HMMM... This Game Answered a Lot

[ChicosBailBonds]

So since we made the sweet 16 we were "underseeded" and deserved a 3 or 4 seed (where a team between 9-16 belongs) even though we're not as good as last year? Seems contradictory.

Contradictory...hardly.  Funny seeing ringout's response when he has had so many problems with facts the last 18 hours.  LOL.

I would say we were seeded just about right....Syracuse was overseeded and Xavier overseeded.  Bracket Project agrees with me, both had them seeded in a consensus lower (worse) than what the committee put them at.

We played two teams we can handle...got a great draw against teams that can't shoot very well from the outside, our biggest Achilles heel.  All about matchups, Lenny, and we got great matchups.  Buzz did a great job of exploiting those matchups.

Xavier 239th in 3 pt shooting
Syracuse 118th in 3 pt shooting 


Great matchups for us....kudos to Buzz and the boys for making the most of them.  Sad part is that North Carolina is 223rd in 3 point shooting...should have zoned all game long.

[Pakuni]

So, did Wisconsin lose to a lesser seed or did they lose to a FINAL FOUR participant?

Again, the seed means jack.  You have to look at what the team actually does and how they perform.  Wisconsin lost to a Final Four participant...we may end up doing the same thing if UNC can win tomorrow.


Right on Cue Butler...thank you!   

Seriously, Chico's, what's with the need to prop up UW at all times? It's one thing to respect the program, it's another to incessantly lavish praise on them and defend them from any and all criticism, deserved or not.
It's pathological and, quite frankly, it's abnormal. Are people on the Georgetown boards constantly talking about how great Jim Boeheim is? Do Auburn fans defend everything Nick Saban does? Are their posters on the UNC board today saying "You know, over the past decade Duke has been the better program."
It is not normal.

Yeah, Butler is going to the Final Four. Congrats to them. And their road included last-second wins against ODU, Pitt and Florida in extremely tight contests in which plenty of breaks fell their way  .... and then a complete beatdown of Bucky.
Seems to me UW was the Bulldogs' least difficult speed bump on the road to the Final Four.
Maybe their making up the T-shirts in Madison right now to celebrate their loss to a Final Four team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Over the last three or four seasons, who else has really played for them?  In almost every game, Bo's team took the floor with higher level recruits or equal compared to the opponent.  

What criteria and what time period are you using?  RSCI has them 6th in their own conference, not even in the top half.  So how can you make the statement that "in almost every game, Bo's team took the floor with higher level recruits or equal compared to the opponent".  We've already shown here several months ago that MU has had far more RSCI top 100 recruits and better quality (more top 75 guys where UW's are mostly 75 to 100)

Numbers below are interesting, especially when you translate that talent and see how many wins each program has earned.  Again, who is doing more with less?  I'm presenting data, I'd love to see a few other people present some rather than just yelling "YOU'RE WRONG"


Total RSCI Top 100 Big Ten recruits per team since Bo's first recruiting class arrived:
 
MSU - 21     (12 top 50 recruits)
OSU - 17     (10)
Illinois - 14     (8)
Indiana - 13     (5)
Michigan - 11     (5)
UW - 10     (3)
Minn - 7     (3)
Purdue - 7     (3)
Iowa - 5     (1)
PSU - 1     (0)
NW - 0     (0)

Note:  RSCI Top 100 commits to each school, not necessarily who finished at each school.

Total Wins in Big Ten games since Bo's first recruiting class arrived  (as of 2/18/11):

UW  -  105
MSU  -  98
OSU  -  94
Illinois  -  92
Purdue  -  82
Indiana  -  68
Michigan  -  65
Iowa  -  63
Minn  -  61
NW  -  46
PSU  -  41

[ChicosBailBonds]

Seriously, Chico's, what's with the need to prop up UW at all times? It's one thing to respect the program, it's another to incessantly lavish praise on them and defend them from any and all criticism, deserved or not.
It's pathological and, quite frankly, it's abnormal. Are people on the Georgetown boards constantly talking about how great Jim Boeheim is? Do Auburn fans defend everything Nick Saban does? Are their posters on the UNC board today saying "You know, over the past decade Duke has been the better program."
It is not normal.

Yeah, Butler is going to the Final Four. Congrats to them. And their road included last-second wins against ODU, Pitt and Florida in extremely tight contests in which plenty of breaks fell their way  .... and then a complete beatdown of Bucky.
Seems to me UW was the Bulldogs' least difficult speed bump on the road to the Final Four.
Maybe their making up the T-shirts in Madison right now to celebrate their loss to a Final Four team.

It's not propping up UW-madison, it's blowing away this stupid theory on "lesser" seeds as if the committee's seeding system is the end all be all determining who the best teams are.  It's laughable.  I find it incredible that the same people blasting the committee as idiots are also the same people essentially saying the seedings (given to us by the same incompetent committee that they rip) are the true measure of how good a basketball team is.  With logic like this it's amazing this country isn't in a full depression at this point.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos? contradictory?  Nah, can't be. 

God, I'd hate to be a co-worker.  Can you imagine all the wasted energy he uses at work for things that really matter?

Come on down sometime and talk to those co-workers.  It would just be the 5th or 6th thing you've been wrong about in the last 18 hours.  You are on quite a roll ringout.

[ringout]

Contradictory...hardly.  Funny seeing ringout's response when he has had so many problems with facts the last 18 hours.  LOL.

I would say we were seeded just about right....Syracuse was overseeded and Xavier overseeded.  Bracket Project agrees with me, both had them seeded in a consensus lower (worse) than what the committee put them at.

We played two teams we can handle...got a great draw against teams that can't shoot very well from the outside, our biggest Achilles heel.  All about matchups, Lenny, and we got great matchups.  Buzz did a great job of exploiting those matchups.

Xavier 239th in 3 pt shooting
Syracuse 118th in 3 pt shooting 


Great matchups for us....kudos to Buzz and the boys for making the most of them.  Sad part is that North Carolina is 223rd in 3 point shooting...should have zoned all game long.

OK..We get it now.

Becky loses because they have the misfortune of playing better teams that were incorrectly seeded(for 10 years).  Marquette wins because they have the great fortune of playing against teams that they match up with.

That sounds like Badger fan logic.

[brewcity77]

Contradictory...hardly.  Funny seeing ringout's response when he has had so many problems with facts the last 18 hours.  LOL.

I would say we were seeded just about right....Syracuse was overseeded and Xavier overseeded.  Bracket Project agrees with me, both had them seeded in a consensus lower (worse) than what the committee put them at.

Chicos, I'm calling shenanigans. You say that we were seeded about right, Syracuse and Xavier were overseeded because of what Bracket Project said? Yet you said that Butler was underseeded. But Bracket Project had them at an 11, so they were actually overseeded.

Again, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to use Bracket Project, you have to use it equally with all teams. That means we were underseeded (BP had us as a 9) and Butler was overseeded (11).

[MUMac]

I must have been sleeping or drunk, so we lost to UW last night?  Bo Ryan out coached Buzz?  Wow, I can't believe I missed that one.

[HoopsMalone]

Total RSCI Top 100 Big Ten recruits per team since Bo's first recruiting class arrived:
 
MSU - 21     (12 top 50 recruits)
OSU - 17     (10)
Illinois - 14     (8)
Indiana - 13     (5)
Michigan - 11     (5)
UW - 10     (3)
Minn - 7     (3)
Purdue - 7     (3)
Iowa - 5     (1)
PSU - 1     (0)
NW - 0     (0)

Note:  RSCI Top 100 commits to each school, not necessarily who finished at each school.

Your list is a fair point.  But, I would guess that on average, only MSU and OSU take the floor with better players because they are very good at reloading their one and done players.

Illinois-  Most of their top recruits were early in the decade and most played on their team that made the finals.

Indiana-  No reason to go there.  But, players like Jared Jeffries and Eric Gordon did not take the floor against Bo too often.

Michigan/Minnesota-  I consider that to be within the realm of equal talent as it is off by one player.

Hughes/J-Bo/Butch/Krabbenhoft/Leuer/Nankivil etc. are all 4-stars/top100 on Rivals (not sure what they are on the one you used).  They all stayed four years and took the floor many times for Bo.  He has always had talent, and it probably has been on average equal or better than the competition. 

Many of the players Bo recruited were when MU's success in the Big East was uncertain, Iowa was in the crapper, and Tubby was not at Minnesota.  Wisconsin was a good destination for a while, but that has all changed.  I think Bo is a better recruiter than people give him credit for though.  He does not have some secret formula where he takes a bunch of nobodies to all these wins. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

OK..We get it now.

Becky loses because they have the misfortune of playing better teams that were incorrectly seeded(for 10 years).  Marquette wins because they have the great fortune of playing against teams that they match up with.

That sounds like Badger fan logic.

How many posts in a row now are you going to be wrong?

Let's try AGAIN.  The last 10 years, using YOUR OWN CRITERIA, Wisconsin has lost SIX TIMES to teams seeded BETTER THAN THEM. 

So I have to ask you, why post after post after post you keep going down this logic as if all 10 years they were bounced by a lesser seed?  Not only hasn't that happened, it hasn't happened even HALF THE TIME. 

Facts man, try to grab a few.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, I'm calling shenanigans. You say that we were seeded about right, Syracuse and Xavier were overseeded because of what Bracket Project said? Yet you said that Butler was underseeded. But Bracket Project had them at an 11, so they were actually overseeded.

Again, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to use Bracket Project, you have to use it equally with all teams. That means we were underseeded (BP had us as a 9) and Butler was overseeded (11).

I actually don't recall saying Butler was underseeded...if I did, please point it out and I'll gladly admit it.  I commented on the overseeding of Xavier, Syracuse, Wisconsin, etc but don't recall talking about Butler's 8 seed.  I think I said their 8 seed means a hill of beans because of how they play this time of year, but don't recall saying whether they were over or under seeded like I did with other squads.

You guys see Wisconsin losing to an 8 seed and say it's a bad loss because the committee said Wisconsin was a 4 (which was an OVERSEED in my opinion) and Butler an 8 (which seems about right to me considering how they came into the tournament) and you believe UW-madison underachieved.  I see it as UW-madison lost to a back to back Final Four team and any "shame" or whatever people see in losing to a "lesser" seed just isn't there.

I guess it's all in POV.

Again, I'll happily admit I was wrong if I said Butler was under or overseeded, but I don't recall saying that about Butler but instead commented on other teams seeds.  With my advanced age, however, there's no doubt I could have and forgotten already.  

[El Duderino]

I must have been sleeping or drunk, so we lost to UW last night?  Bo Ryan out coached Buzz?  Wow, I can't believe I missed that one.

Chicos does have a bizarre fascination with guys like Crean, and Ryan especially who never even coached at MU. Plus, except for a high school player here and there from Wisconsin, Buzz and Bo don't even recruit against each other much.

Yet, Chico will make one post after another trying to argue about how great Crean and Bo are, but not comment in most other threads say about players on the team, recruits coming in, or any number of topics not related to Crean, Bo, or Buzz being way overrated by most on the forum. If though he starts a thread about Crean, Bo, or Buzz being way overrated by most on the forum and/or a thread has an opening for him to make it about those three topics, he'll be all over it with a bunch of posts.

Not sure i've ever seen anything like it on any other sports forum i've been on. The only time i see a poster like that, they'll tend to be a troll from another team. It does get him lots of attention, so i'm sure it factors into his agenda.

[WarriorHal]

Since this has come up a number of times, here is this year's team. UNC did well again.

http://www.mcdonaldsallamerican.com/2011_BoysRosterAlph.pdf

[brewcity77]

I actually don't recall saying Butler was underseeded...if I did, please point it out and I'll gladly admit it.  I commented on the overseeding of Xavier, Syracuse, Wisconsin, etc but don't recall talking about Butler's 8 seed.  I think I said their 8 seed means a hill of beans because of how they play this time of year, but don't recall saying whether they were over or under seeded like I did with other squads.

I found what I was thinking of...a bit more vague than I recall, anyway, here's the quote:

What you are arguing is that they are under performing based on their seed....fine.  I won't deny that, but if you really think the NCAA committed gets these seeds correct you're nuts.  If Butler ends up in the Final Four again, does that mean every team that lost to them in the tournament "underperformed"?  Really?  Or is it that Butler was a good team and seeded incorrectly?  Or was it that Wisconsin and the teams they played were OVERSEEDED?  Your argument lies SOLELY on the idea of what a committee assigned a seed to and ignores the reality of what happens on the court.

To be accurate (as I initially wasn't completely accurate) you use Butler as an example of potentially bad seeding. Does it say that Wisconsin is overseeded or Butler was underseeded, or that the SC gets them wrong? Personally, I don't think they do get them wrong.

Underseeding and overseeding can only occur if the better team wins on every given night. Not "any given night", but EVERY given night. Was Wisconsin overseeded? Absolutely not. Look at their resume and it's clear that they deserve a 4-seed. In fact, they were probably one of the easiest teams in the country to seed outside of tOSU and Kansas. In Bracket Project, I counted 79/89 brackets that had them as a 4-seed. There's simply no way they were seeded incorrectly.

However, that doesn't mean they will beat every team seeded below them and lose to every team seeded above them. They beat tOSU and lost to UNLV during the regular season. Or look at Pitt. They lost at home to Tennessee. But if you look at resumes, Pitt's a pretty clear #1, while UT is a pretty clear 8-9. Sometimes it's all match-ups.

I know you talk about how important match-ups are, and I agree with that. But I think that seed matters as well. Remember that the SC sometimes has to move teams up or down a line, possibly (rarely) even 2 lines to get the scheduling right. So seeing Syracuse or Xavier one line off what Bracket Project indicated isn't really bad seeding, it's a slight difference from what was expected. Was Marquette underseeded? If so, probably not by more than a line or two, which means they weren't really underseeded. Could Marquette have been a 10 and Xavier a 7? Sure. That's still a first-round match-up. The only difference is UNC smacks us in the second round instead of the Sweet 16.

However, in regard to NCAA coaching, great coaches are recognized for performing above their seeding, or equal to their seeding if they are consistently given high seeds. Guys like Brad Stevens and Tom Izzo have produced results regardless of their seed. Then you have Coach K and Roy Williams that deliver in accordance with their high seeds.

Bo is the opposite of this. 11-2 against double-digit seeds. 3-8 against single-digit seeds. 4 of the last 5 seasons have ended to lower-seeded teams. When he gets a high-seed, like a 2 or 3, they seem to lose to lower seeded teams. When they get a mid-level seed, they cannot rise above their seed to beat higher-seeded teams. His best win ever in the NCAA Tournament, in 11 years, is a 5-seed. Once as a 12-seed, once as a 4-seed. That's not impressive, and that's not good NCAA Tourney coaching. Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Eleven times, well that's way beyond a trend, that's just how it is.

In Bo's career, he has one Elite 8 and three Sweet 16s. Do you know how many single-digit seeds he has beaten in the 9 victories those seasons? Only one, Kansas State this year. They have only found success against lower level teams. And yes, they have been eliminated by better teams, including some 1-seeds. But I'm not focusing on who took them out. Everyone's season ends in a loss, except for the NCAA and NIT champs. They go out to higher and lower seeds about evenly. But I'm talking about the specific records against single and double-digit seeds. 11-2 and 3-8. They perform against one level, they flub against the other. The 11-2 mark is fine. But 3-8? Especially as none of the wins are against anything better than a 5, and the losses include 7s and 8s? If he were a great NCAA coach, he would have scalped at least one 1-seed or 2-seed by now. I'd even take a 3, which Buzz did this year. But nothing better than a 5? Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Their record is strictly a product of playing low-seeded teams and having a great regular season record so they make the tourney every year. It's not overperforming on talent, it's not brilliant coaching, it's playing lots of bad teams because they earn high seeds and luck out some years. They're like blind squirrels that happen to find quite a few nuts. Basically, the blind squirrels that fell into a Planters factory. Gotta figure that eventually karma will chase them out.

[RawdogDX]

In Ryan's defense, many of those higher-seeded teams had already upset someone else.  This year Butler may have been the higher-seeded team, but Butler already beat #1 seed Pitt.  A few years ago they lost as a 3 seed to 10 seed Davidson, but Davidson already beat the #2 seed Georgetown.

Its not like they were Xavier this year, who lost their opening round game to a higher seeded team.

Duh, the only way you get to play a 9-16 seed outside of the 1st round is if they 'had already upset someone else.

[ringout]

How many posts in a row now are you going to be wrong?

Let's try AGAIN.  The last 10 years, using YOUR OWN CRITERIA, Wisconsin has lost SIX TIMES to teams seeded BETTER THAN THEM. 

So I have to ask you, why post after post after post you keep going down this logic as if all 10 years they were bounced by a lesser seed?  Not only hasn't that happened, it hasn't happened even HALF THE TIME. 

Facts man, try to grab a few.

Chicos, even bolding and capitalizing doesn't make your twisted logic work.   Try reading BrewCity's excellent effort at describing that which you have, so far anyway, been unable to comprehend.

Did you pass PHIL 001?  I'm sure you had to take it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, even bolding and capitalizing doesn't make your twisted logic work.   Try reading BrewCity's excellent effort at describing that which you have, so far anyway, been unable to comprehend.

Did you pass PHIL 001?  I'm sure you had to take it.

Ringout....when you say they have CONSISTENTLY been knocked out the last ten years by lesser seeds and it happens not even half the time, how on earth can you call your comments knowledgeable?  I'd really like to know.  Do you have a different definition of CONSISTENTLY than the rest of the western world?

It's ok to admit an error, it really is.

Yes, took PHIL 001 and PHIL 050 along with two other Phil courses.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Brew....I appreciate your posts here more than most because you come with some data and an opinion without the name calling.  Well done.

I don't agree with you, but I still respect your opinion.   

Thank you for making me feel a little less old.  I didn't think I had stated anything about Butler being under or over seeded and I'm glad that was proven out.

Now, here's where I have a few issues.  As an example, you state that "Their record is strictly a product of playing low-seeded teams and having a great regular season record so they make the tourney every year. It's not overperforming on talent, it's not brilliant coaching, it's playing lots of bad teams because they earn high seeds and luck out some years[/b]"

With all due respect, I think "bad" teams is way overboard.  I believe you are a Ken Pom fan.  I know AnotherMU84 is as well as a number of posters

Belmont...19th in Ken Pom this year.  Is that a Bad Team?  That is considerably higher than Marquette and I don't think you would label MU a bad team.  I KNOW AnotherMU84 wouldn't.

Kansas State..27th in Ken Pom this year....again...bad team?
UW-madison lost to 37th Butler...a Final Four team. 

Let's look at years past

Last year lost to #52 Cornell...not a great team, but a bad team?  Gonzaga, for example, was rated 57th.  New Mexico, a 3 seed last year...54th.  Wake Forest, a 9 seed, 59th

Let's continue to year prior.  Knocked out by Ken Pom 20th ranked Xavier.  Bad team?  Of course not and they were a better seed than Wisconsin....but doesn't that get to the point. Xavier was clearly a better team than Wisconsin and beat them.  I don't know why anyone would expect them to beat Xavier.

The year prior to that, lost to Davidson...#20 Ken Pom (this is after Wisconsin beat #17 Kansas State who you labeled as a bad team).  Now you're saying #20 Davidson is a "bad team" because of their seed, when in reality they were a very good team per Ken Pom.

Let's go further...losing to #42 UNLV.  I can't begin to tell you how happy I was that tournament.  Butch got hurt and it really hurt UW-madison.  I was very nervous they were on their way back to the Final Four.  At any rate...42 is a bad team?  That 42 ranking gave them a 7 seed yet Virginia at #45 got a 4 seed.  Gonzaga, Stanford, BYU, BC, Nevada, etc, etc, all got at large bids despite being ranked behind #42.  Bad team?

Let's go further...in the Elite 8 run.  NC State was a Ken Pom #20 yet got a ridiculous 10 seed.  To show you how absurd that was, only two teams in the Ken Pom top 25 got a double digit seed...Utah State (comes from a terrible conference so their Ken Pom number is inflated) and NC State.  The majority had 4 seeds or higher with a few sprinklings of a 5, 6 and a 9.

I think you get my point.  It's easy to look at the seedings and say "bad teams" but I don't think that's what you meant.  These are NCAA Tournament teams and in most cases, very solid rankings in the RPI, Ken Pom, etc.  UW-madison didn't just build up their resume in the NCAA on cupcakes or bad teams. 

It seems to me that people get way to cavalier with the seedings as if having a 12 seed means they suck or something. Hell, a 12 seed means you are likely one of the top 45 teams in the country but we get into this mode of compartmentalizing and not understanding how good these at-large teams are (I'm not talking about the auto qualifiers from the low conferences).

Peace

[brewcity77]

Agreed, Chicos. I enjoy the good discussions we get out of this place too 

But again, I beg to differ. Okay, I'll agree that they weren't "bad" teams. But they were significantly below the level of team UW should have been beating. And my guess is kenpom will bear that out as well. I'll go back to 2003, since that's how far kenpom.com goes back:

2003 UW #11: Beat 85 Weber State, beat 43 Tulsa, lost to 2 Kentucky
2004 UW #5: Beat 41 Richmond, lost to 4 Pittsburgh
2005 UW #16: Beat 61 Northern Iowa, 106 Bucknell, 20 NC State, lost to 1 North Carolina
2006 UW #48: Lost to 21 Arizona
2007 UW #8: Beat 124 TAMU-CC, Lost to 42 UNLV
2008 UW #5: Beat 111 Cal St. Fullerton, 17 Kansas St., Lost to 20 Davidson
2009 UW #29: Beat 36 Florida State, Lost to 20 Xavier
2010 UW #9: Beat 79 Wofford, Lost to 52 Cornell
2011 UW #7: Beat 19 Belmont, 27 Kansas State, Lost to 37 Butler

Again, they are just beating teams they should beat. Based on kenpom numbers, Bo Ryan has never scored an upset in the tournament. Never. And in 4 of the past 5 years, have lost to a team ranked significantly lower than they are in kenpom. The closest of those four losses was Davidson, who is 15 spots behind them.

His record against lower-ranked kenpom teams is 13-4. Against higher ranked kenpom teams they are 0-5. Almost half the time (and 80% of the past 5 years) they have been beaten by "worse" teams according to kenpom. I'm just saying those numbers are not those of a great NCAA coach but one that took advantage of the competition.

[Pakuni]

We went through this a few months ago...he's had some good recruits, but a far cry from what we get at MU. 

This is only true if you count kids who signed at MU but didn't play a full season there (i.e. Taylor, Nick Williams, Maymon, Mbakwe), something one might do if they, you know, had an agenda.
If you only include kids who actually played at their respective schools long enough to have actually had an impact on wins and losses, you're absolutely wrong.
Since Bo's first full recruiting class (2002), UW and MU have eached landed nine RSCI top 100 players MU who actually played there long enough to have had an impact.
MU = Novak, Mason, James, McNeal, Matthews, Cadougan, E. Williams, Blue, Jones.
UW = Wade, Butch, Stiemsma, Krabbenhoft, Bohannon, Hughes, Leuer, Berggren, Anderson.

Even if you want to count Maymon and Mbakwe (and therefore DeAaron Williams), the number is 11 to 10 ... hardly the "far cry" which you're proclaiming. And given that three of MU's 11 were for all intents freshmen this year (compared to one for UW), it's a little too soon to judge their impact.

But again, if one were to have an agenda, they could argue MU has had one more RSCI top 100 player than UW during the Bo Ryan era.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not only more RSCI players, Pakuni, but QUALITY.  Now, if someone had an agenda they might just want to say the numbers are pretty close in the top 100 RSCI, but without looking at the details of where in the top 100 they might just leave it at that and not explore top 75 vs say 75-100.  Quality vs Quantity.

That is if someone had an agenda.  


Is it Wisconsin's fault their kids don't leave?  Seems to me that's a problem WE have and need to deal with it...a problem that has gone on for a decade or more.  Next thing you know someone will put up a poll asking who is going to transfer next because it has become so routine.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thanks Brew.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I believe the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot.  Games are on "neutral" courts (I use that loosely because it's not always the case).  Anything can happen

I don't see losing to a team that is 20th in the Ken Pom as an "upset" and I certainly don't think the seedings for teams like NC State (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom) Davidson (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom), etc, etc make any sense whatsoever.  Those are good teams. 

Considering who Wisconsin has on their roster in terms of quality and quantity, they are doing something right.  Hopefully they never figure out the full recruiting angle.  Some years they've had a lot of good players, but typically they have a few with some nice complimentary players that execute very well.

Peace...have a good day.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

  Next thing you know someone will put up a poll asking who is going to transfer next because it has become so routine.

Point, CBB! 

[Pakuni]

Not only more RSCI players, Pakuni, but QUALITY.  Now, if someone had an agenda they might just want to say the numbers are pretty close in the top 100 RSCI, but without looking at the details of where in the top 100 they might just leave it at that and not explore top 75 vs say 75-100.  Quality vs Quantity.

So the guy who says recruiting rankings don't matter to him is judging the QUALITY of a player not only by whether or not he was RSCI top 100, but where on the RSCI top 100 he landed? As if there's some massive gap between the 68th ranked player and the 81st ranked player?
Mr. Consistency.

Putting your logic to work, Kennedy Winston, Daniel Horton, Sean Dockery, Elijah Ingram and Bryan Hopkins were point guards of greater QUALITY in the class of 2002 than Deron Williams. After all, that's what the RSCI says.

Is it Wisconsin's fault their kids don't leave?  Seems to me that's a problem WE have and need to deal with it...a problem that has gone on for a decade or more.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If your claim is that Wisconsin does more with lesser players, then kids who never actually played - or didn't play long enough to make an impact - don't belong in the discussion. The only players that matter are the ones who actually play. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.
But again, you have an agenda.

[brewcity77]

Thanks Brew.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I believe the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot.  Games are on "neutral" courts (I use that loosely because it's not always the case).  Anything can happen

I don't see losing to a team that is 20th in the Ken Pom as an "upset" and I certainly don't think the seedings for teams like NC State (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom) Davidson (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom), etc, etc make any sense whatsoever.  Those are good teams.

Losing to #20 is an upset when you're #5, I'd say. As much an upset as Marquette over Syracuse or Kentucky over Ohio State. All I'm saying is that cone tourney time, Bo doesn't elevate his team. Four of the past five years they've list games they should have won. He's a regular season maestro, but when people try to say he's one of the best coaches in the country, I don't even laugh, I just shake my head in bewilderment. And he has no one to blame for the talent level but himself, so that's a completely hollow excuse. He recruited all of these players, and it's a very tough sell to say his style of play doesn't keep him from getting better recruits. They don't even need highly-rated recruits (though it's a joke if anyone really believes JPT ever seriously considered them) but rather just a few true athletes. Could Bo have recruited a Juan Anderson, a Jamil Wilson, or a DJO?

As much as you contend Buzz needs more "traditionals", Bo needs "switchables" and athletes if they ever want to take the next step. Honestly, while they are generally ahead of us in conference play, MU is way closer to actual NCAA success than UW is. And whether you want to use seeds or kenpom, that's something Bo has simply never had.