Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

BlueDevil

College Bball Thread

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, str8baller said:

I wasn’t solely, quite obviously and for good reason.  That Wisconsin team was ranked higher than IU at each of their peaks and got a higher seed from the committee. That Wisconsin team was weak for a champion but quite comparable to our 2016 team where we were the best of a down B1G.
 

I still think you're letting recency bias get in the way. That team was 15-3, didn't lose at home, had four wins by 25 or more points and scored 28 straight points in another game. They got screwed without lube by the selection committee, who wanted an IU-UK second round matchup so badly they shafted both teams with their seeding, and still beat the SEC champs in the second round. And they still had the #6 adjusted offense in spite of losing a big scorer midseason. 

 

Just because we haven't finished above .500 in conference since then doesn't mean that team was a weak champion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this one:  1995-6 Purdue won the Big Ten title but their official conference record was 6-12.  The NCAA forced them to officially forfeit games in which Luther Clay participated in -- he was an 8 minute per game player and played in 19 of Purdue's wins.  The Big Ten, though, did not ever officially remove Purdue as the Big Ten champion.

Clay was deemed ineligible due to an improper benefit -- Purdue assistant coach Frank Kendrick provided him with a $4,000 bank loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, LCS had three teams in his top 25 that Joe and I did not;  Joe had three that he had in that LCS and I did not;  I had four teams in that LCS and Joe did not.

LCS had Clemson (18), North Carolina (22), and NC State (23), so obviously he values the ACC higher than Joe and I do.

Joe had New Mexico (21), Boise St (22) and Duke (23) in, so he values the MWC higher than LCS and I do.

I had Missouri (21), Memphis (23), Auburn (24), and USC (25) in, so I value the SEC higher than they do (or programs that traditionally cheat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

FWIW, LCS had three teams in his top 25 that Joe and I did not;  Joe had three that he had in that LCS and I did not;  I had four teams in that LCS and Joe did not.

LCS had Clemson (18), North Carolina (22), and NC State (23), so obviously he values the ACC higher than Joe and I do.

Joe had New Mexico (21), Boise St (22) and Duke (23) in, so he values the MWC higher than LCS and I do.

I had Missouri (21), Memphis (23), Auburn (24), and USC (25) in, so I value the SEC higher than they do (or programs that traditionally cheat).

My system actually ranks the Mountain West higher than the Pac 12 and ACC.  In looking over their out of conference schedules, they have had some pretty good results.  I’ll be interested to see how the tournament committee treats them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IUHoosierJoe said:

My system actually ranks the Mountain West higher than the Pac 12 and ACC.  In looking over their out of conference schedules, they have had some pretty good results.  I’ll be interested to see how the tournament committee treats them.

I don''t rate the conferences individually, but teams that could at least sniff at large bids (positive WAR values) in those three conferences IMO are:

MWC:

  • San Diego St (16), New Mexico (26), Utah St (32), Boise St (36) and Nevada (37).

ACC:

  • Virginia (14), NC State (27), Miami (F) (31), Clemson (34), North Carolina (35), Duke (38), Pittsburgh (56)

Pac 12:

  • Arizona (4), UCLA (9), USC (25), Arizona St (48).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I don''t rate the conferences individually, but teams that could at least sniff at large bids (positive WAR values) in those three conferences IMO are:

MWC:

  • San Diego St (16), New Mexico (26), Utah St (32), Boise St (36) and Nevada (37).

ACC:

  • Virginia (14), NC State (27), Miami (F) (31), Clemson (34), North Carolina (35), Duke (38), Pittsburgh (56)

Pac 12:

  • Arizona (4), UCLA (9), USC (25), Arizona St (48).

 

Your system is quite interesting to me.  Seems to be a unique way of looking at it, and hard to argue with the results.

Pittsburgh is a team I’m keeping my eye on.  Their resume is reminding me a little of Rutgers last year.  I have them at 67 but they have 5 wins over my top 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IUHoosierJoe said:

Your system is quite interesting to me.  Seems to be a unique way of looking at it, and hard to argue with the results.

Pittsburgh is a team I’m keeping my eye on.  Their resume is reminding me a little of Rutgers last year.  I have them at 67 but they have 5 wins over my top 50.

If you want results, though, USPS is the main for picking tournament seedings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

USPS usually says something about now....down 22 with 17 minutes left, a three pointer brings Texas Tech within 2.  25.4 seconds left, Iowa State ball.

I see college basketball is delivering even when I’ve been in a car all day traveling back from Missouri.  OT.    My connection goes in and out so I’ve missed some stuff.   Have to watch the replay later 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×