College Basketball 06/07

[snuffbox 0]

How would validating a team they just beat not help MSU? Christ, Espn people are tards.

[CanadianChris 0]

"Michigan State has no right to storm the court after a win. They won a title in 2000!"

This one I actually agree with. Michigan State fans storming the court after beating Wisconsin is like Duke fans storming Cameron after beating Carolina. Act like you've been there before.

[2GOLD 0]

"Michigan State has no right to storm the court after a win. They won a title in 2000!"

This one I actually agree with. Michigan State fans storming the court after beating Wisconsin is like Duke fans storming Cameron after beating Carolina. Act like you've been there before.

 

If you are in a major conference, you shouldn't be storming the court period. I hate it when Florida State does it every damn season.

[Guest Oedipus Rex]

"Michigan State has no right to storm the court after a win. They won a title in 2000!"

This one I actually agree with. Michigan State fans storming the court after beating Wisconsin is like Duke fans storming Cameron after beating Carolina. Act like you've been there before.

And how many students were there seven years ago? Ancient history in college sports.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

"Michigan State has no right to storm the court after a win. They won a title in 2000!"

This one I actually agree with. Michigan State fans storming the court after beating Wisconsin is like Duke fans storming Cameron after beating Carolina. Act like you've been there before.

 

 

I kinda agree, but at the same time, it IS a big win regardless of MSU's recent history. Remember, MSU had never beaten a team that was ranked number 1, ever. On top of that, this year's Spartans are definitely NOT that same team. As previously mentioned, none of the students (at least, a very small portion) that stormed the court were even at MSU in 2000.

 

On the other hand, I personally think storming the court is stupid.

[cabbageboy 0]

The thing that is amusing about that is that Michigan St. beat Wisconsin FOUR TIMES during that 2000 campaign. Twice regular season, once in Big 10 tourney, and in the FF as well.

 

I've never seen U of L fans storm the court. Then again, most of the fans at the game are rich alumni from the east end.

[iggymcfly 0]

Personally, I think it's OK to storm the court for a huge win. If you're unranked and you beat the #1 team in the country, and you didn't win a title in the last two years or something, by all means, live it up. If Michigan State hadn't stormed the court, there would be something wrong. What gets to me is when some poor major conference team beats a borderline ranked team or even a good unranked team and thinks they should storm the court just because they won.

 

I remember when I was at WSU a few years ago (before they got ridiculously good), we were playing UCLA, and I think we were actually a 2 point favorite. They were something like 3rd or 4th in the conference and were maybe getting some votes in one of the polls. At the end of the game, the fans were all lined up to storm the court just because it was UCLA and I was so embarrassed by the whole thing that I was almost happy that we blew the game.

[Guest Oedipus Rex]

Man, between this embarrassing Save Our Minstrel Show Chief thing and Jamar Smith driving drunk and leaving his friend for dead, U of I sucks.

[Gert T 0]

Duke v. Clemson rematch tonight. For once I'll be rooting for Duke as I want to see Clemson validate what everybody knew when they were undefeated, that they would be exposed once they hit conference play.

 

As far as bubble teams, I'm tired of hearing about how great the Big East is this year because "X number of teams will have 10 conference wins". While I think the Big East has several somewhat good teams, I do not think anybody beyond Georgetown and Pittsburgh will win more than one game in the NCAA tournament. Its a good conference, but 10-6 ain't what it used to be when there are 16 teams.

[Guest Queen Leelee]

Especially since so many teams in the Big East are simply bad.

[iggymcfly 0]

Just for fun, I'm going to do one of those blind comparisons that doesn't involve Georgia Tech. One of these teams is projected as a 7 seed, one is projected as an 8, one is projected as a 9, and one is projected to miss the tournament altogether.

 

 

Team A

Record: 20-7

Sagarin rating: 32

SOS: 88

Record vs. Top 50: 1-4

 

Team B

Record: 20-7

Sagarin rating: 15

SOS: 49

Record vs. Top 50: 7-6

 

Team C

Record: 19-7

Sagarin rating: 19

SOS: 32

Record vs. Top 50: 6-6

 

Team D

Record: 18-10

Sagarin rating: 42

SOS: 16

Record vs. Top 50: 3-2

 

 

How should these teams be ranked? Guesses for which teams they are are welcome too as long as no one cheats and just looks at the Sagarin ratings.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

There's really not enough information there, but if decisions had to be made in a vacuum based on just those factors:

 

Team A: Seeya. SOS and Top-50 record is unimpressive.

Team B: 7. High ranking and over .500 against Top-50--plus playing half your total games against Top-50 makes them the best team listed.

Team C: 8. Almost as good as B

Team D: 9. Tough schedule and decent Top-50 performance is good enough.

 

You can make much more sense of it by looking at conference records and road wins, their recent games (

favors Maryland over Clemson substantially

), and certain x-factors/intangibles (the biggest of which is probably

Durant

). I don't think you can make decisions based on stats and rankings unless you have a whole lot more of them, but it's fun to see what it looks like using certain components. Knowing more, I'd rank them B, A, D, C.

[CanadianChris 0]

B and C are obviously ACC teams. Without looking, I think they're Clemson and Maryland in some order, as I think they're the only teams to have played that many games other than Carolina and Duke. They're both in.

 

I actually know who A is. Looking at just those numbers, I'd say no, but

I really want to see Kevin Durant play in the tournament

, so they're in.

 

D, I have no clue who they are. They'd be a borderline team in my mind.

 

So, I'd probably rank them B,C,A,D based just on these criteria.

[Matt Young 0]

Wow... after leading at halftime, Boston College is getting brutally RAPED in the second half by Virginia Tech.

[Guest]

Looking at those numbers for USC, they look like shit.

 

19-8

36

81

4-5

 

Numbers aren't everything, as proven by Missouri State missing the tourney last year. Also looking at them, I find it hard to believe that

Texas

is ranked ahead of them in the Sagarin ratings.

[iggymcfly 0]

Guess I might as well come out with it since two of the teams have been guessed straight up, one more has with spoiler text, and the projections will probably change tomorrow anyway with all the basketball that was played tonight.

 

Team A is Texas who is currently projected to be a 7 seed in the tournament despite a poor SOS.

Team B is Maryland who is currently projected as a 9 seed, despite having the exact same record as Texas going into the night and a much tougher schedule.

Team C is Clemson who is currently projected to miss the tournament altogether despite being only a half game worse than the previous two teams listed and having a tougher SOS than either.

Team D is Creighton who's schedule is somehow "so tough" that they're projected as an 8 seed despite having double digit losses.

[KingPK 0]

Guess BC's not getting that 4 seed. Duke will outseed them at this point. Outside of Dudley, they don't really have much to depend on, so the opponent's strategy is to either smother the hell out of him and limit his looks, or get him into foul trouble early.

Edited February 22, 2007 by KingPK

[cabbageboy 0]

There's honestly some aesthetics to consider as well. Let's face it, Maryland hasn't done much to astound anyone this year. They will get in the tourney I would think, especially with 20+ wins and being an ACC perennial. But I repeat: You can't put every JTTS team from the ACC in the tourney. Hell, I have a big enough problem with mediocre teams like Virginia Tech and BC being locked in despite some truly wretched losses. And what the hell is up with UVA losing to Miami tonight?

 

Texas meanwhile has had two insane, unreal, jaw dropping games this year...both losses in OT however. The Tennessee game was amazing, as was the OK St. game. Let's consider something. Your team is in the tourney...who would you be more scared of in your region: Texas or Maryland? With Maryland I'd say "Okay, that's winnable. They aren't that great this year." With Texas I'd think "Oh shit, what are we going to do with Durant? These guys will be tough." If Texas ends up as just a 7 seed I can assure you guys they pull a 2/7 upset of Pitt or Washington St., etc.

 

You know what I saw that made me aghast quite honestly? The SEC is currently #1 in the Conf. RPI. Aside from Florida who in the FUCK is any good in the SEC? Yes, UK is still #8 in the RPI but they are tanking horribly at this point and are backing into the tourney (most likely at 9-7 in conf.). Tennessee has had some injuries and lost recently to South Carolina for god's sake. Vandy is tough at home as usual, but mostly crap otherwise as evidenced by the assbeating Miss St. put on them tonight. UGA is just whatever, probably NIT and not much else.

 

SEC West? Possibly the single worst division in sports today. I'm serious. Right now Ole Miss and Miss St. are tied at 7-6 for 1st in the west. I repeat: Fucking Ole Miss and Mississippi St. are leading a division. Alabama has been a colossal flop, albeit totally expected. Arkansas can all but kiss a tourney bid good bye unless they win out. LSU has been the biggest flop in all of basketball.

 

I can't wait to see the hilarity of the SEC tourney if Ole Miss is the W1 and Miss St. is the W2.

[Gert T 0]

My bad on Duke-Clemson, guess that is tomorrow. Its safe to say this year the difference between at larges 15-35 (and the last 5 out) is much smaller or seems much smaller this year.

 

MVC should probably only get two bids this year, but might actually benefit by having Southern Illinois winning their tournament. (SOS Wise)

[iggymcfly 0]

Texas meanwhile has had two insane, unreal, jaw dropping games this year...both losses in OT however. The Tennessee game was amazing, as was the OK St. game. Let's consider something. Your team is in the tourney...who would you be more scared of in your region: Texas or Maryland? With Maryland I'd say "Okay, that's winnable. They aren't that great this year." With Texas I'd think "Oh shit, what are we going to do with Durant? These guys will be tough." If Texas ends up as just a 7 seed I can assure you guys they pull a 2/7 upset of Pitt or Washington St., etc.

 

This is kind of my whole point. Based on reputation (mainly due to how impressive one player is), everybody thinks that Texas is a very good team, and gives them lots of credit. They've got the Top 25 ranking and will likely get a good seed due to aesthetics and reputation. However, if you look at their overall resume, it's vastly inferior to that of Maryland, Clemson, or Georgia Tech. Put them in the ACC and they're about like Florida State: An NIT team. When your best games of the year are losses to mediocre teams like Tennessee and Oklahoma State, that really says something about your program. The only Top 50 team Texas has beaten this year is #49 Arkansas and they beat them by four at home.

 

 

The ACC teams are getting punished due to the fact that they play much, much tougher schedules in conference than the rest of the country. If you look at non-conference schedules, you'd see that these teams are deserving. (Note: Key games are not subjective, they're defined specifically as games against Top 50 teams from the Sagarin ratings.)

 

Clemson

Non-conference record: 14-0

Key games: Def. UGA 75-60

 

Georgia Tech

Non-conference record: 12-2

Key games: Def Purdue 79-61, Def. Memphis 92-85, Lost to UCLA 88-73, Lost to Vandy 73-64, Def. UGA 78-69

 

Maryland

Non-conference record: 14-1

Key games: Def. Mich State 62-60, Def. Illinois 72-66, Lost to Notre Dame 81-74

 

Those are some pretty impressive resumes for "bubble teams". 40-3 out of conference including 6-3 against the Top 50.

 

 

Compare those non-conference resumes to those of teams presumed in from weaker "power conferences". (Didn't spend a lot of effort searching here, just took the team with the third best record in some overrated conferences.)

 

Texas

Non-conference record: 10-4

Key games: Lost to Michigan State 63-61, Def. Arkansas 80-76, Lost to Tennessee 111-105, Lost to Villanova 76-69

 

Louisville

Non-conference record: 10-4

Key games: Lost to Arizona 72-65, Lost to Kentucky 61-49

 

Indiana

Non-conference record: 10-3

Key games: Lost to Butler 60-55, Lost to Duke 54-51, Lost to Kentucky 59-54

 

So here we're looking at 30-11 OOC with a record of 1-8 against the Top 50. Again, it's not a perfect comparison, I'm sure you could find some teams from the Big East, Big XII and Big Ten that had better non-conference records. I'm just saying that it's unfair to penalize the ACC teams for playing what is obviously a tougher conference slate. Look at their overall resume and see what they accomplished (as detailed a few posts above) instead of just saying "oh, they have a losing conference record and this other team's got an offensive player that's fun to watch". Evaluate each team on their merits; if the ACC has 8 teams that are better than the 3rd place teams in other power conferences, then let all 8 teams in and give them all decent seeds.

[CanadianChris 0]

Texas is as much of a one-man team as there's ever been. Durant is spectacular, but there's nothing special about the rest of the team. I can't see them making the Sweet 16 unless there's an upset in their part of the bracket -- any team in the top 15 should be able to beat them.

[cabbageboy 0]

The difference is that I can see Texas busting it out and getting some psycho Durant effort. Some of these lesser ACC teams are just kinda there. Of all the teams in the ACC there is really only ONE (UNC) that I'd consider any sort of serious threat. As in definite Sweet 16 and beyond.

 

Texas might get in the San Antonio region...would you want to play them in that bracket? Though I think A & M might get seeded there over them, since they are better. Texas is 10-3 in conference right now, with OU, A & M, and Kansas left. They'll finish roughly 12-4 or 11-5. Texas is certainly a tourney caliber team with that kind of conf. record, so what are we really talking about here?

[iggymcfly 0]

We're talking about how the ACC should get 8 teams and how every one of them should be seeded higher than Texas who really isn't that good. That's about it. Give Texas an 11 seed or something and I won't complain.

[cabbageboy 0]

Let's see, Clemson is currently #31 in the RPI but only 5-7 in the league. Frankly, they've been coasting on the excellent pre conference effort. And let's face it, their best non conf. win is over Old Dominion. It doesn't help that Clemson has also falled almost completely apart in conference play since that Duke game. With another game with Duke upcoming as well as road games vs. BC and Va Tech it really doesn't look like Clemson will finish better than 7-9. And you know what that means....NIT.

 

Georgia Tech at least has that Memphis win in Maui and also a win over Duke. Here's the thing though...last 3 are at UVA, then UNC and BC both at home. GT is going to have to pull some kind of upset to finish .500 in the league. At this point I would be more inclined to take GT than Clemson, since GT has shown signs of improvement in conf. play, but it's still an uphill battle considering an RPI of 48 and a current 6-7 conf. record.

 

Maryland is definitely in, or is barring a complete collapse. Even with losses to UNC and Duke they could likely still beat NC St. to salvage .500 in conference play. 22-9 (8-8) and an RPI in the top 20 = Money.

 

FSU has an RPI of 42 but is only 5-9 in conference play, so I doubt even that win over FL helps much at this point. NC St. and Miami should help them finish 7-9, but that might be too little, too late. 19-11 (7-9) and an RPI of 42 just screams NIT to me.

[iggymcfly 0]

No, Clemson's not just "coasting on their pre-conference effort". The point is that the ACC's so tough right now that 5-7's really not a bad mark. Why should a team that goes 14-0 against the easy part of their schedule and then 5-7 against the tough part be put behind a team that goes 10-4 against the easy part and then 10-3 against the other easy part. The point is that Clemson's overall schedule was much tougher than Texas's schedule and they have pretty much the same record. Therefore, Clemson's resume is better. What's so hard about that?

 

Put another way, I think that comparing teams between games that are equivalent in difficulty is more important than comparing their conference records, especially when the quality of their respective conferences is radically different. Against the Top 50, Clemson's 6-6 and Texas is 1-4. Looks like Clemson's better there. Against teams outside the Top 50, Clemson's 13-1 and Texas is 19-3. Looks like Clemson's better there too. It's not there are worlds of difference between the ACC and Big XII, but the difference is significant and with Texas not having played Kansas or their second game vs. Texas A&M this year, it becomes even more pronounced.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm not sure how this became an argument of Texas vs. the ACC's JTTS teams. I'll leave it at this: Clemson will get in if they can scrape together an 8-8 mark in the ACC. Going 7-9 puts them out in my book, and it'd take some kind of really impressive ACC tourney effort (either finals or semis) to get them back in. The ACC is a strong league, but it's not THAT strong. Not to where teams under .500 in league should get in. Hell, the SEC is actually the #1 RPI league right now, but nobody is exactly talking about putting Ole Miss or Mississippi St. in the tourney and those teams are tied atop the SEC West at 7-6.

 

As an aside, what would the committee do about that? The SEC West certainly should not get more than 1 bid, yet there are by definition 2 teams that get a bye in the SEC tourney. Wouldn't the teams that get a bye have to be allowed in the NCAA tourney? I've never heard of a major conf. team with a 1st round conf. bye that didn't actually make the NCAAs.

[CanadianChris 0]

As an aside, what would the committee do about that? The SEC West certainly should not get more than 1 bid, yet there are by definition 2 teams that get a bye in the SEC tourney. Wouldn't the teams that get a bye have to be allowed in the NCAA tourney? I've never heard of a major conf. team with a 1st round conf. bye that didn't actually make the NCAAs.

Four teams get a bye -- top two in each division.

 

I doubt the committee even give it (the fact they got a bye) a second thought. Their job is to look at the games teams played, not games they didn't.

[iggymcfly 0]

All right, I made a rough outline for how I'd do the top 12 seed lines. Towards the top of the bracket, they're in order of how good they are within the seed line, but it's less exact as it goes down. Also, some of the 12 seeds are automatic bids.

 

1 Florida, Ohio State, North Carolina, UCLA

2 Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas A&M, Georgetown

3 Pittsburgh, Washington State, S. Illinois, Memphis

4 Duke, Butler, Maryland, Nevada

5 Arizona, Indiana, Air Force, Kentucky

6 Virginia Tech, Boston College, Michigan State, Stanford

7 Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Louisville, BYU

8 Virginia, Winthrop, Marquette, USC

9 Villanova, Tennessee, UNLV, Missouri State

10 Clemson, Texas, Vanderbilt, Oregon

11 Alabama, Creighton, Illinois, West Virginia

12 Davidson, Santa Clara, VCU, Oklahoma State

[cabbageboy 0]

I think Butler may have played their way out of a decent seeding tonight with that home loss to Loyola. Ouch. I'm not going to list all that stuff but I'll take a look at what you've done and give thoughts on who should be higher or lower in my estimation.

 

1 Florida, Ohio State, North Carolina, UCLA (I won't disagree with any of these but if Wisconsin wins the Big 10 tourney sub them in for OSU.)

2 Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas A&M, Georgetown (Sub in OSU, as stated above. A & M might be closer to a 3 seed ranked #9 with an RPI of 13. G'Town is a 3 right now, but could move up to a 2.)

3 Pittsburgh, Washington State, S. Illinois, Memphis (Pitt right now is a 2 but could slip to 3. Memphis MIGHT have a shot at a 2 but with C-USA being crap it'll be tough.)

4 Duke, Butler, Maryland, Nevada (Duke is right there, Butler is dropping from this seed. Nevada is about right. Maryland might be more of a 5 seed.)

5 Arizona, Indiana, Air Force, Kentucky (I dunno about Zona as a 5. They are dropping fast and might end up in the 8/9 game if they aren't careful. The rest sound about right, though IU may be more of a 6.)

6 Virginia Tech, Boston College, Michigan State, Stanford (These all sound about right aside from Stanford. Stanford is practically the definition of an 8/9 seed.)

7 Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Louisville, BYU (ND might be a bit overseeded, they are more of a 10 right now. U of L is about right. BYU about right. GT as I've pondered won't even make the tourney, and if so, they'd be lower than a 7. If GT makes it, I'd say 11-12 seed.)

8 Virginia, Winthrop, Marquette, USC (USC has a crap RPI of about 55, if they get in at all I'd say 12 type seed. Winthrop will be a scary 11 seed most likely. Marquette is more of a 6.)

9 Villanova, Tennessee, UNLV, Missouri State (UNLV has an RPI of 11, they might be higher than this..maybe a 7. The rest seem about right.)

10 Clemson, Texas, Vanderbilt, Oregon (Clemson is toast after tonight. Texas might end up a 7 or so. Oregon is a 10 right now but moving down, Vandy is in the 7-10 range depending on games remaining.)

11 Alabama, Creighton, Illinois, West Virginia (As dirty as this sounds Bama is more of a 7 right now. Rest are about right.)

12 Davidson, Santa Clara, VCU, Oklahoma State (I dunno if OK St. is even going to make it at this point, but the rest seem okay. I still think Gonzaga wins the WCC tourney to get in.)

[Guest]

SC beat Stanford by 4 tonight. It's nice to get a little closer to being off the bubble.