MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on February 23, 2010, 04:56:17 PM
-
I spoke to Jerry Palm today of CollegeRPI. I asked him if he thought this was the softest bubble in a decade with the ACC and Pac Ten so down, the Big Ten not up to pre-season expectations, etc.
His response..."I'd agree. I put nine teams in Monday’s bracket that aren’t really tournament quality. That’s a pretty high number for this late in the season"
He went on to say that certain pockets are down but there are conferences like the Big 12 that are having fine seasons.
We picked a very good year to have a "rebuilding" year. Timing is everything. ;D
-
We picked a very good year to have a "rebuilding" year. Timing is everything. ;D
Reloading Chicos, reloading.
;D
-
Nice name dropping. Ur sooper kewl dewd!
I take it this is your pre-emptive strike for backhanded compliments towards Buzz?
I can see it now:
"Buzz has never missed the tournament with MU, but according to my important friend we were lucky to catch a down year."
Get a life.
-
The moral of this post being perhaps: Buzz hasn't really done an exceptional or Tom Crean caliber of coaching job with this squad this year, as NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball, including the Big East is the weakest its been in the last 10 years? In other words, our results this year are more a matter of good fortune and "picking a good year to have a rebuilding year."
-
Nice name dropping. Ur sooper kewl dewd!
I take it this is your pre-emptive strike for backhanded compliments towards Buzz?
I can see it now:
"Buzz has never missed the tournament with MU, but according to my important friend we were lucky to catch a down year."
Get a life.
Funny you saw this post exactly the same way I did....coincidence? Probably not.
-
Another knife in the back. Thanks.
-
There has been 1 in the rebuilt Big East to miss the tourney with a winning record. With a 10-8 finish likely I'd have a hard time believing MU would be left out of tourney regardless of the Pac 10. They've won 6 of their last 7 and a 10-8 record would mean winning 8 of their last 11....no way they wouldn't make it.
-
I spoke to Jerry Palm today of CollegeRPI. I asked him if he thought this was the softest bubble in a decade with the ACC and Pac Ten so down, the Big Ten not up to pre-season expectations, etc.
His response..."I'd agree. I put nine teams in Monday’s bracket that aren’t really tournament quality. That’s a pretty high number for this late in the season"
He went on to say that certain pockets are down but there are conferences like the Big 12 that are having fine seasons.
We picked a very good year to have a "rebuilding" year. Timing is everything. ;D
agreed, how did you talk w/ that guy cool doode convention in cali?
I didn't see this as having any underhanded motives, just observation; you guys try and egg it on.
-
I didn't see this as having any underhanded motives, just observation; you guys try and egg it on.
+1
-
I dont care how soft the bubble is. As long as we get in.
-
Who cares if it's a "soft bubble?"
-
I can't wait till you can google "soft bubble" and this thread is on the list...
-
The moral of this post being perhaps: Buzz hasn't really done an exceptional or Tom Crean caliber of coaching job with this squad this year, as NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball, including the Big East is the weakest its been in the last 10 years? In other words, our results this year are more a matter of good fortune and "picking a good year to have a rebuilding year."
If Palm is correct, the "moral" you cite above is pretty much spot on correct, even if you don't like its implications.
-
If Palm is correct, the "moral" you cite above is pretty much spot on correct, even if you don't like its implications.
Well, I'd love to know the empirical data Palm cites to make this assertion. It seems purely subjective and conjecture at best. What is true in college basketball is there is more parity than ever before, and due to early entry candidates, some mid-majors who assemble modest talent that stays 4-years in college basketball, has a chance to compete on a higher level against the more marquee traditional basketball powers who have 1,2 or 3 and done players. I am quite confident that as technology and training evolves athletes are only getting bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled - to where the teams of 2010 are stronger, and better than those of 2005. Go back and watch old NCAA or NBA games on ESPN Classic - the players seem to be in slow motion, and the defense almost non-existent.
-
I dont care how soft the bubble is. As long as we get in.
I agree completely. That's why our timing is fortunate. In 10 years, no one will know it was such a bad year for college hoops. My question to Palm was more of a historical question as he and I have followed the tournament for many years and exchanged many communications in the past.
I couldn't recall a softer bubble than this year and wanted to bounce that off him to see if he agreed.
-
Chico's .... what's with the ongoing effort to diminish this team's success?
This is the third (at least) thread in which youve cited this so-called "soft bubble" and/or said it's a lucky year for MU and/or said it's a good year to be a "slightly above average team" (a laughable contention in and of itself). You seem pretty eager to get that point across.
I think we get that you're far from inclined to credit the coaching staff - after all, you've put Buzz on the five-year plan - but I'm confused as to why you're so eager to not give credit to at least the players who are proving themselves to be a great group of overachievers. (Of course, it seems you believe they're not overachievers ... it's just everyone else is bad).
-
Too bad '04 and '05 weren't soft bubble years!!!!
I was talking to my buddy John Wooden and he said that maybe if we would have had 3 NBA players on those teams we could have made the tournement.
-
Word on the street is that Jerry Palm's sister Rosie is an even better friend of Chico.
-
Well, I'd love to know the empirical data Palm cites to make this assertion. It seems purely subjective and conjecture at best. What is true in college basketball is there is more parity than ever before, and due to early entry candidates, some mid-majors who assemble modest talent that stays 4-years in college basketball, has a chance to compete on a higher level against the more marquee traditional basketball powers who have 1,2 or 3 and done players. I am quite confident that as technology and training evolves athletes are only getting bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled - to where the teams of 2010 are stronger, and better than those of 2005. Go back and watch old NCAA or NBA games on ESPN Classic - the players seem to be in slow motion, and the defense almost non-existent.
Emprical data? You're kidding, right? Palm is the publisher of collegerpi.com.
Where's your empirical data that proves that athletes are bigger, stronger, faster and more gifted than those of 2005?
-
more Chicos hate when there are other times I'm sure it would be far more warranted.
Ill take the soft bubble, but there's no doubt it is a soft. Fortuitously this year, this team is somewhere between the 60-70 best team in America when that normally would not be the case.
Main point: Everyone is jumping all over this saying "OH YOU'LL JUST SAY BUZZ GOT LUCKY ARGHHG!" Has anyone stopped to think maybe this is important to acknowledge for next year when we don't take the step forward everyone thinks we will? There's a very good chance that with an upswing in the way the teams break down, we will be on the bubble again when its stronger. Then all of the Buzz viagra takers will LOVE talking about how strong/weak the bubble is...
-
In my opinion, you bring this up to minimize the fact that this MU team is potentially on the verge of a 5th straight NCAA Tournament appearance, a crazy thought going into the season.
I can't remember exactly what you said, but before the season you said something along the lines that if Buzz were to lead the team to the NCAA Tournament this season after what they lost, you'd be completely behind him (talk about a crazy thought).
Now, this team has so far exceeded anybody's wildest expectations...yet you keep stressing this "soft bubble" and keep saying you will judge him in 3 or 4 years.
What gives?
-
There is no such thing as a soft bubble... There is always a winner. Some traditional schools might not be as good this year, but somebody beat them and thus they are better.... Its pretty simple. Its the same every year, The best 30 some best at large teams out of some 300 teams go to the dance. If anything there is more parity, making it harder to determine what teams are the 30 best. Saying the sum of all teams is worse from year to the next year is false and I'd like you to provide a stat to prove otherwise. I can guarantee the winning percentage for all teams for all games played every year is .500.
-
Regardless of being on the bubble, this team has consistently beat much more talented rosters. That's a credit to Buzz, his staff, and ofcourse, the players who have bought into his system.
-
LennysTap wins.
-
There is no such thing as a soft bubble... There is always a winner. Some traditional schools might not be as good this year, but somebody beat them and thus they are better.... Its pretty simple. Its the same every year, The best 30 some best at large teams out of some 300 teams go to the dance. If anything there is more parity, making it harder to determine what teams are the 30 best. Saying the sum of all teams is worse from year to the next year is false and I'd like you to provide a stat to prove otherwise. I can guarantee the winning percentage for all teams for all games played every year is .500.
The debate was never whether one team must win or lose any game. But you cannot be serious that because the same number of teams get in every year, they are all of the same quality. You honestly think that watching the 4th or 5th A-10 team that will get in this year is qualitatively equal with last years Tennessee, Oklahoma State, Arizona (last big conference at large in tournament) or Maryland? That is just not true.
-
Well, I'd love to know the empirical data Palm cites to make this assertion. It seems purely subjective and conjecture at best. What is true in college basketball is there is more parity than ever before, and due to early entry candidates, some mid-majors who assemble modest talent that stays 4-years in college basketball, has a chance to compete on a higher level against the more marquee traditional basketball powers who have 1,2 or 3 and done players. I am quite confident that as technology and training evolves athletes are only getting bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled - to where the teams of 2010 are stronger, and better than those of 2005. Go back and watch old NCAA or NBA games on ESPN Classic - the players seem to be in slow motion, and the defense almost non-existent.
Are you kidding? The frigging dude lives college basketball.
-
Then all of the Buzz viagra takers will LOVE talking about how strong/weak the bubble is...
Who is a Buzz "viagra taker?" Just so I'm clear, are you claiming those of us who think it's great that he's got us on the doorstep of an NCAA birth despite being crippled by graduation and injury have erections? Is that what you're saying?
Are Marquette fans not supposed to be happy about a possible NCAA birth? And can they be happy with out being (artificially) aroused?
-
I'm beginning to think the only way some people will be happy with Marquette basketball is if we go undefeated and win a national championship...
-
I spoke to Jerry Palm today of CollegeRPI. I asked him if he thought this was the softest bubble in a decade with the ACC and Pac Ten so down, the Big Ten not up to pre-season expectations, etc.
His response..."I'd agree. I put nine teams in Monday’s bracket that aren’t really tournament quality. That’s a pretty high number for this late in the season"
He went on to say that certain pockets are down but there are conferences like the Big 12 that are having fine seasons.
We picked a very good year to have a "rebuilding" year. Timing is everything. ;D
If college basketball is as bad as you say it is this year what does that say about Roy Williams as a coach? Seven (7) McDonald's All Americans and he can't beat ANYBODY. Also renders your boy's very slight improvement at IU (from one of the worst of all time to one of the worst this year) meaningless.
-
That's prefect because MU needed a soft bubble in this transition year.
-
By the same logic, 2003 had some great teams and produced some US Olympians and we still made the Final Four. The 2003 MU team would have won the whole thing in a lot of other years. Wade was hot and Diener and Novak really improved by the tournament. We were hot enough in March to have won it in many years. They ran into a team stacked with seniors and a hall of fame coach who said that game was the best he has ever coached. There was also an All-NBA player waiting in the championship had we won. It was a tough year. Chicos is right, timing is important.
It's like in the NBA, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Reggie Miller are great players, but they played at the same time as when Pippen and Jordan were on the same team. Had they hit their primes in 2001, they would have had that elusive ring.
Context counts, but you can only judge the team by how they play in the situation presented to them. The 2003 team was a Final Four team given their context and Lazar's squad this year is a 9-12 seed or an NIT favorite.
-
Who is a Buzz "viagra taker?" Just so I'm clear, are you claiming those of us who think it's great that he's got us on the doorstep of an NCAA birth despite being crippled by graduation and injury have erections? Is that what you're saying?
Are Marquette fans not supposed to be happy about a possible NCAA birth? And can they be happy with out being (artificially) aroused?
What I'm saying is that people are entirely losing perspective on this season. Since when did pointing out the weakness of the overall pool belittle the team's accomplishments? This has become some sort of idealistic circle jerk where any sort of reference to the greater landscape in which Marquette's season exists is immediately attacked and belittled as somehow unsupportive. Of course everyone is happy with this season, and glad that MU is surpassing expectations. However the reality check that this might not entirely rest on the shoulders of Buzz Williams' George Washington-esque leadership does not imply that he is a bad coach or that whoever is proffering such a suggestion is a disloyal fan with ulterior motives.
And to reiterate the greater implication of getting so carried away is something that I can't stress enough. When the greater field of college basketball rebounds next year, and MU finds itself in the same (or worse) position its in now, the people storming the quad with torches and pitchforks in Buzz's name will be ironically the most outraged. All that is being pointed out here is that MU's season doesn't exist in a vacuum.
-
By the same logic, 2003 had some great teams and produced some US Olympians and we still made the Final Four. The 2003 MU team would have won the whole thing in a lot of other years. Wade was hot and Diener and Novak really improved by the tournament. We were hot enough in March to have won it in many years. They ran into a team stacked with seniors and a hall of fame coach who said that game was the best he has ever coached. There was also an All-NBA player waiting in the championship had we won. It was a tough year. Chicos is right, timing is important.
It's like in the NBA, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Reggie Miller are great players, but they played at the same time as when Pippen and Jordan were on the same team. Had they hit their primes in 2001, they would have had that elusive ring.
Context counts, but you can only judge the team by how they play in the situation presented to them. The 2003 team was a Final Four team given their context and Lazar's squad this year is a 9-12 seed or an NIT favorite.
Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt anyone predicted Marquette would be a Final Four team in 2003...
-
Obviously the bubble isn't quite soft enough to let IU in. BTW, had Crean not left the cupboard so bare, the soft bubble wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.
-
I spoke to Jerry Palm today of CollegeRPI. I asked him if he thought this was the softest bubble in a decade with the ACC and Pac Ten so down, the Big Ten not up to pre-season expectations, etc.
His response..."I'd agree. I put nine teams in Monday’s bracket that aren’t really tournament quality. That’s a pretty high number for this late in the season"
He went on to say that certain pockets are down but there are conferences like the Big 12 that are having fine seasons.
We picked a very good year to have a "rebuilding" year. Timing is everything. ;D
While we're on the subject of your, 84's and 79's personal college guru, what do you make of the fact that Ol' Jerry has five (5) teams we have played rated higher than Wisconsin? The list includes WVU (14 spots above the Badgers), a team you claim would have NO CHANCE against Wisco. Also noticed that DePaul (worse loss in MU history?) is slotted a full THIRTY-ONE spots above your beloved Hapless Hoosiers. Interesting.
-
Are you kidding? The frigging dude lives college basketball.
Yup, and he gets paid for it.
http://bleacherreport.com/users/35898-jerry-palm
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/users/photos/000/035/898/jpmugsquare_profile_page.jpg?1260079973)
I am the owner and operator of CollegeRPI.com and CollegeBCS.com. I have done some freelance writing for USA Today, CSTV and the Sporting News, and do numerous radio and television appearances during the college football and basketball seasons. Most recently, I have been a bracket analyst for the Big Ten Network and a BCS analyst for Fox Sports.
As he says in his Feb 21st article, one of the weakest at-large fields he can ever remember. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/collegebasketball-projecting-the-field
-
What I'm saying is that people are entirely losing perspective on this season. Since when did pointing out the weakness of the overall pool belittle the team's accomplishments? This has become some sort of idealistic circle jerk where any sort of reference to the greater landscape in which Marquette's season exists is immediately attacked and belittled as somehow unsupportive. Of course everyone is happy with this season, and glad that MU is surpassing expectations. However the reality check that this might not entirely rest on the shoulders of Buzz Williams' George Washington-esque leadership does not imply that he is a bad coach or that whoever is proffering such a suggestion is a disloyal fan with ulterior motives.
And to reiterate the greater implication of getting so carried away is something that I can't stress enough. When the greater field of college basketball rebounds next year, and MU finds itself in the same (or worse) position its in now, the people storming the quad with torches and pitchforks in Buzz's name will be ironically the most outraged. All that is being pointed out here is that MU's season doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Viagra ... circle jerk ... hmmm.
It's funny ... nobody seemed to being criticizing/questioning the weakness of the overall pool back when MU was projected as a 12th place squad that might sneak its way into the NIT. In fact, a certain thread starter claimed that it would be darn near miraculous for this team to win 10 Big East games.
It's only now that they seem NCAA-bound that the rest of college basketball apparently sucks. Funny how that works.
-
You could argue that through combined winning percentage of tourney teams and t may turn out to be true, however the next level of teams would statistically have to be better if that was the case. In that case it is still the same achievement to be in the top 10% of teams or whatever the number is. To say look at this team vs this team has nothing to do with the overall quality of basketball.
-
Viagra ... circle jerk ... hmmm.
It's funny ... nobody seemed to being criticizing/questioning the weakness of the overall pool back when MU was projected as a 12th place squad that might sneak its way into the NIT. In fact, a certain thread starter claimed that it would be darn near miraculous for this team to win 10 Big East games.
It's only now that they seem NCAA-bound that the rest of college basketball apparently sucks. Funny how that works.
Go figure ;D
-
What I'm saying is that people are entirely losing perspective on this season. Since when did pointing out the weakness of the overall pool belittle the team's accomplishments? This has become some sort of idealistic circle jerk where any sort of reference to the greater landscape in which Marquette's season exists is immediately attacked and belittled as somehow unsupportive. Of course everyone is happy with this season, and glad that MU is surpassing expectations. However the reality check that this might not entirely rest on the shoulders of Buzz Williams' George Washington-esque leadership does not imply that he is a bad coach or that whoever is proffering such a suggestion is a disloyal fan with ulterior motives.
And to reiterate the greater implication of getting so carried away is something that I can't stress enough. When the greater field of college basketball rebounds next year, and MU finds itself in the same (or worse) position its in now, the people storming the quad with torches and pitchforks in Buzz's name will be ironically the most outraged. All that is being pointed out here is that MU's season doesn't exist in a vacuum.
I don't know how long you've been reading these boards but Chicos has been belittling Buzz since he was hired. Last year all he had to do was roll the ball out on the court, this year college basketball sucks and next year it will be something else. Trust me on this.
-
Viagra ... circle jerk ... hmmm.
It's funny ... nobody seemed to being criticizing/questioning the weakness of the overall pool back when MU was projected as a 12th place squad that might sneak its way into the NIT. In fact, a certain thread starter claimed that it would be darn near miraculous for this team to win 10 Big East games.
It's only now that they seem NCAA-bound that the rest of college basketball apparently sucks. Funny how that works.
I don't think anyone knew that North Carolina and the ACC were going to be this bad. UNC was top 10 preseason. Or UCLA and the Pac Ten would be this bad. So back when MU was picked 12th by the "experts", the "experts" were also saying UNC was great, the Pac Ten was good, the ACC was good, etc.
Look at the Preseason Poll below. North Carolina 4th and 6th. UCONN 12th and 14th. Washington 13th and 14th. Michigan 15th in both polls. Oklahoma 16th and 17th. California 12th and 13th. Louisville 19th and 23rd. Minnesota 18th and 25th. UCLA 29th.
None of these teams even ranked now and all of them in deep crap with perhaps Louisville being the exception...barely.
The power conferences have really crapped themselves this year which is why the bubble is so soft. That's why we have Richmond, UTEP, Northern Iowa, BYU, Butler, Temple, New Mexico all ranked right now.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/rankings?seasonYear=2010&weekNumber=1&seasonType=2
-
I don't know how long you've been reading these boards but Chicos has been belittling Buzz since he was hired. Last year all he had to do was roll the ball out on the court, this year college basketball sucks and next year it will be something else. Trust me on this.
Sigh
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_70nOFVH5bhY/Stbd60ASc6I/AAAAAAAAAMI/VYma_O64n6E/not_this_crap_again_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg)
Yes, just belittling him at every turn! Here we go again, selective reading on Lenny's part 24/7. Even when presented with experts having the same viewpoint, I guess they are "belittling" Buzz as well. Sigh. Black helicopters over there, House? Tell the truth about the situation and it's belittling. Unreal.
-
I don't think anyone knew that North Carolina and the ACC were going to be this bad. UNC was top 10 preseason. Or UCLA and the Pac Ten would be this bad. So back when MU was picked 12th by the "experts", the "experts" were also saying UNC was great, the Pac Ten was good, the ACC was good, etc.
Look at the Preseason Poll below. North Carolina 4th and 6th. UCONN 12th and 14th. Washington 13th and 14th. Michigan 15th in both polls. Oklahoma 16th and 17th. California 12th and 13th. Louisville 19th and 23rd. Minnesota 18th and 25th. UCLA 29th.
What does the badness of the Pac 10 or ACC have to do with where MU finishes in the Big East? You lost me there.
Regardless, what you state is really no different from most years, and it's certainly not proof of a bad year or a soft bubble.
Last year, Notre Dame, Tennessee, Miami, Georgetown, Florida, Davidson, USC and Wisconsin all started in the preseason top 25 (top 21, to be exact) and none of them were there at season's end.
The year before, Indiana, Oregon, Texas A&M, Arizona, USC, Arkansas, Kentucky, Southern Illinois and NC State were pre-season top 25 teams who failed to appear in the final top 25.
The year before that, LSU, Arizona, Alabama, Duke, Boston College, Washington, UConn, Creighton, Syracuse, Kentucky, Georgia Tech and Nevada were top 25 preseason, not in the top 25 at season's end. Heck, that's nearly half the poll. Must have been the weakest season ever.
Shall I continue? I suspect you get the drift. The lack of accuracy by those who vote in these polls is hardly proof ro against the strength of a college basketball field. If anything, it's merely proof of how bad these experts are at knowing who will and will not be good before the games are played.
-
i will agree that the accuracy of preseason polls do not tell the whole story, but the abysmal records of some conferences do. the second team in the acc standings is still considered a bubble team. the pac 10 will get one bid barring conf. tourney madness. meanwhile conferences like the A-10 are skyrocketing. hell, the ivy league is trying to sneak a team into a single digit seed. this reflects the overall quality of the teams. the 2nd team in the A-10 could not hold the floor with the 5th team in the pac 10 most years. however this year, the inverse is true. when the best players are not on the best teams, that reflects a weaker overall field, not a great coaching job by each and every overachieving team.
-
What does the badness of the Pac 10 or ACC have to do with where MU finishes in the Big East? You lost me there.
Regardless, what you state is really no different from most years, and it's certainly not proof of a bad year or a soft bubble.
Last year, Notre Dame, Tennessee, Miami, Georgetown, Florida, Davidson, USC and Wisconsin all started in the preseason top 25 (top 21, to be exact) and none of them were there at season's end.
The year before, Indiana, Oregon, Texas A&M, Arizona, USC, Arkansas, Kentucky, Southern Illinois and NC State were pre-season top 25 teams who failed to appear in the final top 25.
The year before that, LSU, Arizona, Alabama, Duke, Boston College, Washington, UConn, Creighton, Syracuse, Kentucky, Georgia Tech and Nevada were top 25 preseason, not in the top 25 at season's end. Heck, that's nearly half the poll. Must have been the weakest season ever.
Shall I continue? I suspect you get the drift. The lack of accuracy by those who vote in these polls is hardly proof ro against the strength of a college basketball field. If anything, it's merely proof of how bad these experts are at knowing who will and will not be good before the games are played.
Outstanding post...you beat me to it on that first point, I have no clue either why UNC or UCLA having sub-par years has anything to do with MU's conference performance.
"Aw Jeez, not this sh*t again", huh? Maybe you bring it on yourself?
Again I repeat, coming into the year, I clearly remember you saying you would fall out of your chair if Buzz somehow led this squad to the NCAA Tournament. Fast forward a few months...MU has 4 games to go in the regular season, and is projected to be dancing in the Tournament. Great news, right? Your reaction? A) Start a few different threads about how weak college basketball is this year, B) Hype up how Buzz is winning with Tom Crean's players (the same players were on this team at the beginning of the year, and you said they basically had no shot at the tournament), and C) continue to push back your timeframe for judging Buzz despite the fact he is within reach of accomplishing a goal we would have all assumed unreachable in October.
I can see you before bed, clenching an IU media guide, tearing up reading his Twitter updates, clicking your heels together saying "There's no coach like Crean...there' no coach like Crean".....
-
Sigh
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_70nOFVH5bhY/Stbd60ASc6I/AAAAAAAAAMI/VYma_O64n6E/not_this_crap_again_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg)
Yes, just belittling him at every turn! Here we go again, selective reading on Lenny's part 24/7. Even when presented with experts having the same viewpoint, I guess they are "belittling" Buzz as well. Sigh. Black helicopters over there, House? Tell the truth about the situation and it's belittling. Unreal.
Look Jamie, I was the 7th or 8th guy to point out what you were/are about in this thread. I'm as far removed from a conspiracy freak as anyone you'll ever meet and I'll venture to guess so are Pakuni, Ready2fly, Ners and the scores of others on this board that see through the bs. Sigh all you want. LOL while your at it. But someone who's so misunderstood as often as you are might want to think a little about why that is.
-
I have started and stopped reading this thread 2-3 times in the last couple hours. I wasn't going to post anything but I can't help it. Some of you guys absolutely suck the life out of something that is supposed to fun. I used to think of this board as a place to read about something I love, MU basketball. For the last three weeks, more often that not, I have found myself being pissed off as I close my browser after reading this board. How is that possible considering the fact that that time period coincides with a great stretch of basketball most people around here didn't think we would see this year.
I swear, sometimes I think my nine year old is more mature that a good portion of the posters on this board. Some of you act like a bunch of little girls.
Uuuuggggghhhh, another visit to MUScoop being pissed as I close my browser!
-
Win. Thats all that we need to do.
-
Lol bust out the e-pitchforks and e-torches! You better run chicos, they are coming to get you.
-
and play a few more rounds of sink the Bismarck.....
What does soft bubble mean. Tom O'connor, the committee chair, has no idea what it means? Does it mean parity? or bad teams? fighting for those last 4 spots?
I'm in the camp that says the term soft bubble is such a stupid term. You cant compare teams from one year to another with any sort of hard number (sorry stats geeks).
-
I have started and stopped reading this thread 2-3 times in the last couple hours. I wasn't going to post anything but I can't help it. Some of you guys absolutely suck the life out of something that is supposed to fun. I used to think of this board as a place to read about something I love, MU basketball. For the last three weeks, more often that not, I have found myself being pissed off as I close my browser after reading this board. How is that possible considering the fact that that time period coincides with a great stretch of basketball most people around here didn't think we would see this year.
I swear, sometimes I think my nine year old is more mature that a good portion of the posters on this board. Some of you act like a bunch of little girls.
Uuuuggggghhhh, another visit to MUScoop being pissed as I close my browser!
Great post. I'm actually visiting the scout board more and thinking that it is more fun to read murf than it is some of the weak passive aggressive crap from some abe-holes on this board. Some whom I have enjoyed reading and defending over the years have become painful, redundant parodies of themelves during thissurprising gift of an overachieving season. Hopefully, it isjust a phase.
-
I'm in the camp that says the term soft bubble is such a stupid term. You cant compare teams from one year to another with any sort of hard number (sorry stats geeks).
This is 100% on the money. There is no soft bubble or hard bubble. There is only the bubble. What happened in the last 10 years has absolutely nothing to do with this season. Saying MU is lucky to be bad in a year when everyone else is bad is just stupid. If everyone else is bad, then I guess MU isn't bad at all, they are just like everyone else. Just a ridiculous and meaningless conversation/argument.
-
buzz is a good coach and motivator.
buzz caught a lucky break in the decreased strength of the competition this year.
the two statements are NOT mutually exclusive.
in fact, one can argue that a good coach/motivator knows how to take advantage of a lucky break.
get off chico's back.
-
I agree completely. That's why our timing is fortunate. In 10 years, no one will know it was such a bad year for college hoops. My question to Palm was more of a historical question as he and I have followed the tournament for many years and exchanged many communications in the past.
I couldn't recall a softer bubble than this year and wanted to bounce that off him to see if he agreed.
Proof that this post serves two purposes and two purposes only, and it comes straight from the horse's mouth:
1.) So Chicos can have "evidence" later on that Buzz caught a lucky break if MU makes the tournament.
And really Chicos, you and Palm are SO UNIQUE that you "follow the tournament?" Doesn't that include about 50%+ of the U.S. population?
2.) That Chicos can brag like an eight year old that he has exchanged "many communications" with a college basketball "expert."
In the first post you make it seem like you and Palm are buddies, like he calls you up to bounce ideas off you for columns. Then you backed off a bit to say you have exchanged "many communications in the past" (a.k.a. you e-mail him, and he responds, like I'm sure he would respond to any one of us). It's laughably insecure. In the immortal words of Jim Carrey, "You are one pathetic LOSER... no offense."
-
As he says in his Feb 21st article, one of the weakest at-large fields he can ever remember. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/collegebasketball-projecting-the-field
Then WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST POST THAT ARTICLE instead of acting like you had some original thought, called up Palm, and had a philosophical debate with your great friend in which he ultimately agreed with you? Are you really that self-absorbed???
-
The Big East is basically the Big East again this year - not too much different than last year's record of 4 Big East teams in the Elite 8..maybe not quite as strong but we'll see how it plays out. Furthermore, our non-conference schedule this year with Florida State, Xavier, Michigan, was just as tough as in years past.
Lastly, I don't care of Jerry Freakin' Palm eats, sleeps, or sh$ts college basketball, to try to compare the caliber and quality of college basketball year to year based on statistics and observation is ridiculous. As Lenny's Tap pointed out, Roy Williams has 7 McDonald's All American's and can't beat anyone. So, are we going to say that the talent coming out of High School's isn't as good anymore - thus leading to poor quality in Men's CBB?
Bottom line MU has singificantly exceeded expectations this year - even UW fans acknowedge that, and some are even more complimentary than our "realist" fans here - Chico, Mu84, Warrior 79 and Burrows.
-
Then WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST POST THAT ARTICLE instead of acting like you had some original thought, called up Palm, and had a philosophical debate with your great friend in which he ultimately agreed with you? Are you really that self-absorbed???
(http://cantinhodaeris.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/internet_serious_business_framed.jpg)
-
Lastly, I don't care of Jerry Freakin' Palm eats, sleeps, or sh$ts college basketball, to try to compare the caliber and quality of college basketball year to year based on statistics and observation is ridiculous. As Lenny's Tap pointed out, Roy Williams has 7 McDonald's All American's and can't beat anyone. So, are we going to say that the talent coming out of High School's isn't as good anymore - thus leading to poor quality in Men's CBB?
To be fair, in another thread, (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=18267.75) several posters engaged in speculating where the team would be without Buzz Williams as the coach the past 2 seasons.
That's basically the same type (probably even less scientific) of speculation and analysis that Jerry Palm is doing.
Why hate on Jerry Palm?
-
And to reiterate the greater implication of getting so carried away is something that I can't stress enough. When the greater field of college basketball rebounds next year, and MU finds itself in the same (or worse) position its in now, the people storming the quad with torches and pitchforks in Buzz's name will be ironically the most outraged. All that is being pointed out here is that MU's season doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Thank you for being a "realist" and feeling a compelling need to reign in the enthusiasm of those of us who are "so carried away" with this year's team. I will now step back from the ledge should MU lose more games as we move forward. Furthermore, I will now refrain from being outraged next season season when MU finds itself in the same or worse position than we are in this year. What you don't seem to get is many of us are not bandwagon, knee-jerk reacting, fans. I don't expect National Championships from MU. Consistent NCAA appearances, with occasional Sweet 16 runs, and maybe an Elite Eight/Final four every decade is fine by me. We are not UNC, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky...and that's just me being a realist, and having realistic expectations and perceptions of our program.
-
To be fair, in another thread, (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=18267.75) several posters engaged in speculating where the team would be without Buzz Williams as the coach the past 2 seasons.
That's basically the same type (probably even less scientific) of speculation and analysis that Jerry Palm is doing.
Why hate on Jerry Palm?
I'm basically hating on Chico's for starting this thread and using Palm as his source to try to back up his argument. Palm may be all things college basketball, but his belief that this is a down year in college basketball, is just that - an opinion, belief, subjective. Certainly he's entitled to share his view, and the fact Chico's feels the same way as Palm is fine. I simply disagree with Chicos assertion that this year's team is "lucky." Actually, with a little better luck we'd be 21-5, ranked about 12 in the country. The problem for Chico's is that he was predicting doom/gloom for MU prior to the season beginning - now he has to reverse course and grasp at straws to try to justify MU's performance this year.
-
How do we know that it is a soft bubble this year??
Just because teams that we are accustomed to seeing in the dance year in and year out won't be dancing doesn't mean that the teams that we rarely see on national television aren't as good. I think a lot of people are claiming that it is a "soft bubble" because they don't know jack squat about many of the teams from the A-10, the Mountain West, and other such conferences, myself included. Utah State almost beat us last year..remember.
People claim its a "soft bubble" because we all only see games on national TV of teams from major conferences. Granted many teams from smaller conferences don't play the schedules we are accustomed to playing in the Big East, yet many teams don't want to play teams from the A-10 in fear of losing to them. I expect this tournament to be a crap shoot and expect some teams we don't know much about to do more than what the "experts" expect. When it comes to the tournament there are no "experts" anything can happen, thats what makes it great.
-
I'm basically hating on Chico's for starting this thread and using Palm as his source to try to back up his argument.
If this is something that is frowned upon here, then please explain to me the purpose of an internet discussion board.
-
BCS conferences get the best players. When those teams are down by wide margins across the country, and give bids to small conferences instead of each other, that represents a decline in the overall talent levels of the higher echelon of teams. Next season, when UNC uses all these recruits and is a top 10 team, ditto UCLA, the overall quality of basketball will rise. Its a random coincidence that right now the teams with the top individual talent are struggling largely because of age. The result is that the overall quality of play by teams on the NCAA bubble is less than if those teams were pushing teams such as Pac-10s Cal or ACC's Va Tech/Maryland to the bubble, and in turn the A-10 teams out.
And as for Ners again throwing a Bush "with us or against us out there" as seems to be his prerogative, I'm saying that there's a good chance a better MU team doesn't make the tournament next year. If that were to occur, it is still entirely possible that the team MU fields next season will be qualitatively better than this years squad. to ignore the greater college basketball landscape is to undermine some of your efforts at home. This team might take a big step forward next year while having worse results. Funny how an encouraging thought can be construed to be anti-MU because it is forward looking, as opposed to simply exultation for what is going on today.
-
I'm basically hating on Chico's for starting this thread and using Palm as his source to try to back up his argument. Palm may be all things college basketball, but his belief that this is a down year in college basketball, is just that - an opinion, belief, subjective. Certainly he's entitled to share his view, and the fact Chico's feels the same way as Palm is fine. I simply disagree with Chicos assertion that this year's team is "lucky." Actually, with a little better luck we'd be 21-5, ranked about 12 in the country. The problem for Chico's is that he was predicting doom/gloom for MU prior to the season beginning - now he has to reverse course and grasp at straws to try to justify MU's performance this year.
That's fine. Let 'er rip. I'm actually inclined to agree with you about the "bubble".
But, several people around here morph threads to meet their own agendas and beliefs. In fact, all of us do it.
The thread I alluded to started about Fr. Wild and Buzz, and then morphed into Crean vs Buzz. The thread started with some analysis and discussion, but headed quickly towards the "party lines" like normal.
If you are going to get up on the soapbox and rip Chico's for posting things to meet his "agenda", you've got a long line of posters that you're going to have to start blasting. I'm cool with that if you want to go that way.
Right now it just seems like you are just looking for stuff to be mad at Chico's for simply because you don't like what he is saying.
Chico's posts are article by Jerry Palm, and the knee-jerk reaction is to rip his sources because Chico's has some sort of "secret agenda" against Buzz.
-
I'm basically hating on Chico's for starting this thread and using Palm as his source to try to back up his argument. Palm may be all things college basketball, but his belief that this is a down year in college basketball, is just that - an opinion, belief, subjective. Certainly he's entitled to share his view, and the fact Chico's feels the same way as Palm is fine. I simply disagree with Chicos assertion that this year's team is "lucky." Actually, with a little better luck we'd be 21-5, ranked about 12 in the country. The problem for Chico's is that he was predicting doom/gloom for MU prior to the season beginning - now he has to reverse course and grasp at straws to try to justify MU's performance this year.
First of all there was never a reference to being lucky, and if there was it must have gotten lost in all of the f'ing bluster that has dominated this thread. Second of all, most people on this board were doubting our chances to make the tournament before the season including almost all the people on Cracked Sidewalks. And its realistic to believe that several factors have gone into our performance this year and our chances to be on the bubble. One of those factors might be that there are a lot of down conferences this year, including the ACC, Pac 10 and Big 10. I don't see why bringing this up somehow belittles Buzz's performance or the how this team is overacheiving, which to be honest they are.
-
Apparently college basketball isn't quite as down as it appears...
It's funny how many people bag on ISU, I have a feeling you'll see that they will be pretty good this year, better than Marquette most likely.
They started three sophomores and a freshman last year...all four are back plus they add folks like Scott off the bench. This is a team that will be fighting for a NCAA berth this season, yet a really sharp poster here thinks they are going to be terrible (all while he calls most other posters ignorant of basketball). You have to wonder what he really knows (not you Pakuni)
ISU has lost 9 of 10 and can't even get above .500 in this sad state of affairs. Not only are they not fighting for and NCAA berth, they aren't even going to get a CBI berth despite having dead eye Scott Christopherson who's 3-pt percentage would rank 5th on MU's current team. So much for needing him to help us beat a zone, huh? Apparently the bubble is softer for some teams than it is others.
Could there be any more irony in this comment...
yet a really sharp poster here thinks they are going to be terrible (all while he calls most other posters ignorant of basketball). You have to wonder what he really knows
-
BCS conferences get the best players. When those teams are down by wide margins across the country, and give bids to small conferences instead of each other, that represents a decline in the overall talent levels of the higher echelon of teams. Next season, when UNC uses all these recruits and is a top 10 team, ditto UCLA, the overall quality of basketball will rise. Its a random coincidence that right now the teams with the top individual talent are struggling largely because of age. The result is that the overall quality of play by teams on the NCAA bubble is less than if those teams were pushing teams such as Pac-10s Cal or ACC's Va Tech/Maryland to the bubble, and in turn the A-10 teams out.
And as for Ners again throwing a Bush "with us or against us out there" as seems to be his prerogative, I'm saying that there's a good chance a better MU team doesn't make the tournament next year. If that were to occur, it is still entirely possible that the team MU fields next season will be qualitatively better than this years squad. to ignore the greater college basketball landscape is to undermine some of your efforts at home. This team might take a big step forward next year while having worse results. Funny how an encouraging thought can be construed to be anti-MU because it is forward looking, as opposed to simply exultation for what is going on today.
You argument is circular at best -stating that the BCS teams get the best talent, yet because that talent is young this year (not all BCS teams are playing with young talent this year - overbroad analysis), it means the quality of basketball being played by more experienced squads isn't as good in year's past?? It doesn't surprise me you try to politicize this discussion with the Bush analogy. You think/write like a politician. You most definitely are a visionary. Thank you for the forward looking insight. And you speak of me having a prerogative?? What is your real opinion? This team MIGHT take a big step forward next year, while having worse results? I'll go on record and say next year's team makes the NCAA. Period. Regardless of if the other BCS conference schools players eventually are "aged" enough to be good again - which will make next year's bubble be a hard bubble, instead of soft.
-
I don't give a crap about the soft bubble.
Practically nobody would have predicted that MU is in the hunt for an NCAA bid at the beginning of the season. I am ecstatic, but I would have questioned the sanity of anyone who predicted it.
Buzz needs to get a large share of the credit.
Chicos, I am one of your compadres in the political arena, but man....give these thinly veiled shots at Buzz a rest
-
First of all there was never a reference to being lucky, and if there was it must have gotten lost in all of the f'ing bluster that has dominated this thread. Second of all, most people on this board were doubting our chances to make the tournament before the season including almost all the people on Cracked Sidewalks. And its realistic to believe that several factors have gone into our performance this year and our chances to be on the bubble. One of those factors might be that there are a lot of down conferences this year, including the ACC, Pac 10 and Big 10. I don't see why bringing this up somehow belittles Buzz's performance or the how this team is overacheiving, which to be honest they are.
I definitely agree with your assesment that this year's team is overachieving. I felt this statement of Chicos implied luck: "We picked a very good year to have a "rebuilding" year. Timing is everything." Lastly, if this team finishes with 10 or 11 Big East wins, MU making the NCAA has nothing to do with being lucky that other conferences are down this year. Keep in mind if not for a few very unfortunate late game missed free throws, and other teams hitting shots - MU beats WVU, DePaul, and probably Villanova 1 of 2 times...which puts us at 11-3, instead of 8-6. Not that such hypothetical really matters - just pointing out that with a little better luck..MU isn't even part of the Bubble discussion.
-
Win 3 out of 4 and the soft bubble talk is for others to worry about. 20 wins with 11 in-conference usually gets a school from a BCS conference in.
-
Its a random coincidence that right now the teams with the top individual talent are struggling largely because of age.
I'm curious ... how do you know this?
Have you studied the rosters of BCS programs this year and years past to determine that in 2010 they are, by and large, younger? If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
Or are you just taking one or two traditionally good teams - say, UCLA and UNC - and arguing that youth is holding them back?
If so, where was this argument when a bunch of freshman and sophomores led UCLA to back-to-back Final Fours a few years back?
Or when a freshman and sophomore dominated UNC team spent much of the season in the top five in 2006-07?
Or when a Florida team that started four sophomores won the championship in 2006?Why isn't youth killing Kentucky this year?
Just wondering.
-
http://www.tv.com/sports/softest-ncaa-bubble-in-a-decade/topic/73523-1009265/msgs.html
I found empirical proof that 2008 was IN FACT the softest bubble in a decade! I just spoke with my super-friend harpier, and he agreed! He stated, and I quote, "There isn't a season in recent memory with such a sprawling mediocre pack of bubble contenders entering the final week of the regular season." And he was talking about 2008, not 2010!
-
I posted this in another thread but I feel like posting it here since this thread is 'cool':
Chicos just wants to justify why Brent Williams is having an ok year this year. Marquette isn't that good its just that other teams clearly suck(since none of you are smart enough to figure this out). Since everybody else sucks and MU is tournament caliber you then change the topic and bring up this 'Soft Bubble' garbage. Furthermore, if MU doesn't make the tournament he will bring up the 'soft bubble' and talk about how the team underachieved and Williams is clearly over his head.
I also like how he brings up history since history is great guide when your talking about empiricism. Lets talk about the past and some useless statistics and say it means something.
Since your points are stupid you need to bring this up in order to change the topic!
-
okay, important related question to try to illustrate my point. which team would win in a game: this years MU team or the 2007 MU team that lost to Michigan State?
The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds. I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007. The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.
And this will be my last response to the personal attack from Ners - if we want to have it out, we should do it with PMs and not dominate the board. The basketball being played by experienced mid major squads is EXACTLY as good as in the past (there are so many of them, the quality stays relatively constant even though the teams change [George Mason, Richmond, St Marys, Creighton, etc etc] ) However because the quality from the major conferences is down (Pac 10, ACC) the overall quality of the bubble is watered down, resulting in more of those mid major teams getting in than when superior BCS teams would be in the hunt.
-
I want to go back to the days of no bubble, when only conference champions made the tourney. There's nothing worse that 8th or 9th place teams whining about not making the tournament.
-
okay, important related question to try to illustrate my point. which team would win in a game: this years MU team or the 2007 MU team that lost to Michigan State?
The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds. I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007. The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.
You're missing the point.
This years team is better because TC is a dick and Buzz is cool.
Get it through your thick skull.
-
okay, important related question to try to illustrate my point. which team would win in a game: this years MU team or the 2007 MU team that lost to Michigan State?
The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds. I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007. The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.
This team would win. At the very least it would be a coin flip. You have to remember - the team that lost to Michigan State had no McNeal, and that is also why their seed suffered. It wasn't because there was a lack of a "soft bubble" that year.
James, Matthews, Barro, freshman Hayward, freshman Cubillan vs. Senior Hayward, Butler, DJO, senior Acker and senior Cubillan. I'll take my chances with this year's squad. Add McNeal to the equation and my answer is different - as their seed would have been too.
The soft bubble does not exist. It's the second shooter on the grassy knoll!
-
The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds. I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007. The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.
MU got an 8 seed after Jerel went down (speculative, but they may have been a line or two higher if McNeal was healthy). Right now, MU is looking at most likely an 11 seed. If MU goes 3-1 or 4-0 down the stretch they may get their seed that high. However, if this team does finish 11-7 or 12-6 and wins a game in the BET, I would have no qualms about debating which team was better at the end of the year.
Trying to compare the quality of teams across the board, is highly illogical. Comparisons between individual teams or champions are somewhat more reasonable, but trying to extrapolate those comparisons to all 330+ teams in D1 basketball is an effort in futility.
Idaho, with an rpi of 92, made the tournament in 2004. Does that make 2004 the weakest bubble ever? Of course not!!! RPI is a static measure used to indicate how good a team in in comparison to the other teams that year. It is not intended to, and does not, make a valid comparison between teams of different years. Comparative to the rest of basketball that year, Idaho was a bad team to make the tournament. But it does not make them the worst at large to make the tournament simply based off the RPI data.
I don't care if this year the bubble is soft, hard, aroused, flaccid, or crooked; I think Buzz has done an admirable job getting this team into contention to (and likely making) the tourney. Before this season, many posters through that would be a tremendous accomplishment. Bringing talk of college basketball being "down" does not lessen those accomplishments (I'm not saying that is or is not the objective of the posts, I don't know).
-
okay, important related question to try to illustrate my point. which team would win in a game: this years MU team or the 2007 MU team that lost to Michigan State?
The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds. I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007. The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.
And this will be my last response to the personal attack from Ners - if we want to have it out, we should do it with PMs and not dominate the board. The basketball being played by experienced mid major squads is EXACTLY as good as in the past (there are so many of them, the quality stays relatively constant even though the teams change [George Mason, Richmond, St Marys, Creighton, etc etc] ) However because the quality from the major conferences is down (Pac 10, ACC) the overall quality of the bubble is watered down, resulting in more of those mid major teams getting in than when superior BCS teams would be in the hunt.
I don't really get your point about the 2007 team versus this year's squad. This year's team shoots it better, turns it over less, and is probably coached better - by virtue of that, it is likely 2010 team beats 2007 team. But Pakuni summed it up best when he asked of you the below - I know I'd like to hear your rebuttal his analysis.
I'm curious ... how do you know this?
Have you studied the rosters of BCS programs this year and years past to determine that in 2010 they are, by and large, younger? If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
Or are you just taking one or two traditionally good teams - say, UCLA and UNC - and arguing that youth is holding them back?
If so, where was this argument when a bunch of freshman and sophomores led UCLA to back-to-back Final Fours a few years back?
Or when a freshman and sophomore dominated UNC team spent much of the season in the top five in 2006-07?
Or when a Florida team that started four sophomores won the championship in 2006?Why isn't youth killing Kentucky this year?
Just wondering.
-
Good grief gents, I just read the hatorade on this thread, glad I waited until the morning. Some of you guys are hilarious with some of this stuff. There is no swipe at all at Buzz, NONE.
This is a college basketball board about Marquette Marquette is fighting to get into the NCAA tournament. Part of getting into the tournament is looking at our chances to get in. Our chances are improved by a soft bubble. This happens to be one of the softest bubbles in years as confirmed by several sources and I quoted one of the most respected in the industry because I have a relationship with him.
Why is that a bust on Buzz? It's just reality. Doesn't mean he hasn't coached his ass off. Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve great praise. Doesn't mean anything else, but some of you are taking this places I or anyone else never intended it to go. That crazy mind reading crap that some people here have. JESUS H CHRIST.
There are some years when teams get bit by the level of hoops and other years they don't. Last year's Providence team got bit. If that same Providence team was playing this year, they would be in the NCAA tournament, but they got squeezed because of how good the Big East was. This year, MU is benefiting from the soft bubble. Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it an attack on the coach. It's just a statement of fact and some of you go into a wild tizzy. Timing is everything in life. Take advantage of those opportunities I say. We have an opportunity due to the level of hoops this year, let's take advantage of it. How that is a swipe at Buzz Williams is beyond my comprehension.
I don't understand the comment at all that this thread or others suck the life out of things. How? Are we not battling for a NCAA spot because the bubble is soft? Are we going to have an * by our team that said "made the NCAAs during a soft bubble year"? Of course not. Nor was anyone implying that was the case. I'm THRILLED it's a soft bubble because it gives us a chance to get into the tournament and no one a few years from now is going to remember the bubble was soft.
So why are SOME people (the same ones each time) going down this path? Why don't you guys blast CBS, SI, and others that are saying it's a soft bubble? Ask Ken Pom about the bubble....it just is what it is and God forbid someone dare call it what it is. Immediately that's extrapolated as a swipe at Buzz. Are they all "belittling" Buzz Williams. I got news for some of you, not everything posted here is about Buzz Williams as much as some of you want to make it that way. The mind reading BS has got to stop. The black helicopters you're seeing and the tin foil on your heads, let it go. People aren't out to "get Buzz Williams". It's a soft bubble, we're the beneficiary of it....so what. Instead the sirens go off and it becomes a "you're attacking Buzz" circle jerk. GIVE ME A BREAK.
I apologize for bringing some information to this board that I thought was pertinent to our school and our chances of getting into the NCAA tournament. No slight on Buzz at all.
I just hope on selection show Sunday that Jim Nantz doesn't use those dreaded words, "soft bubble", as he clearly will be secretly bashing Buzz Williams and Marquette in the process. (or the 50 plus college basketball articles in the last month plus that say the same thing)
-
I'm curious ... how do you know this?
Have you studied the rosters of BCS programs this year and years past to determine that in 2010 they are, by and large, younger? If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
Or are you just taking one or two traditionally good teams - say, UCLA and UNC - and arguing that youth is holding them back?
If so, where was this argument when a bunch of freshman and sophomores led UCLA to back-to-back Final Fours a few years back?
Or when a freshman and sophomore dominated UNC team spent much of the season in the top five in 2006-07?
Or when a Florida team that started four sophomores won the championship in 2006?Why isn't youth killing Kentucky this year?
Of course young teams can win. My suggestion that youth was to blame in explaining why teams stacked with all americans are losing was merely that - a suggestion. I was just trying to explain an unusual phenomenon. The greater point is that when BCS schools with all americans and 5 star talent are replaced in the tournament by mid majors with 2 or 3 star talent, that says something. There are always a bunch of mid major bubble teams, who are so plentiful that i would surmise the overall level of play of those mid major bubbles are relatively equal. One years Creighton is another years UNI. However there are a very limited amount of UNCs, UCLAs that are loaded with 5 star talent. When those BCS conference schools have down years, and are replaced in great numbers with mid majors, Occam's Razor says it is because the traditional powers are having down years, not because 10 of the 35 cyclical mid majors has once in a lifetime talent. Its not a matter of taking one or two traditional powers, its that two of the BCS conferences are considered to have 2 locks between them. That is a larger trend of a down year for the teams who have recruited the best talent.
-
EAT still blows bubbles in the bathtub.
-
Softest MU player in a decade: Niv Berkowitz
Softest ice cream in a decade: Gilles
Softest Bulletin in a decade: The Flaming Lips' 5th major label album
Softest Parade in a decade: N/A, no entrants since The Doors in 1969
-
Softest MU player in a decade: Niv Berkowitz
Softest ice cream in a decade: Gilles
Softest Bulletin in a decade: The Flaming Lips' 5th major label album
Softest Parade in a decade: N/A, no entrants since The Doors in 1969
Gilles sells custard, not ice cream.
-
I thought frozen custard = soft ice cream?
-
I thought frozen custard = soft ice cream?
Technically, frozen custard is different from ice cream since it uses a custard instead of straight cream. Custards are typically made with eggs and cream. Which in turn makes frozen custard much creamier and much much worse for you.
-
There are some years when teams get bit by the level of hoops and other years they don't. Last year's Providence team got bit. If that same Providence team was playing this year, they would be in the NCAA tournament, but they got squeezed because of how good the Big East was.
I know you're trying to justify your Keno Davis love of 2008, but you can't really mean this, can you?
An objective look at PU's non-conference schedule last year shows why they weren't a tourney team, and it had nothing to do with the Big East. Their problem was going 8-4 against a weak non-conference schedule, including a home loss to Northeastern and by 16 in a neutral site game with NIT-bound Baylor.
Truth of the matter is, their conference record (10-8) would have been good enough to get them into the tourney had they played better against a better nonconference schedule. In fact, the conference's only other 10-8 team, WVU, not only got into the tournament, but got a six seed. If anything, the toughness of the Big East last year improved Providence's chances.
This year, MU is benefiting from the soft bubble. Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it an attack on the coach.
Just curious ... but should MU finish with 20 wins, including 11 in conference, will you still be yakking about a soft bubble? Seems to me those numbers are fairly bubble-proof (notwithstanding the 2006 Orange).
How that is a swipe at Buzz Williams is beyond my comprehension.
I'd like to think you're smarter than this.
You are, at the very least, diminishing this team's success by making it less about them and more a byproduct of everyone else's weakness.
Just wondering, though ... why weren't you talking about soft bubbles and the weakness of college basketball, etc., when you were saying that Buzz should be a candidate for coach of the year if this team competed for a tourney spot, etc..
It seems, to me at least, your positions are shifting. Back then, this team would be lucky to win 10 games and compete for a tourney slot. Now it's a matter of fortunate timing, soft bubbles, etc.
Why the change ... other than what seems to be your need to justify MU's success?
-
I thought frozen custard = soft ice cream?
No ... frozen custard = ice cream for soft people.
-
Chicos, your posts have inspired me to finally reply. I have read your posts for two years now and it is pretty clear that most of your posts have an agenda. You state some passive agressive crap to prove your points and then cry later when others call you on it. An individual post can be explained away, but when you look at all the posts you make it is pretty obvious.
The soft bubble post is ridiculus. MU is currently 7th and possibly moving up in arguebly the most difficult conference in the nation. If they get in the tournament it will be on their own merit not because of a " soft bubble".
-
There are some years when teams get bit by the level of hoops and other years they don't. Last year's Providence team got bit. If that same Providence team was playing this year, they would be in the NCAA tournament, but they got squeezed because of how good the Big East was. This year, MU is benefiting from the soft bubble. Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it an attack on the coach. It's just a statement of fact and some of you go into a wild tizzy. Timing is everything in life. Take advantage of those opportunities I say. We have an opportunity due to the level of hoops this year, let's take advantage of it. How that is a swipe at Buzz Williams is beyond my comprehension.
This is 100% false!!!
If MU finished 10-8 in the Big East this year with an rpi of 79, I would not expect them to get in, regardless of how soft or hard the bubble is.
The reason I think some people are saying this is a soft bubble is pretty simple. A cursory glance of a few of the well-known programs that are doing bad (NC, UCLA, IU, Arizon) and all of a sudden it's a soft bubble? A few less BCS teams might get in this year than last (estimated to be about 4 right now) but it will be a few more than other years. I think writes/analysts need something to talk about and for some reason they are honing in on this "soft bubble" when in reality it is not supported by any objective data.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;quote=185198;topic=18389.75;num_replies=88;sesc=22efc55309b1ecb442a9c6961f401452 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;quote=185198;topic=18389.75;num_replies=88;sesc=22efc55309b1ecb442a9c6961f401452)
-
Idaho, with an rpi of 92, made the tournament in 2004. Does that make 2004 the weakest bubble ever? Of course not!!! RPI is a static measure used to indicate how good a team in in comparison to the other teams that year. It is not intended to, and does not, make a valid comparison between teams of different years. Comparative to the rest of basketball that year, Idaho was a bad team to make the tournament. But it does not make them the worst at large to make the tournament simply based off the RPI data.
Idaho has not made the NCAA tournament this century (nor had Idaho State). Perhaps you were thinking of someone else?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/history?team1Id=6197
-
This is 100% false!!!
If MU finished 10-8 in the Big East this year with an rpi of 79, I would not expect them to get in, regardless of how soft or hard the bubble is.
The reason I think some people are saying this is a soft bubble is pretty simple. A cursory glance of a few of the well-known programs that are doing bad (NC, UCLA, IU, Arizon) and all of a sudden it's a soft bubble? A few less BCS teams might get in this year than last (estimated to be about 4 right now) but it will be a few more than other years. I think writes/analysts need something to talk about and for some reason they are honing in on this "soft bubble" when in reality it is not supported by any objective data.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;quote=185198;topic=18389.75;num_replies=88;sesc=22efc55309b1ecb442a9c6961f401452 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;quote=185198;topic=18389.75;num_replies=88;sesc=22efc55309b1ecb442a9c6961f401452)
Yikes. You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously. Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was. That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament.
I'm not saying a 79RPI last year that doesn't get in gets you in this year. I'm saying that they ran into bad luck that the Big East was so stacked. That same talent gets more wins this year than last. Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.
Timing is EVERYTHING!!
-
Yikes. You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously. Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was. That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament.
You know that how?
Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.
You know that how?
-
Idaho has not made the NCAA tournament this century (nor had Idaho State). Perhaps you were thinking of someone else?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/history?team1Id=6197
Haha, you're right, that was volleyball (who know they kept RPI's for that). However, my point still stands.
-
You know that how?
You know that how?
It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.
I totally have CBB's back on this one.
-
Who did Providence lose from last year to this year?
-
Who did Providence lose from last year to this year?
Efejuku, Hanke, Kale, McDermott and Xavier (and Xavier's brother).
But they gained Jamine Peterson, Bilal Dixon and Vincent Council.
-
Yikes. You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously. Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was. That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament.
I'm not saying a 79RPI last year that doesn't get in gets you in this year. I'm saying that they ran into bad luck that the Big East was so stacked. That same talent gets more wins this year than last. Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.
Timing is EVERYTHING!!
This is all conjecture on your part, yet you state it like it's fact. I believe the top of the BE was better last year, but the lower to bottom of the conference is deeper this year (conjecture on my part, but I'm not stating it as fact). Do you think this year's MU team is better than last year's Providence team, based on the entire body of work? I'm not sure, but again, I'm not going to state my opinion as if it's fact. The fact is that is is darn near impossible to make a comparison year-to-year of the entire body of D1 teams, however, you make a statement and then give no empirical evidence to back up your statement (I don't know if there is any to prove it or not).
I think the problem that a lot of posters have with your statements is that you very rarely seem to post anything without some sort of agenda. If you would have come out and just stated, "I'm not sure if the last 5 or 6 teams are as strong this year as compared to past years and MU may be the beneficiary, but Buzz has done a hell of a job this year and exceeded my wildest expecations!!" it probably would have been received much better. Instead you seem snide, saying that MU is lucky this is a soft bubble year...blah...blah. You seem to be one of those guys that is always up for a debate but never able to admit when you were wrong (NO THE SUN SETS IN THE EAST!!!!). In addtion, the name-dropping is also laughable, just like it was when The Previous did it while gainfully employed for MU.
Of course, you'll prolly read this whole thing and only respond to 1 sentence, because that's your style.
-
You know that how?
You know that how?
The quality of play in the Big East. Last year, 3 number 1 seeds, greatest conference in history. The talent in the Big East and the number of elite Big East teams isn't as strong. It's still a great conference, but not as good as last year as EVERY Big East coach has already said.
It's an opinion, but I believe last year's MU team would win the Big East this year. Last year's Providence team would make the NCAAs this year. This year's MU team would have a much more difficult time making it last year in the loaded Big East. Yes, an opinion, but I'd argue one based on strong evidence.
-
Yikes. You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously. Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was. That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament.
I'm not saying a 79RPI last year that doesn't get in gets you in this year. I'm saying that they ran into bad luck that the Big East was so stacked. That same talent gets more wins this year than last. Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.
Timing is EVERYTHING!!
Is the Big East really that much weaker this year?? WE have the 4,7,8,13,16 teams in the country. And for much of the season UCONN was ranked, meaning we have had approximately 6 teams ranked in the Top 25 this year - pretty much similar to last. Last year the Big East finished the season with 6 teams in the Top 15 per Pomeroy.
-
Emprical data? You're kidding, right? Palm is the publisher of collegerpi.com.
Where's your empirical data that proves that athletes are bigger, stronger, faster and more gifted than those of 2005?
if they are getting bigger, how come we have such short starting guards( Coobi and Acker) and a 6'5" center (hayward) Why are we not getting our fair share of the bigger guys?
-
It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.
I totally have CBB's back on this one.
Complete nonsense...Staying with the Providence example, last year, their W's came against:
SJU, DePaul, @UC, UC, @SHU, Syracuse, @USF, RU, Pitt, @RU
Their losses came against:
@GU, MU, @UConn, Villanova, WVU, @UL, ND, @Villanova.
Now, you tell me how they would have a better record playing against those teams this year. Which of those losses are you gonna turn around? Maybe UConn. Maybe UL. Maybe ND. Any others? Of course if you can turn losses into wins, you also have to be able to turn wins into losses...How about Syracuse? @USF?
Looks to me that they would finish right around 10-8 against this years' Big East. Meaning for anyone to say that they would clearly fare better this year than last, patently stupid. Why? Because there is no way to know. For all we know, they could finish worse off this year.
-
Who did Providence lose from last year to this year?
Basically their starting team. Providence is just one example, that was entirely my point on timing. We could use any number of schools. Some years, pretty good teams don't get to the top because of the competition around them. In other words, a team that is 17-13 one year might be a better team than a 19-11 team the next year because of who that 17-13 team has to play, the level of the competition in the conference, etc, etc. Timing is everything.
Jmayer...it was my opinion that the conference was better last year than this year....an opinion shared by every Big East coach if you look at their comments in the pre-season and during the season. I agree with you that the top of the conference was unbelievable last year, and the bottom of the conference is slightly better this year...but not by much. The reason the bottom of the conference is better this year is because they can grab some wins against the top as they've dropped down some (i.e. DePaul beating Marquette, Rutgers beating G'Town, USF beating G'Town, etc). The top of the league has come back to the pack, which makes the bottom look better.
I guess the question for you and some others is pretty simple. Do you think it was harder to get 10 wins in the Big East last year or this year? For me, I think it was considerably harder last year (which, by the way, Buzz Williams was the coach and did a great job accomplishing that feat....somehow this will be turned into a belittling of Buzz Williams, just watch).
I have no agenda at all Jmayer1. The problem YOU HAVE and some other posters is making anything I say fit your AGENDAS. Cramming every statement I make into some kind of anti-Buzz comment. All I did was state was at least 50 articles have said, it's a soft bubble. And since MU is barely listed into the tournament by every bracket projection, that would mean we are the beneficiary of that soft bubble. Those are just statements that the preponderance of evidence illustrates and you guys, with YOUR bias, immediately label it as anti-Buzz. Did you ever think for a moment that your radar goes up every time certain people say something? Did you guys ever think that every time certain people say something that a filter of "how is he\she trying to attack Buzz Williams" isn't going on in your heads? I think some of you need to ask yourselves those questions and stop playing Cleo, the mind reader.
-
The quality of play in the Big East. Last year, 3 number 1 seeds, greatest conference in history. The talent in the Big East and the number of elite Big East teams isn't as strong. It's still a great conference, but not as good as last year as EVERY Big East coach has already said.
It's an opinion, but I believe last year's MU team would win the Big East this year.
Last year's team was fortunate to squeak past Utah State (although they did have the benefit of a legend ;)) in the tournament, and you think they would have been better than this year's Nova and Syracuse squads?
Doubtful.
As for quality of play, this year's Big East is not as good as last year's Big East, but the drop off has not been as dramatic as you seem to imply. As has been said, last year's best teams were better than this year's best teams, but the bottom-dwellers and middle-of-the-pack teams this year are better.
Rutgers is better, USF is better, Seton Hall is better, Cincy is better.
-
All I did was state was at least 50 articles have said, it's a soft bubble. And since MU is barely listed into the tournament by every bracket projection, that would mean we are the beneficiary of that soft bubble.
Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.
For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."
That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.
-
Is the Big East really that much weaker this year?? WE have the 4,7,8,13,16 teams in the country. And for much of the season UCONN was ranked, meaning we have had approximately 6 teams ranked in the Top 25 this year - pretty much similar to last. Last year the Big East finished the season with 6 teams in the Top 15 per Pomeroy.
You're using a flawed analogy of comparing the rankings this year with the rankings last year. As we all know, the rankings are based on judgment of teams from this year only. This year's #1 doesn't mean you would be #1 last year or any other year.
The Big East is still very good, ranked higher than the Big Ten (which has underachieved this year) but I would not agree with a premise that it's on par with last year. I think 95% of experts (if not 99.9%) would agree. It's good, in fact very good, one of the best in the country again this year, but in comparing the two years in talent levels, etc....not the same.
-
Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.
For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."
That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.
AMEN!!
-
You're using a flawed analogy of comparing the rankings this year with the rankings last year. As we all know, the rankings are based on judgment of teams from this year only. This year's #1 doesn't mean you would be #1 last year or any other year.
Unlike the NCAA tournament of course, where at-large selections are based on previous seasons, and future seasons, thus making the bubble soft or hard. Good lord, you can't even support your own original argument. The bubble cannot be 'soft,' it can only be the bubble.
-
Complete nonsense...Staying with the Providence example, last year, their W's came against:
SJU, DePaul, @UC, UC, @SHU, Syracuse, @USF, RU, Pitt, @RU
Their losses came against:
@GU, MU, @UConn, Villanova, WVU, @UL, ND, @Villanova.
Now, you tell me how they would have a better record playing against those teams this year. Which of those losses are you gonna turn around? Maybe UConn. Maybe UL. Maybe ND. Any others? Of course if you can turn losses into wins, you also have to be able to turn wins into losses...How about Syracuse? @USF?
Looks to me that they would finish right around 10-8 against this years' Big East. Meaning for anyone to say that they would clearly fare better this year than last, patently stupid. Why? Because there is no way to know. For all we know, they could finish worse off this year.
So Providence's losses last year were to a #3 seed on the road, a #1 seed on the road, another #3 seed, a #1 seed on the road, a #3 seed on the road, a #6 seed, a #6 seed and a NIT team. They lost every game to powerhouse Big East teams with the exception of Notre Dame. Compare that to this year where there may be ONE #1 seed...maybe. An 11th seeded team...maybe. A couple of 3 seeds...maybe. Do you see where I'm going with this. They ran into an absolute buzz saw last year in their losses that do not exist this year to the same level. There aren't three number 1 NCAA teams in this league this year, so the road is easier.
-
I think some of you need to ask yourselves those questions and stop playing Cleo, the mind reader.
Nobody needs to play Cleo.
Helen Keller could see where you're coming from here (and with your many other not-so-subtle digs).
What I don't get is why you doth protest so much.
You have your doubts about Buzz. Big deal. Nothing wrong with you holding that opinion. Just own up to it instead of claiming to have his back while constantly throwing darts at it.
-
So Providence's losses last year were to a #3 seed on the road, a #1 seed on the road, another #3 seed, a #1 seed on the road, a #3 seed on the road, a #6 seed, a #6 seed and a NIT team. They lost every game to powerhouse Big East teams with the exception of Notre Dame.
Interesting.
So based upon those results, you declare that Providence team a lock for this year's tourney.
This year, MU's conference losses have been to a projected #2 seed, a projected #2 seed on the road, a projected #1 seed on the road, a projected #4 seed and one non-powerhouse Big East team.
And based on those results, they're just "slightly above average" who may be "lucky" to get in the tournament thanks to a "soft bubble."
So much for consistency.
-
This is funny reading Chicos once again rip Buzz. It's so obvious a monkey could see what he is trying to do.
MU could go to the Final Four this year and we would read about how it's not the same as 2003.
-
So Providence's losses last year were to a #3 seed on the road, a #1 seed on the road, another #3 seed, a #1 seed on the road, a #3 seed on the road, a #6 seed, a #6 seed and a NIT team. They lost every game to powerhouse Big East teams with the exception of Notre Dame. Compare that to this year where there may be ONE #1 seed...maybe. An 11th seeded team...maybe. A couple of 3 seeds...maybe. Do you see where I'm going with this. They ran into an absolute buzz saw last year in their losses that do not exist this year to the same level. There aren't three number 1 NCAA teams in this league this year, so the road is easier.
I'm aware what they did last year, but since you state it as fact, I'm just curious how you can demonstrate that there is no way to find 8 losses on their schedule this year. If you figure it out, let me know.
-
Interesting.
So based upon those results, you declare that Providence team a lock for this year's tourney.
This year, MU's conference losses have been to a projected #2 seed, a projected #2 seed on the road, a projected #1 seed on the road, a projected #4 seed and one non-powerhouse Big East team.
And based on those results, they're just "slightly above average" who may be "lucky" to get in the tournament thanks to a "soft bubble."
So much for consistency.
I guess that pretty much puts this ridiculous thing to bed. Game. Set. Match. Oh, one thing you forgot to mention, Providence had their a$$es whipped in the majority of those games. The average margin in their losses was over 15 points. The combined margin in MU's 6 losses thus far is nearly the same a PC's average at 18 points.
-
MU could go to the Final Four this year and we would read about how it's not the same as 2003.
Well of course we would because this year is going to be a soft tournament field. Duh!
-
Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.
I think one has to compare this same point in late February 2009 to this year.
Last year, the cut line appeared pretty early--in 2009 we had fewer potential NCAA teams, and more clear-cut locks in the Big East.
For example, in 2009, through 14 games there were four Big East teams with 12-2 records (UL, UConn, Pitt and MU). There was a 5th team at 10-4 (Villanova). Those teams were considered locks for the NCAA tournament at the time.
Below those five teams there only five more teams with at least six wins (Syracuse, WVU, Providence, Cincy and ND). Cincy, ND and Providence were considered longshots because of their poor non-conference records. WVU as Syracuse had quality wins over Kansas and Memphis.
The other 6 teams had played themselves out of contention, with .500 the best they could possibly accomplish.
Now compare to 2010:
Just a single team with a 12-2 record (Syracuse).
One more with a 11-3 after 12 games (Villanova).
Two more with 10 wins (Pitt and WVU).
One more at 9-5 after 12 games (UL).
Top 5 2009: Combined 12 losses
Top 5 2010: Combined 18 losses.
This leads to the the perception is that the top of the league is not as strong.
After these four teams, there are EIGHT teams that could play themselves in or out of the tournament by finishing better than .500: (GU, UL, MU, SHU, ND, UConn, USF, and Cincy).
2009: 5 locks, 5 potentials, 6 out of contention
2008: 4 locks, 8 potentials, 4 out of contention
The bubble was firmer last year because there were fewer teams fighting for a limited number of spots.
It is softer this year because there are more teams fighting for the same number (or fewer) spots.
For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."
That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.
No, its not.
Its a reflection that the committee will look at the top three or four teams in the league, see that some of them already have three or four losses (compared to two losses at this point in prior seasons) and come to the conclusion that the league is not as strong.
While the committee doesn't allocate bids by league, they will have to decide if a win over Pitt or WVU this year is as valuable as a win over UConn or VU last year.
Now, I know your argument--"Those middle of the pack teams are stronger--thats why they're beating the top teams."
Are they?
Georgetown lost to ODU
Louisville lost to UNLV, Charlotte, WCU and Kentucky.
MU lost to UW, Florida State & NC State.
UConn lost to Kentuky, Duke and Michigan
Seton Hall lost to Temple & Virginia Tech
CIncy lost to Gonzaga, Xavier and UAB
ND lost to Northwester and LMU
USF lost to South Carolina & Central Michiagn
Doesn't paint the picture that we have a lot of teams that have improved to near-elite level teams, does it?
In fact, the committee will look at Pitt's loss to IU and devalue 4th place in the Big East accordingly.
They'll look at Syracuse's non-conference record, and look for another NCAA tournament team in their non-conference body of work.
They'll look at Villanova, see the loss to Temple, and wonder if the Big East is that much better than the A10.
-
Now, I know your argument--"Those middle of the pack teams are stronger--thats why they're beating the top teams."
Now. I'm not sure who you're talking to, but you don't know squat.
-
Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.
For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."
That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.
They have to fill the spots so I don't understand your comments.
Of course the bubble can be softer one year vs another. There's been plenty of expert discussion on this over the years. That's how the term "soft bubble" came about in the first place. The bubble is different each year. In some cases it's a soft bubble and other years it's not. This year is a very soft bubble....look, I'm not on some island saying this. There are people that are college basketball experts that are saying this.
Pakuni, I gave you actual seeds from last year not projected seeds in the third week of February for this year....big difference. Again, I'm not on an island here, some people that know much more about it than anyone on this board are saying the same thing. Go figure.
-
Again, I'm not on an island here, some people that know much more about it than anyone on this board are saying the same thing. Go figure.
Great, and those same people had MU pegged as 12th in the Big East, prior to the losses of JC, Maymon, and Otule. But since they are "experts", I guess what we have to take their word as bible. I can't imagine any writers putting pen to paper and writing a story about how soft the bubble is just because they'vw heard other "experts" discuss this and they need something to submit!!
Plain and simple: there is it is very hard support the theory that the bubble is soft or hard this year. It is the bubble, more or less it's the same as every year. Some of you have tried to show some data in regards to wins and losses and seedings but that makes no sense logically. At the end of the day, the combined records of all teams are .500 and the same seeds are given every year. For all the "data" that says the top of the big east was stronger last year, there also has to be correlating "data" that shows either the middle of the Big East is stronger or another conference is stronger. It's really simple math.
A much better argument, I believe, would be to compare teams from year to year, which people have done with Providence last year and MU this year. Providence lost to some very good teams, but they also got blown out in most of those games. MU has lost to some very good teams this year, but has yet to get blown out. Of course, in two and half weeks, hopefully MU won't be on the bubble at all, so this discussion will really be pointless ;D
-
A much better argument, I believe, would be to compare teams from year to year, which people have done with Providence last year and MU this year. Providence lost to some very good teams, but they also got blown out in most of those games. MU has lost to some very good teams this year, but has yet to get blown out. Of course, in two and half weeks, hopefully MU won't be on the bubble at all, so this discussion will really be pointless ;D
You're right that the whole exercise is pointless.
To really compare teams however, you'd have to imagine them going in a time machine and swapping schedules.
Providence getting blown out by a Big East team last year doesn't mean they would get blown out this year. Inversely, MU has played a lot of teams tough. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't get crushed by (insert team from Providence schedule here).
Make sense?
Comparing what Providence did against last year's Big East to what MU has done against this year's Big East really doesn't prove anything.
-
Great, and those same people had MU pegged as 12th in the Big East, prior to the losses of JC, Maymon, and Otule. But since they are "experts", I guess what we have to take their word as bible. I can't imagine any writers putting pen to paper and writing a story about how soft the bubble is just because they'vw heard other "experts" discuss this and they need something to submit!!
Well, no, that's entirely inaccurate.
The Big East Coaches picked Marquette 12th in the pre-season, not the bracket experts like Lunardi, Palm, Pomeroy, etc.
Just saying
http://www.bigeast.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=19400&ATCLID=204816815
The "experts" that do this for a living on projecting brackets don't agree with you and please don't lump them in with the coaches pre-season poll which they had nothing to do with.
-
The other board is actually more enjoyable to read than this board now.... I used to think they filtered too much, but now this board could use a little "filtering".
-
Nobody needs to play Cleo.
Helen Keller could see where you're coming from here (and with your many other not-so-subtle digs).
What I don't get is why you doth protest so much.
You have your doubts about Buzz. Big deal. Nothing wrong with you holding that opinion. Just own up to it instead of claiming to have his back while constantly throwing darts at it.
You're just plain wrong. This thread is about the bubble, doesn't have anything to do with Buzz...you guys went there, not me. As is almost always the case.
-
Well, no, that's entirely inaccurate.
The Big East Coaches picked Marquette 12th in the pre-season, not the bracket experts like Lunardi, Palm, Pomeroy, etc.
Just saying
http://www.bigeast.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=19400&ATCLID=204816815
The "experts" that do this for a living on projecting brackets don't agree with you and please don't lump them in with the coaches pre-season poll which they had nothing to do with.
MU not one of top 10 Big East teams in Palm's preseason bracket.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12492320/projecting-the-field-preseason-edition/rss (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12492320/projecting-the-field-preseason-edition/rss)
Lunardi pegs MU as # 9 in Big East
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4265973 (http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4265973)
I don't think Pomeroy, who actually doesn't predict the bracket btw, does a preseason prediction (I couldn't find one) since his site is almost entirely derived on stats and uses predictive analysis based on previous results.
I'm sure I could find a ton more preseason predictions, done by people other than the coaches, that had MU pegged pretty low. So, the "experts" were wrong on MU's finish in the Big East (prior to losing 3 expected contributors) but now that one guy (Palm) has said this year is a soft bubble (maybe there's been more, I don't know, feel free to post other articles to support your claim), I'm supposed to just agree with them and take their word as stone? He may be right, he may be wrong. I don't know, but it is definitely not an open and shut case like you have tried to state. That's why it's an opinion, and not a fact, as you continually insinuate. But, now I'm tired of debating this topic. You have your opinion and I have mine, agree to disagree.
-
You're just plain wrong. This thread is about the bubble, doesn't have anything to do with Buzz...you guys went there, not me. As is almost always the case.
That's because you don't have the courage to admit that it was a shot at Buzz. Your anti Buzz stuff alwyas comes in through the side door.
Abe never admitted he was a Badger fan either.
-
MU not one of top 10 Big East teams in Palm's preseason bracket.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12492320/projecting-the-field-preseason-edition/rss (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12492320/projecting-the-field-preseason-edition/rss)
Lunardi pegs MU as # 9 in Big East
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4265973 (http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4265973)
I don't think Pomeroy, who actually doesn't predict the bracket btw, does a preseason prediction (I couldn't find one) since his site is almost entirely derived on stats and uses predictive analysis based on previous results.
I'm sure I could find a ton more preseason predictions, done by people other than the coaches, that had MU pegged pretty low. So, the "experts" were wrong on MU's finish in the Big East (prior to losing 3 expected contributors) but now that one guy (Palm) has said this year is a soft bubble (maybe there's been more, I don't know, feel free to post other articles to support your claim), I'm supposed to just agree with them and take their word as stone? He may be right, he may be wrong. I don't know, but it is definitely not an open and shut case like you have tried to state. That's why it's an opinion, and not a fact, as you continually insinuate. But, now I'm tired of debating this topic. You have your opinion and I have mine, agree to disagree.
It's a lot different to pick what 64 teams out of 347 are going to the NCAA tournament in October to pick a bracket (Lunardi and Palm) vs judging what 16 teams are going to do in the same conference (Big East preseason poll). Apples and oranges in my opinion.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's one of the softest bubbles in years as so Pomeroy, Lunardi and Palm, among others.
-
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's one of the softest bubbles in years as so Pomeroy, Lunardi and Palm, among others.
Other than your recitation of your chat with Palm, could you provide some evidence/linkage to support this?
Where/when have Lunardi and Pomeroy, for example, said anything about a soft bubble?
-
WHAT THE HELL IS A SOFT BUBBLE?!?!?!
And, for that matter, what would a "hard" bubble be?
This is idiotic.
-
That's because you don't have the courage to admit that it was a shot at Buzz. Your anti Buzz stuff alwyas comes in through the side door.
Abe never admitted he was a Badger fan either.
Good grief, stop.
It's like Pakuni said the other day. If I deny it, then "you doth protest too much". If I don't say anything, then I get the "see, he's not even denying it".
I hate this mind reading BS, and that's exactly what it is BS. There are enough people on here that I keep in touch with privately (where you would think my "real feelings would be known") and they can vouch for me that I am not anti-Buzz at all. But you guys continue to believe what you want and read into anything and everything, it's become sport now.
-
Pakuni, I gave you actual seeds from last year not projected seeds in the third week of February for this year....big difference.
So, using projected seeds less than a month before the tourney as a measure of various teams' quality is way off base ... but it's reasonable to state with certainty what a past team would do if it were magically transported into the present time? Or give a game-by-game recitation of how a team would perform under a different coach?
Hmmm.
-
WHAT THE HELL IS A SOFT BUBBLE?!?!?!
And, for that matter, what would a "hard" bubble be?
This is idiotic.
A soft bubble, as defined by the bracketology folks, is a group of teams that in other years would not make the NCAA tournament. In other words, there won't be any "snubs" this year. There aren't a slew of teams that are in the running that will prevent others from getting in. There aren't a ton of "locks" is another way to put it and that's mostly because the ACC, Pac Ten are down. The Big Ten didn't live up to expectations, etc, etc.
In years where there are teams that get left out because there are just too many good teams to choose from.
You may remember the head of the committee a few years ago, the George Mason AD, who did not like the term "soft bubble" that the talking heads were using. The term has been around for awhile.
That's where the reference comes from.
Some examples below from this year and years past describing the soft bubble
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bubblewatch?id=21
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/41278672.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/348848-ncaa-tournament-bracket-prediction-and-the-stealth-bubble-team
http://www.sbnation.com/2010/2/22/1322027/ncaa-bubble-watch-monday-02-22-uconn-west-virginia
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/bubble-news-big-10-game-year
Etc, etc
-
Other than your recitation of your chat with Palm, could you provide some evidence/linkage to support this?
Where/when have Lunardi and Pomeroy, for example, said anything about a soft bubble?
Lunardi has said it on multiple shows on ESPN. Maybe it's on YouTube.
Back in January he said on ESPN Insider that "we can agree the bubble is rather soft"...link below
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4856247&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb%2finsider%2fnews%2fstory%3fid%3d4856247
Since then, on camera, as more and more bubble teams continue to lose, he's made statements that the bubble is extremely soft and things like (I'm paraphrasing) 'who wants to go to the NCAA tournament, very few teams are stepping up'
In 2008 he made similar comments in January but then reversed himself when teams started to step up and play their way in. He has not said that this year as bubble teams keep losing and losing (we are one of the few exceptions) Link below
http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_basketball/articles/2008/03/14/sunday_will_be_a_field_day/
Etc, etc. Plenty from Andy Glockner, from ESPN, on this as well.
-
So, using projected seeds less than a month before the tourney as a measure of various teams' quality is way off base ... but it's reasonable to state with certainty what a past team would do if it were magically transported into the present time? Or give a game-by-game recitation of how a team would perform under a different coach?
Hmmm.
Do you think last year's MU team was better than this year's MU team (both were coached by Buzz, by the way, and both coached very well). I'm just asking.
Do you think last year's Providence team was better than this year's?
In both cases, do you think either or both of those two teams would do BETTER in this year's version of the Big East or not? That's the question. I've given you my answer. PC would be better than 10-8 that they got last year with this year's Big East. MU would likely win this year's Big East with last year's MU team.
That's my opinion, you're free to disagree.
-
A soft bubble, as defined by the bracketology folks, is a group of teams that in other years would not make the NCAA tournament. In other words, there won't be any "snubs" this year. There aren't a slew of teams that are in the running that will prevent others from getting in. There aren't a ton of "locks" is another way to put it and that's mostly because the ACC, Pac Ten are down. The Big Ten didn't live up to expectations, etc, etc.
And yet you're in favor of expansion? Can't wait to see all those undeserving teams in the tournament.
-
Just wondering if Jerry Palm ever picked up a friggin basketball. I understand that the RPI is used (unfortunately) as a tool to assess the strength of teams, but I always thought the way to become an expert at something was to actually do it, watch it, teach it or something actually related to the thing you're trying to become an expert at. What we have now is a bunch of computer geeks dumping endless amounts of data into computers that than supposedly tell us who the best teams are. I've got an idea; how about watching the teams play? How about putting basketball people on the selection committee? Jerry Palm has done a great job of marketing himself and the RPI and making money for himself, and while I support his right to do so, I find it laughable that the RPI or any of these mathematical models is relied so heavily on to rate teams. I understand, it must be so because "the computer says"....... What a joke.
-
And yet you're in favor of expansion? Can't wait to see all those undeserving teams in the tournament.
I am in favor of it because I think mid-majors mostly get hosed. Is a 13-3 mid-major worse than a 8-8 high major team? I'd like to see it on the court, but all too often that 13-3 club is left out.
Utah State, last year, had 30 wins and if they didn't win their tournament there was a lot of talk about them not getting into the NCAAs. I think that's criminal. As they showed us by losing by 1 point to us, they belonged on the court. Many other teams fit that mold.
-
I am in favor of it because I think mid-majors mostly get hosed. Is a 13-3 mid-major worse than a 8-8 high major team? I'd like to see it on the court, but all too often that 13-3 club is left out.
Utah State, last year, had 30 wins and if they didn't win their tournament there was a lot of talk about them not getting into the NCAAs. I think that's criminal. As they showed us by losing by 1 point to us, they belonged on the court. Many other teams fit that mold.
That doesn't get solved by expansion. Expansion simply results in "hosing" of worse teams. I agree that Utah State deserved a berth last year, but the fact that they wouldn't have made it without winning their conference tournament reflects a needed change in the selection process, not the size of the pool.
EDIT: Spelling
-
WHAT THE HELL IS A SOFT BUBBLE?!?!?!
And, for that matter, what would a "hard" bubble be?
This is idiotic.
Thanks for saying what I was thinking...
-
This whole soft bubble debate comes down to one thing, that hopefully isn't going away in College Hoop or the NFL: Parity. There is so little that seperates teams in the BCS conferences - games are generally usually very competitive, and close. What that leads to is a lot of PERCEIVED mediocrity - see the Big East this year. Is Cincinnati (the 10th place Big East team) really that bad - if it can beat Maryland and Vandy (2nd place teams in ACC and SEC)? Yet Cincy isn't even on the "soft bubble." Then you have the Atlantic 10 that may get 6 teams in, yet MU (likely 6th place finisher in Big East beats Xavier tied for 1st in A-10)
Point being, there are a lot of good teams in BCS leagues, that fall victim to getting beat up within their own league, to ultimately give them a marginal record and RPI. This is why the system is fair for Mid-Majors, they get plenty of opportunity to get tourney bids, just based on the BCS schools beating up on each other and marginalizing their RPI's.
-
heres another example:
If the last place team in every conference wins its conference tournament, the bubble becomes a "harder" or "tougher" bubble. Because all of a sudden, a few top of the heap at large teams would get in.
If you can agree that such a scenario would impact the quality of team let in as at large bids, I fail to see how you can argue that there are not soft or hard bubbles.
Normally, the Pac 10 would send 3 at large locks, because the teams would be good enough to deserve them. But, since they arent, that opens up bids for lesser conferences and lesser teams. = soft bubble
-
I understand that the RPI is used (unfortunately) as a tool to assess the strength of teams, but I always thought the way to become an expert at something was to actually do it, watch it, teach it or something actually related to the thing you're trying to become an expert at. What we have now is a bunch of computer geeks dumping endless amounts of data into computers that than supposedly tell us who the best teams are.
John Clayton and Billy Beane would beg to differ.
-
heres another example:
If the last place team in every conference wins its conference tournament, the bubble becomes a "harder" or "tougher" bubble. Because all of a sudden, a few top of the heap at large teams would get in.
If you can agree that such a scenario would impact the quality of team let in as at large bids, I fail to see how you can argue that there are not soft or hard bubbles.
Normally, the Pac 10 would send 3 at large locks, because the teams would be good enough to deserve them. But, since they arent, that opens up bids for lesser conferences and lesser teams. = soft bubble
Agree with your analysis above, other than the red portion. I don't think that if a BCS league is weak one year, that those bids automatically go to lesser teams in lesser conferences - they very likely can get distributed within other BCS conferences - maybe this year the Big East ends up getting 8 teams as a result of the Pac 10 being down.
-
Just wondering if Jerry Palm ever picked up a friggin basketball. I understand that the RPI is used (unfortunately) as a tool to assess the strength of teams, but I always thought the way to become an expert at something was to actually do it, watch it, teach it or something actually related to the thing you're trying to become an expert at. What we have now is a bunch of computer geeks dumping endless amounts of data into computers that than supposedly tell us who the best teams are. I've got an idea; how about watching the teams play? How about putting basketball people on the selection committee? Jerry Palm has done a great job of marketing himself and the RPI and making money for himself, and while I support his right to do so, I find it laughable that the RPI or any of these mathematical models is relied so heavily on to rate teams. I understand, it must be so because "the computer says"....... What a joke.
He didn't develop the RPI, he just mimics it. Whether he has ever picked up a basketball I don't think matters. Our last few Marquette head coaches never played college basketball, but did ok.
The reason why these models are used is simple....how on earth can 8 people, that have day jobs, track 28 games X 347 teams over 4 months? That's almost 10,000 games. The other reason is that the computers never forget. In other words, the computer retains what happened in November and December, where most human beings can only remember what happened recently and don't have the ability to understand what you did against opponent X and what opponent X then did against everyone else. It's asking too much.
That's why they are used, as an aid. Quite frankly, I'd rather have the impartiality of the computers involved then the committee members pulling all the political stuff that used to be pulled in the past. The RPI and these other formulas give the media and fans another gauge which can serve as a check and balance against the committee. It's especially good for the mid majors in that regard because it allows them to be noticed when normally they can't get noticed.
-
Agree with your analysis above, other than the red portion. I don't think that if a BCS league is weak one year, that those bids automatically go to lesser teams in lesser conferences - they very likely can get distributed within other BCS conferences - maybe this year the Big East ends up getting 8 teams as a result of the Pac 10 being down.
Disagree, at least as it extends to the red remarks.. If we believe the teams that go to the NIT are the next best teams, the last few years more of those bids have been from non-BCS leagues. This, despite the NIT needing a larger gate (i.e. bigger school and alums to go to the games). If you eliminated the gate part of the NIT, even more non-BCS teams would get invited.
-
This whole soft bubble debate comes down to one thing, that hopefully isn't going away in College Hoop or the NFL: Parity. There is so little that seperates teams in the BCS conferences - games are generally usually very competitive, and close. What that leads to is a lot of PERCEIVED mediocrity - see the Big East this year.
Point being, there are a lot of good teams in BCS leagues, that fall victim to getting beat up within their own league, to ultimately give them a marginal record and RPI. This is why the system is fair for Mid-Majors, they get plenty of opportunity to get tourney bids, just based on the BCS schools beating up on each other and marginalizing their RPI's.
Ding. Ding. Ding. This soft bubble talk is a joke and it has nothing to do with the fact that Chicos brought it up. Its been talked about on ESPN and online ever since there was talk that the tourny should expand. The difference between this year and last is mainly due to the fact that there are not as many dominant teams this year. That leads to more teams being on the bubble because you can't differentiate between them and since it is too hard to differentiate between them (too many factors too look at: RPI, SOS, good losses, bad losses, good conferences, bad conferences, who's hot, who's not, road wins, etc.)then the logical conclusion for some is that they should not be included in the tourny because they don't stand out. IMO, its a stupid discussion point by the so called experts. As far as Chicos getting ripped on this thread, I don't think he started this post to rip on Buzz. The ripping stems from the perception of Chico's past posts that tended to slant in a negative manner towards MU and Buzz compared to his prior posts when TC was around where he defended TC 100%. Right or wrong, too many are reading too much into his post.
-
Ding. Ding. Ding. This soft bubble talk is a joke and it has nothing to do with the fact that Chicos brought it up. Its been talked about on ESPN and online ever since there was talk that the tourny should expand. The difference between this year and last is mainly due to the fact that there are not as many dominant teams this year. That leads to more teams being on the bubble because you can't differentiate between them and since it is too hard to differentiate between them (too many factors too look at: RPI, SOS, good losses, bad losses, good conferences, bad conferences, who's hot, who's not, road wins, etc.)then the logical conclusion for some is that they should not be included in the tourny because they don't stand out. IMO, its a stupid discussion point by the so called experts. As far as Chicos getting ripped on this thread, I don't think he started this post to rip on Buzz. The ripping stems from the perception of Chico's past posts that tended to slant in a negative manner towards MU and Buzz compared to his prior posts when TC was around where he defended TC 100%. Right or wrong, too many are reading too much into his post.
Thanks...I think. For the record, I never defended TC 100% of the time. Never should have scheduled UWM. His out of bound plays were awful, couldn't get solid bigs, etc, etc. I just love that we went to a place we haven't been in decades.
-
He didn't develop the RPI, he just mimics it. Whether he has ever picked up a basketball I don't think matters. Our last few Marquette head coaches never played college basketball, but did ok.
The reason why these models are used is simple....how on earth can 8 people, that have day jobs, track 28 games X 347 teams over 4 months? That's almost 10,000 games. The other reason is that the computers never forget. In other words, the computer retains what happened in November and December, where most human beings can only remember what happened recently and don't have the ability to understand what you did against opponent X and what opponent X then did against everyone else. It's asking too much.
That's why they are used, as an aid. Quite frankly, I'd rather have the impartiality of the computers involved then the committee members pulling all the political stuff that used to be pulled in the past. The RPI and these other formulas give the media and fans another gauge which can serve as a check and balance against the committee. It's especially good for the mid majors in that regard because it allows them to be noticed when normally they can't get noticed.
You point out exactly why the system is flawed. With the hundreds of millions of dollars involved, why can't the selection committee be made up of basketball people who actually watch games throughout the season. It's really not that difficult, if you know basketball, to watch a team and determine whether they are good or not. Certainly numerical data could be used to help in the final selection, but I'd rather have knowledgeable basketball people determine my fate than I would guys who have never played the game and their computers do it.
-
MU83 - did you just quote chicos post and then reply verbatim, or do I have reading comprehension issues ???
Heh - no prob, I just thought I was slow and missing some subtle point in there :D
-
My fault, having a tough start this morning. I think it's fixed.
-
Mile Kelley just said during the Cincy/WVU game that he agrees with Jay Bilas that it's a weak bubble.
Cincy is having a nice first half. If they pull it off, we'd have a chance to to tie the Mountaineers in the standings with a win tomorrow. If we win the next three, I think we'd be a lock for a top 4 finish and a double bye.
-
Mile Kelley just said during the Cincy/WVU game that he agrees with Jay Bilas that it's a weak bubble.
Kelly making a subtle dig at Buzz?