Gary Parish on Buzz's departure

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Nope, I'm arguing because the question is how good is a CONFERENCE, not how good is the TOP OF THE CONFERENCE nor is it HOW GOOD ARE THE BEST TEAMS IN THE CONFERENCE.   Words have meanings

[MUDPT]

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.

Kind of true.  I get so wrapped up in stats, if MU loses I feel good if it's a "computer win" (a game that we beat Pomeroy's projection).  Pomeroy takes into account an 8 vs. 18 point win, but it's per possession.  Let's say a 65 possession game, 70-52 win, it's 0.3 point per possession victory.  a 70-62 win, it's 0.13 point per possession victory. 

End of game scenarios don't really change.  A team fouls, it's more points, but also more possessions.  I'm not sure coaches pay attention that closely to this stuff anyway.  Our own coach the past few years was supposed to be a stats savant and couldn't figure out 2 for 1 possessions at the end of halves and games.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

But your standard of success is making the Sweet 16. At least that was your standard for Marquette. So only 7 out of those 20 are successes. Consistency is great, but it is not the only thing. Tournament success is important. Winning conferences is important. Recruiting is important. Resources are important. And yes, history and tradition are important.

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

More consistent? No. Close to same level of consistency and much better in everything else that matters when deciding which programs are elite? Yes. Texas (19 appearances in the past 20 seasons), Syracuse (17 appearances), Cincinnati (16 appearances), Xavier (15 appearances), Illinois (15 appearances), and Maryland (14 appearances) are the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

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.

I realize that history is history, but it is always relevant. People remember who the great programs were. The prestige and tradition are essential to a program's image and success. We fans get so caught up in the "what have you done lately" craze that we forget there is more factors. Bo Ryan has them playing some damn good basketball right now. He's a vastly underrated coach, one of the best Xs and Os guys. But you can't overlook the fact that Wisconsin only had TWO, that's right, TWO NCAA tournament appearance before Dick Bennett. One in 1941 and one in 1947. That is abysmal. They had a  34 year period where they only had EIGHT WINNING SEASONS. It takes a long time to overcome that kind of brutal history.

As for Wisconsin's program being better than Indiana's, I think if you asked 100 random college basketball fans which was a better job, Indiana or Wisconsin, at least 90 would say Indiana. Like it or not, they are still a blue blood.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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 Memphis
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?

First off, move Louisville from the AAC to the ACC. They were a one year rental and that season is over.

2nd, the Big 12 lacking a second clear elite team should be of concern to your argument. Kansas is damn good but I would take the BEast over the B12 using this standard.

3rd, why is two the magic number? Let's see what happens when you add three.

ACC: UNC, Duke, LVILL. Okay, still dominant
AAC: UCONN, Memphis, Temple. That's a little concerning but still good.
B1G: IND, MSU, MICH. Very strong top 3.
B12: KAN, TEX, OKLA. Those last two are kinda scary.
BEast: Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette. Pretty solid, not dominant but solid.
P12: UCLA, Arizona, Utah. That's not very good.
SEC: UK, FLA, ARK. Florida, not good in the past, Arkansas, not good in the present.

In that scenario I would rank the conferences ACC, B1G, BEast, P12, AAC, B12, SEC.

The B12, P12, and SEC get even more exposed when you add a 4th team, and a 5th team.

No one is trying to argue that the BEast is the best conference. No one is trying to say it is anywhere as good as the old BEast. But to say it is 3rd tier behind the other power conferences is just plain wrong. No data to support it whatsoever.

[mattyv1908]

Arizona and UCLA would be an upgrade over any two Big East teams they'd be replacing TAMU.  You don't watch enough basketball if you don't recognize that.

You obviously disagree, but consider me one who views this new Big East as severely lacking.  Of all the things Buzz Williams has been dishonest about and deserving of criticism, his remarks on the conference he left aren't one of them.

[slingkong]

Arizona and UCLA would be an upgrade over any two Big East teams they'd be replacing TAMU.  You don't watch enough basketball if you don't recognize that.

You obviously disagree, but consider me one who views this new Big East as severely lacking.  Of all the things Buzz Williams has been dishonest about and deserving of criticism, his remarks on the conference he left aren't one of them.

So what? What exactly is your point? Everyone here agrees with you that the BE is not as good now as it was. I would venture to say that even Lenny and Chicos can agree on that. It's not the ACC, but neither is it the Horizon League. The BE is still a good conference that can attract recruits and big OOC matchups. It will not replicate the good ol' days from a few years ago because a lot of the teams that were so important to those days are now gone. Would you prefer that MU stayed in the reformulated BE that would include UConn, MU, Georgetown, Nova, Cincy and noone else of any value whatsoever? What they have now is just as good as that option and offers stability, because conference realignment isn't over - it's just taking a breather.