MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: drewm88 on April 05, 2011, 01:16:10 PM
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=6296385
St. John's, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Xavier and Georgetown fell out of the poll, while Florida State, Marquette and Richmond -- all of whom pulled off upsets in the tournament -- ascended into the final Top 25 of the season.
-
#23
-
#23
?
#20: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/usatpoll.htm
-
I wonder who gave Ohio State a vote for #1?
-
I wonder who gave Ohio State a vote for #1?
Someone who saw them play George Mason.
-
I wonder who gave Ohio State a vote for #1?
Someone who knew they were the best team in the country but came up 1 point short in a tournament game.
-
Someone who knew they were the best team in the country but came up 1 point short in a tournament game.
Agreed. Just because VCU made a deep run does not put them in the top 10 IMO
-
I wonder who gave Ohio State a vote for #1?
Someone who doesn't like Kansas for numero uno.
I don't see how anyone could vote for Ohio State for number one after that "bad loss" they had at Wisconsin. ;D
-
Someone who knew they were the best team in the country but came up 1 point short in a tournament game.
Who did Ohio State beat outside of Columbus to make you or anyone else think they're the "best team"? UCONN beat Texas, Arizona, Kentucky (twice), Butler, San Diego St, Cincinnati, Pitt, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville and Marquette (among others) away from Storrs. They proved beyond any reasonable doubt on hostile and neutral courts (where the best teams prove themselves) that they're the best.
-
UCONN at #1, totally legit.
Butler at #2, cannot agree with that.
-
MarqPTM....this is long overdue...
Outstanding unfrozen caveman lawyer photoshop there.
-
I get that this is an unimportant poll. It's obviously just a ceremonial list after the tournament and nobody should read into the order. That being said.....
I don't understand how VCU could possibly be ranked higher than Duke. And if the answer is "they went farther in the tournament," which also explains Butler at #2, then why is Syracuse ahead of both Florida State and Marquette? The order of this poll is truly bizarre.
-
I get that this is an unimportant poll. It's obviously just a ceremonial list after the tournament and nobody should read into the order. That being said.....
I don't understand how VCU could possibly be ranked higher than Duke. And if the answer is "they went farther in the tournament," which also explains Butler at #2, then why is Syracuse ahead of both Florida State and Marquette? The order of this poll is truly bizarre.
It's most likely people voting with emotion rather than rational thought since the poll really doesn't matter
-
MarqPTM....this is long overdue...
Outstanding unfrozen caveman lawyer photoshop there.
That's all MS Paint there, but thank you.
-
Who did Ohio State beat outside of Columbus to make you or anyone else think they're the "best team"? UCONN beat Texas, Arizona, Kentucky (twice), Butler, San Diego St, Cincinnati, Pitt, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville and Marquette (among others) away from Storrs. They proved beyond any reasonable doubt on hostile and neutral courts (where the best teams prove themselves) that they're the best.
Agreed they can't be in front of UConn, but OSU did go into Florida and Florida State and win, so I believe they are legit and can't fault a 1st place vote from someone. Not bad finishing in the Top 20 with a Sweet 16 on teh resume.
-
Because I'm bored, here's my thoughts on the top 25...
1. Connecticut: Absolutely, 11 straight to end the season, 17-0 against non-Big East schools, anyone else is simply a stupid vote
2. Butler: No way, no how. Top ten? Sure. But they are not the #2 team in the country. The tourney played perfectly in their favor, in a different region, they never make the Sweet 16.
3. Kentucky: I think they earned this, let's not forget they also won the SEC tourney before their Final Four run.
4. Kansas: Really? Ahead of tOSU? Not far out of line, but I'd have tOSU higher, their loss came to a notably better team.
5. Ohio State: Maybe a spot too low, but they don't deserve a 1st place vote. UConn had 5 wins against top 10 opponents on road/neutral courts. tOSU had 0.
6. VCU: Please. Just please. Top 15 at best.
7. Duke: Fine.
8. North Carolina: Fine.
9. Arizona: Maybe a little high, but I can see that.
10. Florida: How does Arizona leap them, is a loss to "#2" that much worse than a loss to #1?
11. San Diego State: Probably about right, though they didn't deserve to fall this far. Makes up for them being over-ranked most of the year, I guess.
12. Pittsburgh: Ludicrous. If Butler is #2, Pitt shouldn't fall from 4 to 12, behind VCU, UNC, Arizona, and Florida. They should be 7 at worst.
13. BYU: With Duke, San Diego State, and Pitt falling as far as they did, it's a wonder why Team Jimmer only fell one place.
14. Notre Dame: A far fall, but I won't complain, mainly because I don't like Notre Dame.
15. Wisconsin: Hmm...Pitt loses to Butler and drops 8 spots, Wisconsin loses to Butler and climbs 1. Completely nonsensical.
16. Texas: Fine.
17. Purdue: Fine.
18. Syracuse: Actually fine with this. It seems about right. Maybe not considering all the other bizarre shakeups in the poll, but in a logical world, this seems right.
19. Florida State: Fine.
20. Marquette: Really? I mean, I'm glad, but really? We get no props all year, then our 15 loss season gets us into the final poll? And with the fewest number of wins of any team in the poll? I think this reflects the potential of this team, but I'm not sure the results really support the ranking.
21. Richmond: Is it simply obligatory that the entire Sweet 16 be ranked? Richmond goes from 0 votes on March 7 to 21st in the country despite not beating a single team in the final poll? Color me confused.
22. Louisville: I think they dropped a bit too far, but that's what losing to a 13-seed gets you. Like ND, I don't like Louisville much, so I don't mind them getting a bit screwed.
23. Washington: No movement, probably fair, though I think they should be higher. But strictly based on polls, this is fine.
24. Kansas State: Like Washington, probably right, but how does the #24 team stay there when Georgetown fell out of the poll and lost to a significantly better opponent (according to the poll)? Makes no sense.
25. Utah State: Fine.
-
I agree with you at the top.
1. UConn
2. Kentucky (barely lost to UConn)
3. Ohio State (barely lost to Kentucky)
Even if you are going to go overboard in putting Butler ahead of everyone they beat in this run, they did NOT beat any of these 3 and as badly as UConn intimidated them last night I don't see how they had a chance against any of these teams or UNC for that matter.
You can strain to put Butler at 4th in a best-case.
While #6 is obviously way higher than VCU is really, the fact that they destroyed teams in the tourney from 5 of the 6 BCS conferences does justify quite a leap with this much focus on the tournament.
Completely agree with Marquette though. Showed all year we were on par with ranked teams, and just had to show we could pull off a couple of the tough wins. With four of our final 10 games being wins on nuetral courts against West Virginia, Xavier, Syracuse and AT the national champion UConn Huskies, I believe 20th was very appropriate.
-
I think it would be funny someday if a school ends up ranked #1 in the final polls and did not win the title. ;D ;D
For Wisconsin having the "great season" and Marquette "should be in the NIT" UW ended #15 and MU #20. So I say eat crap, MU haters!! :P :h
-
Brew....excellent post. You nailed most of them in my opinion. Butler as #2...give me a break. I bash on coaches and writers polls for preseason all the time and for good reason. I'm going to have to add the end of year polls, too, with this debacle.
For them to put Butler #2 absolutely defies any sort of logic whatsoever, yet they then apply a different logic to put VCU as #6. If they justify Butler #2, then VCU by their own stupid logic should be #4. Of course 99% of us know that Butler at #2 is plain dumb, VCU at #6 screams stupidity, and on and on. I agree with you on MU as well, but I'll take it for recruiting reasons.
All I need to know about how the coaches vote in these polls is what I saw and heard during the Deane administration. They used to tell some great stories about how some of their colleagues took the "seriousness" of voting in this thing .....it's a farce and they knew it as did their colleagues. The stories over the years with Majerus, and others and how they would have secretaries vote, student managers, etc, only solidifies it. This poll today puts the cherry on top.
-
Best postseason poll since we were also ranked 20 at the end of 2006-2007. Finished 21 in 2007-2008.
Finished 6 in the Final Four year.
I'll take it.
-
MU finished 21 in 2009 as well after the Mizzou loss and DJ injury.
I am surprised we finished #20 in 2007. That was the year we beat Duke's worst team in years during Thanksgiving and everyone overhyped the team. Then we got spanked by MSU with that cold streak to open the game. A first round exit after a mediocre year.
-
as well we should. we were a top 25 team. no doubt.
-
I wonder who gave Ohio State a vote for #1?
It was Mike Adras the head coach at Northern Arizona. His reasoning: "I voted for who I thought was the best team in the country based on the entire body of work during the season. I believe it is Ohio State. I want to congratulate Connecticut for winning the NCAA tournament."
I find it to be both logical and completely stupid at the same time.
-
as well we should. we were a top 25 team. no doubt.
Ahh, there is certainly some doubt there. The logic on how they are ranking these teams is questionable, based on the runs in the tourney. The only other reason would be that we played to most ranked teams in the country all year.
Hope we are, but I would rather see them make a reasonable poll without Butler and VCU in the top 6.
-
I believe this makes 7 straight years that MU has been ranked at least one week. And, in this case the one week was the last week of the year!
Can anyone confirm that we have been ranked at least 7 straight years.
-
Never last year. Close, but never..
-
It was Mike Adras the head coach at Northern Arizona. His reasoning: "I voted for who I thought was the best team in the country based on the entire body of work during the season. I believe it is Ohio State. I want to congratulate Connecticut for winning the NCAA tournament."
I find it to be both logical and completely stupid at the same time.
Why? Isn't the purpose of the poll to vote who one thinks is the best team in the land?
Ken Pom finished with Ohio State #1 http://www.kenpom.com/
Sagarin finished with Ohio State #1 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1011.htm
RPI finished with Ohio State #2 http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings/rpi/index1
The FINAL AP poll (prior to the tournament) had Ohio State #1.
You know what I find illogical....a team that did not receive a SINGLE VOTE by ANY COACH ( http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2011/week/18/seasontype/2 ) like VCU in the last poll by the coaches until the tournament is over now decides that what you do in 5 games is the judge of not only how good you are, but a good enough judgment to say you're better than every team in the nation except for 5 teams. That is not only illogical, but a complete joke.
-
You know what I find illogical....a team that did not receive a SINGLE VOTE by ANY COACH ( http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2011/week/18/seasontype/2 ) like VCU in the last poll by the coaches until the tournament is over now decides that what you do in 5 games is the judge of not only how good you are, but a good enough judgment to say you're better than every team in the nation except for 5 teams. That is not only illogical, but a complete joke.
Not that I disagree, but VCU was judged based on an additional 6 games, not 5. They had the benefit of the play-in win over USC. But as I noted earlier, I agree completely with you. VCU should be ranked (though they shouldn't have been in the tourney in the first place) but they certainly don't deserve to be ranked 6th, and at best should be around 15.
-
Why? Isn't the purpose of the poll to vote who one thinks is the best team in the land?
Ken Pom finished with Ohio State #1 http://www.kenpom.com/
Sagarin finished with Ohio State #1 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1011.htm
RPI finished with Ohio State #2 http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings/rpi/index1
The FINAL AP poll (prior to the tournament) had Ohio State #1.
You know what I find illogical....a team that did not receive a SINGLE VOTE by ANY COACH ( http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2011/week/18/seasontype/2 ) like VCU in the last poll by the coaches until the tournament is over now decides that what you do in 5 games is the judge of not only how good you are, but a good enough judgment to say you're better than every team in the nation except for 5 teams. That is not only illogical, but a complete joke.
I actually agree with you to a point, but following that same logic we should no longer name UCONN the "National Champ" and instead simply call them the "NCAA tournament champ" and then still vote to determine the best team in the land as the national champion.
It IS illogical, but that's the way the tournament works. You can't say those 5 or 6 games are weighed the same as the other 30. They aren't. And thus, they impact the rankings (much) more heavily.
RPI, Kenpom, and all the other rankings systems you mentioned, weigh all games equally. But we can't all look at eachother with a straight face and say that UCONN's wins over Kentucky and Butler should carry the same weight as the ones they played in November.
-
Why? Isn't the purpose of the poll to vote who one thinks is the best team in the land?
Ken Pom finished with Ohio State #1 http://www.kenpom.com/
Sagarin finished with Ohio State #1 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1011.htm
RPI finished with Ohio State #2 http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings/rpi/index1
The FINAL AP poll (prior to the tournament) had Ohio State #1.
You know what I find illogical....a team that did not receive a SINGLE VOTE by ANY COACH ( http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2011/week/18/seasontype/2 ) like VCU in the last poll by the coaches until the tournament is over now decides that what you do in 5 games is the judge of not only how good you are, but a good enough judgment to say you're better than every team in the nation except for 5 teams. That is not only illogical, but a complete joke.
Since you used KenPom, Sagarin, and RPI to prove Ohio St.'s inherent superiority, will you finally admit that MU did not regress as a program this year? Because according to you, stating that would not only be illogical, but a complete joke.
2011
KenPom: 32
Sagarin: 24
RPI: 49
2010
KenPom: 33
Sagarin: 36
RPI: 55
-
Since you used KenPom, Sagarin, and RPI to prove Ohio St.'s inherent superiority, will you finally admit that MU did not regress as a program this year? Because according to you, stating that would not only be illogical, but a complete joke.
2011
KenPom: 32
Sagarin: 24
RPI: 49
2010
KenPom: 33
Sagarin: 36
RPI: 55
Actually, that's a bad argument. You can't pick the arbitrary ranking numbers because they aren't static season-to-season. A team may be ranked #1 in 2011, but that doesn't mean you can compare them to #1 from 2010, 2005, or 2003. These don't compare on a year-by-year basis, only within that single year. Here are the actual relevant numbers:
2011
KenPom Pyth: 0.8852
Sagarin Rating: 85.55
RPI Score: 0.5761
2010
KenPom Pyth: 0.9107
Sagarin Rating: 84.47
RPI Score: 0.5748
By these measures, MU was better in 2011 according to Sagarin and the RPI, but regressed according to KenPom. I'd say it pretty much shows we're a wash between seasons, but if anyone were to use KenPom as their primary source, it would be a pretty solid argument that we did indeed regress in 2011.
-
I believe this makes 7 straight years that MU has been ranked at least one week. And, in this case the one week was the last week of the year!
Can anyone confirm that we have been ranked at least 7 straight years.
Sounds like we need another banner in the rafters at the Bradley Center
-
Why? Isn't the purpose of the poll to vote who one thinks is the best team in the land?
Is it ever? The polling system is flawed, the best we have, but flawed. You lose, you drop that week. Now, does that mean you are a worse team than you were the week before?
The BCS requires the Coaches to vote the winner of the "title game" as #1. Are they always the "best team in the land"? Not necessarily.
-
MU has now made 10 straight NIT/NCAA appearances. When will our inferiority complex end? It is much better to be relevant. ;D
MU in the S16, MU ranked in the public opinion polls, the BE as national champion, Buzz reupping, Jimmy in Portsmouth=Good when Buzz is on the recruiting trail.
-
Since you used KenPom, Sagarin, and RPI to prove Ohio St.'s inherent superiority, will you finally admit that MU did not regress as a program this year? Because according to you, stating that would not only be illogical, but a complete joke.
2011
KenPom: 32
Sagarin: 24
RPI: 49
2010
KenPom: 33
Sagarin: 36
RPI: 55
DOH. You can't compare one season of ratings to another. The ratings RATE you based on all other teams that YEAR that you compete against. It does not RATE you against other years. Fundamental error on your part.
Case in point, you could be 25th in Ken Pom last year but significantly better than a 2011 team ranked 20th....that's because if the collective body of teams in 2011 were generally inferior to 2010, your ranking would improve THAT given year. But again, you can't use the ratings to say one year we were 30 and the next year 32 so the year we were 30 we must be better. Silly and fundamentally flawed from the start.
-
Not that I disagree, but VCU was judged based on an additional 6 games, not 5. They had the benefit of the play-in win over USC. But as I noted earlier, I agree completely with you. VCU should be ranked (though they shouldn't have been in the tourney in the first place) but they certainly don't deserve to be ranked 6th, and at best should be around 15.
Fair point.
Here's the irony of it. If this was the regular season and VCU played those same 6 teams and started with zero votes, would they move up to #6? NO WAY IN A MILLION YEARS. We agree completely. They would be lucky to break the top 25 because that's how the voters are during the season. They don't pay attention to most teams, especially the smaller ones. Even saying that, climbing that fast with 5 wins is absurd and just shows how loopy the coaches are.
VICTOR....I actually said earlier in one of these threads that I would call them NCAA Tournament Champions, but by definition that also means NCAA Champions. All I'm saying (and I think most experts agree), it doesn't make them the best team. Not close.
I see where Lenny is saying things like "who did Ohio State beat". WTF? Who did the Miami Dolphins beat when they went undefeated but only beat two teams all year with a winning record. Since Lenny believes the NCAA tournament results are so critical...let's examine...Ohio State did manage to beat Florida by about 20 ( an Elite 8 team), Florida State (a Sweet 16 team) by 14 points, Oakland (NCAA team) by 30, Michigan (NCAA round of 32 team) three times, WIsconsin (Sweet 16) by 28 points, Illinois (Round of 32) twice, Penn State (NCAA team) three times, Purdue (Round of 32) by 23 points, Morehead State (Round of 32) by 20 points, Michigan State (NCAA team)
By my count they beat 17 teams (half of their win total) against NCAA teams and their only three losses were to NCAA teams.
-
Is it ever? The polling system is flawed, the best we have, but flawed. You lose, you drop that week. Now, does that mean you are a worse team than you were the week before?
The BCS requires the Coaches to vote the winner of the "title game" as #1. Are they always the "best team in the land"? Not necessarily.
Flawed doesn't begin to cover it. Comparing football to basketball is also not appropriate.
I don't agree the polling system is the best we have, it's more than flawed for the very reason you gave. If you lose one week, you drop. That's ridiculous. In the polls, if you play the #1 team but lose by one point, you drop in the polls while another team playing a cupcake that barely wins could vault over you. Asinine.
I'll always prefer the computer related rating systems for that very reason. They don't make absurd judgments like that.
-
MU has now made 10 straight NIT/NCAA appearances. When will our inferiority complex end? It is much better to be relevant. ;D
MU in the S16, MU ranked in the public opinion polls, the BE as national champion, Buzz reupping, Jimmy in Portsmouth=Good when Buzz is on the recruiting trail.
Great for recruiting. Nothing to do with inferiority complex...we are a very good program that has accomplished a lot in those ten years. Upper 30 in the country probably. Next year expectations will be higher, should have a solid team and hopefully back to an upper division finish where we aren't needing Big East Tournament wins to get into the NCAAs.
-
I have forgotten the name but it was a Coach who said Ohio State had the best overall year of any team
-
DOH. You can't compare one season of ratings to another. The ratings RATE you based on all other teams that YEAR that you compete against. It does not RATE you against other years. Fundamental error on your part.
Case in point, you could be 25th in Ken Pom last year but significantly better than a 2011 team ranked 20th....that's because if the collective body of teams in 2011 were generally inferior to 2010, your ranking would improve THAT given year. But again, you can't use the ratings to say one year we were 30 and the next year 32 so the year we were 30 we must be better. Silly and fundamentally flawed from the start.
DOH. So we're exactly the same relative to the rest of college basketball. Everyone else "regressed" to the same point. So MU, as a program, didn't lose ground at all. Every single measure aside from 11-7 vs. 9-9 says we were the same or better than last year relative to the entirety of Division 1. What changed? The schedule we played and the relative strength of the Big East.
-
DOH. So we're exactly the same relative to the rest of college basketball. Everyone else "regressed" to the same point. So MU, as a program, didn't lose ground at all. Every single measure aside from 11-7 vs. 9-9 says we were the same or better than last year relative to the entirety of Division 1. What changed? The schedule we played and the relative strength of the Big East.
The fact that a team with 6 losses in the Colonial Conference and 5 losses in the Horizon both made the final four suggests that perhaps the level of competition in NCAA was down this year.
If we look at the number of losses in the Final Four field over the past several years:
2006: 30 combined losses
2007: 22 combined losses
2008: 12 combined losses
2009: 28 combined losses
2010: 26 combined losses
2011: 40 combined losses
Another84 made an impassioned plea that a #1 ranked team and ACC runner up--Duke--simply wasn't that good. Many here within the last week questioned whether Ohio State--with just 3 losses on the season--deserved a vote as the #1 team.
Go back through some of the posts here over the course of the season--the SEC is weak, the B12 is weak, Kansas is overrated, the Big Ten is weak, Michigan State is way down this year, the Pac 10 only has 2 good team, etc. etc. etc.
Its hard to make the case that everyone else is weak this year, then turn around and argue that the relative fortunes of the Big East aren't in any way related to said weaknesses.
-
DOH. So we're exactly the same relative to the rest of college basketball. Everyone else "regressed" to the same point. So MU, as a program, didn't lose ground at all. Every single measure aside from 11-7 vs. 9-9 says we were the same or better than last year relative to the entirety of Division 1. What changed? The schedule we played and the relative strength of the Big East.
You now have three posters here telling you how flawed your logic is to compare a rating in one season to another. How many more would you like to go with? Better yet, why don't you just do this....email Ken Pom and he'll tell you how flawed you are. Email Jerry Palm, he'll tell you how flawed you are.
I can't hold your hand on this one....you simply can't do what you have done as those ratings are for THAT SEASON ONLY AND RELATIVE TO THE TEAMS OF THAT SEASON ONLY.
-
You now have three posters here telling you how flawed your logic is to compare a rating in one season to another. How many more would you like to go with? Better yet, why don't you just do this....email Ken Pom and he'll tell you how flawed you are. Email Jerry Palm, he'll tell you how flawed you are.
I can't hold your hand on this one....you simply can't do what you have done as those ratings are for THAT SEASON ONLY AND RELATIVE TO THE TEAMS OF THAT SEASON ONLY.
Oh believe me, I get it. SO WHY CAN YOU TAKE CONFERENCE RECORD YEAR OVER YEAR AND USE IT AS PROOF OF REGRESSION WHEN THOSE RECORDS ARE RELATIVE TO THE TEAMS OF THAT SEASON ONLY?
-
Oh believe me, I get it. SO WHY CAN YOU TAKE CONFERENCE RECORD YEAR OVER YEAR AND USE IT AS PROOF OF REGRESSION WHEN THOSE RECORDS ARE RELATIVE TO THE TEAMS OF THAT SEASON ONLY?
So basically, your argument has evolved to "two wrongs make a right"? Even if Chicos is doing that, which is really neither here nor there in this current discussion, the comparison of Marquette's numerical placement on a year-by-year basis using kenpom, Sagarin, and the RPI is invalid. Using the ratings system (Pyth for kenpom, rating for Sagarin and RPI) is a better indicator, but as CBB mentioned, it is all based on a comparison against the current year's teams, so still isn't a perfect comparison.
Either way, the comparisons you are making don't work. Comparing the Big East in different years is tough to do as well. This year the conference was stronger 1-11 than any conference has ever been, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't as good in the 1-4 positions as it has been in most recent seasons. But the two arguments are apples and oranges. Maybe you're both making an unfair argument, but that doesn't mean that if you shout at each other, the two arguments will both become valid.
-
Would you rather win the NCAA tournament, or be voted the #1 team. Before you answer, ask an Ohio State fan.
-
Would you rather win the NCAA tournament, or be voted the #1 team. Before you answer, ask an Ohio State fan.
I'd rather be good enough to be voted the number one team - thats the best indicator of your chances to win the NCAA tournament
-
I'd rather be good enough to be voted the number one team - thats the best indicator of your chances to win the NCAA tournament
Not really. The question gives you two choices, either winning the tournament, or being voted #1. I'm pretty sure that the best indicator of your chances to win the NCAA Tournament is actually winning the NCAA Tournament.
-
Not really. The question gives you two choices, either winning the tournament, or being voted #1. I'm pretty sure that the best indicator of your chances to win the NCAA Tournament is actually winning the NCAA Tournament.
+1
-
i guess i answered it that way because it was posed as pertaining to the conversation at hand. i just dont see what it has to do with anything if you can't open it up to more discussion.
-
Would you rather win the NCAA tournament, or be voted the #1 team. Before you answer, ask an Ohio State fan.
False Choice.
The two have nothing to do with one another.
-
argumentative
-
argumentative
Seriously? Chicos? No Way!
-
False Choice.
The two have nothing to do with one another.
Chicos,
believe it or not, I agree that the best team doesn't always win the NCAA tournament.
I'm not sure what the false choice is. Let me reword the question.
Would you rather be good and be the No. 1 team in the country (ala Kentucky 2003, Pitt 2011) or the winner of the NCAA Tournament (Syracuse 2003, UConn 2011 OR OUR Marquette Warriors in 1977)? The number 1 team in the country could be overall No1 seed going into the tourny or No. 1 in the final rankings (as determined by a poll that doesn't require the winner of the tourny to be declared No. 1)
My vote is winning the tournament. Why have it then?
-
Chicos,
believe it or not, I agree that the best team doesn't always win the NCAA tournament.
I'm not sure what the false choice is. Let me reword the question.
Would you rather be good and be the No. 1 team in the country (ala Kentucky 2003, Pitt 2011) or the winner of the NCAA Tournament (Syracuse 2003, UConn 2011 OR OUR Marquette Warriors in 1977)? The number 1 team in the country could be overall No1 seed going into the tourny or No. 1 in the final rankings (as determined by a poll that doesn't require the winner of the tourny to be declared No. 1)
My vote is winning the tournament. Why have it then?
That's why it's a false choice.
It's like asking would you rather win the lottery at $50Million or have a job that pays $150K per year plus 2% annual raise for the next 30 years. It's a no duh answer, it's also a false choice.
Let's flip the question.....say you're New Jersey Institute of Technology and you go 0-27 in the season but win your conference tourney because you got hot for 4 days. Does that mean you had a good season? Does that justify success?
The tournament is there to crown a tournament champion and by default, a NCAA champion. With the logic you are using, you're putting 100% on the tournament results. I don't. Great teams can lose in the tournament having one bad night or running into a hot team. Does that wipe out what you did in the regular season? Does that dismiss everything? I've always felt you split the season into different parts. The Post Season, the Conference Season, and the non-Conference Season. I think the way some people act here is if you bounce in the first round of the NCAAs your season sucked, furthermore if you win two games in the NCAA tournament it trumps anything you did in the regular season. Sorry, I don't see it that way.
Our team is a perfect example. We had a very good post season...two Big East wins and two NCAA wins. We had an average Conference season and an average non-conference season (some might argue below average since we lost every meaningful game...Vanderbilt, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, Duke, etc...unless UW-Milwaukee is considered meaningful).
The tournament is the tournament. Great teams can lose in it. Average teams can get hot and win some games (VCU anyone), etc. I treat them separately....you don't. It's free country.
-
Froman used to make the same argument to you when you would argue the opposite. Times change.
-
Bo routinely beat Izzo in the regular season. Izzo regularly outshone Bo in the championship season. Bo is very well thought of as a coach. Izzo is iconic. End of argument.
-
Will Calhoun be known as one of the few coaches (Wooden, Knight, Rupp, Allen, K) who have won 3 or more National Championships or for his BEast success? Do you remember the 94 team's season record or their Sweet 16 run? Did the O3 team win the CUSA tourney? Who remembers the 77 team was lucky to get in without being reminded of it? Lenny nailed it. Bo has a winning record against Izzo and a better conference record. Which one is considered a good coach, which one is considered a near legend?
-
When Chicos asked the question "Does the Best team win the tourney?" I thought it was a fair question based on all the upsets in this years tourney. Based on this quote, now I know it was another question with an agenda.
Our team is a perfect example. We had a very good post season...two Big East wins and two NCAA wins. We had an average Conference season and an average non-conference season (some might argue below average since we lost every meaningful game...Vanderbilt, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, Duke, etc...unless UW-Milwaukee is considered meaningful).[quote/]
Chicos, you are the Most Opaque Man in the World. Seriously, what is your beef with Marquette?
-
Bo routinely beat Izzo in the regular season. Izzo regularly outshone Bo in the championship season. Bo is very well thought of as a coach. Izzo is iconic. End of argument.
Some guy named Al McGuire disagrees with you. End of argument
-
Ringout, I'd add to it that the reason I feel this way is because of how the "playoffs" work in the NCAA. Only the NFL can compare. In the NBA, NHL, MLB, etc, the best team almost always wins because you have 5 or 7 game series to determine the best. It allows for an "off night" or running into a hot team.
In the NFL and NCAA tournament, it does not. This is why the "best team" often doesn't win. It also allows for "average" teams to do damage. Seattle Seahawks, VCU, etc, etc.
The differences in how a champion is determined is so stark compared to just about every other sport, those realities are often not considered and illogically compared to other sports for reasons that make no sense.
-
Ringout, I'd add to it that the reason I feel this way is because of how the "playoffs" work in the NCAA. Only the NFL can compare. In the NBA, NHL, MLB, etc, the best team almost always wins because you have 5 or 7 game series to determine the best. It allows for an "off night" or running into a hot team.
In the NFL and NCAA tournament, it does not. This is why the "best team" often doesn't win. It also allows for "average" teams to do damage. Seattle Seahawks, VCU, etc, etc.
The differences in how a champion is determined is so stark compared to just about every other sport, those realities are often not considered and illogically compared to other sports for reasons that make no sense.
It seems we are always arguing in parallel universes. I am not arguing about the merits of how any other sports pick their winners. I am not even arguing that MU belonged in the Sweet 16, but damn was that FUN.
I am arguing that I would rather win the Damn tournament, than any other measure you can provide.
I'm worn out. I don't have the energy to make sense of your arguments and listen to the Democrats non stop ankle biting here in WI.
-
Some guy named Al McGuire disagrees with you. End of argument
Nonsense. Al said the best team doesn't always win, and neither I nor most others argue against against that. If the "best" team always won, the oddsmakers in Vegas could annoint a champion and they wouldn't have to play the tournament. That said, when you look at UCONN's and Ohio State's neutral/road record it's not clear to me that the Buckeyes were the "best" this year.
-
Ringout, I'd add to it that the reason I feel this way is because of how the "playoffs" work in the NCAA. Only the NFL can compare. In the NBA, NHL, MLB, etc, the best team almost always wins because you have 5 or 7 game series to determine the best. It allows for an "off night" or running into a hot team.
In the NFL and NCAA tournament, it does not. This is why the "best team" often doesn't win. It also allows for "average" teams to do damage. Seattle Seahawks, VCU, etc, etc.
The differences in how a champion is determined is so stark compared to just about every other sport, those realities are often not considered and illogically compared to other sports for reasons that make no sense.
I would agree that the "best" team (the one with the best regular season record) wins most often in the NBA. Hockey and baseball, though, are every bit as volatile as pro football and college basketball.
Let's be honest here. This is just one final dig at this year's team. Two year's ago, you loved the players (Crean's players) that even our doofus coach (bottom 45 of 345 D1 coaches) couldn't screw up. Last year it was hard for you to be hyper critical but you still managed to rip the guy (who exceeded the "coach of the year" standards that you yourself set) every chance you got (DePaul, ND, WVU, timeouts, not fouling at the end of games,etc,etc,etc). This year you were relentless. TC's guys were all gone so the gloves really came off. You even went after our own players personally, putting them down for everything from their "backgrounds" (jucos,etc) to their "basketball IQs". In questioning their performance you called our guys vile names. That you would belittle their Sweet 16 accomplishment (matchups, crapshoot, etc) and accentuate an alleged regular season dropoff (which Sagarin and Pomeroy basically say didn't happen) is hardly surprising. We get it and we've come to expect it. But coming from a guy who constantly calls others hypocritical, even you should see the irony.
-
I would agree that the "best" team (the one with the best regular season record) wins most often in the NBA. Hockey and baseball, though, are every bit as volatile as pro football and college basketball.
Let's be honest here. This is just one final dig at this year's team. Two year's ago, you loved the players (Crean's players) that even our doofus coach (bottom 45 of 345 D1 coaches) couldn't screw up. Last year it was hard for you to be hyper critical but you still managed to rip the guy (who exceeded the "coach of the year" standards that you yourself set) every chance you got (DePaul, ND, WVU, timeouts, not fouling at the end of games,etc,etc,etc). This year you were relentless. TC's guys were all gone so the gloves really came off. You even went after our own players personally, putting them down for everything from their "backgrounds" (jucos,etc) to their "basketball IQs". In questioning their performance you called our guys vile names. That you would belittle their Sweet 16 accomplishment (matchups, crapshoot, etc) and accentuate an alleged regular season dropoff (which Sagarin and Pomeroy basically say didn't happen) is hardly surprising. We get it and we've come to expect it. But coming from a guy who constantly calls others hypocritical, even you should see the irony.
Nonsense. Al said the best team doesn't always win, and neither I nor most others argue against against that. If the "best" team always won, the oddsmakers in Vegas could annoint a champion and they wouldn't have to play the tournament. That said, when you look at UCONN's and Ohio State's neutral/road record it's not clear to me that the Buckeyes were the "best" this year.
Can you explain why you rely on Sagarin and Pomeroy in one argument, but ignore them in the other?
Both Sagarin and Pomeroy had Ohio State rated as the best team by a fairly decent margin.
If you're going to argue that those two services validate that there was no regular season dropoff, how can you not accept them at their word when they identify Ohio State as the best team?
-
Let's be honest here. This is just one final dig at this year's team. Two year's ago, you loved the players (Crean's players) that even our doofus coach (bottom 45 of 345 D1 coaches) couldn't screw up. Last year it was hard for you to be hyper critical but you still managed to rip the guy (who exceeded the "coach of the year" standards that you yourself set) every chance you got (DePaul, ND, WVU, timeouts, not fouling at the end of games,etc,etc,etc). This year you were relentless. TC's guys were all gone so the gloves really came off. You even went after our own players personally, putting them down for everything from their "backgrounds" (jucos,etc) to their "basketball IQs". In questioning their performance you called our guys vile names. That you would belittle their Sweet 16 accomplishment (matchups, crapshoot, etc) and accentuate an alleged regular season dropoff (which Sagarin and Pomeroy basically say didn't happen) is hardly surprising. We get it and we've come to expect it. But coming from a guy who constantly calls others hypocritical, even you should see the irony.
Game. Set. Match. This is why I choose to have the signature I've got..it really is futile to engage in a debate with Chicos, as trying to debate against hypocrisy is impossible.
-
Can you explain why you rely on Sagarin and Pomeroy in one argument, but ignore them in the other?
Both Sagarin and Pomeroy had Ohio State rated as the best team by a fairly decent margin.
If you're going to argue that those two services validate that there was no regular season dropoff, how can you not accept them at their word when they identify Ohio State as the best team?
Pomeroy and Sagarin weigh all games the same, so MU vs MU regular season is a fair comparison. I would suggest that post season games be given MUCH more weight. This accounts for UCONN reaching (for me) at least equal footing with OSU and MU '11 exceeding MU '10.
-
Is the AP going to come out with a final poll?
-
Pomeroy and Sagarin weigh all games the same, so MU vs MU regular season is a fair comparison. I would suggest that post season games be given MUCH more weight. This accounts for UCONN reaching (for me) at least equal footing with OSU and MU '11 exceeding MU '10.
If NCAA tournament success is weighted much more than the regular season, doesn't it follow that the 2011 Big East represents a decline in league quality from 2009, when 5 Big East teams made the Sweet 16, compared to only 2 this year?
-
Is the AP going to come out with a final poll?
They already did. The AP final poll comes out the last week before the NCAA Tournament. They do not do a post-tournament poll.
-
If NCAA tournament success is weighted much more than the regular season, doesn't it follow that the 2011 Big East represents a decline in league quality from 2009, when 5 Big East teams made the Sweet 16, compared to only 2 this year?
Well, we were comparing 2011 to 2010, not 2009, but regardless, I think that when a team that ties for 9th, 10th, and 11th place in the Big East wins the national championship it speaks volumes for the strength of the conference. Has any other conference in any other year produced a 9th-10th-11th place team that made a Sweet 16 (the Big East had 2 this year) let alone a national champ?
-
Bo routinely beat Izzo in the regular season. Izzo regularly outshone Bo in the championship season. Bo is very well thought of as a coach. Izzo is iconic. End of argument.
This.
-
Can I ask what we are even fighting about here? I thought everyone is pretty much saying that the NCAA is much more prestigious and we would all trade a greater degree of regular season success for tournament success. But on the other hand, the tournament isnt as great an indication of a team's objective talent level and quality of play as an entire 30+ game regular season. What's the debate?
-
Can I ask what we are even fighting about here? I thought everyone is pretty much saying that the NCAA is much more prestigious and we would all trade a greater degree of regular season success for tournament success. But on the other hand, the tournament isnt as great an indication of a team's objective talent level and quality of play as an entire 30+ game regular season. What's the debate?
It's if you like Buzz or Crean, and you can't like them both.
2 men enter, 1 man leaves.
-
They already did. The AP final poll comes out the last week before the NCAA Tournament. They do not do a post-tournament poll.
Which is absolutely appropriate.
-
Well, we were comparing 2011 to 2010, not 2009, but regardless, I think that when a team that ties for 9th, 10th, and 11th place in the Big East wins the national championship it speaks volumes for the strength of the conference. Has any other conference in any other year produced a 9th-10th-11th place team that made a Sweet 16 (the Big East had 2 this year) let alone a national champ?
So if that's the case, the Horizon League must be the second best league in the country and the Colonial one of the four best? Just think how stupid that is.
People put WAY to much credence on the results of the tournament to extrapolate how good a conference is or how good a particular team is. They seem to totally forget a team, an average one, can get hot for a few weeks (VCU) and have success. VCU couldn't even win it's own small conference but yet they are the "4th best team...or 6th best team in the country"? Laughable.
-
So if that's the case, the Horizon League must be the second best league in the country and the Colonial one of the four best? Just think how stupid that is.
People put WAY to much credence on the results of the tournament to extrapolate how good a conference is or how good a particular team is. They seem to totally forget a team, an average one, can get hot for a few weeks (VCU) and have success. VCU couldn't even win it's own small conference but yet they are the "4th best team...or 6th best team in the country"? Laughable.
I agree with most of this. The Horizon and CAA can't compare to the big East, or even be mentioned in the same paragraph. VCU got hot, but still didn't belong to make the field in the first place.
But while the best team doesn't always win, I do think the Big East proved themselves clearly the best league. Look at the percentage of participants by round:
Initial Field: 11/68 -- 16.18%
Third Round: 7/32 -- 21.88%
Sweet 16: 2/16 -- 12.50%
Elite 8: 1/8 -- 12.50%
Final 4: 1/4 -- 25.00%
Title Game: 1/2 -- 50.00%
Champion: 1/1 -- 100.00%
Other than the Sweet 16, we had as many or more teams than any other league at each given stage. The only round where we really were notably off the pace was the Sweet 16, and considering four Big East teams had to be reduced to two, it's entirely possible that the committee forced us into that situation. The Big East was the best conference both in the non-conference season, the totality of the regular season, and in the tournament.
While UConn's win may not take them over tOSU in the measure of kenpom and Sagarin, however, I do believe that their accomplishments were more impressive than what tOSU did. They didn't lose a single non-conference game (17-0). They didn't lose a single neutral court game. They earned the right to be called the #1 team in the country, despite being the #9 team in the Big East.
But as mentioned, there's no reason for a post-tournament poll. While it's nice to see Marquette in the top 25, it only opens up debate over the relevance of the tournament, while what we should really be focusing on is how exciting it is, and what a grand spectacle it is on an annual basis. Who cares what the voters say? UConn is #1. Ohio State is home wishing they had played longer. End of story.
-
Can I ask what we are even fighting about here? I thought everyone is pretty much saying that the NCAA is much more prestigious and we would all trade a greater degree of regular season success for tournament success. But on the other hand, the tournament isnt as great an indication of a team's objective talent level and quality of play as an entire 30+ game regular season. What's the debate?
I even agreed with Chicos. The best team does not always win the tournament. He is still arguing with me. Hilarious. Wonder if we wastes this much energy arguing at work?
-
So if that's the case, the Horizon League must be the second best league in the country and the Colonial one of the four best? Just think how stupid that is.
People put WAY to much credence on the results of the tournament to extrapolate how good a conference is or how good a particular team is. They seem to totally forget a team, an average one, can get hot for a few weeks (VCU) and have success. VCU couldn't even win it's own small conference but yet they are the "4th best team...or 6th best team in the country"? Laughable.
Usually, I don't agree with Chicos, but this point is right on. Personally, I take tournament performance with a grain of salt. Its great to win, but it doesn't validate or invalidate an entire season of work.
-
So if that's the case, the Horizon League must be the second best league in the country and the Colonial one of the four best? Just think how stupid that is.
People put WAY to much credence on the results of the tournament to extrapolate how good a conference is or how good a particular team is. They seem to totally forget a team, an average one, can get hot for a few weeks (VCU) and have success. VCU couldn't even win it's own small conference but yet they are the "4th best team...or 6th best team in the country"? Laughable.
What I said can only be interpreted as insinuating that the Horizon League and the Colonial Conference are #s 2 and 4 in the nation only by a fool or someone looking for a fight.
The fact is that the Big East was thought to be the best conference going into the tournament.There were some Big 10 apologists/fans such as yourself but they were in the distinct minority. Knownothings like Charles Barkley had a field day with the early upsets of Big East teams, some of whom (St Johns, Georgetown, Louisville) had injury problems. But in the end, there was NO DOUBT that UCONN was the #1 team when one combines 2 of your very own 3 college basketball "seasons" with a 23-0 slate in the preconference/post season segments. I would argue that the fact that they could only manage a 9-9 record in the "middle" or conference segment speaks to the difficulty of that meatgrinder of a segment. I guess you would argue that the unbeatable preconference and postseason champ inexplicably sucked in segment 2. Free country, but I think the evidence suggests otherwise.
-
Well, we were comparing 2011 to 2010, not 2009, but regardless, I think that when a team that ties for 9th, 10th, and 11th place in the Big East wins the national championship it speaks volumes for the strength of the conference. Has any other conference in any other year produced a 9th-10th-11th place team that made a Sweet 16 (the Big East had 2 this year) let alone a national champ?
You yourself claim that the tournament is given "MUCH more weight" than the regular season, but then you also claim that the league was stronger this year, so much so that a 9th place finish doesn't reflect a decline from year's past.
I cannot see how these two statements can be reconciled.
Here's the comparison of MU's relative performance:
2006: Finished in a tie for 4th in a conference with 4 other Sweet 16 teams
2007: Finished in a tie for 5th in a conference with 2 other Sweet 16 teams
2008: Finished in a tie for 5th in a conference with 3 other Sweet 16 teams
2009: Finished 5th place in a conference with 5 other Sweet 16 teams.
2010: Finished in a tie for 5th place in a conference with 2 other Sweet 16 teams
2011: Finished in a tie for 9th place in a conference with only 1 other Sweet 16 team.
It seems to me--based on your criteria of giving the post season MUCH more weight--that 2011 was the weakest out of the last six years--only one of our 15 opponents made it past the opening weekend in tournament play--lowest in the six years we've been in the conference.
It seems to me that the ONLY way you can make the case that the Big East was a stronger league this year is if you give the REGULAR SEASON much more weight and downplay the post-season performance. But you don't want to do that because it supports Chico's argument that the tournament is a crap shoot.
-
Why is the number of Sweet 16 teams the only measure of the Big East's tournament success? UCONN actually WON the National Championship this year. Did the Big East win it in any other years you cited?
Also love the dishonest way you always reference the number of past sweet 16 teams by adding the word "other" in all of the years even though MU didn't make it in any of those years except this one. The honest way to state it would have been "In the last 6 years the Big East has sent 2 teams to the sweet 16 3 times, 3, 4 and 5 teams once. And in only one of those years (2011) did they produce the national champion.
-
Why is the number of Sweet 16 teams the only measure of the Big East's tournament success? UCONN actually WON the National Championship this year. Did the Big East win it in any other years you cited?
How is the performance of UConn more relevant than Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville, etc.
If the league had played to seed, we would have had five teams in the Sweet 16 and 2 in the final four. Doesn't Pitt's loss in the 2nd round speak just as much to the strength of the league as UConn's win (albeit in the opposite direction)?
Don't Pitt and UConn cancel each other out?
Also love the dishonest way you always reference the number of past sweet 16 teams by adding the word "other" in all of the years even though MU didn't make it in any of those years except this one. The honest way to state it would have been "In the last 6 years the Big East has sent 2 teams to the sweet 16 3 times, 3, 4 and 5 teams once. And in only one of those years (2011) did they produce the national champion.
Maybe the subtlety of this was too much for you to grasp, but we don't play ourselves!
In a discussion of OUR league standing against fifteen OTHER teams, it makes no sense to include our own status. Why? Because we didn't play ourselves!
-
How is the performance of UConn more relevant than Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville, etc.
If the league had played to seed, we would have had five teams in the Sweet 16 and 2 in the final four. Doesn't Pitt's loss in the 2nd round speak just as much to the strength of the league as UConn's win (albeit in the opposite direction)?
Don't Pitt and UConn cancel each other out?
Maybe the subtlety of this was too much for you to grasp, but we don't play ourselves!
In a discussion of OUR league standing against fifteen OTHER teams, it makes no sense to include our own status. Why? Because we didn't play ourselves!
LOL. YOU ARE SO NEGATIVE FOR POINTING OUT THE OTHER OBVIOUS FACTS THAT WERE MISSED. DAMN YOU!!
Don't you know, only the facts the support flowers, unicorns, gumdrops and rainbows are allowed to be stated.
-
No. Pitt "cancels out" Duke, Ohio State and Kansas.
-
How is the performance of UConn more relevant than Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville, etc.
Maybe the subtlety of this was too much for you to grasp, but we don't play ourselves!
In a discussion of OUR league standing against fifteen OTHER teams, it makes no sense to include our own status. Why? Because we didn't play ourselves!
Sorry chief, nothing at all subtle about it. The way you frame it, using "other than Marquette" in all those years MU didn't reach the sweet 16 is either ignorant or intentionally misleading or both. Ignorant? Yes. Misleading ? Most definitely.
-
No. Pitt "cancels out" Duke, Ohio State and Kansas.
I don't think you're grasping this concept yet.
You're saying that because UConn--as a Big East team--played well in the tournament--and tournament play means more than regular season play--that it suggests the Big East was a strong conference.
Yet at the same time we have Pitt--as a Big east team--that did not play well in the tournament. Given YOUR view that tournament play is more imporant than league play, how can you NOT conclude that Pitt's underperfomance is evidence that the conference is not as strong?
I'm still curious how you factor in Pitt's early upset loss---along with the early exits by Notre Dame, Louisville, and St. Johns.
BTW, Duke, Ohio State and Kansas are not part of the Big East. Not sure if you were aware of that.
-
I don't think you're grasping this concept yet.
BTW, Duke, Ohio State and Kansas are not part of the Big East. Not sure if you were aware of that.
1.You're incapable of coming up with any (legitimate) concept that I would be unable to grasp.
2.Not sure if you were aware of it, but Duke, Ohio State and Kansas were, with Pitt, the #1 seeds in the tournament. Thus the connection/comparison. Comprende?
-
Sorry chief, nothing at all subtle about it. The way you frame it, using "other than Marquette" in all those years MU didn't reach the sweet 16 is either ignorant or intentionally misleading or both. Ignorant? Yes. Misleading ? Most definitely.
Nope. You're still not getting it.
The way I frame the discussion is to compare OUR OPPONENTS in each of the past six years.
Please tell me that you understand that our OPPONENTS have never included ourselves--even in 2011 when we ourselves reached the Sweet 16.
In 2006 our 15 league opponents included 4 Sweet 16 teams--we finished 4th.
In 2007 our 15 league opponents included 2 Sweet 16 teams--we finished 5th
In 2008 our 15 league opponents included 3 Sweet 16 teams--we finished 5th
In 2009 our 15 league opponents included 5 Sweet 16 teams--we finished 5th
In 2010 our 15 league opponents included 2 Sweet 16 teams--we finished 5th
In 2011 our 15 league opponents included 1 Sweet 16 team--we finished 9th.
As I said, maybe this is too subtle for you--I'm talking about our OPPONENTS--which to me by definition cannot include ourselves.
-
1.You're incapable of coming up with any (legitimate) concept that I would be unable to grasp.
2.Not sure if you were aware of it, but Duke, Ohio State and Kansas were, with Pitt, the #1 seeds in the tournament. Thus the connection/comparison. Comprende?
Nah--I'm just playing with you.
I know you've got a double standard going.
I just wanted to see how many times you'd contradict yourself and/or ignore the obvious that the NCAA tournament is a crapshoot by putting too much emphasis on a team getting hot and making a run.
VCU made the final four and Butler the championship game not because it speaks to the strength of the Horizon and CAA, but because each game is a crapshoot.
Likewise, UConn got to the championship game and beat Butler not because it speaks to the strength of their league, but because their games were crapshoots as well. Just like Butler's. Just like VCUs.
What YOU would have us believe is that UConn's deep run reflects the strength of the Big East, but Butler's or VCU's similar runs don't have any reflection of their respective leagues.
Sorry, but that's a double standard.
-
Nah--I'm just playing with you.
I know you've got a double standard going.
I just wanted to see how many times you'd contradict yourself and/or ignore the obvious that the NCAA tournament is a crapshoot by putting too much emphasis on a team getting hot and making a run.
VCU made the final four and Butler the championship game not because it speaks to the strength of the Horizon and CAA, but because each game is a crapshoot.
Likewise, UConn got to the championship game and beat Butler not because it speaks to the strength of their league, but because their games were crapshoots as well. Just like Butler's. Just like VCUs.
What YOU would have us believe is that UConn's deep run reflects the strength of the Big East, but Butler's or VCU's similar runs don't have any reflection of their respective leagues.
Sorry, but that's a double standard.
UCONN didn't have a "deep run". They won the frackin' national championship. This after tying MU and Villanova for 9th, 10th and 11th place with a 9-9 record. Did Butler or VCU win the national championship? I must have missed that. Did Butler or VCU have 9 regular season losses in their conferences? I must have missed that too. In reality, though, the Colonial conference was pretty good this year. In addition to VCU, Old Dominion won an NCAA game and George Mason lost to Butler on a last second shot. Butler is, well, Butler. Two years in a row in the championship game, but you and Chicos would have us believe they just won the equivalent of 5 consecutive coin flips two years in a row.
If you want to continue to insist that the NCAA tournament is some meaningless crapshoot be my guest. Maybe we can just pick a name out of a hat next year and call them champions. And maybe MU should give UNC the championship trophy from 1977. After all, they had a better regular season record so they must have deserved it more. Right.
-
It seems to me that potential and champion are in fact two different things as has been disected over and over. Right or wrong only one gets written down and is most often remembered.
Who was the best team in (insert random year here) anyway?
I can sleep at night knowing I can Google who won the Championship.
-
It seems to me that potential and champion are in fact two different things as has been disected over and over. Right or wrong only one gets written down and is most often remembered.
Who was the best team in (insert random year here) anyway?
I can sleep at night knowing I can Google who won the Championship.
You're 100% right Frenn. In any sport where the teams actually play for the championship talk about who was the "best" team is moot. The losers can hang their hats on their "mythical" championship if they wish
-
so if a team wins the championship, it speaks to the strength of your conference. but if they lose in the championship game it doesnt?
-
Nah--I'm just playing with you.
I know you've got a double standard going.
I just wanted to see how many times you'd contradict yourself and/or ignore the obvious that the NCAA tournament is a crapshoot by putting too much emphasis on a team getting hot and making a run.
VCU made the final four and Butler the championship game not because it speaks to the strength of the Horizon and CAA, but because each game is a crapshoot.
Likewise, UConn got to the championship game and beat Butler not because it speaks to the strength of their league, but because their games were crapshoots as well. Just like Butler's. Just like VCUs.
What YOU would have us believe is that UConn's deep run reflects the strength of the Big East, but Butler's or VCU's similar runs don't have any reflection of their respective leagues.
Sorry, but that's a double standard.
This is beyond wrong.
The NCAA Tournament and NCAA tournament games are nothing close to a crapshoot, at least not any more a crapshoot than any other part of the college basketball season. To the contrary, in the NCAA Tournament, the better, highly seeded teams almost always win and advance. When a top seed does lose, it's almost always to another highly seeded (i.e. quality) team of which the respective difference is minor (i.e. a top 10 Kentucky team knocking off a top 10 Ohio State team). The results are downright predictable.
Since the tourney expanded to 64 in 1985, there have been 741 double-digit seeds. Three of them have made it to the Final Four. On the other hand, 48 of 104 #1 seeds and 23 of 104 #2 seeds have made the Final Four. This was the first NCAA tournament ever that a one or two seed hasn't been in the Final Four. Again, the results aren't guaranteed, but they're very predictable.
Oh sure, there are occasional upsets where a low seed knocks off a high seed, but such upsets occur no more often in the tournament than in the regular season. There's nothing extra "crapshoot-y" about the tournament games. Their randomness and unpredictability is no greater than any other college basketball game.
-
This is beyond wrong.
The NCAA Tournament and NCAA tournament games are nothing close to a crapshoot, at least not any more a crapshoot than any other part of the college basketball season. To the contrary, in the NCAA Tournament, the better, highly seeded teams almost always win and advance. When a top seed does lose, it's almost always to another highly seeded (i.e. quality) team of which the respective difference is minor (i.e. a top 10 Kentucky team knocking off a top 10 Ohio State team). The results are downright predictable.
Since the tourney expanded to 64 in 1985, there have been 741 double-digit seeds. Three of them have made it to the Final Four. On the other hand, 48 of 104 #1 seeds and 23 of 104 #2 seeds have made the Final Four. This was the first NCAA tournament ever that a one or two seed hasn't been in the Final Four. Again, the results aren't guaranteed, but they're very predictable.
Oh sure, there are occasional upsets where a low seed knocks off a high seed, but such upsets occur no more often in the tournament than in the regular season. There's nothing extra "crapshoot-y" about the tournament games. Their randomness and unpredictability is no greater than any other college basketball game.
Thank you for this. I was wondering if I was the only one thinking the same thing.
-
so if a team wins the championship, it speaks to the strength of your conference. but if they lose in the championship game it doesnt?
If Butler or VCU had won the national championship, and if Butler or VCU had been 17-0 outside of their conference and if Butler or VCU had been 9-9 in their their conference they would be the equivalent of UCONN and have a compelling argument for the strength of their conference(s). They didn't.
-
Wow, is this thread just becoming a semantic argument?
Okay, if all of college basketball was a crapshoot, then pretty much everyone would be around a .500 record. If the tournament was nothing more than a crapshoot, at least ONCE in history a 16 would have beaten a 1. If all of college basketball was a crapshoot, wouldn't we be better off just watching coin flips? It'd certainly be cheaper.
As far as the proof of the Big East's strength, it comes from the bids earned in the regular season. Do VCU and Butler prove there is more strength than we may have thought in the CAA and Horizon? Sure, maybe there is, but let's remember that these are the 4th and t1st teams in their conferences.
Yes, plenty of teams disappointed. Yes, the Big East could have placed more than 2 teams in the Sweet 16. But does anyone here think that Georgia State could have won the NCAA Tournament, given UConn's draw? Could Youngstown State? For that matter, could Minnesota, or Miami, or Oklahoma State? The runs by VCU and Butler were incredible, but also wildly improbable, and it's highly unlikely that any 9th placed team other than UConn could have won the Tournament. It may not speak to the strength at the top of the conference, but it certainly speaks to this being the deepest conference in NCAA history.
-
so if a team wins the championship, it speaks to the strength of your conference. but if they lose in the championship game it doesnt?
LOL...yes, apparently it works only one way. The "deep run" only counts if it's capped off by the championship but making a deep run to get to the championship apparently doesn't.
That's how twisted pretzel logic that Lenny is using is displayed, but I'm not going to stop him, he's doing a beautiful job.
-
This is beyond wrong.
The NCAA Tournament and NCAA tournament games are nothing close to a crapshoot, at least not any more a crapshoot than any other part of the college basketball season. To the contrary, in the NCAA Tournament, the better, highly seeded teams almost always win and advance. When a top seed does lose, it's almost always to another highly seeded (i.e. quality) team of which the respective difference is minor (i.e. a top 10 Kentucky team knocking off a top 10 Ohio State team). The results are downright predictable.
Since the tourney expanded to 64 in 1985, there have been 741 double-digit seeds. Three of them have made it to the Final Four. On the other hand, 48 of 104 #1 seeds and 23 of 104 #2 seeds have made the Final Four. This was the first NCAA tournament ever that a one or two seed hasn't been in the Final Four. Again, the results aren't guaranteed, but they're very predictable.
Oh sure, there are occasional upsets where a low seed knocks off a high seed, but such upsets occur no more often in the tournament than in the regular season. There's nothing extra "crapshoot-y" about the tournament games. Their randomness and unpredictability is no greater than any other college basketball game.
The NCAA Tournament is no more of a crapshoot than the rest of the season? WTF? On a Sunday you get invited and may have to play as early as Tuesday (i.e. what VCU did) against a team that you had not scouted, etc.....please tell me how that is anywhere close to anything in the regular season when you know who you are playing 3 to 4 months before playing them.
Secondly, you're using the extreme seedings to make your argument. Yes, #1's make it to the Final Four and championship more than anyone else, but there are 32 games in that first round in which only 4 involve a #1 seed. In the second round there are 16 games in which AT MOST 4 involve a #1 seed. The crapshoot happens with all those other games and very much is a crapshoot.
For example...the #8 seeds have a LOSING record in the tournament despite being seeded in the "upper half" of the bracket. They win at 43% of the time against all seeds but barely 50% against the 9 seed, but let's take it further. Did you know the #8 seed has a winning record all time against #4, #5, #6, #7 seeds all time in the NCAA Tournament? 75% or BETTER winning percentage against those higher seeds. That's a crapshoot.
Or how about this...the #10 seed wins 43% of the time when facing a #2 seed but only 39% of the time when facing the 7 seed in the first round. That isn't a crapshoot?
Want to win a beer at a bar. The #11 seed all time has a winning record against the #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament...60% (3-2 record) while those same #11 seeds only win 33% against their opening round #6 seed, only win 9% of the time against #2 seeds and 28% of the time against #3 seeds...yet they have a winning record against the #1's.
It's a crapshoot and WAY more of one than the regular season where you know who you are scheduling months in advance. The most prep you have in the NCAA tournament if 5 days for an opening round game or 7 days if you're lucky enough to make the Final Four, otherwise most prep time is 2 days.
-
It's a crapshoot and WAY more of one than the regular season where you know who you are scheduling months in advance. The most prep you have in the NCAA tournament if 5 days for an opening round game or 7 days if you're lucky enough to make the Final Four, otherwise most prep time is 2 days.
WTF? Having 2 or 3 or 5 days to prep in the regular season is the rule, just like in the tournament. And you have to prep the team while the players are distracted by things like going to class. And during the season the coaching staff is also out recruiting. The only focus for players (other than some work with tutors) and coaches both in the tourney is on the next opponent.
-
LOL...yes, apparently it works only one way. The "deep run" only counts if it's capped off by the championship but making a deep run to get to the championship apparently doesn't.
You're playing dirty pool here. The reason the deep run of UConn is more significant in speaking to conference strength is because UConn was the 9th placed team in their conference. VCU was 4th. Butler tied for 1st. Yes, their accomplishments indicate greater strength in their conferences than many thought, but saying that a team's run from the Horizon or CAA indicates a stronger conference than expected means that they are probably the 7th-10th best conferences in the country. Saying that a team from that far down in the Big East's run indicates a greater strength in their conference than expected means that the conference is one of the best in NCAA history.
I'll be the first to agree that the Big East wasn't as top-heavy as it was a couple years ago, but there were legitimately 11 teams that were very good. No conference has ever had such quality of depth as this year's Big East did, and if Hazell had been healthy all year, even Seton Hall may have had a slim chance of making the field.
Bottom line, the 9th placed team in a conference winning the national title is more significant to a conference's strength than the 1st or 4th placed teams making it to the final weekend.
Secondly, you're using the extreme seedings to make your argument.
Really, Chicos? You're accusing someone else of using extreme seedings, then you pull out that laundry list of crap? Come on, that's weak.
42% of 1-seeds make the Final Four. 22% of 2-seeds make the Final Four. 14% of 3-seeds make the Final Four. So 78% of the Final Four teams come from the top three seed lines. Going two more lines down, we see that 92% of all Final Four teams come from the top five seed lines. That's not a crap shoot.
Yes, 11-seeds have a winning record against 1-seeds. With a sample size of 5 games. You're going to say that you have something definitive with a sample size that small? How many times have those 8-seeds you mentioned even played against 6 or 7 seeds? Being on the opposite sides of the bracket, my guess is the total sample size of those games is less than 10, and probably less than 5. I'm sure 8's have played 4's and 5's a few more times, but again, my expectation is that you are looking at a very small sample size. And again, you are looking at one seed line. If it's such a crapshoot, where is the 16 that beat a 1? Why don't you see any 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seeds ever making it to the Final Four? If I'm not mistaken, only 1 team seeded 12 or lower has even made it to an Elite Eight.
All in all, the seeds generally bear out. There are exceptions, there are years where it is complete turmoil (this was one of those) but to say that the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot because you can pull a few small sample size stats out of your pocket is about as logical as me flipping a coin four times, having heads come up three of those flips, and saying that heads is definitively a better pick.
-
This is beyond wrong.
The NCAA Tournament and NCAA tournament games are nothing close to a crapshoot, at least not any more a crapshoot than any other part of the college basketball season. To the contrary, in the NCAA Tournament, the better, highly seeded teams almost always win and advance. When a top seed does lose, it's almost always to another highly seeded (i.e. quality) team of which the respective difference is minor (i.e. a top 10 Kentucky team knocking off a top 10 Ohio State team). The results are downright predictable.
So why play the tournament?
We have just handed the trophy to Pitt as the highest rated #1 seed and call it a day?
Since the tourney expanded to 64 in 1985, there have been 741 double-digit seeds. Three of them have made it to the Final Four. On the other hand, 48 of 104 #1 seeds and 23 of 104 #2 seeds have made the Final Four. This was the first NCAA tournament ever that a one or two seed hasn't been in the Final Four. Again, the results aren't guaranteed, but they're very predictable.
And only once in NCAA history have all four #1 seeds made the final four.
If the results were predictable, we wouldn't have to play the games.
Oh sure, there are occasional upsets where a low seed knocks off a high seed, but such upsets occur no more often in the tournament than in the regular season. There's nothing extra "crapshoot-y" about the tournament games. Their randomness and unpredictability is no greater than any other college basketball game.
I'll grant you that the 1/16 matchup is predictable--and the 2/15 matchup is close.
But by the time you get to a 3/14 or 4/13 or 5/12, there are enough times the lower seed wins that its no longer a predictable.
-
You're playing dirty pool here. The reason the deep run of UConn is more significant in speaking to conference strength is because UConn was the 9th placed team in their conference. VCU was 4th. Butler tied for 1st. Yes, their accomplishments indicate greater strength in their conferences than many thought, but saying that a team's run from the Horizon or CAA indicates a stronger conference than expected means that they are probably the 7th-10th best conferences in the country. Saying that a team from that far down in the Big East's run indicates a greater strength in their conference than expected means that the conference is one of the best in NCAA history.
I'll be the first to agree that the Big East wasn't as top-heavy as it was a couple years ago, but there were legitimately 11 teams that were very good. No conference has ever had such quality of depth as this year's Big East did, and if Hazell had been healthy all year, even Seton Hall may have had a slim chance of making the field.
Bottom line, the 9th placed team in a conference winning the national title is more significant to a conference's strength than the 1st or 4th placed teams making it to the final weekend.
+1 on everything, including (especially) the "dirty pool" part. It's what typically occurs when facts and logic don't fit the "whatever can make this year's Marquette team look worse" narrative that Chico (along with 84) feels compelled to push.
-
UCONN didn't have a "deep run". They won the frackin' national championship.
It might be fun to hear how you explain how UConn would win a championship WITHOUT a deep run.
'This after tying MU and Villanova for 9th, 10th and 11th place with a 9-9 record.
Did Butler or VCU win the national championship? I must have missed that. Did Butler or VCU have 9 regular season losses in their conferences? I must have missed that too. In reality, though, the Colonial conference was pretty good this year. In addition to VCU, Old Dominion won an NCAA game and George Mason lost to Butler on a last second shot. Butler is, well, Butler. Two years in a row in the championship game, but you and Chicos would have us believe they just won the equivalent of 5 consecutive coin flips two years in a row.
So what?
UConn, Butler and VCU each won games against higher seeded teams.
Those upsets don't "speak to the strength" of their respective conferences.
And its a blatant double standard to pretend that UConn's upset alone is meaningful.
If you want to continue to insist that the NCAA tournament is some meaningless crapshoot be my guest. Maybe we can just pick a name out of a hat next year and call them champions.
I never said it was meaningless.
But an upset isn't sufficient evidence to override an entire season, either.
And its certainly a double standard to say one team's upset is meaningful, while similar upsets from teams in other conferences aren't meaningful.
-
But by the time you get to a 3/14 or 4/13 or 5/12, there are enough times the lower seed wins that its no longer a predictable.
They aren't 100% predictable, but as I pointed out above, 78% of the Final Four teams come from the top 3 seed lines, and 92% of the Final Four teams come from the top 5 seed lines. That's a pretty darn good indicator that the Tournament bears out that in most cases, the teams that are generally thought of to be the top 12-20 teams in the nation, are.
-
+1 on everything, including (especially) the "dirty pool" part. It's what typically occurs when facts and logic don't fit the "whatever can make this year's Marquette team look worse" narrative that Chico (along with 84) feels compelled to push.
How does calling you on your double standards and illogical statements make Marquette look worse?
-
You're playing dirty pool here. The reason the deep run of UConn is more significant in speaking to conference strength is because UConn was the 9th placed team in their conference. VCU was 4th. Butler tied for 1st. Yes, their accomplishments indicate greater strength in their conferences than many thought, but saying that a team's run from the Horizon or CAA indicates a stronger conference than expected means that they are probably the 7th-10th best conferences in the country. Saying that a team from that far down in the Big East's run indicates a greater strength in their conference than expected means that the conference is one of the best in NCAA history.
I'll be the first to agree that the Big East wasn't as top-heavy as it was a couple years ago, but there were legitimately 11 teams that were very good. No conference has ever had such quality of depth as this year's Big East did, and if Hazell had been healthy all year, even Seton Hall may have had a slim chance of making the field.
Bottom line, the 9th placed team in a conference winning the national title is more significant to a conference's strength than the 1st or 4th placed teams making it to the final weekend.
Really, Chicos? You're accusing someone else of using extreme seedings, then you pull out that laundry list of crap? Come on, that's weak.
42% of 1-seeds make the Final Four. 22% of 2-seeds make the Final Four. 14% of 3-seeds make the Final Four. So 78% of the Final Four teams come from the top three seed lines. Going two more lines down, we see that 92% of all Final Four teams come from the top five seed lines. That's not a crap shoot.
Yes, 11-seeds have a winning record against 1-seeds. With a sample size of 5 games. You're going to say that you have something definitive with a sample size that small? How many times have those 8-seeds you mentioned even played against 6 or 7 seeds? Being on the opposite sides of the bracket, my guess is the total sample size of those games is less than 10, and probably less than 5. I'm sure 8's have played 4's and 5's a few more times, but again, my expectation is that you are looking at a very small sample size. And again, you are looking at one seed line. If it's such a crapshoot, where is the 16 that beat a 1? Why don't you see any 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seeds ever making it to the Final Four? If I'm not mistaken, only 1 team seeded 12 or lower has even made it to an Elite Eight.
All in all, the seeds generally bear out. There are exceptions, there are years where it is complete turmoil (this was one of those) but to say that the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot because you can pull a few small sample size stats out of your pocket is about as logical as me flipping a coin four times, having heads come up three of those flips, and saying that heads is definitively a better pick.
Dirty pool? Come now.
You're own statement kind of proves the point...how can the #9 team in the conference be the best team in the nation? It can't. It can be the NCAA champion, but it can't be the best team if it cannot even be the best team in it's own conference, let alone one of the top 8. That was my point from the beginning on the Best Team wins nonsense. How can the 9th place team in a conference be the best team in college basketball? By definition it is IMPOSSIBLE.
I also don't get how you can say UCONN winning the title means the Big East was the best conference (I'm actually not arguing it wasn't...I think it was, but it's like the tallest midget in the circus...college basketball is pedestrian these days) while ignoring how poorly the conference did the first two rounds. That's truly dirty pool and having it both ways. ;D You're making an exception for the one team that got through but ignoring all the teams that stubbed their toes in the first and second rounds as if they have no bearing.
By the way, no one ever said the TOP seeds don't bear out in the tournament, but it's the others that do not and that was my point. The crap shoot is the entire tournament, not just the top seeds. You can't ignore seeds 3 through 16 as if they don't participate in the NCAA tournament.
Since MU is never a top seed (#1 or #2) it's going to be a crap shoot for us every time. To suggest it isn't is silly.
You're only focusing on the top seeds, the NCAA has 68 teams and you're focusing on 8 of them.....when was the last time we were one of those 8 teams.....never. Since seeding began we have NEVER been in the top 2 lines EVER. Twice we have been a 3 seed and made the Final Four and got bounced in the second round...crap shoot.
Where you play, who you play, when you play, etc, etc....it's a crap shoot.
-
WTF? Having 2 or 3 or 5 days to prep in the regular season is the rule, just like in the tournament. And you have to prep the team while the players are distracted by things like going to class. And during the season the coaching staff is also out recruiting. The only focus for players (other than some work with tutors) and coaches both in the tourney is on the next opponent.
Yes, it's the rule and much different than the regular season. He said the NCAA tournament is no more a crap shoot than the regular season which is patently absurd on all levels.
You know who you play in the regular season. You know WHERE you play them in the regular season, which more than half of the games at home. In the NCAAs, you don't know WHO you will play until 2 to 5 days ahead of the game, don't know WHERE you will play, etc, etc. It's way more of a crap shoot in the NCAA tournament.
-
So why play the tournament?
We have just handed the trophy to Pitt as the highest rated #1 seed and call it a day?
And only once in NCAA history have all four #1 seeds made the final four.
If the results were predictable, we wouldn't have to play the games.
I'll grant you that the 1/16 matchup is predictable--and the 2/15 matchup is close.
Are you somehow arguing here that anything that isn't 100 percent certain is thereby unpredictable or, even worse, a crapshoot? Predictable and guaranteed are not synonyms.
By your definition, it would seem, it's an utter crapshoot whether or not a drunk driver crashes into my living room tonight. I would have suggested that it's predictable that it will not happen. But since I can't be 100 percent sure, I suppose it might be a crapshoot.
A 2-15 is close to predictable? Since the the tournament expanded, there have been 108 2 vs 15 games. The 2 seed has won 104 of them, or 96.3 percent. Are you really suggesting that something that occurs 96.3 percent of the time is unpredictable?
Three seeds have beaten 14 seeds 85 percent of the time. Fours have beaten 13s 79 percent of the time.
These results show predictability. Not guarantees - there can never be a guarantee - but strong likely outcomes.
-
Dirty pool? Come now.
You're own statement kind of proves the point...how can the #9 team in the conference be the best team in the nation? It can't. It can be the NCAA champion, but it can't be the best team if it cannot even be the best team in it's own conference, let alone one of the top 8. That was my point from the beginning on the Best Team wins nonsense. How can the 9th place team in a conference be the best team in college basketball? By definition it is IMPOSSIBLE.
I'm not arguing that the best team always wins the tournament, but rather that the progress of certain teams can be indicative of the overall strength of a conference. In this case, UConn winning the title shows the Big East to have a deeper level of quality than any conference has ever had in the history of the sport.
I also don't get how you can say UCONN winning the title means the Big East was the best conference (I'm actually not arguing it wasn't...I think it was, but it's like the tallest midget in the circus...college basketball is pedestrian these days) while ignoring how poorly the conference did the first two rounds. That's truly dirty pool and having it both ways. ;D You're making an exception for the one team that got through but ignoring all the teams that stubbed their toes in the first and second rounds as if they have no bearing.
Scroll back to the top of the last page. Everyone who says the Big East flubbed so badly early is simply wrong. I'll repost the stats I included before.
Initial Field: 11/68 -- 16.18% (Expected)
Third Round: 7/32 -- 21.88% (Overachieved by 1.8 teams)
Sweet 16: 2/16 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.6 teams)
Elite 8: 1/8 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.3 teams)
Final 4: 1/4 -- 25.00% (Overachieved by 0.4 teams)
Title Game: 1/2 -- 50.00% (Overachieved by 0.7 teams)
Champion: 1/1 -- 100.00% (Overachieved by 0.8 teams)
This whole expectation that the Big East was going to put 6+ teams in the Sweet 16 was only propagated by people like Charles Barkley, who spent weeks denigrating the conference. Based on the number of entrants from the Big East, the conference never underachieved by so much as a full team. Maybe they should have had 3 Sweet 16 teams, or 2 Elite 8 teams, but at every other point, the Big East actually overachieved based on the number of teams that were in the field. The myth that the Big East failed greatly (yet still had the second best winning percentage of all conferences in the tournament) is simply silly.
By the way, no one ever said the TOP seeds don't bear out in the tournament, but it's the others that do not and that was my point. The crap shoot is the entire tournament, not just the top seeds. You can't ignore seeds 3 through 16 as if they don't participate in the NCAA tournament.
Umm...92% of the Final Four teams come not from the top 2 seeds, but from the top 5 seeds. I pointed that out. And that shows that the seeds generally hold further than just 1 and 2. Sure, some seeds have historically overachieved (notably 8 and 11) but that is less than a 10% minority. You are confusing upsets with a crapshoot. The tournament has upsets. That does not make it a crapshoot.
Since MU is never a top seed (#1 or #2) it's going to be a crap shoot for us every time. To suggest it isn't is silly.
Considering that the 3-5 seeds account for 28% of the Final Four teams (odds of more than 1 a year), I'd hardly call it a crapshoot every time. Would our odds improve by getting to the 1 or 2 line? Of course. But if we can consistently be in the 3-5 range, we theoretically should be able to expect a Final Four about every 4 years.
You're only focusing on the top seeds, the NCAA has 68 teams and you're focusing on 8 of them.....when was the last time we were one of those 8 teams.....never. Since seeding began we have NEVER been in the top 2 lines EVER. Twice we have been a 3 seed and made the Final Four and got bounced in the second round...crap shoot.
Where you play, who you play, when you play, etc, etc....it's a crap shoot.
Did you even read my post? I specifically mention seedlines down to 5, and in my post after that, I stated that the top 12-20 teams usually bear out to be the top teams in the nation. Is 28% a sure thing? No, but I wouldn't call it a crap shoot. Heck, it doesn't take much more than 28% for a three-point shooter to be considered a marksman.
Again, the problem here is that you are trying to skew the stats in your favor. When you talk about the tourney being a crapshoot, you look at one seed out of 16 and argue that the results of the 8 seeds against teams they barely play is somehow definitive proof of your argument. Then when I make an argument of the success of the top 5 seedlines, you say that I'm only using the top 2, which in terms of Final Four success ignores nearly a third of my argument.
And finally, using Marquette's success as a 3-seed indicates that if we can get a 3-seed, we have a 50% chance of making the Final Four. I'd call that a heck of a lot better odds than just a crapshoot. But let's be honest...2 cases is hardly enough to be a legitimate sample size.
-
The NCAA Tournament is no more of a crapshoot than the rest of the season? WTF? On a Sunday you get invited and may have to play as early as Tuesday (i.e. what VCU did) against a team that you had not scouted, etc.....please tell me how that is anywhere close to anything in the regular season when you know who you are playing 3 to 4 months before playing them.
So wait ... you're now suggesting that the results of the tournament are a crapshoot because the vast majority of teams have a mere 4-5 days to prepare for their first round opponent?
How exactly does that make the outcomes any more or less predictable?
Want to win a beer at a bar. The #11 seed all time has a winning record against the #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament...60% (3-2 record) while those same #11 seeds only win 33% against their opening round #6 seed, only win 9% of the time against #2 seeds and 28% of the time against #3 seeds...yet they have a winning record against the #1's.
Really? You're suggesting that of the more than 1,765 games played since the tournament expanded, five of them (which bore out a 3-2 record) has some significance? This is what's called a statistical anomaly, not evidence of unpredictability.
What you've decided to label as a crapshoot in the tournament is what most people would call an "upset" during the regular season. What evidence do you have that such upsets occur more often in the tournament than in the regular season? They don't. In fact, it's a frequent occurrence during the regular season to see bubble teams (the future 10, 11, 12 seeds) knock off future 2, 3, 4 seeds. But when the exact same thing happens in the tournament, now you've got a crapshoot? And you even see teams that are going to the NIT or lesser tourneys knocking off future top seeds (see: Virginia Tech over Duke, Georgia Tech over UNC, Nebraska over Texas), which is a degree of upset you rarely get in the tournament. And yet you don't see that as a crapshoot because the team's know one another schedules in advance?
-
What you've decided to label as a crapshoot in the tournament is what most people would call an "upset" during the regular season. What evidence do you have that such upsets occur more often in the tournament than in the regular season? They don't. In fact, it's a frequent occurrence during the regular season to see bubble teams (the future 10, 11, 12 seeds) knock off future 2, 3, 4 seeds. But when the exact same thing happens in the tournament, now you've got a crapshoot? And you even see teams that are going to the NIT or lesser tourneys knocking off future top seeds (see: Virginia Tech over Duke, Georgia Tech over UNC, Nebraska over Texas), which is a degree of upset you rarely get in the tournament. And yet you don't see that as a crapshoot because the team's know one another schedules in advance?
This is probably the most salient point of the argument. Upsets happen. They happen in the non-conference, they happen in conference play, they happen in the tournament. That's just part of college basketball.
While I agree with the idea that NCAA Tournament games are overrated in terms of the final coaches poll and in terms of how people regard the success or failure of a season, Chicos and M84 are underrating the importance of them as games. Just because it's one-and-done doesn't mean that the games are less important in regards to a team's quality at the end of the year.
The reason UConn looks so much better now is because they had a successful sample of six games to finish their season. The reason Pittsburgh shouldn't be dropped from 4 to 12 is because they only played 2 tournament games, and should only be regarded in terms of losing one game. If they lost to Butler in February, would they have dropped 8 places? No chance. Does UConn deserve to climb that high? I'd say so, because they are climbing while everyone else is idle.
Just because Tourney games are overrated by some doesn't mean that you have to underrate them to make a point, which is exactly what is happening here.
-
Initial Field: 11/68 -- 16.18% (Expected)
Third Round: 7/32 -- 21.88% (Overachieved by 1.8 teams)
Sweet 16: 2/16 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.6 teams)
Elite 8: 1/8 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.3 teams)
Final 4: 1/4 -- 25.00% (Overachieved by 0.4 teams)
Title Game: 1/2 -- 50.00% (Overachieved by 0.7 teams)
Champion: 1/1 -- 100.00% (Overachieved by 0.8 teams)
Wait a second Brew, when you were taking apart Bo Ryan a few weeks ago it was all about how he did against the seeds. Now you're using a different argument, aren't you? You're simply taking the number of teams left as they move forward...why the change in definition of success? ;D
Let's use the same criteria you used to take apart Coach Ryan
Big East got 11 teams in
According to the seeding in round 1, they should have gone 9-2 as Expected. Reality is the Big East went 7-4 in that first round....one upset and 3 stubbed toes. UNDERACHIEVED
In the second round, the Big East should have had 4 higher seeds win 4 games. Instead they only won 1 game as the higher seed with Marquette the other...overall going 2-5 in the second round. Of the losses, those included the #1 and #2 seeds going out in the second round. Major stubbed toes again. UNDERACHIEVED
So through the first two rounds we have of the 11 teams, 1 overachieved, 4 met expectation (WVU and Uconn, Cincy and Nova...which is a stretch because despite the 9 seed Nova was favored) while a whopping 6 underachieved (more than 50% of the Big East participants left the tournament as underachievers using the same system you used just two weeks ago to judge Bo Ryan). :D
One team does not a conference make...nor should the NCAA tournament make any conference quite frankly. I'd argue the Big East was the best conference based on getting 11 seeds, having a winning record against the 5 other power conferences, etc, etc. The NCAA Tournament didn't show the Big East to be the best, just because one of it's members (9th place as it was) won the tournament...you can't ignore the multiple stubbed toes on one hand and only recognize the merits of one.
The other irony, using the seeding system you used last week, of the 6 games UCONN played, only ONE was against a "better" seed and that was playing #2 San Diego State...not exactly a strong #2. Their run to the championship they were the better seed in all but one game in which they played a slightly overrated seed that was only one line better than them.
-
So...uh....in the final coaches poll we made the top #25 huh?
Congrats Marquette!
Way to stay on topic guys. >:(