Softest bubble in a decade?

[willie warrior]

Emprical data?  You're kidding, right?  Palm is the publisher of collegerpi.com. 

Where's your empirical data that proves that athletes are bigger, stronger, faster and more gifted than those of 2005?

if they are getting bigger, how come we have such short starting guards( Coobi and Acker) and a 6'5" center (hayward) Why are we not getting our fair share of the bigger guys?

[NavinRJohnson]

It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

I totally have CBB's back on this one.

Complete nonsense...Staying with the Providence example, last year, their W's came against:

SJU, DePaul, @UC, UC, @SHU, Syracuse, @USF, RU, Pitt, @RU

Their losses came against:

@GU, MU, @UConn, Villanova, WVU, @UL, ND, @Villanova.

Now, you tell me how they would have a better record playing against those teams this year. Which of those losses are you gonna turn around? Maybe UConn. Maybe UL. Maybe ND. Any others? Of course if you can turn losses into wins, you also have to be able to turn wins into losses...How about Syracuse? @USF?

Looks to me that they would finish right around 10-8 against this years' Big East. Meaning for anyone to say that they would clearly fare better this year than last, patently stupid. Why? Because there is no way to know. For all we know, they could finish worse off this year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Who did Providence lose from last year to this year?

Basically their starting team.  Providence is just one example, that was entirely my point on timing.  We could use any number of schools.  Some years, pretty good teams don't get to the top because of the competition around them.  In other words, a team that is 17-13 one year might be a better team than a 19-11 team the next year because of who that 17-13 team has to play, the level of the competition in the conference, etc, etc.  Timing is everything.



Jmayer...it was my opinion that the conference was better last year than this year....an opinion shared by every Big East coach if you look at their comments in the pre-season and during the season.  I agree with you that the top of the conference was unbelievable last year, and the bottom of the conference is slightly better this year...but not by much.  The reason the bottom of the conference is better this year is because they can grab some wins against the top as they've dropped down some (i.e. DePaul beating Marquette, Rutgers beating G'Town, USF beating G'Town, etc).  The top of the league has come back to the pack, which makes the bottom look better.   

I guess the question for you and some others is pretty simple.  Do you think it was harder to get 10 wins in the Big East last year or this year?  For me, I think it was considerably harder last year (which, by the way, Buzz Williams was the coach and did a great job accomplishing that feat....somehow this will be turned into a belittling of Buzz Williams, just watch).

I have no agenda at all Jmayer1.  The problem YOU HAVE and some other posters is making anything I say fit your AGENDAS.  Cramming every statement I make into some kind of anti-Buzz comment.  All I did was state was at least 50 articles have said, it's a soft bubble.  And since MU is barely listed into the tournament by every bracket projection, that would mean we are the beneficiary of that soft bubble.  Those are just statements that the preponderance of evidence illustrates and you guys, with YOUR bias, immediately label it as anti-Buzz.  Did you ever think for a moment that your radar goes up every time certain people say something?  Did you guys ever think that every time certain people say something that a filter of "how is he\she trying to attack Buzz Williams" isn't going on in your heads?   I think some of you need to ask yourselves those questions and stop playing Cleo, the mind reader.

[Pakuni]

The quality of play in the Big East.  Last year, 3 number 1 seeds, greatest conference in history.  The talent in the Big East and the number of elite Big East teams isn't as strong.  It's still a great conference, but not as good as last year as EVERY Big East coach has already said. 

It's an opinion, but I believe last year's MU team would win the Big East this year. 

Last year's team was fortunate to squeak past Utah State (although they did have the benefit of a legend  ) in the tournament, and you think they would have been better than this year's Nova and Syracuse squads?
Doubtful.

As for quality of play, this year's Big East is not as good as last year's Big East, but the drop off has not been as dramatic as you seem to imply. As has been said, last year's best teams were better than this year's best teams, but the bottom-dwellers and middle-of-the-pack teams this year are better.
Rutgers is better, USF is better, Seton Hall is better, Cincy is better.

[NavinRJohnson]

All I did was state was at least 50 articles have said, it's a soft bubble.  And since MU is barely listed into the tournament by every bracket projection, that would mean we are the beneficiary of that soft bubble. 

Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of  the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.

For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."

That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Is the Big East really that much weaker this year??  WE have the 4,7,8,13,16 teams in the country.  And for much of the season UCONN was ranked, meaning we have had approximately 6 teams ranked in the Top 25 this year - pretty much similar to last.  Last year the Big East finished the season with 6 teams in the Top 15 per Pomeroy.  

You're using a flawed analogy of comparing the rankings this year with the rankings last year.  As we all know, the rankings are based on judgment of teams from this year only.  This year's #1 doesn't mean you would be #1 last year or any other year.


The Big East is still very good, ranked higher than the Big Ten (which has underachieved this year) but I would not agree with a premise that it's on par with last year.  I think 95% of experts (if not 99.9%) would agree.  It's good, in fact very good, one of the best in the country again this year, but in comparing the two years in talent levels, etc....not the same.

[NersEllenson]

Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of  the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.

For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."

That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.

AMEN!!

[NavinRJohnson]

You're using a flawed analogy of comparing the rankings this year with the rankings last year.  As we all know, the rankings are based on judgment of teams from this year only.  This year's #1 doesn't mean you would be #1 last year or any other year.

Unlike the NCAA tournament of course, where at-large selections are based on previous seasons, and future seasons, thus making the bubble soft or hard. Good lord, you can't even support your own original argument. The bubble cannot be 'soft,' it can only be the bubble.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Complete nonsense...Staying with the Providence example, last year, their W's came against:

SJU, DePaul, @UC, UC, @SHU, Syracuse, @USF, RU, Pitt, @RU

Their losses came against:

@GU, MU, @UConn, Villanova, WVU, @UL, ND, @Villanova.

Now, you tell me how they would have a better record playing against those teams this year. Which of those losses are you gonna turn around? Maybe UConn. Maybe UL. Maybe ND. Any others? Of course if you can turn losses into wins, you also have to be able to turn wins into losses...How about Syracuse? @USF?

Looks to me that they would finish right around 10-8 against this years' Big East. Meaning for anyone to say that they would clearly fare better this year than last, patently stupid. Why? Because there is no way to know. For all we know, they could finish worse off this year.

So Providence's losses last year were to a #3 seed on the road, a #1 seed on the road, another #3 seed, a #1 seed on the road, a #3 seed on the road, a #6 seed, a #6 seed and a NIT team.  They lost every game to powerhouse Big East teams with the exception of Notre Dame.  Compare that to this year where there may be ONE #1 seed...maybe.  An 11th seeded team...maybe.  A couple of 3 seeds...maybe.   Do you see where I'm going with this.  They ran into an absolute buzz saw last year in their losses that do not exist this year to the same level.  There aren't three number 1 NCAA teams in this league this year, so the road is easier.

[Pakuni]

I think some of you need to ask yourselves those questions and stop playing Cleo, the mind reader.

Nobody needs to play Cleo.
Helen Keller could see where you're coming from here (and with your many other not-so-subtle digs).

What I don't get is why you doth protest so much.
You have your doubts about Buzz. Big deal. Nothing wrong with you holding that opinion. Just own up to it instead of claiming to have his back while constantly throwing darts at it.

[Pakuni]

So Providence's losses last year were to a #3 seed on the road, a #1 seed on the road, another #3 seed, a #1 seed on the road, a #3 seed on the road, a #6 seed, a #6 seed and a NIT team.  They lost every game to powerhouse Big East teams with the exception of Notre Dame. 

Interesting.
So based upon those results, you declare that Providence team a lock for this year's tourney.

This year, MU's conference losses have been to a projected #2 seed, a projected #2 seed on the road, a projected #1 seed on the road, a projected #4 seed and one non-powerhouse Big East team.
And based on those results, they're just "slightly above average" who may be "lucky" to get in the tournament thanks to a "soft bubble."

So much for consistency.

[Silky]

This is funny reading Chicos once again rip Buzz.  It's so obvious a monkey could see what he is trying to do. 

MU could go to the Final Four this year and we would read about how it's not the same as 2003. 

[NavinRJohnson]

So Providence's losses last year were to a #3 seed on the road, a #1 seed on the road, another #3 seed, a #1 seed on the road, a #3 seed on the road, a #6 seed, a #6 seed and a NIT team.  They lost every game to powerhouse Big East teams with the exception of Notre Dame.  Compare that to this year where there may be ONE #1 seed...maybe.  An 11th seeded team...maybe.  A couple of 3 seeds...maybe.   Do you see where I'm going with this.  They ran into an absolute buzz saw last year in their losses that do not exist this year to the same level.  There aren't three number 1 NCAA teams in this league this year, so the road is easier.

I'm aware what they did last year, but since you state it as fact, I'm just curious how you can demonstrate that there is no way to find 8 losses on their schedule this year. If you figure it out, let me know.

[NavinRJohnson]

Interesting.
So based upon those results, you declare that Providence team a lock for this year's tourney.

This year, MU's conference losses have been to a projected #2 seed, a projected #2 seed on the road, a projected #1 seed on the road, a projected #4 seed and one non-powerhouse Big East team.
And based on those results, they're just "slightly above average" who may be "lucky" to get in the tournament thanks to a "soft bubble."

So much for consistency.

I guess that pretty much puts this ridiculous thing to bed. Game. Set. Match. Oh, one thing you forgot to mention, Providence had their a$$es whipped in the majority of those games. The average margin in their losses was over 15 points. The combined margin in MU's 6 losses thus far is nearly the same a PC's average at 18 points.

[NavinRJohnson]

MU could go to the Final Four this year and we would read about how it's not the same as 2003. 

Well of course we would because this year is going to be a soft tournament field. Duh!

[Marquette84]

Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of  the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.

I think one has to compare this same point in late February 2009 to this year.

Last year, the cut line appeared pretty early--in 2009 we had fewer potential NCAA teams, and more clear-cut locks in the Big East.

For example, in 2009, through 14 games there were four Big East teams with 12-2 records (UL, UConn, Pitt and MU).  There was a 5th team at 10-4 (Villanova).  Those teams were considered locks for the NCAA tournament at the time.

Below those five teams there only five more teams with at least six wins (Syracuse, WVU, Providence, Cincy and ND).  Cincy, ND and Providence were considered longshots because of their poor non-conference records.  WVU as Syracuse had quality wins over Kansas and Memphis.

The other 6 teams had played themselves out of contention, with .500 the best they could possibly accomplish. 


Now compare to 2010:

Just a single team with a 12-2 record (Syracuse).
One more with a 11-3 after 12 games (Villanova).
Two more with 10 wins (Pitt and WVU).
One more at 9-5 after 12 games (UL).

Top 5 2009:  Combined 12 losses
Top 5 2010:  Combined 18 losses.

This leads to the the perception is that the top of the league is not as strong. 

After these four teams, there are EIGHT teams that could play themselves in or out of the tournament by finishing better than .500:  (GU, UL, MU, SHU, ND, UConn, USF, and Cincy).

2009:  5 locks, 5 potentials, 6 out of contention
2008:  4 locks, 8 potentials, 4 out of contention

The bubble was firmer last year because there were fewer teams fighting for a limited number of spots.

It is softer this year because there are more teams fighting for the same number (or fewer) spots.

 

For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."

That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.

No, its not. 

Its a reflection that the committee will look at the top three or four teams in the league, see that some of them already have three or four losses (compared to two losses at this point in prior seasons) and come to the conclusion that the league is not as strong.

While the committee doesn't allocate bids by league, they will have to decide if a win over Pitt or WVU this year is as valuable as a win over UConn or VU last year. 


Now, I know your argument--"Those middle of the pack teams are stronger--thats why they're beating the top teams."

Are they? 

Georgetown lost to ODU
Louisville lost to UNLV, Charlotte, WCU and Kentucky.
MU lost to UW, Florida State & NC State.
UConn lost to Kentuky, Duke and Michigan
Seton Hall lost to Temple & Virginia Tech
CIncy lost to Gonzaga, Xavier and UAB
ND lost to Northwester and LMU
USF lost to South Carolina & Central Michiagn

Doesn't paint the picture that we have a lot of teams that have improved to near-elite level teams, does it?

In fact, the committee will look at Pitt's loss to IU and devalue 4th place in the Big East accordingly.

They'll look at Syracuse's non-conference record, and look for another NCAA tournament team in their non-conference body of work.

They'll look at Villanova, see the loss to Temple, and wonder if the Big East is that much better than the A10.

[NavinRJohnson]

Now, I know your argument--"Those middle of the pack teams are stronger--thats why they're beating the top teams."

Now. I'm not sure who you're talking to, but you don't know squat.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Which brings it all the way back to the stupidity of  the original point and the suggestion of a soft bubble. There is simply no such thing. The theory of a variable bubble, simply avoids the reality of math. Last year there were 344 D1 teams and 34 At-large berths. This year, there are 347 D1 teams, and 34 At-large berths. Someone please explain to me how the bubble can be any softer this year than in any other year. Those 34 teams are selected relative to their peers. Not relative to their peers last year, or relative to their peers next year, but relative to their peers this year. The committee will select what they determine to be the best 34 teams as they do every year.

For this idea of a soft bubble or this team or that team being 'lucky' to have any merit, would require the committee to say. "Well, we decided not to invite Marquette because they aren't as good as last year, and the only reason they would even be considered is because college basketball as a whole is down this year."

That is essentially the argument that people seem to be making.

They have to fill the spots so I don't understand your comments. 

Of course the bubble can be softer one year vs another.  There's been plenty of expert discussion on this over the years.  That's how the term "soft bubble" came about in the first place.  The bubble is different each year.  In some cases it's a soft bubble and other years it's not.  This year is a very soft bubble....look, I'm not on some island saying this.  There are people that are college basketball experts that are saying this. 

Pakuni, I gave you actual seeds from last year not projected seeds in the third week of February for this year....big difference.  Again, I'm not on an island here, some people that know much more about it than anyone on this board are saying the same thing.  Go figure.

[jmayer1]

Again, I'm not on an island here, some people that know much more about it than anyone on this board are saying the same thing.  Go figure.

Great, and those same people had MU pegged as 12th in the Big East, prior to the losses of JC, Maymon, and Otule.  But since they are "experts", I guess what we have to take their word as bible.  I can't imagine any writers putting pen to paper and writing a story about how soft the bubble is just because they'vw heard other "experts" discuss this and they need something to submit!!

Plain and simple: there is it is very hard support the theory that the bubble is soft or hard this year.  It is the bubble, more or less it's the same as every year.  Some of you have tried to show some data in regards to wins and losses and seedings but that makes no sense logically.  At the end of the day, the combined records of all teams are .500 and the same seeds are given every year.  For all the "data" that says the top of the big east was stronger last year, there also has to be correlating "data" that shows either the middle of the Big East is stronger or another conference is stronger.  It's really simple math. 

A much better argument, I believe, would be to compare teams from year to year, which people have done with Providence last year and MU this year.  Providence lost to some very good teams, but they also got blown out in most of those games.  MU has lost to some very good teams this year, but has yet to get blown out.  Of course, in two and half weeks, hopefully MU won't be on the bubble at all, so this discussion will really be pointless 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

A much better argument, I believe, would be to compare teams from year to year, which people have done with Providence last year and MU this year.  Providence lost to some very good teams, but they also got blown out in most of those games.  MU has lost to some very good teams this year, but has yet to get blown out.  Of course, in two and half weeks, hopefully MU won't be on the bubble at all, so this discussion will really be pointless 

You're right that the whole exercise is pointless.

To really compare teams however, you'd have to imagine them going in a time machine and swapping schedules.

Providence getting blown out by a Big East team last year doesn't mean they would get blown out this year. Inversely, MU has played a lot of teams tough. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't get crushed by (insert team from Providence schedule here).

Make sense?

Comparing what Providence did against last year's Big East to what MU has done against this year's Big East really doesn't prove anything.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Great, and those same people had MU pegged as 12th in the Big East, prior to the losses of JC, Maymon, and Otule.  But since they are "experts", I guess what we have to take their word as bible.  I can't imagine any writers putting pen to paper and writing a story about how soft the bubble is just because they'vw heard other "experts" discuss this and they need something to submit!!

Well, no, that's entirely inaccurate.

The Big East Coaches picked Marquette 12th in the pre-season, not the bracket experts like Lunardi, Palm, Pomeroy, etc.

Just saying

http://www.bigeast.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=19400&ATCLID=204816815

The "experts" that do this for a living on projecting brackets don't agree with you and please don't lump them in with the coaches pre-season poll which they had nothing to do with.

[dw3dw3dw3]

The other board is actually more enjoyable to read than this board now.... I used to think they filtered too much, but now this board could use a little "filtering". 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nobody needs to play Cleo.
Helen Keller could see where you're coming from here (and with your many other not-so-subtle digs).

What I don't get is why you doth protest so much.
You have your doubts about Buzz. Big deal. Nothing wrong with you holding that opinion. Just own up to it instead of claiming to have his back while constantly throwing darts at it.

You're just plain wrong.  This thread is about the bubble, doesn't have anything to do with Buzz...you guys went there, not me.  As is almost always the case.

[jmayer1]

Well, no, that's entirely inaccurate.

The Big East Coaches picked Marquette 12th in the pre-season, not the bracket experts like Lunardi, Palm, Pomeroy, etc.

Just saying

http://www.bigeast.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=19400&ATCLID=204816815

The "experts" that do this for a living on projecting brackets don't agree with you and please don't lump them in with the coaches pre-season poll which they had nothing to do with.

MU not one of top 10 Big East teams in Palm's preseason bracket.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12492320/projecting-the-field-preseason-edition/rss

Lunardi pegs MU as # 9 in Big East
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4265973

I don't think Pomeroy, who actually doesn't predict the bracket btw, does a preseason prediction (I couldn't find one) since his site is almost entirely derived on stats and uses predictive analysis based on previous results.

I'm sure I could find a ton more preseason predictions, done by people other than the coaches, that had MU pegged pretty low.  So, the "experts" were wrong on MU's finish in the Big East (prior to losing 3 expected contributors) but now that one guy (Palm) has said this year is a soft bubble (maybe there's been more, I don't know, feel free to post other articles to support your claim), I'm supposed to just agree with them and take their word as stone?  He may be right, he may be wrong.  I don't know, but it is definitely not an open and shut case like you have tried to state.  That's why it's an opinion, and not a fact, as you continually insinuate.  But, now I'm tired of debating this topic.  You have your opinion and I have mine, agree to disagree.

[mu-rara]

You're just plain wrong.  This thread is about the bubble, doesn't have anything to do with Buzz...you guys went there, not me.  As is almost always the case.

That's because you don't have the courage to admit that it was a shot at Buzz.  Your anti Buzz stuff alwyas comes in through the side door. 

Abe never admitted he was a Badger fan either.