We made the top 25

[wojosdojo]

Never last year. Close, but never..

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[Coleman]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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

[brewcity77]

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.

[only a warrior]

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

[MUMac]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

MU has now made 10 straight NIT/NCAA appearances. When will our inferiority complex end? It is much better to be relevant.   

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU has now made 10 straight NIT/NCAA appearances. When will our inferiority complex end? It is much better to be relevant.   

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.

[alexius23]

I have forgotten the name but it was a Coach who said Ohio State had the best overall year of any team

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.

[Marquette84]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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?

[brewcity77]

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.

[ringout]

Would you rather win the NCAA tournament, or be voted the #1 team.  Before you answer, ask an Ohio State fan.

[MUBurrow]

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

[brewcity77]

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.

[muwarrior87]

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

[MUBurrow]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.