Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Lorcan, post: 3333552, member: 8861"] I think it’s interesting, because access to some leagues is easier than others. I subscribe to ESPN+ and have a TV Login, so I can get access to the Summit, Ivy, Missouri Valley, ACC, and SEC right off the bat. The South Dakota vs. Drake game was and is one of the highest quality games that I’ve seen this year between two teams. I have a harder time getting access to BiG games or PAC-12 which are 2 of the so called Power Conferences. I guess it does depend on your tv subscriber and how much you might shell out to have access to more. Missouri State has impressive wins over Oklahoma, Minnesota, and fellow mid-major Boise State. How a Sweet 16 team from last year, with these sorts of wins doesn’t get ranked is mind boggling to me. Western Kentucky hammered a solid Belmont team that crushed UCF to the delight of fans here. They’ve also scheduled traditional mid powers in Central Michigan, Mercer, and made the short trip to play mighty Louisville. It’s easy to say that it’s hard to judge mid-majors, but there are plenty of majors with huge question marks. Michigan after the departure of Thome. Tennessee beat a severely weakened Notre Dame that almost lost to Fordham, but also nearly lost to East Tennessee State. I think it’s hard, because everyone has their own justifications for how they rank teams, and how they gauge the strength of the team. My processes often rely on fact instead of conjecture where possible. As someone pointed out, we can’t really rank Baylor on anything apart from past history, so some opinion has to come into play. I find it easier to use facts to distinguish teams in the 15-30 range. Then again, maybe I stan too much for the mid-major as evidenced by Drake AND South Dakota in the top 20. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,432

Messages: 4,396,105

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl