Looks Like ACC CCG Dergulation WIll Pass

[The Funster]

It seems obvious that most UConn fans, here at least, think the way your opening sentence runs. But I don't think Rutgers means anything to UConn in that sense. That the BeeOneGee rescued Maryland from its fiscal failures does not mean it will rescue another school within the same basic area. In fact, rescuing a second such school, flushing it with cash, probably would hurt the ability of Maryland to use the BTN and the conference money to get things turned around.

The same goes with the area in and around NYC. The more different schools in that area the BeeOneGee tries to pump up, the less money and promotion each of those schools can receive. The NYC TV market is not going to double the money it will pay the BTN because a second school near that market is added. And that would be true even if ND were not the major football draw in the market.

The logic that seems to escape most UConn fans on this board is one that most Pitt fans caught on to rather quickly. The way the BeeOneGee thinks and acts, Pitt was of little to no value. To the BeeOneGee mind, adding Pitt would only double up TV market. That Pitt-Penn State played annually once again almost certainly would become a killer Thanksgiving weekend rivalry as it was for decades carried no weight. Nor did the quality of Pitt basketball and its large basketball fan base, which would give the BeeOneGee a basketball power with fans in PA.

To the BeeOneGee, actual improved quality of play means very little; a new school in a brand new large TV market means almost everything.

UConn probably is superfluous to the BeeOneGee.

I can't help but think that this kind of post is written with a wry smile on one's face, the same kind of smile that one has as he pins live butterflies on his bedroom wall.

I had to read this post three times because, as you so helpfully try to point out, UConn fan seem to miss the "logic" that comes so easily to one such as you.

I mean, it is one thing to post an opinion and it is another set oneself up as some kind of authority and lecture the rest of us. To be the former, you just have to be a fan with a modicum of intelligence and some passion. To be the latter you actually have to make statements that have logical consistency.

The above post has one major and one minor logical flaw which reveals you to be more of a horse's a s s than any kind of authority and certainly no one who should lift his head high enough to lecture anyone.

I would never condemn anyone for being a fan but if you ever feel the need to lecture anyone again, I'd suggest you review your post so as to not embarrass yourself.

 

[kyleslamb]

I don't visit any other Big Ten boards other than Penn State. I started visiting theirs when UVA played Penn State in football in 2012. I have a good idea of what they think. I have no interest in any other Big Ten board. I do visit all of the ACC boards except for the Maryland Board because it is pay. I visit this board because it is about CR and a thread on the Texas board about CR. That's about it. I don't recall being on the Rutgers board. You may have pointed out something there sometime that I looked at, but it was a while ago. I don't remember.

You really need to stop trying to speak for how B1G fans or Penn State fans feel about it. Visiting BWI does not qualify you to do so. How you perceive Penn State fans based on BWIW is senseless.

I can tell you from personal experience having served as a beat writer, staff contributor and admin for various sites that each board has its own identity and attracts different personalities. Critiquing the consensus opinion of an entire base because of one message board is as silly an exercise as judging the academic credentials of an entire state because of one university.

 

[clmssun]

Tom/Fishy, give whoever came up with the "ignore" button a bonus.

Yes, it's like your own personal "ban" tool; no need to involve the moderators. Excellent idea for message boards like these.

 

[btstimpy]

You really need to stop trying to speak for how B1G fans or Penn State fans feel about it. Visiting BWI does not qualify you to do so. How you perceive Penn State fans based on BWIW is senseless.

I can tell you from personal experience having served as a beat writer, staff contributor and admin for various sites that each board has its own identity and attracts different personalities. Critiquing the consensus opinion of an entire base because of one message board is as silly an exercise as judging the academic credentials of an entire state because of one university.

I go to the Audibles Board on Fight On State too. I'm not speaking for any Penn State fan, but I'm listening to them and relaying what they say. The expansion subject has died down dramatically over there, and they have a new football coach. There is plenty of other stuff to talk about. But the light bulb is going off that they have 2 new teams on their schedule, and they talk about it. I just linked one of the discussions. Yes it was BWI. There are thousands of Nittany Lions on BWI. At least they say that they are.

 

[btstimpy]

Are you... Ok?

We've lost a number of good people that way (BWI?). My advice; quit now. And get help if needed, before it's too late.

You know of a better Penn State Board? I go to Audibles on Fight on State too. Both seem pretty good. There may be another I'm not aware of. They aren't discussing this stuff much anymore. They have a new football coach, and there is a lot to talk about there.

 

[btstimpy]

Why do you care how people pronounce it? Everyone knows who you are talking about.

You must not have been here when he called it BUG. This was the compromise to stop using BUG. Either way everyone knows who it is.

 

[Seaa Blue]

They aren't discussing this stuff much anymore. They have a new football coach, and there is a lot to talk about there.

But there's still crap like:

General questions about the BOT...

1. How many members are currently on it?
2. How many of those members do we like, and how many do we dislike and want out? How many "good" members and how many "bad" members, in other words.
3. How long will it take to get every single member, out of the BOT, that were on it, during November of 2011?
​

And then McAndrew himself (owner/mod ?) responds to give stalker-like detail of everyone on the BOT. For me it is the definition of "creepy".

https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=172355029&mid=172355029&sid=890&style=2

 

[Ldandy]

But there's still crap like:

General questions about the BOT...

1. How many members are currently on it?
2. How many of those members do we like, and how many do we dislike and want out? How many "good" members and how many "bad" members, in other words.
3. How long will it take to get every single member, out of the BOT, that were on it, during November of 2011?
​

And then McAndrew himself (owner/mod ?) responds to give stalker-like detail of everyone on the BOT. For me it is the definition of "creepy".

https://bwi com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=172355029&mid=172355029&sid=890&style=2

Its easy enough to poke fun from a distance, but you have no idea how truly frustrating our BOT is. It is ruled by an appointed committee of business and industry that never turns over and can't be unseated. This seemingly untouchable group exerts influence over the portion of the board that is elected in order to keep them in line and push whatever agenda they are promoting. The handling of events post Nov 11, 2011 were so bad from a PR standpoint, it has since become a case study published in college text books. If I was on the outside looking in, plenty of this would appear crazy to me too. That said when alums literally have to sue their own school to make its leaders accountable for their epic mismanagement nothing is out of bounds.

 

[itgoeslike]

In that same timeframe, they lead in Final Four appearances if memory serves me correctly.

Judging an entire league by what happens in a 63 (now 67) game tournament out of a sample of over 5,000 games in a college basketball season seems a bit narrow.

Too much emphasis is put on the tournament in terms of judging quality. It's simply not a big enough sample to critique the quality of a team or league.

The ACC has more Final Four appearances than the Big Ten over the past 25 years, even if you count the appearances that were taken away from the Big Ten. The Big East wasn't that far behind.

I usually agree with much of what you post, but the above comment is bit ridiculous. A 64/68 team tournament that is played year in and year out, always includes the top 25 teams in the nation, and requires its champion to win a multitude of consecutive games against progressively tougher competition is plenty of data (unlike a BCS football championship, which is really an "elected" position, decided by a single game). The best teams win when they have to and win often, and it's not a statistical anomaly.

 

[Yawkey Way]

LOL. Well played. After a decade, Boston College had contributed well in the ACC with out damage,

BC has actually done better collectively in football and basketball than Virginia has since BC joined the ACC during the similar time frame. We need Virginia to continue their upswing of late as for quite awhile there, they wern't carrying their weight in the ACC, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.

 

[Ldandy]

I go to the Audibles Board on Fight On State too. I'm not speaking for any Penn State fan, but I'm listening to them and relaying what they say. The expansion subject has died down dramatically over there, and they have a new football coach. There is plenty of other stuff to talk about. But the light bulb is going off that they have 2 new teams on their schedule, and they talk about it. I just linked one of the discussions. Yes it was BWI. There are thousands of Nittany Lions on BWI. At least they say that they are.

You are clearly listening to and relaying what some PSU Fans think, but clearly not all. Expansion threads have died down in most places as things have been relatively quiet on that front. If rumors start up again, so will the threads. The problem with Audibles is that it was taken over by Boiler Builder and a handful of ACC Fans conducting epic pissing matches. As for Franklin yep, we are more than pleased with the job he is doing so far. BWI is meh. Most of the discussion is scandal related, completely off topic, or focused on Pitt, Rutgers, UMD, or OSU's negative discussions of PSU. Truth be told the two primary PSU Free Boards are train wrecks. 99.9% of my discussion about PSU is done on the FOS or 247sports pay sites.

 

[kyleslamb]

The ACC has more Final Four appearances than the Big Ten over the past 25 years, even if you count the appearances that were taken away from the Big Ten. The Big East wasn't that far behind.

I usually agree with much of what you post, but the above comment is bit ridiculous. A 64/68 team tournament that is played year in and year out, always includes the top 25 teams in the nation, and requires its champion to win a multitude of consecutive games against progressively tougher competition is plenty of data (unlike a BCS football championship, which is really an "elected" position, decided by a single game). The best teams win when they have to and win often, and it's not a statistical anomaly.

That's statistically incorrect. Going into the year, even the best team in the country has only about a 33 percent chance of reaching a Final Four, give or take some percent based on the team's dominance and regional draw.

Here's an example of the ridiculousness of people harping on Final Four runs: Wisconsin had drawn a lot of criticism for a lack of tournament success under Bo Ryan through the years. However, I went back, using Sagarin odds, and did the probability of them making a Final Four at least one time from 2002 through 2013. The result? Fifty seven (57) percent. So basically not much more than a coin flip that they should have advanced in that time. Yet people had authoritatively claimed Bo Ryan was a terrible 'tournament coach' because they'd not made the Final Four.

A person trying to do a statistical research project in academia would be laughed out of the field if he tried supporting a hypothesis on the basis of population/sample of 15-20 when he ignored hundreds of perfectly reasonable datapoints to do so.

It's flat out silly to base a team or league based on what happens in a single-elimination tournament. It doesn't matter how important a championship is to people, it's without merit in terms of qualitative analysis.

 

[itgoeslike]

That's statistically incorrect. Going into the year, even the best team in the country has only about a 33 percent chance of reaching a Final Four, give or take some percent based on the team's dominance and regional draw.

Here's an example of the ridiculousness of people harping on Final Four runs: Wisconsin had drawn a lot of criticism for a lack of tournament success under Bo Ryan through the years. However, I went back, using Sagarin odds, and did the probability of them making a Final Four at least one time from 2002 through 2013. The result? Fifty seven (57) percent. So basically not much more than a coin flip that they should have advanced in that time. Yet people had authoritatively claimed Bo Ryan was a terrible 'tournament coach' because they'd not made the Final Four.

A person trying to do a statistical research project in academia would be laughed out of the field if he tried supporting a hypothesis on the basis of population/sample of 15-20 when he ignored hundreds of perfectly reasonable datapoints to do so.

It's flat out silly to base a team or league based on what happens in a single-elimination tournament. It doesn't matter how important a championship is to people, it's without merit in terms of qualitative analysis.

What specifically was statistically incorrect in my post? I was countering the suggestion that winning the NCCA national championship 25% of the time over 16 years should be devalued in some way. In fact, it's probably the most "earned" championship in college sports. If you want to talk about statistics, you should look at how UConn has outperformed its seeding over the years (and how others have underperformed). We are talking about data that spans a 25 years. At some point you can make reasonable determinations on performance. Also, be careful on your data points, especially when they are predicated upon other's assumptions. Preseason football is a data point, should that be a factor? Results matter. You need to win when it counts, everything is preparation.

 

[btstimpy]

BC has actually done better collectively in football and basketball than Virginia has since BC joined the ACC during the similar time frame. We need Virginia to continue their upswing of late as for quite awhile there, they wern't carrying their weight in the ACC, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.

UVA football went to the Gator Bowl in 2007 and lost at the very end to Texas Tech barely, and went to the Chick Fil A Bowl in 2011. I think UVA football has coaching issues right now. I hope not, but I think so. We may see another problem year. UVA basketball had to recover from Pete Gillen, and I think Tony Bennett has done that. UVA was stupid to give Pete Gillen a long term contract, so they sucked for a decade with him. They did win the Conference Tournament this year, so that is positive.

But UVA is never going to carry the conference in football and basketball. UVA has a history of carrying it in men's soccer, men's lacrosse, tennis, baseball, and swimming. Baseball needs to get over the hump and win a NCAA championship. They have been close i.e. final four. Men's Tennis finally got over the hump. But I agree that UVA needs to do much better in football. They also need to do better in women's basketball. They gave another long term contract to a coach who did well early in her career. Once she got the contract, she went on autopilot, and the program went to crap. She's gone now, so we'll have to see.

 

[businesslawyer]

That's statistically incorrect. Going into the year, even the best team in the country has only about a 33 percent chance of reaching a Final Four, give or take some percent based on the team's dominance and regional draw.

Here's an example of the ridiculousness of people harping on Final Four runs: Wisconsin had drawn a lot of criticism for a lack of tournament success under Bo Ryan through the years. However, I went back, using Sagarin odds, and did the probability of them making a Final Four at least one time from 2002 through 2013. The result? Fifty seven (57) percent. So basically not much more than a coin flip that they should have advanced in that time. Yet people had authoritatively claimed Bo Ryan was a terrible 'tournament coach' because they'd not made the Final Four.

A person trying to do a statistical research project in academia would be laughed out of the field if he tried supporting a hypothesis on the basis of population/sample of 15-20 when he ignored hundreds of perfectly reasonable datapoints to do so.

It's flat out silly to base a team or league based on what happens in a single-elimination tournament. It doesn't matter how important a championship is to people, it's without merit in terms of qualitative analysis.

There is no best team in the country going into the year. There are just people trying to earn a living annointing someone as the best team. There is a best team at the end of the year. It's the one who wins when it counts.

 

[NickyNewark]

You must not have been here when he called it BUG. This was the compromise to stop using BUG. Either way everyone knows who it is.

Thank's for continuing educating us stupid northeasterner's stimpyCuse.

 

[itgoeslike]

Here's an example of the ridiculousness of people harping on Final Four runs:. . . It doesn't matter how important a championship is to people, it's without merit in terms of qualitative analysis.

I'm talking about national championships. We regularly see overrated, over-seeded teams win two fluff games and put together a string of two wins to find their way into a final four. It gets statistically harder to win the final two games in three days against qualified competition. When you look at all the teams and all the variables, there is nothing happenstance about 4 national championships in sixteen seasons.

 

[upstater]

I read in the SI champion issue that DEFINITIVELY Uconn was not the best team in the country this year.

How can anyone state this with such certitude?

I just want to know who the best team was.

Florida?
Michigan St.?
Iowa St.?
Arizona?

Who?

Maybe Wichita St. hs a case, but I haven't actually heard anyone put forward candidates when they make this statement.

If you're going to say UConn wasn't the best (and you're going to point to the win over St. Joe's as evidence, as though no winner before had a close call, and you're going to totally ignore Kentucky's close calls) then tell us who is the best.

 

[BlueHen]

I read in the SI champion issue that DEFINITIVELY Uconn was not the best team in the country this year.

How can anyone state this with such certitude?

I just want to know who the best team was.

Florida?
Michigan St.?
Iowa St.?
Arizona?

Who?

Maybe Wichita St. hs a case, but I haven't actually heard anyone put forward candidates when they make this statement.

If you're going to say UConn wasn't the best (and you're going to point to the win over St. Joe's as evidence, as though no winner before had a close call, and you're going to totally ignore Kentucky's close calls) then tell us who is the best.

We were clearly the best team when it mattered.

 

[Yawkey Way]

It's flat out silly to base a team or league based on what happens in a single-elimination tournament. .

" silly " though that college sports only give out one National Championship trophy in their division, and thats how eveyone determines who was "the best" that year. FSU was deemed "the best " in college football, and Uconn was deemed " the best " in college basketball ( Mem's and Women's ). Thats the reality. Deal with it.

 

[itgoeslike]

Select members of the media (and conference leadership) look silly when things go against their narrative. You won't find anyone suggesting Wichita State being the best team because they aren't a favorite son. We beat a very good Florida team, twice, won over 30 games and dominated the final four. Our fourth national championship has shaken off a few more detractors, but there will always be the "UConn's good, but" crowd. We need to keep winning so the same guys look silly year in and year out. I'm sure the cartel will get together to plot against another UConn tournament run (a la Wichita State) to avoid another NC skunk. P5 conferences being shut out two years in row would be pretty awesome.

 

[kyleslamb]

There is no best team in the country going into the year. There are just people trying to earn a living annointing someone as the best team. There is a best team at the end of the year. It's the one who wins when it counts.

I'm not talking about best team according to polls or perception... I'm talking best team based on the regular season and the statistical odds due to their results.

The best team isn't the one the wins. The one that wins is crowned champion, it isn't crowned "best team."

 

[kyleslamb]

" silly " though that college sports only give out one National Championship trophy in their division, and thats how eveyone determines who was "the best" that year. FSU was deemed "the best " in college football, and Uconn was deemed " the best " in college basketball ( Mem's and Women's ). Thats the reality. Deal with it.

You're suffering from reading comprehension, apparently.

I am not arguing who's being crowned champions. I'm arguing against the statistically incompetent pattern of people judging the quality of teams and leagues based on a flawed sample size. Crowning a "champion" and using said championship tournament to suggest that proves who the best team(s)/league(s) were are not one in the same.

 

[itgoeslike]

You're suffering from reading comprehension, apparently.

I am not arguing who's being crowned champions. I'm arguing against the statistically incompetent pattern of people judging the quality of teams and leagues based on a flawed sample size. Crowning a "champion" and using said championship tournament to suggest that proves who the best team(s)/league(s) were are not one in the same.

Clearly you are of the opinion that the best team in the nation isn't UConn. OK fine. So, who's the best team? And show me how you arrived at that conclusion. I would love to take a look at the data.

 

[huskypantz]

You're suffering from reading comprehension, apparently.

I am not arguing who's being crowned champions. I'm arguing against the statistically incompetent pattern of people judging the quality of teams and leagues based on a flawed sample size. Crowning a "champion" and using said championship tournament to suggest that proves who the best team(s)/league(s) were are not one in the same.

The sample size is always flawed - it's flawed in the regular season with a 30 game schedule for 325 or so schools. Teams play about 7-8% of the total field during the regular season and power schools enjoy a statistically significant advantage by playing the majority of nonconference games at home. If you can find a way to distribute strength of schedule evenly across D1 and have everyone play neutral site games, you might have something.