Do not look at the Big East's record

[whaler11]

Yes, Ignore my criteria: winning tournament games you should win. Ignoring winning in the tournament. Just focus on the other stuff.

Your criteria is actually:
Pick whatever handful of teams you deem representative. Then ignore >50% of teams in league.

Your entire argument hinges on one Brimah shot. If he misses that shot that changes your entire argument by which you've arrived at your conclusion. That makes a ton of sense.

 

[jbdphi]

Your criteria is actually:
Pick whatever handful of teams you deem representative. Then ignore >50% of teams in league.

Your entire argument hinges on one Brimah shot. If he misses that shot that changes your entire argument by which you've arrived at your conclusion. That makes a ton of sense.

I know I'm making a mistake intruding on a one-on-one sh!tfight but isn't this really a bit of both? Defining the strength of a league isn't just the top teams but also isn't just the regular season - it's a mix of everything that league does over the course of a season and post-season, in out of conference, in post-season tourneys, etc. Last year, everyone knew that the AAC was top heavy and seriously bottom weak. Post-season performance doesn't improve how crappy the bottom was but the top was still pretty good and that should count for something.

 

[upstater]

For once, this guy might admit he was wrong about the BE being as good as the ratings last year. The teams went down like a sack of potatoes when faced with decent competition.

 

[Adios]

Jesus Christ this board is manic. EcasadoUSB, STFU. That crap always screws things up.

Blasphemy! The Friars are now going to be punished.

 

[pj]

Just trying to see your logic here, if UConn is the only AAC team to make it this year and wins the NC again while the BE has a better season top to bottom in the league, get's 5-6 teams in but none advance to the sweet 16 the AAC is a better league?

If the AAC has the national champion and the Big East doesn't have a single team in the Sweet Sixteen, then odds are the AAC will have been the better league.

For now, the Big East looks distinctly better.

 

[Inyatkin]

People realize there are 35-40 games per season, right? Maybe we don't need to make sweeping statements 4-5 games in.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If St. Johns or Depaul beats someone good in November, or even just don't lose to any bad teams, then we will know something is going on. Until then, I think we are just seeing the results of the better Big East teams playing more games early along with 1 or 2 aberrations, like Butler over UNC.

The Big East is a solid basketball conference on par with the P5 for now.

 

[FriarJ]

It was multiple teams. Not just one. And multiple BE teams flopped.

The larger point is the seeding. If you're looking at ratings like whaler is, the AAC was underseeded relative to ratings, and even with the underseeding (which puts you up against tougher competition) it performed well. The BE on the other hand wss overseeded relative to their ratings, and they flopped in the tournament.

you didn't answer my question?

 

[whaler11]

If the AAC has the national champion and the Big East doesn't have a single team in the Sweet Sixteen, then odds are the AAC will have been the better league.

For now, the Big East looks distinctly better.

So if Kentucky wins the tournament than odds are the SEC is the best league?

I can only assume that Upstater is being willfully obtuse at this point because his argument is so painfully bad that even he can't believe it.

Yes you can decide which conference is better based on a 10 game sample size played by 1/3 of the teams in tbe league. Seriously that's his argument.

 

[FriarJ]

If the AAC has the national champion and the Big East doesn't have a single team in the Sweet Sixteen, then odds are the AAC will have been the better league.

For now, the Big East looks distinctly better.

So the Horizon league came just short of being the best conference 2 years in a row. Silly stuff

 

[upstater]

So the Horizon league came just short of being the best conference 2 years in a row. Silly stuff

Stop distorting everything that's said.

There were 4 teams from each conference in the tourney. The BE's 4 best did not cut it. We're not talking about one team. We're talking about all those top teams together.

 

[upstater]

So if Kentucky wins the tournament than odds are the SEC is the best league?

I can only assume that Upstater is being willfully obtuse at this point because his argument is so painfully bad that even he can't believe it.

Yes you can decide which conference is better based on a 10 game sample size played by 1/3 of the teams in tbe league. Seriously that's his argument.

Kentucky is a good example. They played in the SEC. Despite a good OOC schedule against MSU, PC, Baylor, UNC, Louisville, and 3 games against Florida, the were an 8 seed.

The SEC was underseeded compared to the BE, and the SEC had stellar performances. 13 wins.

You're a stat head who'd rather hang out with Sagarin than actually watch the NCAA tourney. You know, the games that were played in March. Like the Villanova Uconn game. or what about that NC State Xavier game, how'd that go?

 

[upstater]

you didn't answer my question?

You want me to answer a total non-sequitir?

 

[tcf15]

St. John's bringing the short shorts back:

 

[whaler11]

Kentucky is a good example. They played in the SEC. Despite a good OOC schedule against MSU, PC, Baylor, UNC, Louisville, and 3 games against Florida, the were an 8 seed.

The SEC was underseeded compared to the BE, and the SEC had stellar performances. 13 wins.

You're a stat head who'd rather hang out with Sagarin than actually watch the NCAA tourney. You know, the games that were played in March. Like the Villanova Uconn game. or what about that NC State Xavier game, how'd that go?

Yes I'm a wild stathead who doesn't watch games. Could you be more incorrect?

I know you think you can rank 350 teams and 30 conferences in your head by watching UConn games - but you can't.

Your point about Kentucky has nothing to do with the conversation, which isn't surprising because your argument is so far beyond lucid you may as well just wildly jump from topic to topic because there is no way to connect any dots in your 'logic'.

 

[gtcam]

Not to be a jerk but the Big East died two years ago
I could care what the record of the imposter league is or what the teams in that "league" do
let's talk Husky hoops

 

[FriarJ]

Stop distorting everything that's said.

There were 4 teams from each conference in the tourney. The BE's 4 best did not cut it. We're not talking about one team. We're talking about all those top teams together.

stop refusing to answer my question about this year. What the heck is wrong with you?

 

[FriarJ]

Not to be a jerk but the Big East died two years ago
I could care what the record of the imposter league is or what the teams in that "league" do
let's talk Husky hoops

Then start a thread that's not about the friggin BE. WTF is up with you guys? One loss and its all going to ? If we even won one title I would not give a crap what any poster said ever. Facts are many of you are spoiled, arrogant or lacking in reality. You know who you are...

 

[upstater]

Yes I'm a wild stathead who doesn't watch games. Could you be more incorrect?

I know you think you can rank 350 teams and 30 conferences in your head by watching UConn games - but you can't.

Your point about Kentucky has nothing to do with the conversation, which isn't surprising because your argument is so far beyond lucid you may as well just wildly jump from topic to topic because there is no way to connect any dots in your 'logic'.

You brought up Kentucky. Not me. The SEC is another example of a conference that had much stronger teams than people supposed, and they were underseeded.

 

[upstater]

stop refusing to answer my question about this year. What the heck is wrong with you?

It has nothing to do with what I said: go ahead. Ask again, because you make no sense. might as well ask me about Dancing with the Stars. Better yet, start a new thread and as a courtesy to you, since you're so desperate, I'll answer.

 

[whaler11]

You brought up Kentucky. Not me. The SEC is another example of a conference that had much stronger teams than people supposed, and they were underseeded.

Genius I brought up Kentucky to point out the silliness of the premise that if a team in your league wins the NC that means your league is great.

You can't seem to stop trying to compare leagues by only looking at 1/3rd of the members - which is so stupid it's a bit painful - but since you can't get past what is a very simple concept you can continue to ignore reality and enjoy the one youve created in your mind.

 

[upstater]

Genius I brought up Kentucky to point out the silliness of the premise that if a team in your league wins the NC that means your league is great.

You can't seem to stop trying to compare leagues by only looking at 1/3rd of the members - which is so stupid it's a bit painful - but since you can't get past what is a very simple concept you can continue to ignore reality and enjoy the one youve created in your mind.

And I asnwered that Kentucky's low seed and their performance, coupled with the performances of the SEC tournament teams, shows you that the conference should have been held in higher esteem.

And I've said this 1000x but you refuse to acknowledge this: UConn's stats, the ones you love so much, SOS and RPI, weren't bad at all. 4/5 seed.

Also, your math is bad. The 5 AAC teams I put up there last year were UL, UConn, Cincy, Memphis and SMU. That's 1/2 the conference. What was so good about Butler and DePaul anyway?

You're stuck in the past.

 

[whaler11]

And I asnwered that Kentucky's low seed and their performance, coupled with the performances of the SEC tournament teams, shows you that the conference should have been held in higher esteem.

And I've said this 1000x but you refuse to acknowledge this: UConn's stats, the ones you love so much, SOS and RPI, weren't bad at all. 4/5 seed.

Also, your math is bad. The 5 AAC teams I put up there last year were UL, UConn, Cincy, Memphis and SMU. That's 1/2 the conference. What was so good about Butler and DePaul anyway?

You're stuck in the past.

I hate RPI for the record.

I'm actually stuck in the present looking at what is presently going on.

You can't seem to grasp the Kentucky point... it's pretty simple...

Are you seriously still blabbing about NIT games? Good grief - you really are clueless.

 

[FriarJ]

It has nothing to do with what I said: go ahead. Ask again, because you make no sense. might as well ask me about Dancing with the Stars. Better yet, start a new thread and as a courtesy to you, since you're so desperate, I'll answer.

I will try this again if possible; Not going on anything in the past, you rank a 12 team conference with a few power teams at the top and overall rankings lets say rankings of 5-250 with them all being scattered equally between those numbers as stronger than a conference with 10 teams between 10-100? Do you believe at all in Ken Pomeroy? or the RPI at all? Do you have your own rankings? How do you determine them? what should SMU be ranked right now?

 

[7774]

Kentucky is a good example. They played in the SEC. Despite a good OOC schedule against MSU, PC, Baylor, UNC, Louisville, and 3 games against Florida, the were an 8 seed.

You act like the outcome of these games are meaningless or something. Their 8 seed probably had less to do with them being in the SEC and more to do with them going 2-6 in the games you listed, plus losses to Vanderbilt, Arkansas twice, South Carolina, etc.