We made the top 25

[brewcity77]

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.

[ringout]

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?

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Marquette84]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Marquette84]

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! 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

No. Pitt "cancels out" Duke, Ohio State and Kansas.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Marquette84]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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?

[Marquette84]

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.  

 

[Marquette84]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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

[MUBurrow]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.

[ATL MU Warrior]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

 




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.