MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Lennys Tap on March 01, 2018, 12:54:18 PM
-
In early January I shared a very unpopular opinion - . that Xavier at #5 was overrated. I even said (while admitting hyperbole) that they were a borderline top 25 team. Since then they have virtually run the table, winning 11 of 13 (losing only to Villanova twice). It looks like they'll win the Big East and get a #1 seed. I certainly hold them in higher regard than I did in January, but my (admittedly fallible) "eye test" still tells me they're not all that. Guess what? Ken Pomeroy agrees!
In the current Pomeroy rankings. the Muskies are #14. That would tie Xavier with Washington (2005) as the lowest rated #1 seed in Pomeroy history. Only 2 other #1 seeds (Oregon in 2016, Stanford in 2004) finished the regular season outside of Pomeroy's top 10. Why is their record so much better than their ranking? Well, according to KenPom Xavier is the 3rd luckiest team (out of 351) in college basketball! Is Pomeroy all wet? What say you, scoopers?
-
They beat us twice
How much luckier could they get
-
In early January I shared a very unpopular opinion - . that Xavier at #5 was overrated. I even said (while admitting hyperbole) that they were a borderline top 25 team. Since then they have virtually run the table, winning 11 of 13 (losing only to Villanova twice). It looks like they'll win the Big East and get a #1 seed. I certainly hold them in higher regard than I did in January, but my (admittedly fallible) "eye test" still tells me they're not all that. Guess what? Ken Pomeroy agrees!
In the current Pomeroy rankings. the Muskies are #14. That would tie Xavier with Washington (2005) as the lowest rated #1 seed in Pomeroy history. Only 2 other #1 seeds (Oregon in 2016, Stanford in 2004) finished the regular season outside of Pomeroy's top 10. Why is their record so much better than their ranking? Well, according to KenPom Xavier is the 3rd luckiest team (out of 351) in college basketball! Is Pomeroy all wet? What say you, scoopers?
I think they are overrated as a #1 seed. For instance, I think the first #2 seed according to Bracket Matrix, Duke, would be favored over them. And Purdue, MSU and UNC (the other #2s) could be as well.
But I think they should at least be a #2.
-
I think they are overrated as a #1 seed. For instance, I think the first #2 seed according to Bracket Matrix, Duke, would be favored over them. And Purdue, MSU and UNC (the other #2s) could be as well.
But I think they should at least be a #2.
I'd be surprised if Duke is still around for a potential E8 match up.
But it's a crapshoot, ai'na?
-
2 seed.
-
Lucky or not, their resume is that of a 1 seed and there's no question about it.
Outright conference champions of one of the two best conferences in America. You are what your record says you are.
-
Lucky or not, their resume is that of a 1 seed and there's no question about it.
Outright conference champions of one of the two best conferences in America. You are what your record says you are.
They hope they don't play Nova until the Championship game when everyone will see how over rated they are.
-
Lenny
I think they are very, very good team and will make a very deep run. They might be my NC pick in my bracket.
-
I think they are overrated as a #1 seed. For instance, I think the first #2 seed according to Bracket Matrix, Duke, would be favored over them. And Purdue, MSU and UNC (the other #2s) could be as well.
But I think they should at least be a #2.
Interesting. I think Duke is by far the most over-rated team in the nation. I wouldn't be shocked if they do not make the sweet 16.
They have talent, but haven't seem to be able to put it all together.
-
I agree they are overrated as a top 5 team. But they are definitely one of 10-15 teams who could end up in the Final Four.
Not Natl Champ quality tho.
-
This year's Duke team isn't consistent enough to win 6 in a row. Heck, coach K has to play a zone so much because the OADs can't learn M2M. Duke teams used to be exciting to watch because of their ability to play intense M2M.
-
X is probably overrated, Lenny.
But I did pick them as my FF long shot before the season, so I guess I had them rated high, too.
In many recent years, people have said there is no clear favorite and the tourney is wide open ... but I really do think that's the case this season. There are no teams that make me say, "Damn, they're the ones!"
I really could see any of a dozen teams winning it all, maybe even more. Is X one of those teams? Probably.
-
X is a great team, and it would be awesome if the BE got two #1 seeds.
But IMHO they probably are a bit overrated and deserve a #2. Needless to say, even as a #2, they could very plausibly win it all.
-
Big East champs. 1 loss out of conference. If they are overrated, then the conference is overrated.
-
Not overrated. The conference is rated second best in the NCAA and Xavier won the conference. Maybe where you are going is they are more likely to be upset in the tournament than Villanova, which I agree with. This season there are so many teams with holes, Xavier no exception.
I hope that when they do lose we don't hear the I Told You so they are are overrated. Let's judge them on their season, not on one game loss whenever that happens to occur in the tournament.
-
Overrated? Maybe. Lucky- YES. Currently the 2nd luckiest team in the country according to KenPom. 9-0 in games decided by 5 points or less. Headed for heartbreak in the tourney.
-
Not overrated. The conference is rated second best in the NCAA and Xavier won the conference. Maybe where you are going is they are more likely to be upset in the tournament than Villanova, which I agree with. This season there are so many teams with holes, Xavier no exception.
I hope that when they do lose we don't hear the I Told You so they are are overrated. Let's judge them on their season, not on one game loss whenever that happens to occur in the tournament.
You don't understand the concept of luck. They're really, really good, no doubt, but if you believe in Pomeroy's statistical analysis (are you a man of science?) they are really, really, really lucky. That luck will result in a #1 seed rather than the #4 seed that average luck would give them - so their road in the tournament will be much easier than the one they deserve. So all the stars are aligned for them - why, if they're all that, are you already talking about "when they do lose"? They can't play another #1 until the semifinal game at the earliest.
-
You create your own luck.
-
You don't understand the concept of luck. They're really, really good, no doubt, but if you believe in Pomeroy's statistical analysis (are you a man of science?) they are really, really, really lucky. That luck will result in a #1 seed rather than the #4 seed that average luck would give them - so their road in the tournament will be much easier than the one they deserve. So all the stars are aligned for them - why, if they're all that, are you already talking about "when they do lose"? They can't play another #1 until the semifinal game at the earliest.
Do you believe there is much difference between a 1 and 2 seed? The way the NCAA uses an S curve in seeding, the last 1 and the first 2 are virtually identical. At times teams are underseeded or overseeded, so without knowing who they are going to play it doesn't mean much right now. As a for instance, you can have a 12 seed with a rating of around 30 and another 12 seed with a rating about 50. Not all seeds are created equal even if they have the same number next to them. Where is the game being played, what are the matchups. I cannot answer your question until those details come out.
Luck, some say luck is manufactured. Others don't believe that. Is luck, scientific?
-
This is a guy who tried to make a bet that Xavier was overrated when they were ranked 5th or 6th in the country and tried to tell people that if they finished the year ranked 1 spot below where they were ranked at the time of the bet he deserved money. So I think Lenny thinks there is actually a big difference between a 1 and a 2 seed, even the worst 1 seed and the top 2 seed.
This is his way of now saying he wasn't wrong when he said things along the lines of "We'll see in a few months" when talking about how he expected Xavier to drop in the rankings. Now it's just that they were lucky all year long and they are still overrated, despite actually moving up in the rankings, and deservedly so. Whether they are lucky or not, we just saw Kansas and Michigan State go down today. Give me a "lucky" team that finds a way to simply continue winning (Xavier) over an "underrated" team that continues to lose to bad teams (Kansas).
For Lenny, if Xavier loses in the Elite 8 in overtime to a team that goes on to win the NCAA Title it'll be "proof" that they were overrated because as a 1 seed they were expected to at least make the Final Four. At this point of the season he thought he would be able to look at the rankings and say, "Hey look! Xavier was ranked 6th when I tried to bet people they were overrated and they're ranked 12th now, I was right!" Since that hasn't happened and they're now ranked 3rd it's shifted to, "They're one of the luckiest teams in the country and that luck is bound to run out. When they don't make the Final Four you'll all know I was right."
The reality is Xavier has been a top 10 team all season long. If you want to say they're the 7th best team in the country and consider that being "overrated" sure, but their resume is exactly what they are, the third best team in the country. They're rated right where they deserve to be rated based on the only thing that matters, the results on the floor. They've played the 4th toughest schedule in the country and have lost to 3 teams. They might go cold for 40 minutes and lose to a lower seeded team. To Lenny that'll be vindication. To anyone who follows the sport that'll just be the nature of a one and done format following an unbelievable season for the Musketeers, a deep, balanced, experienced, talented team.
-
In general I think it's a weak year for the NCAA and none of the top 10 teams are as good as they "normally" are. No science behind this, just the eye test. The elite teams in each conference all carry some questionable losses and there don't seem to be any obvious South Carolina's or Davidsons this year who will come from mid- low seeds and make a deep run. The last statement, however will play out in the form of several upsets, bizarre games and unusual teams advancing while several of the top 10 get eliminated. It's really year where anyone in the top 50 can beat anyone in the top 50.
It's not really about X at all, but they do have experience like few others in the tournament with 2 excellent seniors plus a grad transfer who must be 30 years old who are their key contributors. This level of experience will win close games.
-
This is a guy who tried to make a bet that Xavier was overrated when they were ranked 5th or 6th in the country and tried to tell people that if they finished the year ranked 1 spot below where they were ranked at the time of the bet he deserved money. So I think Lenny thinks there is actually a big difference between a 1 and a 2 seed, even the worst 1 seed and the top 2 seed.
This is his way of now saying he wasn't wrong when he said things along the lines of "We'll see in a few months" when talking about how he expected Xavier to drop in the rankings. Now it's just that they were lucky all year long and they are still overrated, despite actually moving up in the rankings, and deservedly so. Whether they are lucky or not, we just saw Kansas and Michigan State go down today. Give me a "lucky" team that finds a way to simply continue winning (Xavier) over an "underrated" team that continues to lose to bad teams (Kansas).
For Lenny, if Xavier loses in the Elite 8 in overtime to a team that goes on to win the NCAA Title it'll be "proof" that they were overrated because as a 1 seed they were expected to at least make the Final Four. At this point of the season he thought he would be able to look at the rankings and say, "Hey look! Xavier was ranked 6th when I tried to bet people they were overrated and they're ranked 12th now, I was right!" Since that hasn't happened and they're now ranked 3rd it's shifted to, "They're one of the luckiest teams in the country and that luck is bound to run out. When they don't make the Final Four you'll all know I was right."
The reality is Xavier has been a top 10 team all season long. If you want to say they're the 7th best team in the country and consider that being "overrated" sure, but their resume is exactly what they are, the third best team in the country. They're rated right where they deserve to be rated based on the only thing that matters, the results on the floor. They've played the 4th toughest schedule in the country and have lost to 3 teams. They might go cold for 40 minutes and lose to a lower seeded team. To Lenny that'll be vindication. To anyone who follows the sport that'll just be the nature of a one and done format following an unbelievable season for the Musketeers, a deep, balanced, experienced, talented team.
Total bullshyte. I said I felt Xavier was overrated in January when they were rated #5. Since then they've won 12 of 14 and moved up to #3. In spite of that, Pomeroy (not me, Wades, Pomeroy) has them as the #14 team in the country - IOW, a #4 seed. According to Ken Pomeroy, the reason they are overrated is that they've been incredibly lucky, the second luckiest team of 351 D1 teams. If they receive a #1 seed, they'll be the lowest Pomeroy ranked team to ever achieve that distinction. I'm not looking for "vindication" - I've been wrong many times here and am not shy about admitting it and even apologizing (something I don't ever recall you doing).
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that there was such a wide variance in how Xavier was valued by the AP and the "bracketologists" and the analysts like Pomeroy and Sagarin. I've always put more faith in the latter - you prefer the former. Fine. Could be the makings of an interesting discussion - if you weren't so hell bent on turning it into a personal attack.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Xavier hasn't EARNED their ranking - they most certainly have. My question is - are they the 3rd best team (AP), the 14th best team (Pomeroy) or something in between?
-
Luck is just the unexplained variance from the prediction formula when applying something that fits broadly to a specific team.
I think it is a word that doesn't really describe what it measures personally. MU wasnt 'unlucky' last year and X isn't 'lucky' this year.
-
Total bullshyte. I said I felt Xavier was overrated in January when they were rated #5. Since then they've won 12 of 14 and moved up to #3. In spite of that, Pomeroy (not me, Wades, Pomeroy) has them as the #14 team in the country - IOW, a #4 seed. According to Ken Pomeroy, the reason they are overrated is that they've been incredibly lucky, the second luckiest team of 351 D1 teams. If they receive a #1 seed, they'll be the lowest Pomeroy ranked team to ever achieve that distinction. I'm not looking for "vindication" - I've been wrong many times here and am not shy about admitting it and even apologizing (something I don't ever recall you doing).
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that there was such a wide variance in how Xavier was valued by the AP and the "bracketologists" and the analysts like Pomeroy and Sagarin. I've always put more faith in the latter - you prefer the former. Fine. Could be the makings of an interesting discussion - if you weren't so hell bent on turning it into a personal attack.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Xavier hasn't EARNED their ranking - they most certainly have. My question is - are they the 3rd best team (AP), the 14th best team (Pomeroy) or something in between?
How do you define “X best team?” You admitted yourself that they have EARNED their ranking. So isn’t that the answer right there? If this were late December sure you could say, “Well Arizona is ranked below Xavier but I think they’re the most talented team in the country and I think when all is said and done they’ll be the better team this year.” But the regular season is literally over. It’s no longer about floor and ceiling, now it just comes down to one hot streak. But we’ve seen what teams are the “best” and what teams aren’t based on a 30 game season already and Xavier is clearly one of the five “best” teams in the country.
Kenpom is based on projections. How good can a team be. There’s not much more need for projections at this point. We’ve seen the season play out. And Xavier’s season has played our incredibly well. 4th roughest schedule in the country, losses to 3 total teams all season.
Luck is just the unexplained variance from the prediction formula when applying something that fits broadly to a specific team.
I think it is a word that doesn't really describe what it measures personally. MU wasnt 'unlucky' last year and X isn't 'lucky' this year.
Yup. Trying to knock a team for having a good record in tight games is beyond silly to me. If you ask me, that’s just more of a sign of a good team.
-
How do you define “X best team?” You admitted yourself that they have EARNED their ranking. So isn’t that the answer right there? If this were late December sure you could say, “Well Arizona is ranked below Xavier but I think they’re the most talented team in the country and I think when all is said and done they’ll be the better team this year.” But the regular season is literally over. It’s no longer about floor and ceiling, now it just comes down to one hot streak. But we’ve seen what teams are the “best” and what teams aren’t based on a 30 game season already and Xavier is clearly one of the five “best” teams in the country.
Kenpom is based on projections. How good can a team be. There’s not much more need for projections at this point. We’ve seen the season play out. And Xavier’s season has played our incredibly well. 4th roughest schedule in the country, losses to 3 total teams all season.
Yup. Trying to knock a team for having a good record in tight games is beyond silly to me. If you ask me, that’s just more of a sign of a good team.
:o
-
This year's Duke team isn't consistent enough to win 6 in a row. Heck, coach K has to play a zone so much because the OADs can't learn M2M. Duke teams used to be exciting to watch because of their ability to play intense M2M.
Duke hasn’t lost since it switched EXCLUSIVELY to a zone 7 games ago. It’s made a huge difference. Coach K gets it: Do what you do and do it exclusively. Whether that be M2M or zone. Switching back and forth between defenses breeds ineffectiveness. Duke has played zone on over 90 percent of its possessions since switching 7 games ago.
I suspect Duke will be an Elite 8/Final Four team.
As for Xavier- good team for sure but I trust Pomeroy numbers above all.
-
Duke hasn’t lost since it switched EXCLUSIVELY to a zone 7 games ago. Duke has played zone on over 90 percent of its possessions since switching 7 games ago.
You and I (and every dictionary on the planet) has a different way of defining EXCLUSIVELY.
Still, your point is well taken.
-
You and I (and every dictionary on the planet) has a different way of defining EXCLUSIVELY.
Still, your point is well taken.
Haha. Yea. Thought about making that edit, but overriding point was Duke has played it almost exclusively. Per the broadcast last night, it was said over 90% of possessions - and some possessions of course are transition to where you really don't establish a formal defense.
Just think it is a fools errand to think that if you play an occasional possession of an alternate defense from your base D, that if opposition scores against it, it is proof positive that that alternate defense is worse. (Especially when your base has proven to be an absolute sieve and fouling machine in virtually every Top 100 opposition game.)
-
Don't have stats in front of me, but from what I recall thinking while watching yesterday's game, MTM did somewhat better than 2-3. But everything's relative when it comes to our defense. The only BE team we defended really well IIRC was Seton Hall; in our wins against DeP and StJ, I think they just sucked.
I'd say we also defended F%cky well, but I really think that one came down to us simply having a lot more heart than they do. 8-)
-
Kenpom is based on projections. How good can a team be. There’s not much more need for projections at this point. We’ve seen the season play out. And Xavier’s season has played our incredibly well. 4th roughest schedule in the country, losses to 3 total teams all season.
You misunderstand Pomeroy (and also Sagerin). Their metrics have nothing to do with measuring how good a team COULD be. Rather, after subtracting the "luck" factor (good or bad) they measure how good a team IS. On a neutral court, today, right now, Pomeroy thinks 13 teams should be favored to beat Xavier. Doesn't mean they would, of course - but he thinks they should. If Xavier loses their first game in the tourney Pomeroy's numbers likely will be relatively unchanged - the same will be true if they make the FF. So I not suggesting that the tournament will mean "vindication" for those on either side of the argument - just think it's an interesting topic for discussion.
-
This is a guy who tried to make a bet that Xavier was overrated when they were ranked 5th or 6th in the country and tried to tell people that if they finished the year ranked 1 spot below where they were ranked at the time of the bet he deserved money. So I think Lenny thinks there is actually a big difference between a 1 and a 2 seed, even the worst 1 seed and the top 2 seed.
I do believe in luck, but feel it can be manufactured or produced through emotion or circumstances. He's not wrong that Xavier has holes, but all teams do. Maybe Xavier is luckier than others, but I'm not sure you can just throw luck out the door if it happens with enough frequency to a team it may be because they are doing something to cause to a degree.
In my view, there is disparity at times even between 1 seeds, but there can also be very little separation between any seeds. Only using a seeding number to determine how much better one team is than another is too simplistic.
-
You misunderstand Pomeroy (and also Sagerin). Their metrics have nothing to do with measuring how good a team COULD be. Rather, after subtracting the "luck" factor (good or bad) they measure how good a team IS. On a neutral court, today, right now, Pomeroy thinks 13 teams should be favored to beat Xavier. Doesn't mean they would, of course - but he thinks they should. If Xavier loses their first game in the tourney Pomeroy's numbers likely will be relatively unchanged - the same will be true if they make the FF. So I not suggesting that the tournament will mean "vindication" for those on either side of the argument - just think it's an interesting topic for discussion.
How do you determine "best team" then? Or, more importantly, since your argument the entire time is that Xavier is overrated, how do you define "overrated?" To me, a team being "overrated" means that they are not deserving of the ranking that they have. You yourself admitted that they deserve to be ranked 3rd in the country based on the results that have played out on the court this season. To me, that means they are not overrated and are, in fact, accurately rated, which I believe to be the truth. Based on what has occurred on the court throughout the 2017-2018 season, Xavier deserves to be ranked 3rd in the country. They are "rated" accurately. I would argue you can't even argue for any other ranking for Xavier and we're at the end of the regular season. Virginia clearly deserves the top ranking that they have, and the only two teams that really have a case to be ranked 2nd are Xavier and Villanova. Given that they played each other twice and Nova smoked them both times, I don't think there's any way you could have Nova ranked 3rd to Xavier's 2nd, so I think the top 3 are unquestionably 1 Virginia, 2 Nova, 3 Xavier. To me, Xavier is ranked exactly where they deserve to be, which makes the answer to your question a resounding, "No. They are not overrated."
You can argue that a team like Duke or Arizona are more talented than a team like Xavier, but I don't see how there's any possible way you could argue that Duke or Arizona deserve to be ranked higher than Xavier does. In no way whatsoever have Duke or Arizona had a better season than Xavier. Xavier deserves to be ranked (or "rated") higher than those two teams, and there's no debating it.
-
How do you determine "best team" then? Or, more importantly, since your argument the entire time is that Xavier is overrated, how do you define "overrated?" To me, a team being "overrated" means that they are not deserving of the ranking that they have. You yourself admitted that they deserve to be ranked 3rd in the country based on the results that have played out on the court this season. To me, that means they are not overrated and are, in fact, accurately rated, which I believe to be the truth. Based on what has occurred on the court throughout the 2017-2018 season, Xavier deserves to be ranked 3rd in the country. They are "rated" accurately. I would argue you can't even argue for any other ranking for Xavier and we're at the end of the regular season. Virginia clearly deserves the top ranking that they have, and the only two teams that really have a case to be ranked 2nd are Xavier and Villanova. Given that they played each other twice and Nova smoked them both times, I don't think there's any way you could have Nova ranked 3rd to Xavier's 2nd, so I think the top 3 are unquestionably 1 Virginia, 2 Nova, 3 Xavier. To me, Xavier is ranked exactly where they deserve to be, which makes the answer to your question a resounding, "No. They are not overrated."
You can argue that a team like Duke or Arizona are more talented than a team like Xavier, but I don't see how there's any possible way you could argue that Duke or Arizona deserve to be ranked higher than Xavier does. In no way whatsoever have Duke or Arizona had a better season than Xavier. Xavier deserves to be ranked (or "rated") higher than those two teams, and there's no debating it.
I determine "best team" as team who outscores their opponents the most, per possession, adjusted for schedule. X is now 9-0 in games decided by 5 points or less, including 2 OT games. These are games where a missed free throw can be the difference. 9 times those games have flipped for Xavier. They were losing to East Tennessee State 59-44 with 6:57 left and won that game. They were losing at home to DePaul 51-35 with 17:14 left and won that game. They were down 42-32 to Seton Hall with 17:56 left and won that game. Historically speaking, teams regress to the mean and lose these games at some point.
-
Duke hasn’t lost since it switched EXCLUSIVELY to a zone 7 games ago. It’s made a huge difference. Coach K gets it: Do what you do and do it exclusively. Whether that be M2M or zone. Switching back and forth between defenses breeds ineffectiveness. Duke has played zone on over 90 percent of its possessions since switching 7 games ago.
I suspect Duke will be an Elite 8/Final Four team.
In a thread about X being overrated here we see John Dawson again.
And you have it backwards again. In all but one of those seven games, the zone was significantly better than the man (and the one where it was a blowout). Also, Duke has been better at zone all season long.
Duke's zone isn't good because they play it "exclusively", the play it "exclusively" because it is better than their man. Something that is not true for Marquette. Just like John Dawson didn't play well against Georgetown because he got 25 minutes, he got 25 minutes because he played well.
As for X being overrated? I guess if you think a 9 spot difference is overrated. I don't think there's that much difference between #5 and #14 this season.
-
I determine "best team" as team who outscores their opponents the most, per possession, adjusted for schedule. X is now 9-0 in games decided by 5 points or less, including 2 OT games. These are games where a missed free throw can be the difference. 9 times those games have flipped for Xavier. They were losing to East Tennessee State 59-44 with 6:57 left and won that game. They were losing at home to DePaul 51-35 with 17:14 left and won that game. They were down 42-32 to Seton Hall with 17:56 left and won that game. Historically speaking, teams regress to the mean and lose these games at some point.
This was my point - there's more than one way to look at it.
-
1 seed. Evidently they were underrated.
-
1 seed. Evidently they were underrated.
By whom? Multiple people believe they will be an underdog if they meet Gonzaga in the Sweet 16.
-
1 seed. Evidently they were underrated.
Or it could mean they were overrated again. We'll know in a couple weeks!
-
By whom? Multiple people believe they will be an underdog if they meet Gonzaga in the Sweet 16.
Based on what? They could certainly lose that game, they could lose any game in a one and done, 40 minute situation. But Gonzaga went 30-4 and their best wins were over...Ohio State? St. Mary's? Texas? Washington? Congrats on winning a bunch of mid-major games in the WCC Gonzaga.
Xavier went 28-5 and was the outright BE champions. Pretty deserving of a 1 seed if you ask me.
-
The problem now is that Xavier could lose in the elite 8 and Lenny can still say 'see? Told ya.'
-
Or it could mean they were overrated again. We'll know in a couple weeks!
Not really. One game doesn’t change my view on how good a team is compared to a 33 game full season.
-
Not really. One game doesn’t change my view on how good a team is compared to a 33 game full season.
Okey dokey.
-
Okey dokey.
Unless you think George Mason was one of the top 4 teams in the country in 2006? Or maybe VCU a top 4 team in the country in 2011? Was Syracuse one of the 4 best teams in college basketball in 2016? Or South Carolina one of the 4 best teams in the country last season? Maybe you consider Florida Gulf Coast to have been one of the 16 best college basketball teams in 2013?
I thought Villanova was better than the 17th (or lower?) best team in the country last season, but maybe that was just me.
I personally wouldn’t say that about any of those teams. But different strokes for different folks I suppose.
-
Unless you think George Mason was one of the top 4 teams in the country in 2006? Or maybe VCU a top 4 team in the country in 2011? Was Syracuse one of the 4 best teams in college basketball in 2016? Or South Carolina one of the 4 best teams in the country last season? Maybe you consider Florida Gulf Coast to have been one of the 16 best college basketball teams in 2013?
I thought Villanova was better than the 17th (or lower?) best team in the country last season, but maybe that was just me.
I personally wouldn’t say that about any of those teams. But different strokes for different folks I suppose.
Wow, wades, you read an awful lot into "okey dokey"!
-
Who thinks Xavier is overrated? Pomeroy, Sagarin, Nate Silver, Las Vegas, Jay Bilas and anyone else who uses advanced statistics (aka science) to rate teams. Maybe they'll go all the way (wouldn't be the first time the 14th best team won it all - especially given a #1 seed's path), maybe they'll lose early (like in the Big east tournament), maybe they'll lose late. Doesn't matter to me. I trust science over the "It was cold last winter, the earth can't be warming" crowd. # Big East goggle eye test no matta.
-
Who thinks Xavier is overrated? Pomeroy, Sagarin, Nate Silver, Las Vegas, Jay Bilas and anyone else who uses advanced statistics (aka science) to rate teams. Maybe they'll go all the way (wouldn't be the first time the 14th best team won it all - especially given a #1 seed's path), maybe they'll lose early (like in the Big east tournament), maybe they'll lose late. Doesn't matter to me. I trust science over the "It was cold last winter, the earth can't be warming" crowd. # Big East goggle eye test no matta.
I agree with Lenny in that I think they are overrated because I do not believe they are one of the four best teams in the country. They have earned the number 1 seed, however, by winning consistently whether that be by luck or toughness. In today's game where the most talented teams are young and inconsistent they could go very far in the NCAAs, too. I'll have them exit in the round of 16 in my pool, but they are certainly good enough to get to the Final Four if the breaks go their way.
One other caveat. The only full games of theirs I have watched are their two against us, their last game against DePaul and the BET loss to Providence, so I may have caught them for the most part on days that weren't their best.
-
I agree with Lenny in that I think they are overrated because I do not believe they are one of the four best teams in the country. They have earned the number 1 seed, however, by winning consistently whether that be by luck or toughness. In today's game where the most talented teams are young and inconsistent they could go very far in the NCAAs, too. I'll have them exit in the round of 16 in my pool, but they are certainly good enough to get to the Final Four if the breaks go their way.
Agree with all of this, Warrior. I admire what the coach and players at X have accomplished. They're really good and really, really tough but also really lucky. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Who thinks Xavier is overrated? Pomeroy, Sagarin, Nate Silver, Las Vegas, Jay Bilas and anyone else who uses advanced statistics (aka science) to rate teams. Maybe they'll go all the way (wouldn't be the first time the 14th best team won it all - especially given a #1 seed's path), maybe they'll lose early (like in the Big east tournament), maybe they'll lose late. Doesn't matter to me. I trust science over the "It was cold last winter, the earth can't be warming" crowd. # Big East goggle eye test no matta.
So, after entire season is complete, what you’re saying is you don’t care about the actual results on the court that played out but rather some computer generated numbers? Lol. Okay then.
Why even play the games? We can just have a computer tell us who’s best, the results don’t matter at all. Heck, it’s better for a team to get smoked by bad teams (Duke against BC, UNC against Wofford, etc.) than it is for a team to win close games (Xavier).
I’m glad you trust “science” when it comes to basketball. I trust results. The results suggest Xavier is rated right where they deserve to be. 1 seed. Outright Big East champion.
-
Lenny, having watched Xavier a lot this season, I can understand why you say they aren't a top 5 team. They don't LOOK like a top 5 team. They have won far more close games than they should have. I get it. But they have lost to one team not in the Big East all year. They lost three regular season games in the Big East ( 2 to whom?). They lost to a hot Providence team in the Big East tourney. They could flame out. But it is hard to argue with the voters that they shouldn't have had a 4 loss team that won a regular season championship in a tough league so highly ranked. Kind of like when Cabrera won the MVP for a triple crown whereas the advanced metrics showed Trout had a better year. Sometimes, big, gaudy, simple, primary numbers have more influence than advance metrics. I understand your argument. I understand the counter argument, too.
-
So, after entire season is complete, what you’re saying is you don’t care about the actual results on the court that played out but rather some computer generated numbers? Lol. Okay then.
Why even play the games? We can just have a computer tell us who’s best, the results don’t matter at all. Heck, it’s better for a team to get smoked by bad teams (Duke against BC, UNC against Wofford, etc.) than it is for a team to win close games (Xavier).
I’m glad you trust “science” when it comes to basketball. I trust results. The results suggest Xavier is rated right where they deserve to be. 1 seed. Outright Big East champion.
+1...Just own it Lenny. You were wrong in your original post. I can only assume that you thought they would come crashing back to earth. They did not. They earned a #1 seed, so they are rated properly. The torney is a crapshoot as we all know
-
Lenny, having watched Xavier a lot this season, I can understand why you say they aren't a top 5 team. They don't LOOK like a top 5 team. They have won far more close games than they should have. I get it. But they have lost to one team not in the Big East all year. They lost three regular season games in the Big East ( 2 to whom?). They lost to a hot Providence team in the Big East tourney. They could flame out. But it is hard to argue with the voters that they shouldn't have had a 4 loss team that won a regular season championship in a tough league so highly ranked. Kind of like when Cabrera won the MVP for a triple crown whereas the advanced metrics showed Trout had a better year. Sometimes, big, gaudy, simple, primary numbers have more influence than advance metrics. I understand your argument. I understand the counter argument, too.
Fair enough, Tower.
-
I think I may be arguing semantics. Did X deserve to be a 1 seed? Sure. Were they, in my opinion, one of the top 4 teams in the country? No. It's the same debate over who is the better team? The team that wins the championship, or the best team throughout the season.