Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nelsonmuntz, post: 4464771, member: 833"] What stats source are you using? NET: Marquette 30, Xavier 40, Creighton 46, Butler 51, St. Johns 70, Seton Hall 89 KenPom: Creighton 27, Xavier 29, Marquette 31, St. Johns 49, Villanova 52, Seton Hall 59, Providence 69, Butler 71 I can not remember if NET has a starting point that takes time to get out of the model. KenPom definitely does. NET still has a lot of cuckoo in it, like Sam Houston State at 23 with a 4-2 record, Kent State (6-2) at 33 and Iona (6-2) at 34. A lot of this detritus will slide down the ratings as the season continues. I also don't expect the MWC teams outside of SDSU to get a lot of love in March for their fancy NET ratings because of how obviously they are gaming the stupidest computer ranking in history. The Big 12 is the best league in college and the Big East went 5-5 against it in the Big East/Big 12 Battle. The Big 10 is clearly #2, but all but one Big 10 school as 2+ losses, and eight have 3+ losses. The SEC teams haven't played anyone, and several of them still have a lot of losses. The MWC has gamed the computer rankings, and the ACC and Pac 12 are dumpster fires below their medians. As I mentioned before, part of the reason the Big East is not a train wreck in the computer rankings is because they lose close games rather than get blown out, for the most part. That said, I definitely agree with your last sentence. The Big East would be well served to have 2 or 3 of Xavier, Marquette, St. Johns or someone else win 12+ games in the league. The last thing the league or UConn needs is five or six teams between 11 and 9 wins in conference play. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,534

Messages: 4,400,326

Members: 10,214

Latest member: illini2013