Official College Basketball Thread

[thedoctor]

i feel weird saying it but pat summitt's got some nice legs.

[Brian]

Tennessee rolling on Florida. Yikes!

[Buehrle>Wood]

i feel weird saying it but pat summitt's got some nice legs.

...

[Heads22]

Rocky Top is rockin.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Terrible way to compare resumes, but team B

 

I got it from an article on CBS.sportsline. And yes, it is flawed. I would probably go with team Illinois as well. Drexel has those nice out of conference wins though. The mid-majors should be rewarded for playing all those road games though.

[hitlesswonder]

I got it from an article on CBS.sportsline. And yes, it is flawed. I would probably go with team Illinois as well. Drexel has those nice out of conference wins though. The mid-majors should be rewarded for playing all those road games though.

 

I'd take Drexel. Illinois is the worst twenty win team I can remember seeing. Any team that loses that many games in the sludge that is the Big Ten, and beats no quality teams outside the Big Ten, doesn't need to go to the dance. If 5 Big Ten teams get bids (the max in my opinion), Purdue is more deserving (since they ripped Illinois by 17 points and had to play OSU/Wisc more than twice).

 

Although if Illinois would get a bid, that would make it possible for Kansas to eviscerate them in the first round. I have the impression that several posters here would find that quite entertaining.

Edited February 28, 2007 by hitlesswonder

[whitesoxfan99]

I got it from an article on CBS.sportsline. And yes, it is flawed. I would probably go with team Illinois as well. Drexel has those nice out of conference wins though. The mid-majors should be rewarded for playing all those road games though.

 

They also lost to Rider and William & Mary. That cancels out any big wins they had in my mind.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Mario Boggan just went up and headbutted a KSU player right in front of the ref with a 16 point lead and 30 seconds left. What an idiot. He's their leading scorer and will likely be suspended now just when OSU needs some wins. He better hope it is just against Baylor and Nebraska and doesn't extend into the tourney.

[whitesoxfan99]

I'd take Drexel. Illinois is the worst twenty win team I can remember seeing. Any team that loses that many games in the sludge that is the Big Ten, and beats no quality teams outside the Big Ten, doesn't need to go to the dance. If 5 Big Ten teams get bids (the max in my opinion), Purdue is more deserving (since they ripped Illinois by 17 points and had to play OSU/Wisc more than twice).

 

Although if Illinois would get a bid, that would make it possible for Kansas to eviscerate them in the first round. I have the impression that several posters here would find that quite entertaining.

 

Tons wrong in this post. First off, if Illinois is the worst 20 win team you can remember than you don't watch any college basketball. 2nd the Big 10 is the 4th ranked conference. You may not like the style of play, but the Big 10 is a solid conference. Since Michigan won tonight, Illinois has not lost to a single team that is outside of the top 50 in the RPI. You can make a case for Purdue, but they beat Illinois at Purdue and we all know how different road vs. home games are in the Big 10. Purdue only faced Wisky once and loss. Purdue didn't have to travel to MSU and only had to play Iowa once. They got to face the 3 doormats of the Big 10 twice each, Illinois got 5 games vs. those teams. Purdue lost at Minny which is just an awful loss. They also lost at Indiana St. which is another bad loss. Contrary to what Doug Gottlieb will tell you Purdue's conference schedule really was not a lot harder than Illinois.

 

Mario Boggan just went up and headbutted a KSU player right in front of the ref with a 16 point lead and 30 seconds left. What an idiot. He's their leading scorer and will likely be suspended now just when OSU needs some wins. He better hope it is just against Baylor and Nebraska and doesn't extend into the tourney.

 

With the way they play on the road I wouldn't be surprised to see them lose those games.

[Buehrle>Wood]

If 5 Big Ten teams get bids (the max in my opinion), Purdue is more deserving (since they ripped Illinois by 17 points and had to play OSU/Wisc more than twice).

The SC isn't going to limit how many teams the Big Ten gets. If all 11 were qualified, they'd take them all. And Illinois at this point is more qualified than any of the Big Ten bubble teams going purely on resumes. That may change this week though.

[Soxbadger]

How is it that the "dredge" of the Big 10, beat the 3rd best team in the Big 12?

 

If you want to talk about bad leagues that have not proved anything....

 

I mean outside of Kansas which Big 12 team has a good win outside the Big 12?

 

Texas has LSU at home.

 

A&M has Auburn and Winthrop.

 

Those are some impressive resumes.

 

(To answer my own question)

 

OklahomaSU has Syracuse and Pitt.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Soxbadger

[hitlesswonder]

Contrary to what Doug Gottlieb will tell you Purdue's conference schedule really was not a lot harder than Illinois.

 

Well, I actually looked up the numbers and you're right -- the records of Illinois and Purdue's in-conference opponents is almost identical. That's a pretty crude SOS measure, but I'll admit I was wrong, though I doubt anyone cares. Still, a 17 point loss head-to-head is pretty nasty even if it is on the road.

 

I'm just unimpressed by Illinois. No bad losses, but no big wins. And a very uninspiring style of play (I know -- aesthetics shouldn't count). There's a reason why the Illini are a bubble team despite being 3rd in the Big Ten. I think the national commentators see the same thing, which is a pretty mediocre basketball team. I will admit that my perception of the team, which I've liked watching in previous seasons, is probably colored by all the off-court stuff that has happened.

[Jimbo's Drinker]

Florida keeps falling, KU to the 1 seed maybe now??

 

Hell we did beat Florida.

[Rowand44]

Drexel AND ODU belong in the tournament if they don't win the CAA.

 

Florida keeps falling, KU to the 1 seed maybe now??

 

Hell we did beat Florida.

You guys are probably ahead of Florida in the pecking order at the moment, but still 5th overall on the S Curve imo. Behind UCLA, OSU, Wiscy and UNC. Now, with Wiscy who knows how the committee is going to look at the Butch situation so that could definitely be a factor and obviously a lot depends on how everyone finishes. At the moment, I'd say KU is the first 2 seed.

[Rowand44]

After watching College Gamenight, I'm convinced that Jay Bilas should just pick the at large teams from now on.

[dasox24]

After watching College Gamenight, I'm convinced that Jay Bilas should just pick the at large teams from now on.

Actually, I agree, lol... Bilas is definitely my favorite analyst on ESPN, and I think he's extremely fair and unbiased, which is rare, especially considering he played at Duke. Most analysts tend to show their true colors, but Bilas never (or very rarely) does.

 

As for my Vols beating Florida, how bout that whoopin!?!? Man, 25,000 strong in Thompson-Boling Arena was electric. I've been saying it all along, but Tennessee could really make some noise in the tourney. Chris Lofton missing those games mid-season turned out to probably be the best thing to happen to our team b/c it forced guys like Wayne Chism (who's a complete BADASS by the way) and Duke Crews to step up and learn to not totally rely on Lofton.

 

I know all my fellow Illini fans (yes, I've loved Illinois since I was like 6, but I love Bruce Pearl too!) probably hate Tenn b/c of Bruce Pearl, but seriously, get over it. It's been like 15 years, and Pearl did his time. That single incident caused him to get his 1st major head coaching job about 10 years after he should have. You really can't argue with his style of play and coaching ability. It's damn fun to watch the full court press and all those turnovers caused by it.

Edited February 28, 2007 by dasox24

[Rowand44]

Actually, I agree, lol... Bilas is definitely my favorite analyst on ESPN, and I think he's extremely fair and unbiased, which is rare, especially considering he played at Duke. Most analysts tend to show their true colors, but Bilas never (or very rarely) does.

I usually like Bilas, but I wasn't a fan of his rant he gave on gamenight.

[dasox24]

I usually like Bilas, but I wasn't a fan of his rant he gave on gamenight.

Eh, I was doing my homework so I turned it off. What did he say exactly?

[Jimbo's Drinker]

if your a mid major you wont like it.

 

he basically compared Winthrop to FSU.

 

he said FSU gets the shaft because they play in a high conference and face major teams, though they are pretty good vs. the top 25.

 

Winthrop gets all the accolades but they play no one in conference that is good at all.

[Rowand44]

Eh, I was doing my homework so I turned it off. What did he say exactly?

That's what you get for doing homework. Anywho, basically he just went on and on about the selection committtee "throw out the rpi, get different committee members, pick the best 34 at large teams(forget numbers)" and other crap as well. Basically sounded like he wanted to change the whole selection process. The thing is when he says you should just get the 34 best teams, there is no actual way to do that. I'm not a big fan of numbers when it comes to sports as a whole BUT for selecting teams you have to go by numbers, the thing is all the major conference teams are on tv much more than the so called mid majors, so you're not going to get a fair subjective view as you're not going to see the small conference teams as much as some of the bigger conference teams.

 

So basically, nothing major and something that is pretty pointless overall that I brought up for no reason, but there you go.

[dasox24]

That's what you get for doing homework. Anywho, basically he just went on and on about the selection committtee "throw out the rpi, get different committee members, pick the best 34 at large teams(forget numbers)" and other crap as well. Basically sounded like he wanted to change the whole selection process. The thing is when he says you should just get the 34 best teams, there is no actual way to do that. I'm not a big fan of numbers when it comes to sports as a whole BUT for selecting teams you have to go by numbers, the thing is all the major conference teams are on tv much more than the so called mid majors, so you're not going to get a fair subjective view as you're not going to see the small conference teams as much as some of the bigger conference teams.

 

So basically, nothing major and something that is pretty pointless overall that I brought up for no reason, but there you go.

I gotcha. Well, even though every year there are teams that are "snubbed" and very upset about being left out, for the most part the Committee gets it right. I really don't see a need for too much change. If anything, add more teams. But don't take away from the Mid-majors just b/c they play in a weak conference. Hell, if they didn't give mid-majors credit, would we have had George Mason in last year? Seriously, I don't know b/c I don't know if they won their conference tourney. lol... But, if they were an at-large, then I guarantee they don't make it in if they use Bilas' selection process (or at least how his process sounds from what you wrote).

[Rowand44]

I gotcha. Well, even though every year there are teams that are "snubbed" and very upset about being left out, for the most part the Committee gets it right. I really don't see a need for too much change. If anything, add more teams. But don't take away from the Mid-majors just b/c they play in a weak conference. Hell, if they didn't give mid-majors credit, would we have had George Mason in last year? Seriously, I don't know b/c I don't know if they won their conference tourney. lol... But, if they were an at-large, then I guarantee they don't make it in if they use Bilas' selection process (or at least how his process sounds from what you wrote).

Mason didn't win their conference tourny(UNC Wilmington did), so there you go, that's one example. To be honest, the committtee probably did their worst job as a whole last year but for the most part they do a solid job. Like you said, you're always going to get snubs no matter what and using a persons opinion over actual numbers to put teams into a field just doesn't make sense to be honest as teams should have to earn their way in.

[ZoomSlowik]

I gotta admit, I'm not a big fan of the RPI either. IMO it factors in scheduling too much and skews the rankings. I just think anything that spits out Kentucky or Duke as a top-10 team or Arizona anywhere near the top can't be THAT useful. You can rack up a pretty impressive RPI by playing a lot of decent but not stellar mid-majors and one or two strong teams, espcially if you play in a decent conference (cough* Duke cough cough*). Plus, as Boeheim said just before that, a team gains about as much by losing to a good team as the do winning against a mediocre to poor team, and it doesn't account for teams that get better or worse as time goes on like Louisville or Oklahoma State.

 

I don't mind using it as one of the criteria for judgement, but it seems to be a gigantic factor, which I don't think is right. There are always going to be flaws when you try to attach numbers to the quality of teams, there are just too many things that can't be measured.

Edited February 28, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[Rowand44]

I gotta admit, I'm not a big fan of the RPI either. IMO it factors in scheduling too much and skews the rankings. I just think anything that spits out Kentucky or Duke as a top-10 team or Arizona anywhere near the top can't be THAT useful. You can rack up a pretty impressive RPI by playing a lot of decent but not stellar mid-majors and one or two strong teams, espcially if you play in a decent conference (cough* Duke cough cough*). Plus, as Boeheim said just before that, a team gains about as much by losing to a good team as the do winning against a mediocre to poor team, and it doesn't account for teams that get better or worse as time goes on like Louisville or Oklahoma State.

 

I don't mind using it as one of the criteria for judgement, but it seems to be a gigantic factor, which I don't think is right. There are always going to be flaws when you try to attach numbers to the quality of teams, there are just too many things that can't be measured.

I agree with all of that, and I certainly don't use numbers when I judge teams who I'm picking to go further in my bracket, that's for sure. That being said, it's completely wrong imo for someone to just say "Well Florida State is better than Winthrop, so they belong in the tournament,"(just using those two teams cause that was the example on gamenight). Now if Florida State has more quality wins, has played a better schedule, etc then ya, they deserve to be in there over the Eagles. It's just completely unfair to pick FSU over Winthrop because someone thinks they're better, jmo.

 

As far as the rpi, it has it's flaws, no doubt. I like it as a tool and that's it, nothing more. I don't think it's the main tool someone should use, but I do like it to group together teams if that makes sense.

[whitesoxfan99]

I gotta admit, I'm not a big fan of the RPI either. IMO it factors in scheduling too much and skews the rankings. I just think anything that spits out Kentucky or Duke as a top-10 team or Arizona anywhere near the top can't be THAT useful. You can rack up a pretty impressive RPI by playing a lot of decent but not stellar mid-majors and one or two strong teams, espcially if you play in a decent conference (cough* Duke cough cough*). Plus, as Boeheim said just before that, a team gains about as much by losing to a good team as the do winning against a mediocre to poor team, and it doesn't account for teams that get better or worse as time goes on like Louisville or Oklahoma State.

 

I can't take any complaint that Jim Boeheim makes seriously until he actually schedules a game outside the state of New York in their non conference schedule.