered around Matt Rose, and Rose has been 1:58 in the IM, I’ll go with him. If it’s not King and not Heyboer, that’s impressive. Looking at last year’s Quad results, Heyboer split under a minute on the medley in the breaststroke.

Didn’t Ellis go 52 in the 100 back on Saturday? And wasn’t Booms 1:00 in the open 100 breast? I think both relays can be faster than the said predictions.

Yes, Ellis was 52.9 and Booms was 1:00.7. So, 1:00.0 is reasonable and Ellis could probably be 52.5. However, who says Nelis can’t be 51 high to mid considering he was 52 high in the open at the K/Carthage meet. Either way, both relays could go slower or faster. The point is…will it be a race or will K run away with it like they have previously.

@stewie wrote:

K
Ellis- 53.5
Booms- 1:00
Dekker- 53.0
Fleming/Bazzel- 47.8
3:34.3

Hope
Heyboer- 54.6
??- 1:00 (bet you can’t guess who can go this fast, but he did it at our intrasquad last Fri….)
Nelis- 52.5
Kurti- 47.5
3:34.6

It’s Rose, for breast, so that’s why he isn’t anchoring. This does help prove what K posters keep saying; they will taper more from in-season times, because it won’t be close at MIAAs.

@iamdonovan wrote:

Mitt is actually his middle name, and it doesn’t appear to be short for anything. His first name is Willard, and if I were him, I would go with Mitt, too.

(thank you, Wikipedia…)

Mitt is actually short for something: Mitten. Why Mitten? It’s where he was born. And anyone who has ever done the hand thing to show where in Michigan they’re from knows what this means. Hey, Mitt happens.

silentp isn’t the reason it won’t be close because K will have a 56 breaststroker not b/c K tapers drop more time. Hate to say it but thats a 4 sec drop in your medley that has nothing to do with taper.

@SwexasTim wrote:

silentp isn’t the reason it won’t be close because K will have a 56 breaststroker not b/c K tapers drop more time. Hate to say it but thats a 4 sec drop in your medley that has nothing to do with taper.

So we wouldn’t win with Booms (59 breastroke as a PR)? Wrong.

I’m not saying K wouldn’t win, I’m saying that b/c your statement that the relay won’t be close because there will be a larger taper out of the K guys is wrong, it wouldn’t be close b/c of Fonzi. If booms is on it, it will be closer, I would say about as close as it would be if they swam it right now with booms.

I’m sorry, but I am going to have to argue that you are once again incorrect. The prediction here is .3 seconds and I am arguing that the difference, even with Booms, would be greater than that at miaas. I’m not even sure how you can argue that without being drunk and/or dilusional.

I guess can you show me, it would help me understand…

50.3
59.0
50.5
46.0
=3:25.8

52.3
59.0
49.5
45.1
=3:25.9

Now here’s what I got, but I suppose somewhere I messed it all up, fill me in, I guess I just don’t understand.

Rather than showing you on “paper”, I’ll let you see first hand at MIAAs, if it happens. I do like King and Booms being even though, nice touch, really helped your argument.

didn’t you just say just say booms was a 59 pr and king was 59.1 last year. Tell me what I’m missing, I’m not trying to be difficult, just show my why I’m drunk and/or dillusional.

I’ll throw in my issue with the times:
king’s pr in the indiv 100 breast is 59.80, relay 59.14 (from what i’ve found, correct me if i’m wrong)
booms pr in the indiv 100 breast is 59.12, relay 58.43 (emu this year for both) (http://www.emueagles.com/sports/mswim/2007/Results_EMU_Invite.htm)

So here’s the relays with just changing breaststroke:
kzoo hope
50.3 52.3
58.4 59.1
50.5 49.5
46.0 45.1
3:25.2 3:26.0

If booms is in the relay i see the split difference being somewhere near this .6-.7 range from above, i think both will probably drop some time though from their previous bests.

That was easy, I wasn’t sure of booms best, but yes that makes sense. The only point I wanted to get across was that the current closeness of the MR’s and the difference at MIAAs would be similar if Fonzi was not on it, but maybe I stepped on some toes when I said that.

Thanks for writing it down for me mav. And yes, I hope people are beating there PR’s, I don’t care which team, its by how much when the team becomes my concern 😉

Rose is going a 45.1 now?

Matt Rose 45.17
anchor 4MR
http://www.miaa.org/swimchamps07.html

Derek Jansen yesterday
data analysis
viewtopic.php?p=35575#p35575

This conclusion of this analysis bullshit. It is as valid as someone saying he will go 48.00 because he sucks, or 44.50 because he is awesome and I want to have his baby.

You predicted he will go a 46.0 if I am not mistaked.This would assume that Rose’s swims behave linearly from last year to this year when they clearly do not. We don’t yet have enough information to make this already insecure assumption. His MIAA times fluctuated somewhat but that is to be expected. Also, Rose got slower at nationals last year. That’s about all you can say from this.

If you want to extrapolate a prediction from a comparison of last year’s Wheaton to MIAA times to this year’s meets that would be somewhat logical. And again, that would probably put him above a 46.0 which is fine with me as long as your reasoning makes sense…

But to say that the average difference from previous swim over two meets that spanned three days last season should be added to the average of those swims is ludicrous. It would show that historically, Rose does not hold his taper as well as he should and he swims slower at nationals. That’s it.

I concur. That spreadsheet made about as much sense as the Bill Cosby comment, which still has my head spinning. Mistaked is not a word but looks like an honest error.

Martha, you are right – the comparison from the beginning of the meet to the end of the meet is not valid for these purposes. That simply tells us what to expect at the end of MIAAs this year based on how well his swims at the beginning (this will come in handy on Feb. 13th as we predict the 400FR that will swim on the 14th).

What is valid is the fact that he gets slower with each meet he swims. My analysis was intended to compare swims from similar meets. Due to the points that have been brought up previously, I have narrowed the analysis even further to include only 400MR splits. That brings me to your suggestion that I should include Wheaton- Unless somebody comes on here and tells me that the Wheaton meet is more like MIAAs than nationals is like MIAAs, I’ll stick with apples to apples instead of apples to oranges. I was asked in the other thread if I even remember being a swimmer and I do – I also remember that my EMU swims had little bearing on my MIAA swims due to often being much slower and erratic than my MIAA swims.

Finally, if you refuse even to allow trends to exist (I’m not an idiot and can understand that two data points are not a trend), then at least it stands to reason that his most recent performance is the greatest indicator of future performance. He was 45.95 at NCAAs last year on that relay. I previously wrote that although the numbers predict him between 46.0 and 46.96, I think he will be closer to 46.0. If he does in fact go a 45.95, I will be pretty happy with my prediction. Of course, that is still 0.85 off of the most recent Rose predictions.

I think the spreadsheet will go down in d3swimming.com lore no matter how Rose swims just because of its detail. That was a lot of effort and some interesting theory to predict a time. My question: has this prediction method proved accurate for other swimmers in the past? I would love to see this logic of averaging differentials applied to any other swimmers in recent MIAA history.

How well has this model fit data in past years? Do you have time to replicate the formula for another big-time relay swimmer? How about Lenny? Crowley? If you do it enough we could even get some tests of significance going… this could rock the swimming world and forever change the methods for selecting the 18 guys for league team. I can see it now, “sorry son, Microsoft Excel says you’re sitting this one out. Spreadsheet don’t lie!”

quacker,

1. It would be interesting to do that kind of analysis.

2. This spreadsheet was so easy to put together even your dog could do it.

What the hell is wrong with you mr. I-run-this-site-and-will-kick-you-off-if-you-don’t-play-by-my-rules.

Your spreadsheet is complete bogus and I think you know it because you keep trying to change the subject and make concessions that aren’t really concessions because you are still saying he will go 46.0. If you would pay attention at all you would know that Rose went a 45.65 at Wheaton. He obviously won’t be splitting at 46.0 at MIAAs. Did you ever think about the fact that he is now a sophomore and might oh just might get faster because of that? Did you ever think that he might have trained over the summer? Did you ever think that he might be stronger now than he was a year ago?

Since nobody else is saying it (not even anybody from Hope) I will – Rose will go a 44.9

oh shit, he said 44.9! that’s impossible! it would be a drop of an entire 2 tenths! nobody improves that much in a year!

You are an idiot.

Ron Paul, do your research. Someone did already predict Rose to go a 44.9. It was Nasty Natti and surprise, he doesn’t swim for Hope. I also expect Rose to be a 44.9 at least once during the 3 days of MIAA’s and/or Nat’s, which would be the swim of the meet if it is done at MIAA’s.

Oh, and RonPaul…good thing you didn’t join 45 minutes ago so you could make that post.

Aside from that, Rose has only swam very well on relays. Wasn’t his difference between his best time relay and flat start 1.5 seconds or something like that? The only thing I see coming out of that is a better place at nationals in the relays. It doesn’t help in the medley because Hope won’t beat K in either, and they are going to win the sprint freestyle relays. So when K is getting 4th at nats in the medleys, Hope will be getting 12th and not 14th because of the 44.9, not 45.1

I might need to reconsider the practice of approving politicians for access.

i never bothered to actually look at the spreadsheet (sorry), but nice work putting it together.
a friend and i made our goal times for wheaton by averaging our fall in-season times and finding the percent time-drop at wheaton from last year, then applying it to our times from this season. it was fun, and gave us something to shoot for. however, our actual times at the meet were sometimes seconds off per hundred.
it’s interesting for the sake of discussion, but i’m not sure math that does not factor in out-of-season training, diet, sleep, etc. is a valid method of prediction. just my two cents.

If matt rose splits a sub 45 100 I hereby offer him sex at a discount rate and I will even throw in an additional 30% off at marthastewart.com

In regards to the spreadsheet, since you are trying to predict his relay split for the 100 free at MIAA’s wouldn’t it make sense to use only the splits from MIAA’s? Using those Rose would be projected at least to go a 45.26 (45.17 + 45.36 / 2). I think that those are the only times applicable to the debate and they show that it is pretty likely that he goes at least a 45 low again making the 400 MR very close if Fonzi is not on it.

Salad fingers and negrodamus bring up interesting (and conflicting) issues.

If we use negrodamus’ logic, then everything that SF said is mute because he won’t be going a 44.9 at nationals and that 14th place relay will be a 16th place relay instead (average his NCAA times from last year – slow). And if what SF said is true that he will be going a 44.9, then negrodamus’ math is wrong and he is predicting a slower time than Rose will actually go. Either way, I’m putting my money on K winning the medley relay and making Hope sweat in the freestyle relays.

Samuel L said what Ron Paul said but without the name calling – the unknown factors are what Rose has done to improve himself. I hadn’t actually looked at Wheaton to see what he went this year – that split is a good indicator for him, even if I really don’t think that it can mean much for making a statistical prediction. Especially since I can’t find him in the results from his freshman year.

By the way Ron, your campaign doesn’t have a chance. Nader has more of a shot than you and I don’t think he’s even running.

@Derek wrote:

I might need to reconsider the practice of approving politicians for access.

Just reconsider the republican party politicians. And reconsider female politicians as well. Oh…and also white ones too.

@Barack wrote:

Just reconsider the republican party politicians. And reconsider female politicians as well. Oh…and also white ones too.

You partyist sexist racist jerk.

@Derek wrote:

@Barack wrote:

Just reconsider the republican party politicians. And reconsider female politicians as well. Oh…and also white ones too.

You partyist sexist racist jerk.

Just had to cover the bases.

Even though I am currently reading a book on how number crunching can be used as a predictor for almost all things business, this doesn’t translate to swimming for an individual, or likely, even a team. The reason is that each race has too many variables for the sample size (even using a team, let’s say Hope, and a race, let’s say the 50, that’s still very small).

Here is what I will say about Rose on the end of that medley, if it’s close between he and any team, I think he has a big edge because he will likely split what is needed to pull it out. If it isn’t close (let’s say Fonzi is on it and K is way ahead, but Olivet trails by a large margin), then I think he’ll be fast (45-mid), but not as quick as if he were in a race. Since the Hope guys almost always get up for that 400 FR, his split should be fast, even though they likely won’t be in a race when he jumps in (assuming he acnhors). That relay has very real shot of an MIAA record.

I think Rose will split that 44.9 at the quad meet this weekend. ANd if your buying that I have some beach front property in Wyoming that I am selling also,

I thought it has been determined that Rose would be swimming breast on the 400 medley relay. I cannot keep up. Rose will be 45.5 if he does it. That is my opinion. Flemming will also be in the 45. And with or with out Espinosa this relay won’t be close. *** unless Rose ends up splitting a 57. If he went a 1:00 in a intrasquad meet I don’t see why that isn’t possible.

It is sad to me that anyone can find racist comments about the next President of our country funny.

alright, I’ve been out of the office all morning and just got caught up. Don’t really have anything to add, but to say thanks, because the was a great couple minutes of reading, I actually laughed out loud to these:

quackers “Spreadsheet don’t lie”

and swim5599 beachfront property in wyoming.

I tend to agree with silentp on this one, except the part about the MIAA record. Actually I agree with that too, I just don’t want to.

I heard that Paul Ellis had “Huck Fope” written on his back with black marker during the 400 Freelay. Im not saying that this is true, I just want someone to validate or disprove what I heard. And if it is true….what’s up with that caca?

caca?

@el radio wrote:

I heard that Paul Ellis had “Huck Fope” written on his back with black marker during the 400 Freelay. Im not saying that this is true, I just want someone to validate or disprove what I heard. And if it is true….what’s up with that caca?

I can discount what youve heard. Ellis did not have “Huck Fope” written on his back with a black marker.

I can discount what youve heard. Ellis did not have “Huck Fope” written on his back with a black marker.

was it a blue marker?

Ok, Ellis’ back was looking great…yada, yada. Anyway, what about Hope beating K in the 4 med!!!!!????? Oh no wait I guess that was just expected….Oh no wait, K must have been more tired than Hope. Com’on Hope beat K in one of their best events and no one says anything. I can only help but wonder how many posts would have been on here if K would have beat Hope in the 4 fr, but I guess that would have been way more surprising and notable. Of course, I know someone will say K would have won with Fonzy on the relay, but whatever no one thought Hope would win even with Booms taking his place.

Alright, enough ranting…no maybe not. Seriously, though was anyone else surprised by the meet. Am I insane. The only event Hope didn’t win was the 2 br. Please, someone tell me I’m not crazy.

Side note: Greiner at the meet but didn’t swim? explain…

@quacker wrote:

I can discount what youve heard. Ellis did not have “Huck Fope” written on his back with a black marker.

was it a blue marker?

I will have to check with my sources.

I would have to say, yes, I am surprised that the Hope medley won. It won’t happen at MIAA’s, so it doesn’t mean much in the long run. In general, I would say that it probably set the tone for the rest of the meet for Hope since they were probably overly geeked up about it. Not many exceptionally fast times…I assume it is a product of the pool and the time of season. Looks like Fonsy did give RVZ a good run in the 100. I have to wonder about the possibility of him going in this event as I think he would do better in it than in the 50.

@Bocephus wrote:

@quacker wrote:

I can discount what youve heard. Ellis did not have “Huck Fope” written on his back with a black marker.

was it a blue marker?

I will have to check with my sources.

No, Bocephus, it was not a black marker. You are correct when you say you can “discount” that. Though I’m pretty sure you meant disprove…however, that does not really matter at this time.
No Quacker, it was not a blue marker. It was gayer than that.

It appeared, from my viewpoint behind him on the deck, that Paul Ellis had the words “Huck Fope” tanned into his back. What a beautiful back it is, indeed Stewie…but you guys know what else was pretty beautiful? The Hope 400 Medley relay that consisted of the team’s #2 100 freestyler swimming breaststroke and the team’s #3 100 freestyler anchoring it. In case anyone forgot what happened, you can check the image below.

[img=http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1016/brianaq4.th.jpg]

Good meet overall.

My opinions of the meet:

Further reinforces my gut feeling that Kzoo simply does not yet have the depth to win league meet this year.
Further reinforces my gut feeling that Kzoo has the best underclassman team in the league and will win next year.

Fleming, Bazzel and Brower have consistently impressed me all season long.

That said, I think think the quad meet scoring heavily favored a lot of Hope guys who will not be scoring as well at league meet… and it will be a lot closer in February.

@stewie wrote:

Of course, I know someone will say K would have won with Fonzy on the relay, but whatever no one thought Hope would win even with Booms taking his place.

I can only speak for my own posts, but I was referring to MIAAs, not a quad meet.

@stewie wrote:

Alright, enough ranting…no maybe not. Seriously, though was anyone else surprised by the meet. Am I insane. The only event Hope didn’t win was the 2 br. Please, someone tell me I’m not crazy.

I was very impressed. Hope swam extremely well and really dominated the meet.

@b8j7c wrote:

…but you guys know what else was pretty beautiful? The Hope 400 Medley relay that consisted of the team’s #2 100 freestyler swimming breaststroke and the team’s #3 100 freestyler anchoring it. In case anyone forgot what happened, you can check the image below.

[img=http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1016/brianaq4.th.jpg]

Someone took the time to take a picture of the 400 MR winning a quad meet? It shows how much Hope respects that relay K has to care so much, so it is complimentary.

Are we not going to address the “huck fope” on ellis’ back? Or have we already decided that it lines were crossed, that is was disrespectful and low-class and we are done with it?

I’m not quite sure why this is doesn’t bother more people on all sides.

@b8j7c wrote:

No Quacker, it was not a blue marker. It was gayer than that.

…and we’re back to high school. Thank you for that.

I don’t know if it really happened, but as far as the “Huck Fope” thing goes, I really don’t think it is that big of a deal. I’m sure that nobody from hope has thought to use the term “kuck fzoo” or “cuck falvin”…whatever. To display it may not have been the classiest thing, but I’m sure Ellis was partially joking and partially serious (maybe 0.01% joking and 99.99% serious). It would be a bigger deal in my mind if it said “F*#! Hope” instead.

Back to swimming. Does anyone else think Fonsy should go the 100 free at the league meet? I really think he should. I’m guessing he could go as fast as 46.9, which would score far more points than what he could do in the 50.

@Barack wrote:

Back to swimming. Does anyone else think Fonsy should go the 100 free at the league meet? I really think he should. I’m guessing he could go as fast as 46.9, which would score far more points than what he could do in the 50.

No, I do not, unless it is for health reasons. I want him 100% by NCAAs, so I don’t want him over-doing it at MIAAs. That would be the only reason. Fonsy has typically swum very fast in-season and believe he would be in the 47-mid to high range, which might not even score. I am not even sure he’ll be the 4th on the 400 FR at this point.

Moving my comment…

I want to second the thought that the picture of the scoreboard is completly lame. This is an in-season meet. Great swim guys, but that is about it.

We took a picture at a dual meet once of a Calvin College dad who looked exactly like Portenga in twenty years, but never a scoreboard.

You K guys want to tell the Hope guys they’re lame for taking a picture of the scoreboard, and your stud swimmer has Huck Fope TANNED on his back. Nice…..you stay classy Kzoo.

So…back to the meet…
How about that 200 Back?
Heyboer came out of nowhere in that last 10 yards and touched Ellis out by .01
Surprising to anyone? Or was that expected?

Also, Ellis was 1:58.6 at the Quad last year and Heyboer didn’t swim it. With Ellis being a bit over a second faster than he was at this time last year and Heyboer right with him, can we expect sub 1:50’s for either or both of them this year at MIAA’s?

The 500 also seemed a little bit slower than last year at the Quad…Any bold predictions for the 500 this year at MIAA’s? CVB didn’t quite swim as I expected. Thoughts?

@b8j7c wrote:

So…back to the meet…
How about that 200 Back?
Heyboer came out of nowhere in that last 10 yards and touched Ellis out by .01
Surprising to anyone? Or was that expected?

Also, Ellis was 1:58.6 at the Quad last year and Heyboer didn’t swim it. With Ellis being a bit over a second faster than he was at this time last year and Heyboer right with him, can we expect sub 1:50’s for either or both of them this year at MIAA’s?

The 500 also seemed a little bit slower than last year at the Quad…Any bold predictions for the 500 this year at MIAA’s? CVB didn’t quite swim as I expected. Thoughts?

I was surprised the 200 back was as close as it was. Heyboer has typically been much stronger in-season with it being closer when tapered. I think Heyboer will be around 1:52 and Ellis will break 1:50.

CVB would be fine if he decided to swim it. CVB isn’t an in-season guy so that time wasn’t unexpected… Mike Arce never broke 5 in-season and was a 4:42 in the 500, I only broke it once and was a 4:46. Neither of those times would blow the world away but sadly might be good enough for 2nd this year (assuming Heyboer goes the IM). CVB is certainly a better 200 guy than Arce or myself, so a time in that range is very possible.

4:41 dammit.

I am not sure either guy is going under 1:50. I think that race will be much closer this year though.

@swim5599 wrote:

I am not sure either guy is going under 1:50. I think that race will be much closer this year though.

Wanna put 10 bucks to d3swimming on whether it’s closer or not? I’ll take the over.

Ok you got a deal

@swim5599 wrote:

Ok you got a deal

Very good, I assume we’re talking the .85 difference from MIAAs and not the 1.39 difference in best times at NCAAs or obviously not the 3.05 difference in finals at NCAAs. Best of luck.

.85 differential at league meet last year, with a 1.39 differential (from best swims) at NCAAs.
This will be an interesting wager.

Edit: SilentP beat me to it.

I would clarify that the differential to be wagered on is “finals in the 200 backstroke”. Not best swims.

Yeah I am also assuming we are talking about NCAA’s correct? I could care less what the margin of victory is at the conf meet.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to silentp’s response to b8j7c, he was talking about MIAA’s, not Nationals.

@swim5599 wrote:

Yeah I am also assuming we are talking about NCAA’s correct? I could care less what the margin of victory is at the conf meet.

Wonderboy is right, I was speaking to MIAAs. If we go by finals of NCAAs, I would agree the difference would be less than 3.05 seconds, or for Heyboers sake, I would hope so.

Oh I was not sure what meet we were talking about. We can do both meets. WHen i win it at MIAA’s Ill give you a chance double or nothing at NCAA’s.

@swim5599 wrote:

Oh I was not sure what meet we were talking about. We can do both meets. WHen i win it at MIAA’s Ill give you a chance double or nothing at NCAA’s.

Deal. We’ll use the difference from finals of MIAAs for the finals of MIAAs this year and we’ll use the best times difference in NCAAs last year for finals of NCAAs this year.

Ok so we are going to use Heyboer’s 1:51.8 to Ellis 1:50.5 from NCaa’s? ANd then their difference from the finals at MIAA’s last year? VS this year? I got it.

This is getting to complicated. The agreement should be:
Finals at MIAA. Spread .995
5599 stakes under, P over.

Does everyone agree?