Gary Parish on Buzz's departure

[keefe]

Bert needs to just shut his f ucking mouth. His new parable about the warts of Marquette is too transparent.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So a conference is its two top teams.

Not arguing that Kentucky and Floria are not elite teams.  But after that the rest of the SEC is horrible.  They only sent three teams to this year's Tourney (the third was Tennessee and now that Cuonzo left, they are a mess). 

The SEC is two truly great teams and the rest is mid-major quality.

My point isn't that a conference is only their top two teams. My point is that the top two teams matter.

And the middle of the SEC is actually decent. Not as good as other tier 2 conferences but certainly better than tier 3.

[keefe]

No, but he did something that he'll have to live with for the rest of his life.

Is this a reference to the "Happy Ending" rub down legend?

[mattyv1908]

So a conference is its two top teams.

Not arguing that Kentucky and Floria are not elite teams.  But after that the rest of the SEC is horrible.  They only sent three teams to this year's Tourney (the third was Tennessee and now that Cuonzo left, they are a mess). 

The SEC is two truly great teams and the rest is mid-major quality.

Heisenberg,

The bottom half of the old Big East was just as bad as any other major conference.  It's not as if you can take the old team building addage 'we're only as good as our weakest link' and apply it here.  I'll try this a different way.  How many elite college basketball programs currently are in each power conference?

B1G:  MSU, UW
ACC:  Duke, UNC, SYR, UL (next year)
B12:  Kansas
SEC:  FL, UK
P12:  AZ, UCLA
BE:  ???

Who is truly an elite program in the current Big East?  Six out of the ten conference members have either never had a final four team or haven't for 25 years.  Marquette had one in '03, Georgetown in '07, Villanova in '09 and a Brad Stevens led Butler team (who wasn't in the Big East) in '10 and '11.

And I find the use of RPI here comical, not because it's inaccurate, but because most using the conference RPI to validate the Big East this season were the same people puking all over Chicos' topic regarding RPI and it's use in selecting at large bids.

I'm sorry if I think one of the more genuine thing's our previous coach said happened to be about the make up of the new Big East.  I feel the same way.

[77ncaachamps]

Ask the sh##head Goodman who recruited the players that would lead to William's "average team next season for the second straight season"

EXACTLY.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not interested. I was always a player rather than a name dropper and memorabilia guy like you.

Some of us are both, I'm fortunate that my life has allowed me to work with some of the movers and shakers in sports.  Allows me a bit of expertise on what happens in the back room for NCAA selections, or why certain people are squirmy as hell.   But hey, you're a playa

[ChicosBailBonds]

Florida and Kentucky are that good, IMHO

So in your viewpoint, the WCC in the last few years should have been very highly ranked because of Gonzaga?  or UNLV in the early 1990's had national champion UNLV and powerhouses UC Irvine, Cal State Fullerton, Pacific, Nevada, Long Beach State, UC Santa Barbara, San Jose State, Fresno State, New Mexico State.   


Sorry, but I don't understand why people rate conferences based on the top 2 or 3 teams and ignore the other 7 to 10 teams, but people do it all the time. 

[mattyv1908]

So in your viewpoint, the WCC in the last few years should have been very highly ranked because of Gonzaga?  or UNLV in the early 1990's had national champion UNLV and powerhouses UC Irvine, Cal State Fullerton, Pacific, Nevada, Long Beach State, UC Santa Barbara, San Jose State, Fresno State, New Mexico State.   


Sorry, but I don't understand why people rate conferences based on the top 2 or 3 teams and ignore the other 7 to 10 teams, but people do it all the time. 

It's simple.  Most schools like people are mediocre. It's the top schools and individuals that get the accolades and recognition.

[The Equalizer]

Heisenberg,

The bottom half of the old Big East was just as bad as any other major conference.  It's not as if you can take the old team building addage 'we're only as good as our weakest link' and apply it here.  I'll try this a different way.  How many elite college basketball programs currently are in each power conference?

B1G:  MSU, UW
ACC:  Duke, UNC, SYR, UL (next year)
B12:  Kansas
SEC:  FL, UK
P12:  AZ, UCLA
BE:  ???

Who is truly an elite program in the current Big East?  Six out of the ten conference members have either never had a final four team or haven't for 25 years.  Marquette had one in '03, Georgetown in '07, Villanova in '09 and a Brad Stevens led Butler team (who wasn't in the Big East) in '10 and '11.

And I find the use of RPI here comical, not because it's inaccurate, but because most using the conference RPI to validate the Big East this season were the same people puking all over Chicos' topic regarding RPI and it's use in selecting at large bids.

I'm sorry if I think one of the more genuine thing's our previous coach said happened to be about the make up of the new Big East.  I feel the same way.

You could probabaly add the AAC and UConn to your list.

One problem wth the new version of the Big East is its supposed virtue of "balance".  When your bottom half teams are capable of beating the top half teams, you don't get credit for having a lot of great teams--you get tabbed as a mediocre conference.  We need a consistent group of 3 to 5 teams that can split from the middle of the pack.  Instead, we had too little separation in quality among the 3rd through 8th place teams.

The second problem is that teams over-scheduled their non-conference trying to boost their own SOS, ignoring the W/L impact.  Marquette's five non-conference losses--even though they were to solid teams--did no favors to the rest of the league RPI wise.  

Thrid is the mistaken belief that you need a strong conference to be recognized as a great team.  Memphis, Gonzaga, Xavier in the old A10, Butler in the old Horizon, now UConn in the AAC--they all get plenty of respect and attention without being in powerhouse conferences.

All that having been said, Buzz wants to be in a leage that masks his own coaching and recruiting deficiencies.  In the old Big East, he could take 6 to 9 losses and still be praised as a great coach.  In the new incarnation, he's took 9 losses, but because overall quality down, it reflects on his coaching.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Buzz had an excellent first five years, and watching his teams gave me great joy. He sucked last season, seemingly on purpose, and made the season about as much fun as a funeral. Finally, he wanted out ... and was so desperate that he took a crappy job to get out as quickly as possible -- which actually is good because it let us quickly start looking for a replacement who wants to be here.

Hasta la vista, Buzzy.

We've moved on, and we're better for it.

Sums up my feelings on first 5 years vs. last year quite well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's simple.  Most schools like people are mediocre. It's the top schools and individuals that get the accolades and recognition.

No disputing that, but that is also a perception from mediocre people that aren't in the know.  People in the know certainly understand that the SEC is crap for most of the conference, just like the AAC, etc.  This is why conference rankings don't rate the top 2 or 3 teams, but the entire conference.  

As an example, DePaul was their usual horrid self, yet three ACC teams finished below them in the RPI...Georgia Tech, Boston College and Vagina Tech

[Jay Bee]

No disputing that, but that is also a perception from mediocre people that aren't in the know.  People in the know certainly understand that the SEC is crap for most of the conference, just like the AAC, etc.  This is why conference rankings don't rate the top 2 or 3 teams, but the entire conference.  

As an example, DePaul was their usual horrid self, yet three ACC teams finished below them in the RPI...Georgia Tech, Boston College and Vagina Tech

**cringe**

The RPI is stupid. As for DePaul vs. those other teams... 1) DePaul wasn't QUITE their usual horrid self... a little bit better than usual both real record and adjusting for road wins.. 2) Georgia Tech played more teams with miserable records.. that's what did them in... 3) BC & VT both couldn't win games...

Was DePaul better than any of those teams? GT, there's zero question that DePaul was not as good as GT.

The other two are debatable, but the CONSENSUS would be DePaul is the worst of all four teams you mentioned. RPI doesn't think so because it's stupid (and DePaul played fewer worst-of-the-worst W-L teams).

[ChicosBailBonds]

**cringe**

The RPI is stupid. As for DePaul vs. those other teams... 1) DePaul wasn't QUITE their usual horrid self... a little bit better than usual both real record and adjusting for road wins.. 2) Georgia Tech played more teams with miserable records.. that's what did them in... 3) BC & VT both couldn't win games...

Was DePaul better than any of those teams? GT, there's zero question that DePaul was not as good as GT.

The other two are debatable, but the CONSENSUS would be DePaul is the worst of all four teams you mentioned. RPI doesn't think so because it's stupid (and DePaul played fewer worst-of-the-worst W-L teams).

Again....you can call it stupid until the cows come home, it is what the NCAA uses.

The consensus...what's the consensus?

DePaul is rated higher than Vagina Tech in the RPI, Sagarin, Warren Nolan, Team Rankings.  They are practically equal in Ken Pom  (192 vs 198)

DePaul is rated higher than Boston College in RPI, Team Rankings, Warren Nolan.  They are practically the same in Sagarin.

I'm failing to see consensus....let alone CONSENSUS that they are the 4th worst of those 4 teams.  In fact, there is no consensus at all.  


*** cringe  ***

[Jay Bee]

Oh, there is.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So in your viewpoint, the WCC in the last few years should have been very highly ranked because of Gonzaga?  or UNLV in the early 1990's had national champion UNLV and powerhouses UC Irvine, Cal State Fullerton, Pacific, Nevada, Long Beach State, UC Santa Barbara, San Jose State, Fresno State, New Mexico State.   


Sorry, but I don't understand why people rate conferences based on the top 2 or 3 teams and ignore the other 7 to 10 teams, but people do it all the time. 

Absolutely not. Gonzaga has not won multiple national championships nor had a history of sustained success. And UNLV is not nearly on the level of Kentucky.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Heisenberg,

The bottom half of the old Big East was just as bad as any other major conference.  It's not as if you can take the old team building addage 'we're only as good as our weakest link' and apply it here.  I'll try this a different way.  How many elite college basketball programs currently are in each power conference?

B1G:  MSU, UW
ACC:  Duke, UNC, SYR, UL (next year)
B12:  Kansas
SEC:  FL, UK
P12:  AZ, UCLA
BE:  ???

Who is truly an elite program in the current Big East?  Six out of the ten conference members have either never had a final four team or haven't for 25 years.  Marquette had one in '03, Georgetown in '07, Villanova in '09 and a Brad Stevens led Butler team (who wasn't in the Big East) in '10 and '11.

And I find the use of RPI here comical, not because it's inaccurate, but because most using the conference RPI to validate the Big East this season were the same people puking all over Chicos' topic regarding RPI and it's use in selecting at large bids.

I'm sorry if I think one of the more genuine thing's our previous coach said happened to be about the make up of the new Big East.  I feel the same way.

What do you count as elite program? Two seasons ago ESPN did their "50 in 50" series where the ranked the  best 50 college basketball programs of the past 50 years. They aren't the end all be all but I'm using them because they used an objective formula to rank programs.

You listed several elite teams from each confrence. Your choices are interesting. UW isn't even ranked in the top 50 by ESPN and Florida is tied for 40th. Granted, this was 2 season ago, so both programs will move up. But hardly either are considered an elite program when you take their history into account.

If you look at just the top 20 in those rankings, here is how it shakes out.

ACC: UNC (1) Duke (4) Louisvile (6) Syracuse (8)
B1G: Indiana (7) Michigan State (11), Michigan (13), Ohio State (15), Purdue (20)
PAC 12: UCLA (2) Arizona (10) Utah (20)
BEast: Georgetown (12), Villanova (16), Marquette (17)
AAC: UConn (9), Temple (18), Memphis (19)
SEC: Kentucky (3)
B12: Kansas (5)
MWC: UNLV (14)

Obviously, you can't just use this information to make your judgements. But I think you are seriously off base thinking that the BEast has no quality programs.

And to suggest UW is elite is laughable. They made the Final Four this year....that's about all they have going for them.

[mattyv1908]

What do you count as elite program? Two seasons ago ESPN did their "50 in 50" series where the ranked the  best 50 college basketball programs of the past 50 years. They aren't the end all be all but I'm using them because they used an objective formula to rank programs.

You listed several elite teams from each confrence. Your choices are interesting. UW isn't even ranked in the top 50 by ESPN and Florida is tied for 40th. Granted, this was 2 season ago, so both programs will move up. But hardly either are considered an elite program when you take their history into account.

If you look at just the top 20 in those rankings, here is how it shakes out.

ACC: UNC (1) Duke (4) Louisvile (6) Syracuse (8)
B1G: Indiana (7) Michigan State (11), Michigan (13), Ohio State (15), Purdue (20)
PAC 12: UCLA (2) Arizona (10) Utah (20)
BEast: Georgetown (12), Villanova (16), Marquette (17)
AAC: UConn (9), Temple (18), Memphis (19)
SEC: Kentucky (3)
B12: Kansas (5)
MWC: UNLV (14)

Obviously, you can't just use this information to make your judgements. But I think you are seriously off base thinking that the BEast has no quality programs.

And to suggest UW is elite is laughable. They made the Final Four this year....that's about all they have going for them.

Can you name a more consistent program in regards to wins and NCAAT appearances the last 20 seasons not named Kentucky, UConn, Louisville, MSU, Kansas, Duke, UNC, AZ, FL, Gonzaga or UCLA?

If you can find more than 2-3 programs you'd be lying to yourself.

Understand, 50 years is a lot of history.  Most of it is no longer relevant to the current basketball landscape.  Is Indiana a better basketball program currently than either Wisconsin or Marquette?  I'd say no.

[The Equalizer]

Again....you can call it stupid until the cows come home, it is what the NCAA uses.

The consensus...what's the consensus?

DePaul is rated higher than Vagina Tech in the RPI, Sagarin, Warren Nolan, Team Rankings.  They are practically equal in Ken Pom  (192 vs 198)

DePaul is rated higher than Boston College in RPI, Team Rankings, Warren Nolan.  They are practically the same in Sagarin.

I'm failing to see consensus....let alone CONSENSUS that they are the 4th worst of those 4 teams.  In fact, there is no consensus at all.  


*** cringe  ***

And lets not forget that coaches know that.  

The big diffrence between RPI and other services is that RPI doesn't include margin of victory, and that tends to be the central argument as to why RPI is bad.  

Yet its stupid to think coaches wouldn't adjust their game plan if the NCAA switched to a measurment that factored margin of victory.

For example, we see many coaches give reserves extended playing time in sure-win situations.  So their team wins by 8 instead of 18.  The RPI is indifferent to that choice, but Sagarin and Ken Pom would penalize the 8 point victory compared to the 18 point win becuase they take margin of victory into account.

Same thing with end-of-game strategy.  With the RPI, coaches almost always opt to pursue a foul strategy, because at worst you'll still lose, at best you steal a win.  If margin of victory was factored, coaches would have to decide whether the possiblity of the other team hitting its FTs and winding up with a more sizeable victory margin was worth the potential of winning.  

You'd also see teams with leads playing to score at the end.  10 point lead with the ball and 10 seconds to go?  You'll see coaches going for another score to build margin of victory.

And you'll almost never see a walk on in a game.

Its simplistic to say the RPI isn't as good because it doesn't incorporate margin of victory.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Absolutely not. Gonzaga has not won multiple national championships nor had a history of sustained success. And UNLV is not nearly on the level of Kentucky.

UNLV might have been the greatest college team to ever play, at least by some standards.  What you seem to be saying is if Kentucky were suddenly moved to the Southern Conference, the Southern Conference would be a top conference because of Kentucky.   At the end of the day, your argument is the conference is good because of one or two of its members and that falls apart pretty quickly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh, there is.

By all means, provide it.

[mattyv1908]

UNLV might have been the greatest college team to ever play, at least by some standards.  What you seem to be saying is if Kentucky were suddenly moved to the Southern Conference, the Southern Conference would be a top conference because of Kentucky.   At the end of the day, your argument is the conference is good because of one or two of its members and that falls apart pretty quickly.

Conferences should be rated heavily by what their good teams have accomplished, otherwise you're simply arguing that these 4-7 mediocre teams are slightly better or worse collectively than these other 4-7 mediocre teams in another conference.

Look at it this way.

Best 2 teams (these names may vary slightly)

ACC:  Duke, UNC
AAC:  UConn, Louisville
P12:  UCLA, AZ
B12:  KANSAS, (OK, OKst, Baylor, KState)
SEC:  UK, FL

Big East:  Villanova, Georgetown

Any set of top teams you would swap out from any other conference would be an upgrade over the current Big East's top teams.

Now, if we did the same thing with the bottom feeders nobody would really care because is it even worth arguing who is worse between Oregon St, DePaul, Auburn, VTech, and Northwestern?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Conferences should be rated heavily by what their good teams have accomplished, otherwise you're simply arguing that these 4-7 mediocre teams are slightly better or worse collectively than these other 4-7 mediocre teams in another conference.

Look at it this way.

Best 2 teams (these names may vary slightly)

ACC:  Duke, UNC
AAC:  UConn, Louisville
P12:  UCLA, AZ
B12:  KANSAS, (OK, OKst, Baylor, KState)
SEC:  UK, FL

Big East:  Villanova, Georgetown

Any set of top teams you would swap out from any other conference would be an upgrade over the current Big East's top teams.

Now, if we did the same thing with the bottom feeders nobody would really care because is it even worth arguing who is worse between Oregon St, DePaul, Auburn, VTech, and Northwestern?

Would you judge the state of Michigan based on Detroit?   Would you judge how hot women are in Montana based on Miss Montana?  

In my view, a conference is rated in totality.  The fact UNC and Duke are good is great for the ACC and UNC and Duke, but it doesn't mean Vagina Tech, BC, Miami, etc are good simply because they play in the same conference as Duke and UNC.

[mattyv1908]

Would you judge the state of Michigan on Detroit?   Would you judge how hot women are in Montana based on Miss Montana?   

In my view, a conference is rated in totality.  The fact UNC and Duke are good is great for the ACC and UNC and Duke, but it doesn't mean Vagina Tech, BC, Miami, etc are good simply because they play in the same conference as Duke and UNC.

To your first two questions people do so every day.  It's called making value judgements and it's one of the most fundamental aspects of decision making.  It may not always be accurate.  It may not be right.  It is instinctual and happens multiple times a day across the planet by over 7 billion humans.

Nobody is saying the teams you mentioned are good because they play in the ACC, but the ACC would be a horrendous conference without Duke and UNC (now including Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville).  The ACC is regarded as the premier basketball conference in America because of who their top teams are, not the other way around.

You're arguing simply to satisfy your contrarian needs at this point.

[forgetful]

To your first two questions people do so every day.  It's called making value judgements and it's one of the most fundamental aspects of decision making.  It may not always be accurate.  It may not be right.  It is instinctual and happens multiple times a day across the planet by over 7 billion humans.

Nobody is saying the teams you mentioned are good because they play in the ACC, but the ACC would be a horrendous conference without Duke and UNC (now including Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville).  The ACC is regarded as the premier basketball conference in America because of who their top teams are, not the other way around.

You're arguing simply to satisfy your contrarian needs at this point.

True, but it is one of the reasons why 99.5% of people are incapable of rational thought. 

[ThatDude]

Would you judge the state of Michigan based on Detroit?   Would you judge how hot women are in Montana based on Miss Montana?  

In my view, a conference is rated in totality.  The fact UNC and Duke are good is great for the ACC and UNC and Duke, but it doesn't mean Vagina Tech, BC, Miami, etc are good simply because they play in the same conference as Duke and UNC.

Good post