Official 2007-08 College Basketball Thread

[ZoomSlowik]

The Big Ten is last in RPI largely because of how crappy the bottom of the league is. They have 4 sub-150 teams, including NU at 213. Add those games to the usual collection of OOC cupcakes and it can really put a drag on your rating. They still have 5 top-50 rated teams, which isn't exactly terrible.

 

The Big East is the only other league that has that (they have 3 sub-150's with Rutgers at 206), and they have 8 top-50's to counter that. The ACC only has 5 top-50 teams with the lowest rated school being Virginia at 126, the Big 12 has 6 with the lowest rated being Nebraska at 145, the Pac 10 has 6 (Oregon is right at 50) with Oregon state being the only real drag, and the SEC has 5 with LSU at 184 and Auburn at 150.

 

So while the Big Ten isn't exactly stellar and doesn't have a true national championship contender, it's not exactly as bad as the math makes them look. You've still got 4 very respectable teams and two other passable ones with OSU and Minnesota, it's just not as deep as it has been in the past.

Edited February 18, 2008 by ZoomSlowik

[Soxbadger]

The Bif g ten from top to bottom is the last of the big conference leagues and rightfully so.

 

Well the big 10 has NU, so its some what odd to compare "top to bottom" as the bottom teams arent going to any tournaments, so who cares what there rpi is?

 

Isnt it more important to compare the RPI of teams that will be in the NCAA tournament?

 

Itd be like arguing that the Pac 10 is the worst academic conference because it has Arizona, ASU, and Oregon State. Instead of comparing the schools at the top of the conference, like Stanford, Cal, UCLA...

 

Four teams will go with nobody over a 3 seed, maybe nobody over a 4/5 seed. That is not a good for a "premere league."

 

Want to bet on that?

 

Top Big 10 team will get at minimum a 3-4 seed guaranteed with there being no way that the top big 10 team is a 5 seed (barring all of the top 4 teams losing a bunch of upsets).

 

ACC, BIg 12, Pac 10, Big East, all have legit national champion contenders at the top, and the other teams going would fit into the Big 10's represenatives.

 

How can the Big 12 have a legit national contender but the Big 10 not?

 

Last I checked the Big 12's top team Texas lost to 2 Big 10 teams. Or if you want to say KU is the best team, they lost to Texas, who lost to 2 Big 10 teams.

 

The top Pac 10 team, UCLA, lost to Texas, and was down 13 to MSU before beating them by 6 points on a neutral court.

 

So if you want to change that to:

 

Only the ACC and Big East have title contenders at the top, go ahead.

 

But to argue that the Big 10 has not proved itself against the Big 12 is some what remarkable.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

You are actually making good arguments Badger, even though I disagree with you, but don't tell me KU isn't a legit National Title contender, or that the Big 10 has a legit contender. That is not accurate and you know it. You are right though, Purdue is a 3 seed if they keep winning, and Wisconsin still has a shot too if they win out.

[Soxbadger]

whitesox101,

 

Purdue beat Wisconsin @ Madison during the weirdest game I have ever seen. Wisconsin shot .327% over all, going .167 from behind 3, but shot 30-33 from the line. I dont even know what to make of the game, but Im not about to say that I dont think Wisconsin could beat Purdue if they played tomorrow in the BTT (even though it will be at Indy).

 

but don't tell me KU isn't a legit National Title contender, or that the Big 10 has a legit contender.

 

Kansas is a national title contender, Im not the one making crazy arguments that a top conference has 0 title contenders.

 

Im just saying based on this season, Wisconsin and MSU, both have beat teams who have beaten "title contenders". If that does not make them good enough to be a "title contender" I dont know what will.

 

The main point of my argument though, was that its impossible to say the Big 10 is over rated, when no teams that they are rated higher than have better wins, better records, etc.

 

Maybe they are not that good, but no other conference has stepped up and said that its that much better (outside of ACC, but then again ACC v Big 10 is some what slanted because the ACC has more teams and therefore gets to sit its worst).

 

I guess in my mind a "legit" title contender, is any team that "legitimately could win the NCAA title". In the Big 10, I think there are 4 teams that could win depending on seeding, match ups, and luck.

 

But then again every team thats won the NCAA tournament must have been a 1 or 2 seed, because according to most on this site, only 4-5 teams have a legitimate shot.

[whitesoxfan101]

Well the Big 10 is not overrated, if I said it was it was bad verbage on my part (although I don't think I said it was). My only point is the Big 10 is not very good, at all. To say the Big 10 is overrated would imply there are people who think it is really good, and I haven't seen those people. You are right about the Wisconsin vs. Purdue game though, it was VERY strange, but all I can go on was I watched the whole thing and Purdue led almost throughout at a place nobody wins, which is impressive whether the game was weird or normal.

Edited February 18, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[JuiceCruz16]

Well the big 10 has NU, so its some what odd to compare "top to bottom" as the bottom teams arent going to any tournaments, so who cares what there rpi is?

 

Isnt it more important to compare the RPI of teams that will be in the NCAA tournament?

 

Itd be like arguing that the Pac 10 is the worst academic conference because it has Arizona, ASU, and Oregon State. Instead of comparing the schools at the top of the conference, like Stanford, Cal, UCLA...

Want to bet on that?

 

Top Big 10 team will get at minimum a 3-4 seed guaranteed with there being no way that the top big 10 team is a 5 seed (barring all of the top 4 teams losing a bunch of upsets).

How can the Big 12 have a legit national contender but the Big 10 not?

 

Last I checked the Big 12's top team Texas lost to 2 Big 10 teams. Or if you want to say KU is the best team, they lost to Texas, who lost to 2 Big 10 teams.

 

The top Pac 10 team, UCLA, lost to Texas, and was down 13 to MSU before beating them by 6 points on a neutral court.

 

So if you want to change that to:

 

Only the ACC and Big East have title contenders at the top, go ahead.

 

But to argue that the Big 10 has not proved itself against the Big 12 is some what remarkable.

On any given night almost anybody can be beat. How you pick a loss out of the season and say that means team B who beat said team is better then team A is a joke. Because Wofford & Iowa State beat Purdue who leads the Big Ten means everybody in the Big 12 is better then Purdue and whoever Wofford loses to in it's powerhouse league would now rank with the Big Ten squads is ridiculous. Kansas is head and shoulders the best in the Big 12 , and a legit national title contender. UCLA is clearly a national title contender. I guess it's a bad thing that UCLA beat the highest ranked team in the big ten up to this week by 6 on a neutral site. They are a better team the Mich. State, but that does not mean that State can't beat them on a given night, or at least play them close.

 

 

The bottom part counts because that is who the IU, Wis., Mich. St., & Purdue's play the majority of their games against. If those teams aren't capable of jumping up and beating you every now and then that is a HUGE difference in a conference! Unless you have a jugernaught top few teams which is not the case. Those teams are pitiful this year, only Ohio State and maybe Minn. are somewhat dangerous, that counts big time.

[JuiceCruz16]

I agree that if the point is that they are not over rated then fine, because I don't know more then a couple isolated voices that even claim that the league is any good. The point is that they are a bad league this year, no real powerhouse teams, and a PISS POOR 6 -12 = not much to write home about, and most see that so you would have to be well thought of in the first place to be over rated. Now could IU, Mich. St. get on a run in the tournament sure, but they are not top contenders at this point, they are second level teams with a chance: a punchers chance to win the belt if things break right for them.

Edited February 18, 2008 by JuiceCruz16

[Soxbadger]

On any given night almost anybody can be beat.

 

Which goes entirely against your argument that the Big 10 has no national title contenders.

 

That is exactly my argument by the way, that the Big 10 teams are good and but nothing spectacular. Because they are all good solid teams that play hard defense, they have a legitimate chance because if one of those contenders goes up against Purdue and has an off night, than maybe Purdue beats them...

 

Kansas is head and shoulders the best in the Big 12 , and a legit national title contender. UCLA is clearly a national title contender. I guess it's a bad thing that UCLA beat the highest ranked team in the big ten up to this week by 6 on a neutral site.

 

For being the head and shoulders best team, how have they lost to K-State and Texas? Head and shoulders to me means that they dont lose. I agree they are the most talented and have the most potential, but I think they have to prove that they are the best TEAM. That means winning games like Texas and K-State, as they do not play Texas again this year so they might have lost their chance at a Big 12 title.

 

UCLA beat MSU...

 

Both Indiana and Wisconsin have been ranked higher than MSU this season. The reason why MSU was ranked so highly is because the "experts" put Indiana and MSU very high on the rankings to start the season and left Wisconsin completely off.

 

As for it being a "bad thing" no, it just disproves your point that no team in the Big 10 has a chance to win. If MSU, the team that will most likely finish 4th in the Big 10, only lost to a national contender by 6, perhaps the 3 other Big 10 teams may have a shot at beating them...

 

The bottom part counts because that is who the IU, Wis., Mich. St., & Purdue's play the majority of their games against.

 

Well thats actually not true.

 

Right now Wisconsin has played 25 games:

 

13 IC

12 OC

 

Of the IC games:

 

Michigan x2, Iowax2, Ill, PSU, NU, Purdue x2, Indiana, Minnesota

 

You said that Iowa isnt dangerous (strange they beat MSU), but Ill go with your words:

 

So far Wisconsin has only played 7 games against the teams at the bottom.

 

7/25= 28%

 

Is 28% now the majority?

 

What math are we talking here?

 

 

[thedoctor]

it's difficult to judge league strength because everyone has a different measure as to what they consider the main factor in making the determination. you have your rpi or pomeroy-type rankings, you can point to the top-25 rankings, you can cite records against top-25 teams, or even tournament performance. all of those have some validity, but usually each will yield a different answer.

 

i tend to go with some of the computer rankings because they do factor in more disparate elements instead of hanging a whole hypothesis on one or two factors. this year i would probably put the big ten behind some other leagues. now, that is not to say that a big ten team can't or won't make a big tournament run. does that validate the league as a whole? i don't know.

 

i will say that i think at the beginning of the season you saw some big ten teams taking bad losses. that, coupled with the decline of ohio state and illinois (two programs that usually generate a lot of national attention) has given the league an image problem it isn't likely to shake this year.

 

but i also think that going forward, you will see the league's image improve. i'd anticipate the osu and illinois drop-offs being short when you consider the improved talent they have in upcoming recruiting classes. wisconsin will remain steady because bo just does a helluva job year-in and year-out of crafting winning teams. purdue has a great one in painter and i think that michigan, iowa, and minnesota all upgraded with their recent coaching hires. the jury is out on what will happen with indiana in coming seasons, but overall i think the league will improve in the next few seasons.

[gbuk]

There are no title contenders in the Big Ten.

 

Saying "anyone can beat anyone on a given night" is valid to an extent, but 6 in a row? In that case, I guess everyone in the tournament is a title contender.

 

And you breaking down the Big Ten's best wins is great and all, but you can do that for every league's top teams and use it to argue your point.

[gbuk]

How can the Big 10 be over rated:

 

Wisconsin:

 

Losses: @ Duke (ranked #2), vs Marquette (24), @/vs Purdue (15)

 

Wins: vs/@ Indiana (ranked 14), @ Texas (7)

 

MSU:

 

Losses: UCLA (6), Purdue (15), Indiana (14), @ Iowa (unranked), @ PSU (unranked)

 

Wins: Purdue (15), Texas (7)

 

Indiana:

 

Losses: @ Xavier (12), Uconn (13), @/vs Wisconsin (10)

 

Wins: MSU (17), Kentucky

 

Purdue:

 

Losses: @ Clemson, @ Missouri, Wofford, ISU, @ MSU (17) ( 4 of those losses are 3 points or less)

 

Wins: @/vs Wisconsin (10), MSU (17)

 

Outside of Indiana, every one of those 4 teams has 2 wins against top 15 teams (Wisconsin has 3).

 

Texas has only lost 4 times, the only loss at home its suffered is to Wisconsin. Texas is ranked #7 ahead of both Wisconsin/MSU, but has lost to both of them.

 

Texas has beaten UCLA, KU, and Tenn, yet is 0-2 versus the Big 10. I guess the Big 10 sucks though...

 

So I guess in the end:

 

Texas sucks (it lost both big 10 games it faced.)

 

KU sucks (lost to texas who cant beat the Big 10)

 

Tenn sucks (lost to Texas only beat OSU by 5 @ home for comparison OSU lost by 9 away to Purdue and 6 at MSU)

 

UCLA is average (lost to Texas, but beat MSU)

 

Butler (would be fighting for 5th in the Big 10 for example Bulter was taken to OT by UWM, Wisconsin beat them 61-39 and Marquette beat them 100-65)

 

Stanford (lost to Sienna, have they beaten an OOC team in the top 15?)

 

Georgetown (have they beaten an OOC team in the top 15?)

 

Xavier (beat Indiana)

 

Uconn (beat Indiana)

 

Vandy (have they beaten an ooc team in the top 15?)

 

When you actually look at what the teams have done, its hard to take the opinion the "Big 10 sucks"

 

Wisconsin and MSU both have OOC top 10 victories, checking through the other top 10 teams:

 

Memphis (1 arguable top 10 ooc victory over georgetown)

 

Tenn (0 top 10 ooc victories)

 

UNC (0 top 10 ooc victories)

 

Duke (1 top 10 ooc victory versus Wisconsin must not count because big 10 sucks)

 

Kansas (0 top 10 ooc victories, 0 top 20 ic victories)

 

UCLA (0 top 10 ooc victories)

 

Texas (2 top 10 OOC victories, versus UCLA and Tenn)

 

Butler (0 top 10 OOC victories, have not even played ranked opponent)

 

Stanford (0 top 10 OOC victories, has not even played OOC ranked opponent)

 

So my question is, how can the Big 10 be over rated?

 

The Big 10 owns 2 victories over Texas, who has beaten the top Big 12 team, the top Pac 10 team and the top SEC team.

 

If anything based on the information that I can find, the Big 10 is actually under rated, as its hard to understand how Wisconsin can be ranked lower than Butler, Stanford, or Texas.

 

But lets not let the actual results of this season get in the way:

 

Big 10 sucks, they never beat anyone. Not one of their teams has a top 10 victory!!!!

 

BOOOOO@!

 

Gardner-Webb beat Kentucky, who beat Tennessee. Therefore Gardner-Webb must be better than Tennessee! RIGHT?!

 

Let's not let the results get in the way!

 

[Rowand44]

There are no title contenders in the Big Ten.

 

Saying "anyone can beat anyone on a given night" is valid to an extent, but 6 in a row? In that case, I guess everyone in the tournament is a title contender.

 

And you breaking down the Big Ten's best wins is great and all, but you can do that for every league's top teams and use it to argue your point.

Ding, ding, ding.

[CanOfCorn]

There are no title contenders in the Big Ten.

 

Saying "anyone can beat anyone on a given night" is valid to an extent, but 6 in a row? In that case, I guess everyone in the tournament is a title contender.

 

And you breaking down the Big Ten's best wins is great and all, but you can do that for every league's top teams and use it to argue your point.

 

First of all, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think, if you are going to make a bla nket statement like that, you should make a little wager. Maybe a sig wager?

[gbuk]

First of all, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think, if you are going to make a bla nket statement like that, you should make a little wager. Maybe a sig wager?

 

What? That no one from the Big Ten will win it all? Sure I'll make a sig wager, not like I'm here all the time anyways.

 

[dasox24]

Disagree, Tenn hasnt really beaten anyone, either has Vandy. Just because you look good beating cupcakes doesnt mean that they could beat top teams. Tenn will play Memphis, so we shall see.

How can you say Tennessee hasn't beaten anyone when they have the 2nd hardest strength of schedule and are 5-1 against teams in the Top 25?

[Jimbo's Drinker]

Big 10 is having a very good year in my opinion, teams like Purdue and Wiscy were not supposed to be this good. I can see them get 3 into the sweet 16 or better.

 

 

[gbuk]

How can you say Tennessee hasn't beaten anyone when they have the 2nd hardest strength of schedule and are 5-1 against teams in the Top 25?

 

A little bias. While mentioning all the Big Ten's great wins, and laughably noting the wins in conference play against each other, he forgot to put thought into what the other big time teams have done not in the Big Ten. His only comments on teams like Memphis, Kansas, Tennessee and etc. was (0 Top 10 OOC Wins!!!) when in reality most of these teams haven't even had the CHANCE to play top 10 teams.

 

And since when is it just top 10 or top 15 that really matters? If it's not over a team like that the victory is ruled totally null?

 

[Soxbadger]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=2633

 

Tenn has 1 top 25 OOC win against Xavier.

 

What are you talking about 5 top 25 ooc wins?

Edited February 19, 2008 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

And lets use a little integrity with your lies Kentucky

 

Tenn's "Top 25 wins" Current Ranks:

 

Mississippi- unranked

Miss St- Unranked

Florida- Unranked

 

Xavier:10/12

Vandy:20/16

 

So no, Tenn has only beat 2 teams that are currently ranked in the top 25, and only 1 of them is in the top 15.

 

I have only been using current ranks, why do I care that people thought Mississippi was a good team and ranked them 15?

 

Miss. is 3-7 in the SEC and probably wont make the tourney...

 

 

What? That no one from the Big Ten will win it all? Sure I'll make a sig wager, not like I'm here all the time anyways.

 

The odds are stacked of course youll take the bet. Even if 5 big ten teams make it, tahts 5/64, who wouldnt take those odds?

 

Now what about this:

 

Big ten gets more teams in the sweet 16 than the SEC.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2008 by Soxbadger

[gbuk]

Did anyone mention that in Badger's huge post listing the top wins for the top 4 Big Ten teams he listed 5 out of the total 8 good wins were against each other, 2 against Texas, and one against Kentucky without half their team (and if you're using Kentucky, especially at that point in the season, as a good win, you're reaching)?

 

I guess if we're going to look at quality wins we'll go Top 50 RPI records here. (Top 100 record in parentheses).

 

Indiana - 2-4 (6-4)

Michigan State - 4-3 (6-3)

Wisconsin - 3-4 (3-4)

Purdue - 5-2 (5-3)

 

Other various, apparently overrated teams -

 

Memphis - 8-0 (12-0)

Tennessee - 9-1 (11-2)

Kansas - 4-2 (10-2)

North Carolina - 6-1 (15-2)

Duke - 5-1 (14-2)

UCLA - 6-2 (11-2)

Texas - 8-3 (10-4)

 

But none of these teams have any big wins because they haven't beaten anyone in the top 10 right? You can talk all you want about the Big Ten's wins or whatever, but they don't even touch these other teams wins, which is why all of this is so funny because you've turned such a blind eye to other's accomplishments.

 

But Wisconsin and MSU beat Texas, who beat Kansas, therefore they're not very good. You're right.

[gbuk]

Oh wait, you're using the polls in all of this? No wonder.

[Soxbadger]

I just said kentucky because you made a huge deal about how Kentucky was going to be great blah blah, so i didnt want to disrespect your team.

 

I dont consider it a good win.

 

Top 50 RPI

 

 

Its funny you keep wanting to expand expand expand. Racking up big win totals against lower ranked RPI teams really doesnt mean much.

 

47 Ohio St. B10

 

Of course you want to point to RPI, because the big 10 only has 5 teams in the top RPI, therefore at maximum they could only play 8 IC top 50 RPI games. Of those 8, 6 are going to be against top 15 RPI teams...

 

LOL

 

And where did I say that Memphis, Tenn, Kansas, NC, Duke, UCLA, or Texas were over rated?

 

Just because you keep saying the Big 10 is over rated, dont try and switch my argument to saying that other teams are over rated.

 

Thats called a straw man argument, keep it on point.

 

Prove that the Big 10 is over rated,

 

That means proving:

 

1) Wisconsin does not deserve to be 10

2) Purdue does not deserve to be 14

3) Indiana does not deserve to be 15

4) MSU does not deserve to be 17/19

 

Please dont try and change the argument, Ive never really said any of those teams are over rated.

 

Ive just said if the Big 10 sucks like you claim, then why are teams like Texas losing to them?

[Soxbadger]

Um of course im not using RPI because they are worthless if teams dont play OOC games:

 

Unless you think Drake is a top 10 team???

 

 

 

(Edit)

 

And I just checked, in the SEC the only 2 teams with top 10 RPI are Vandy and Tenn.

 

Miss- 48

Miss St- 45

Florida- 58

 

So even if we use your RPI, not one of those teams was top 25 by any stretch of the imagination.

 

So not sure what you are even getting at by saying im using rankings not RPI.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Soxbadger

[gbuk]

Your quote "Ive just said if the Big 10 sucks like you claim, then why are teams like Texas losing to them?" pretty much sums up your problem. You have said "anything can happen on any given night", and that's absolutely right, and that's the answer to your question.

 

Since apparently the RPI is null in your view the same way rankings based on writers opinions is null in my view, we just totally disagree. But you're totally disregarding what other teams are doing while showing us what the Big Ten has done out of conference, which really isn't all that much. At all.

 

Your comment about you mentioning Kentucky because of me is funny because I was never in this thread before you put them in there, so don't say that's why you put it there.

 

Either way I think those teams are overrated, and you obviously disagree. Not much else to it I guess.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Okay, I cant argue with that. If you just want to completely write off every game in the season, then lets do it. It all comes down to opinion:

 

As for totally disregarding, no Im not. Everyone keeps bringing back the same 7-8 reams as better than Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, MSU, but all of those teams (the big 10 ones) are ranked outside of the top 10. To say they are over rated means that there are 9 teams better than Wisconsin, 13 better than Purdue, 14 better than Indiana, and 17 better than MSU.

 

That is my argument, not that they are the top teams, not that they are better than Kansas, Duke, UNC, Tenn, Memphis, etc.

 

And I honestly put Kentucky in as a joke, if you read back through this thread youll see I thought Indiana was vastly over rated to begin the season, so I think thats what is really hurting the Big 10. People thought Indiana was the top team, so when they lost to Xavier it really shook peoples confidence in the Big 10. Where as I thought Indiana would "finish closer to third than first" and it appears that will be the case.

 

You have to understand that when I read all of this it comes from "experts" saying that Wisconsin would not even make the NCAA tournament. So its hard to now be "over rated" when Wisconsin had to earn its way up the rankings. Maybe they arent the 10th best team, but they have won enough big games to deserve that ranking.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Soxbadger