Would you rather be Michigan?

[buddy]

The Big East isn't a mid major. It is a power conference in basketball. Marquette went 19-12 this year and was CLEANLY in the field. If they had gone 17-14, they probably would have been in the First Four due to their scheduling.

I was unaware. You are correct. From what I found out, the Big East is actually the second strongest of the basketball power conferences, with the Big Ten ranked first.

 

[Kolumbo]

And we would all rather have been Baylor last year.

 

[shizzle787]

I was unaware. You are correct. From what I found out, the Big East is actually the second strongest of the basketball power conferences, with the Big Ten ranked first.

Probably closer to fourth but yes it is a major league.
Sagarin has them:
1. Big 12
2. B1G
3. SEC
4. Big East
5. Pac-12
6. ACC

 

[MU in MKE]

The Power Conference schools will always have an advantage over mid majors. 17-14 in the Big 10 is very different from being 17-14 in the Big East. Big Ten Conference games were battles for the upper 2/3 of the conference. Big East had three contenders and the rest had flaws. Even Rutgers would have beaten UConn this year. It would be much better to be in the Big Ten in the long run, no doubt. I don't care for Michigan only because their AD failed UConn.

Tell me you don't watch B10 games without telling me you don't watch B10 games.

B10 was filled with flawed teams. The metrics generally love the way B10 teams play, but the reason so many compete for the top of the league is because of how flawed many of their teams are while still having a bevy of strong teams. This is the same in the BE.

Many here seem to just be looking for excuses, but the tournament is a crapshoot. Get in, get as good a seeding as you can, then from there hope for good matchups and peak performance. The rest is up to chance and fate.

 

[freescooter]

Probably closer to fourth but yes it is a major league.
Sagarin has them:
1. Big 12
2. B1G
3. SEC
4. Big East
5. Pac-12
6. ACC

Guess Saragin doesn’t look at tournament performance. The bad ACC has 3 of 4 in the Sweet 16 while the might NOOB has 2 of 6. Oh well. Of course he is the guy who declared Duke the national champion in 1999. After they lost to UConn! But statistically they were better.

 

[shizzle787]

Guess Saragin doesn’t look at tournament performance. The bad ACC has 3 of 4 in the Sweet 16 while the might NOOB has 2 of 6. Oh well. Of course he is the guy who declared Duke the national champion in 1999. After they lost to UConn! But statistically they were better.

That's the point. The tournament isn't the best way of determining the champion or the best league. It only determines who gets hot at the right time.

 

[freescooter]

That's the point. The tournament isn't the best way of determining the champion or the best league. It only determines who gets hot at the right time.

LOL. And the Super Bowl isn’t the best way of determining the Champion, either. AFC is much tougher so the winner is more worn down. And the US Open isn’t the best way to determine the Champion either. Andy North can get hot while a great player hits it into the toolie boonies. We should do it by computer. I can just see the ratings now. Millions of viewers watching some guy punch in SOS data, and then two statistics PhDs arguing about components of the Golden Mean calculation and whether Recent results should be weighed more than overall.

Actually it kinda does identify the best team. Since 2000, only 6 champs have not been a 1 seed. And if we posit that seeding is generally correct and 1 seeds are more or less the best teams in their years, that is pretty much what would be expected. There have also been 2 2-seeds, 3 3-seeds and a 7-seed. UConn in 2014 being the biggest Outlier. But it is the only one over a 3 seed to win a title since Villanova in 1985. And I would argue that that team was under seeded because nobody really had a handle on how good or bad the AAC was.

 

[shizzle787]

LOL. And the Super Bowl isn’t the best way of determining the Champion, either. AFC is much tougher so the winner is more worn down. And the US Open isn’t the best way to determine the Champion either. Andy North can get hot while a great player hits it into the toolie boonies. We should do it by computer. I can just see the ratings now. Millions of viewers watching some guy punch in SOS data, and then two statistics PhDs arguing about components of the Golden Mean calculation and whether Recent results should be weighed more than overall.

Actually it kinda does identify the best team. Since 2000, only 6 champs have not been a 1 seed. And if we posit that seeding is generally correct and 1 seeds are more or less the best teams in their years, that is pretty much what would be expected. There have also been 2 2-seeds, 3 3-seeds and a 7-seed. UConn in 2014 being the biggest Outlier. But it is the only one over a 3 seed to win a title since Villanova in 1985. And I would argue that that team was under seeded because nobody really had a handle on how good or bad the AAC was.

It isn't. See the 18-1 Patriots. They were a better team than the Giants that year but they lost. The only true way to determine who the best team is is a double round robin (home/away) format. That way everyone has the same SOS and the same opponents. Over the course of the season, the best team would have the most wins. That is not practical in college basketball because that would require all 358 teams have a 714-game season.

 

[navery12]

That's the point. The tournament isn't the best way of determining the champion or the best league. It only determines who gets hot at the right time.

So you might say calling a whole season a failure after a tournament loss is a bit extreme right?

 

[uconngb]

I know it's a different conference and all but they are the perfect counterpoint to these recent threads.

1. A very lackluster regular season. A regular season we would all be very disappointed in.
2. A Coach whose actions were more egregious than Hurley's ejection and comments.
3. But 2 tourney wins.

Do the tourney wins wipe everything clean? Is this what we want?

Yes

 

[shizzle787]

So you might say calling a whole season a failure after a tournament loss is a bit extreme right?

No because the tournament is all that matters.

 

[Get a Job]

Anyone who says the NCAA tournament is the most accurate way of determining the best team either hasn't thought much about it, is crazy, or is stupid. Anyone who doesn't think the NCAA tournament is the best sporting event ever also fits one of those three categories.

 

[Chantry1101]

That's the point. The tournament isn't the best way of determining the champion or the best league. It only determines who gets hot at the right time.

Or who runs into a hot team, or a bad matchup etc. A sample size of 1 isn't indicative of much.
BUT, that's also what makes March Madness so exciting

 

[husky429]

So you might say calling a whole season a failure after a tournament loss is a bit extreme right?

A single tournament loss sure. When we're talking multiple tournaments, and coming up short in the overwhelming majority of close games, and games vs. well-coached teams... can we not start complaining then?

Still wouldn't call it a failure, but deeply disappointing and unsettling works for me.

 

[navery12]

A single tournament loss sure. When we're talking multiple tournaments, and coming up short in the overwhelming majority of close games, and games vs. well-coached teams... can we not start complaining then?

Still wouldn't call it a failure, but deeply disappointing and unsettling works for me.

Complain sure, I think there's plenty of valid complaints to be made even if they're starting to border on massive reaches. There's been some not great signs but we're still at 4 straight years of improvement

Was a disappointing end but not one that wipes away a season of positives for me. And certainly not to the point that I'd suggest we fire Hurley and bring in John Calipari after next year

 

[Get a Job]

A single tournament loss sure. When we're talking multiple tournaments, and coming up short in the overwhelming majority of close games, and games vs. well-coached teams... can we not start complaining then?

Still wouldn't call it a failure, but deeply disappointing and unsettling works for me.

I know nothing about the finer points of basketball, but I believe the people that say Hurley has shown major deficiencies in roster construction and gameday stuff. I also think it is completely in-bounds to criticize the coach's performance all we want as fans.

What I don't understand is the desire to move on from Hurley. There may be coaches that have become great by age 49, but I don't think there are many. When I look at the coaches winning multiple tournament games most seasons, they all seem to be 55 or older. Hurley still seems to be improving, and I would not want to jettison a coach on an upward trajectory.

(@husky429, I'm not saying you are advocating for firing Hurley. Your post just got my train of thought going in that direction.)

 

[August_West]

I know nothing about the finer points of basketball, but I believe the people that say Hurley has shown major deficiencies in roster construction and gameday stuff. I also think it is completely in-bounds to criticize the coach's performance all we want as fans.

What I don't understand is the desire to move on from Hurley. There may be coaches that have become great by age 49, but I don't think there are many. When I look at the coaches winning multiple tournament games most seasons, they all seem to be 55 or older. Hurley still seems to be improving, and I would not want to jettison a coach on an upward trajectory.

(@husky429, I'm not saying you are advocating for firing Hurley. Your post just got my train of thought going in that direction.)

Moving on from Hurley is suicide. We need to hope for growth. Coaching has a learning curve just like everything else obviously. Just harder to measure.

 

[husky429]

Complain sure, I think there's plenty of valid complaints to be made even if they're starting to border on massive reaches. There's been some not great signs but we're still at 4 straight years of improvement

Was a disappointing end but not one that wipes away a season of positives for me. And certainly not to the point that I'd suggest we fire Hurley and bring in John Calipari after next year

Agreed. The "fire him now" takes are ridiculous.

 

[husky429]

I know nothing about the finer points of basketball, but I believe the people that say Hurley has shown major deficiencies in roster construction and gameday stuff. I also think it is completely in-bounds to criticize the coach's performance all we want as fans.

What I don't understand is the desire to move on from Hurley. There may be coaches that have become great by age 49, but I don't think there are many. When I look at the coaches winning multiple tournament games most seasons, they all seem to be 55 or older. Hurley still seems to be improving, and I would not want to jettison a coach on an upward trajectory.

(@husky429, I'm not saying you are advocating for firing Hurley. Your post just got my train of thought going in that direction.)

Agreed. He is nowhere near being fired right now. A couple more years of disappointing performances, and I think it's fair to start having that conversation. Right now? No.

 

[freescooter]

Or who runs into a hot team, or a bad matchup etc. A sample size of 1 isn't indicative of much.
BUT, that's also what makes March Madness so exciting

It is the way we have. And as I said it really is pretty accurate. 1 seeds have won something like 90% and only 2 teams seeded under 3 have won since 1985. That strongly suggests that the top teams usually win. And let’s be honest. For a team like UConn, the regular season is not really that important except in how it sets us up for the real season, which starts in mid-March. 2006 was a disaster and 2011 and 2014 were huge successes. The regular season is important if you are Central Connecticut or Seton Hall. Not so much if you are UConn or Duke.

 

[EnochRoot]

Good grief

What Juwann Howard did was very wrong but that is not really Howard at all
Coach Martelli said that Howard had been chirped at by the opposing players and coaches all game and that his actions came out of nowhere.
I have gotten to know Phil Martelli a little and if he says that, I will accept his word
I am not a Micigan fan by any means nor am I a B10 fan
In college basketball, when you play in the P5 or NBE, if you dont win the league tournament, you have to do enough to get into the dance
Its what you do in the dance that counts.
UConn has more NCs so they are a more successful program but overall Michigan performs with more consistency in the dance
UConn needs to be in a P5-bottom line

I mean, he got thrown out for charging at (then) Maryland coach Mark Turgeon in a Big Ten tournament game last year. Had to be restrained and everything. So no, it’s not like it came out of nowhere. He’s got control issues.

 

[MU in MKE]

Guess Saragin doesn’t look at tournament performance. The bad ACC has 3 of 4 in the Sweet 16 while the might NOOB has 2 of 6. Oh well. Of course he is the guy who declared Duke the national champion in 1999. After they lost to UConn! But statistically they were better.

LOL. And the Super Bowl isn’t the best way of determining the Champion, either. AFC is much tougher so the winner is more worn down. And the US Open isn’t the best way to determine the Champion either. Andy North can get hot while a great player hits it into the toolie boonies. We should do it by computer. I can just see the ratings now. Millions of viewers watching some guy punch in SOS data, and then two statistics PhDs arguing about components of the Golden Mean calculation and whether Recent results should be weighed more than overall.

Actually it kinda does identify the best team. Since 2000, only 6 champs have not been a 1 seed. And if we posit that seeding is generally correct and 1 seeds are more or less the best teams in their years, that is pretty much what would be expected. There have also been 2 2-seeds, 3 3-seeds and a 7-seed. UConn in 2014 being the biggest Outlier. But it is the only one over a 3 seed to win a title since Villanova in 1985. And I would argue that that team was under seeded because nobody really had a handle on how good or bad the AAC was.

OK wait, first you say the ACC better because 3 of their 4 teams made it to the sweet 16 but then you start arguing how seeding tells us who the best teams are. You can't just apply the second argument to the #1 seeds. If you want seeding to be an indicator, then you need to apply it to the entire field. However, you can't do that, because then your despised NOOB would be considered better (once again).

And if we're going solely on current tournament performance, does this mean the BE is better than the B10 because we had a higher percentage make it to the Sweet16? I guess that makes the Metro Atlantic the best conference in the country.

Since you do not like using analytics and would rather use tournament performance, I guess we can conclude that PC is a better team this year than Baylor and Auburn.


I think it is clear that the analytics help us determine who the strongest teams and conferences are while tournament outcomes crown the winners and champions. There's a difference. Thus, depending on what sort of criteria manipulation you personally want to use, the analytics tell us that the BE is the 2-4th strongest conference in the country and the 2nd winningest conference since major realignment.