Looks Like ACC CCG Dergulation WIll Pass

[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.

 

[dayooper]

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.

UConn was the best team at the time of the tournament. They earned the NCAA Championship, no questions asked. That being said, there are multiple "Best Teams" each year at different points in the season. They certainly were not the best team in January and Kentucky wasn't the 2nd best team all year until the end. I would say that Michigan wasn't even close to the 8th best team during the tournament (they lost to UK after being tied with 3 seconds left in the Elite 8), but earned the right to be a #2 seed by their play throughout the year.

If you use a one and done type of system, SMU, Stanford, and Louisville were better teams than UConn during the season and up through The AAC tourney as they had better head to head records against UConn. That takes nothing away from what UConn accomplished and you deserved the NCAA Tournament championship. Tournaments aren't about the best team all season, it's about the best team at the time. UConn was the best team in late March and Early April.

 

[businesslawyer]

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."

Because no one is crowned "best team." It's a meaningless concept, right up there with asking someone who they would vote for if the 2016 presidential election was today. Winning matters. Losing matters. Having someone say you are "best" when you didn't win is irrelevant if you are not a Syracuse fan.

 

[huskypantz]

UConn was the best team at the time of the tournament. They earned the NCAA Championship, no questions asked. That being said, there are multiple "Best Teams" each year at different points in the season. They certainly were not the best team in January and Kentucky wasn't the 2nd best team all year until the end. I would say that Michigan wasn't even close to the 8th best team during the tournament (they lost to UK after being tied with 3 seconds left in the Elite 8), but earned the right to be a #2 seed by their play throughout the year.

If you use a one and done type of system, SMU, Stanford, and Louisville were better teams than UConn during the season and up through The AAC tourney as they had better head to head records against UConn. That takes nothing away from what UConn accomplished and you deserved the NCAA Tournament championship. Tournaments aren't about the best team all season, it's about the best team at the time. UConn was the best team in late March and Early April.

UConn was statistically a top 20-25 team going into the tournament based on their performance during the entirety of the regular season, and the proceeded to beat 5 or so schools that were ranked above them using those same statistics. Teams that do well over the course of the season are rewarded with favorable early round tournament locations and matchups against lower seeds.

I think you're missing the principal point of sports - be the best at the end. It's like that for every sport.

 

[itgoeslike]

UConn was the best team at the time of the tournament. They earned the NCAA Championship, no questions asked. That being said, there are multiple "Best Teams" each year at different points in the season. They certainly were not the best team in January and Kentucky wasn't the 2nd best team all year until the end. I would say that Michigan wasn't even close to the 8th best team during the tournament (they lost to UK after being tied with 3 seconds left in the Elite 8), but earned the right to be a #2 seed by their play throughout the year.

If you use a one and done type of system, SMU, Stanford, and Louisville were better teams than UConn during the season and up through The AAC tourney as they had better head to head records against UConn. That takes nothing away from what UConn accomplished and you deserved the NCAA Tournament championship. Tournaments aren't about the best team all season, it's about the best team at the time. UConn was the best team in late March and Early April.

People remember champions that win Olympic Gold, not who was best in the prior year, or prior 6 moths. People remember the National Champion, not Best Team-Month of November. In many respects, the season is about preparing for the National Championship. You try certain things, you coach, you adjust, you mature. Talented, mentally strong, well-coached teams improve throughout the season and peak at the right time, and, most importantly. . .they execute when it counts. It's the same drill if you're training for the Olympics. A team that played well all season is rewarded with a higher seed (theoretically) which provides an easier path and improves their odds of attaining a national championship. However, the tournament routinely exposes the fallacy of subjective rankings influenced by special interests.

 

[SAMCRO]

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."

The team that wins the championship is the champion. Rankings are flawed and subjective, results on the court are not. Win when it matters. Works the same way in the NFL. You play the season for positioning, you play the post season for the only thing that really matters...the title. What you're sorta talking about is the European Football model of true home and home round robins against every team in the league, with no playoffs and the champion is crowned on total results of the entire season.

 

[upstater]

UConn was the best team at the time of the tournament. They earned the NCAA Championship, no questions asked. That being said, there are multiple "Best Teams" each year at different points in the season. They certainly were not the best team in January and Kentucky wasn't the 2nd best team all year until the end. I would say that Michigan wasn't even close to the 8th best team during the tournament (they lost to UK after being tied with 3 seconds left in the Elite 8), but earned the right to be a #2 seed by their play throughout the year.

If you use a one and done type of system, SMU, Stanford, and Louisville were better teams than UConn during the season and up through The AAC tourney as they had better head to head records against UConn. That takes nothing away from what UConn accomplished and you deserved the NCAA Tournament championship. Tournaments aren't about the best team all season, it's about the best team at the time. UConn was the best team in late March and Early April.

Did SMU, Stanford and Louisville go undefeated during the season? Because Louisville lost to Memphis 2x, Kentucky 2x. UConn was 4-0 against those 2 teams while Louisville was 0-4. So... Again, how do you make the case? SMU similarly had trouble with teams UConn handled easily. And again, while people were making excuses for Florida injuries, some people seem to have not noticed that Deandre Daniels was injured in the middle of the season for UConn and he missed several games.

I can't see how anyone can make sense of this: Louisville loses 2x to Memphis who loses 3x to UConn who loses 2x to Louisville. Louisville loses 2x to Kentucky who loses 1x to UConn who beats Florida 2x who beats Kentucky 3x. Feel free to make sense of this to determine somehow that SMU is a better team than UConn, but I don't think that makes much sense. UConn in the past has won multiple games without a loss against the eventual national champion, and no one on this board was making claims about UConn being the best team or better than that team.

We also saw UConn fairly dominate Villanova, Iowa St., Michigan St., and Florida. And outside of the foul trouble that hit their 2nd and 3rd best player (on phantom calls) they handled Kentucky as well. You can make a case that UConn was about 10 pts better than the Champions of the B1G, SEC, SEC runner-up, B12 and BE.

 

[djct1999]

The way UConn was playing at the end of March clearly demonstrated that at that point in time UConn was in fact the best team in the country. As Upstater posted, UConn beat the champions of the B1G, SEC, B12, and BE. That is fact. What has made UConn elite over the years is partly correlated with our coaching staff's ability to pace their teams. The season is long grind and UConn understands that. Some teams inflate their early season rankings and records by playing the likes of LeMoyne, Colgate, Hoftstra, etc while never leaving campus. Even at 25-0, I was arguing that Syracuse was not even close to being the best team in the country. Sometimes it takes common sense and you have to look a little bit beyond the record itself. Which brings me back to UConn. During the first weekend in April, there was simply no team in this country that was better than us. Look beyond the record.

 

[Ldandy]

Geezus this thread went off the rails. IIRC UCONN hoisted the trophy at the end of the tournament. You guys were the best team for 2013/2014 end of story.

 

[Ha Who]

Geezus this thread went off the rails. IIRC UCONN hoisted the trophy at the end of the tournament. You guys were the best team for 2013/2014 end of story.

Maybe we should start a bash UCONN thread and all the trolls can go at it, leaving legitimate conversations which relate to the topic in the subject to be discussed

 

[dayooper]

Did SMU, Stanford and Louisville go undefeated during the season? Because Louisville lost to Memphis 2x, Kentucky 2x. UConn was 4-0 against those 2 teams while Louisville was 0-4. So... Again, how do you make the case? SMU similarly had trouble with teams UConn handled easily. And again, while people were making excuses for Florida injuries, some people seem to have not noticed that Deandre Daniels was injured in the middle of the season for UConn and he missed several games.

I can't see how anyone can make sense of this: Louisville loses 2x to Memphis who loses 3x to UConn who loses 2x to Louisville. Louisville loses 2x to Kentucky who loses 1x to UConn who beats Florida 2x who beats Kentucky 3x. Feel free to make sense of this to determine somehow that SMU is a better team than UConn, but I don't think that makes much sense. UConn in the past has won multiple games without a loss against the eventual national champion, and no one on this board was making claims about UConn being the best team or better than that team.

We also saw UConn fairly dominate Villanova, Iowa St., Michigan St., and Florida. And outside of the foul trouble that hit their 2nd and 3rd best player (on phantom calls) they handled Kentucky as well. You can make a case that UConn was about 10 pts better than the Champions of the B1G, SEC, SEC runner-up, B12 and BE.

I think we have differences in what The NCAA Champion means, and that's fine. I may be in the minority and I accept that. There have been many tournaments in many sports where the champion wasn't the best team. I understand what Kyle is trying to say and I will add that The NBA, NHL, and MLB have the best system in determining their champion as the best team usually wins the round. In a one and done tournament, not always. I will also say that I don't see a better way to determine the champion. Playoff series are not viable and the tournament is about as exiting as it gets in sports.

That being said, I hope you aren't thinking I'm saying that UConn doesn't deserve their accolades. They were one of the best, and in a small group that is in the discussion of being the best. I tend to believe that "The Best Team" is the one that wins consistantly throughout the season, and for the most part, you did.

 

[pj]

Kyle needs to recognize that the season isn't long enough for teams to reach their peak performance and then to play enough games to generate statistically significant evidence for the best team. UConn played much better in the tourney than it did in the regular season; so did Kentucky. It took UConn all season to develop its remarkably synchronized teamwork that won the championship, and Kentucky all season for its freshmen to figure out how to play. How each team played in November or December or January is not necessarily a valid indicator of which was the best team by the end of the season. And if you restrict yourself to late-season games, there is not enough data.

In the end, the tourney is the best indicator we have of the best team.

 

[upstater]

I think we have differences in what The NCAA Champion means, and that's fine. I may be in the minority and I accept that. There have been many tournaments in many sports where the champion wasn't the best team. I understand what Kyle is trying to say and I will add that The NBA, NHL, and MLB have the best system in determining their champion as the best team usually wins the round. In a one and done tournament, not always. I will also say that I don't see a better way to determine the champion. Playoff series are not viable and the tournament is about as exiting as it gets in sports.

That being said, I hope you aren't thinking I'm saying that UConn doesn't deserve their accolades. They were one of the best, and in a small group that is in the discussion of being the best. I tend to believe that "The Best Team" is the one that wins consistantly throughout the season, and for the most part, you did.

I'm not contesting the idea that the best team doesn't always win tournaments. After all, the 64th ranked team could have won it all. FGCU may have won it all last year. I was saying to you that if you're going to say the best team didn't win, tell me who you think was the best team. I don't see any team the entire season that could have beaten the best team UConn put on the floor. Furthermore, I can't see how you can argue that SMU or Louisville were better than UConn unless you ignore all the games those teams lost.

Again, this has nothing to do with the nature of a one-and-done tournament. If anything, people were astonished about UConn because of their poor seed, which was clearly undeserved. We were talking about UConn as being a 4 seed prior to the tournament but at the very least a 5 seed based on RPI and SOS which were stronger than many of the candidates seeded ahead of them. UConn actually finished the season ranked #18 in the AP.

 

[dayooper]

Maybe we should start a bash UCONN thread and all the trolls can go at it, leaving legitimate conversations which relate to the topic in the subject to be discussed

When did I bash UConn? In fact, I have been very complimentary of UConn during my time on this forum and congratulated you after you won. I have also been very vocal about wanting you in the Big10. Just because we see things differently about what The NCAA Tournament means, doesn't mean I'm bashing UConn.

 

[SAMCRO]

When did I bash UConn? In fact, I have been very complimentary of UConn during my time on this forum and congratulated you after you won. I have also been very vocal about wanting you in the Big10. Just because we see things differently about what The NCAA Tournament means, doesn't mean I'm bashing UConn.

I Think (not sure) that was directed at another poster in this thread, and a number of ND, UVa, BC, and FSU visitors on multiple other threads.

 

[Ha Who]

When did I bash UConn? In fact, I have been very complimentary of UConn during my time on this forum and congratulated you after you won. I have also been very vocal about wanting you in the Big10. Just because we see things differently about what The NCAA Tournament means, doesn't mean I'm bashing UConn.

It was not directed at you. Just that several of these threads are boring me to no end