Sun 12/1 BE Game Thread (6 games)

[billyjack]

2011- UAB 22-8, Clemson 21-11. USC 19-14, VCU 23-11- 5 teams in tourney with 19 wins.
2012- BYU 25-8, Iona 25-7, Cal 24-9, USF 20-13- 1 team in tourney with 19 wins
2013- Boise 21-10, La Salle 21-9, MTSU 28-5, St Mary's 27-6- 0 teams in tourney with 19 wins

Ok, like, 2 days ago we told you that Boise State only had 19 wins last year vs Division 1 teams. Yet you have decided to continue with your incorrect talking point about 20-wins like a barnacle on a ship... which leads me to question other numbers and facts that you've thrown out there at us, like removing Big East wins vs "teams getting top-25 votes" (your creation)... under your rules we're the only f@#$#& conference that gets wins subtracted. So PC beat BC, who was getting votes... that's a win vs a team getting votes... like, Villanova doesn't lose its "win vs a #2 team", Kansas, if Kansas drops to #6... Villanova beat a #2 team, period. Otherwise you're moving goalposts, targets, and using smoke and mirrors to screw with us.

Again, last year Boise State beat "Corban" by 56 points, and "Walla Walla" (no, really) by 67 points. You should correct your numbers.

Also, I don't have the time to check if there were any other sub-20-win NCAA teams last year. Also, because you spend a lot of time looking these things up, I asked if you could put together a breakdown of the ACC vs top-25, top-50, top-100, and top-200 teams several times over the last week and you've provided nothing. Why? Cuz the ACC numbers are freakin horrible? Or you're stalling in the hope that ACC numbers improve?

[billyjack]

Also, in the 2012 season, South Florida beat "Florida Southern", a non-Division-1 school, so USF had 19 wins... actually 18 wins going into the BET. So that's another school that got a bid with under 20 wins.

P.S. Last month, the Friars beat the non-Div-1 Rhode Island College Anchormen (actually an excellent local Div-3 school with a great coach named Bob Walsh, located around a mile from PC), in the game where Kris Dunn reinjured his shoulder. Either you count that win for us, or you remove Boise State's wins over Corban and Walla Walla.

[stever20]

2011- UAB 22-8, Clemson 21-11. USC 19-14, VCU 23-11- 5 teams in tourney with 19 wins.
2012- BYU 25-8, Iona 25-7, Cal 24-9, USF 20-13- 1 team in tourney with 19 wins
2013- Boise 21-10, La Salle 21-9, MTSU 28-5, St Mary's 27-6- 0 teams in tourney with 19 wins

Ok, like, 2 days ago we told you that Boise State only had 19 wins last year vs Division 1 teams. Yet you have decided to continue with your incorrect talking point about 20-wins like a barnacle on a ship... which leads me to question other numbers and facts that you've thrown out there at us, like removing Big East wins vs "teams getting top-25 votes" (your creation)... under your rules we're the only f@#$#& conference that gets wins subtracted. So PC beat BC, who was getting votes... that's a win vs a team getting votes... like, Villanova doesn't lose its "win vs a #2 team", Kansas, if Kansas drops to #6... Villanova beat a #2 team, period. Otherwise you're moving goalposts, targets, and using smoke and mirrors to screw with us.

Again, last year Boise State beat "Corban" by 56 points, and "Walla Walla" (no, really) by 67 points. You should correct your numbers.

Also, I don't have the time to check if there were any other sub-20-win NCAA teams last year. Also, because you spend a lot of time looking these things up, I asked if you could put together a breakdown of the ACC vs top-25, top-50, top-100, and top-200 teams several times over the last week and you've provided nothing. Why? Cuz the ACC numbers are freakin horrible? Or you're stalling in the hope that ACC numbers improve?

End of the day, if BC turns out to be a 10-19 team, the committee won't give a rip at all that they were receiving votes. If Kansas turns out to be a .500 team, Nova's win vs them won't mean nearly as much as you think it should. The whole process is a moving target quite frankly. A win over a team could be viewed as great today, but then that team loses a few games, and it's not nearly as great . Or vice versa- a win over a team not seen as great today isn't much, but then they get 3-4 wins, and it looks a lot better. The RPI Top 50 number is not top 50 when they played. It's the Current RPI top 50. That's just how the numbers work.

As far as the 20 win thing- ok, 2 2 years ago and 1 last year. Out of 37 spots. Pretty much you need 20 wins to make the tourney. Most of our teams if they go 8-10 in conference play won't come close to 20 wins- like at 17-18 wins. That's just not good enough any more.

As far as your thing on the ACC- they have 12 games coming up this week vs the Big Ten. And right now quite frankly- ACC is #8 RPI. They are in trouble. But to show you something- right now, they are 2-14 vs RPI top 50. Right now, we are 3-14 vs RPI top 50.

[stever20]

also- last 2 years Boise, USF, teams with fewer than 20 d1 wins- look at what bids they got- not regular bids but play-in bids. in 2012 WV got a bid with 19 wins, as a #10 seed. I notice 2 of these 3 teams are from the Big East with our insane SOS. We don't/won't have that this year.

[HoosierPal]

Dawgs lost two they could have won, but we won three earlier this year we could have lost. I guess it all evens out. I dont' know if we will ever know the truth about the benching of Brown, Morgan and Castro. Bring on North Dakota and Manchester!!

Stat of the year to date: Butler PG Alex Barlow has played 229 minutes and had only 5 turnovers. That is one TO every 45 minutes...for a Point Guard

[Bill Marsh]

2012- BYU 25-8, Iona 25-7, Cal 24-9, USF 20-13- 1 team in tourney with 19 wins
2013- Boise 21-10, La Salle 21-9, MTSU 28-5, St Mary's 27-6- 0 teams in tourney with 19 wins

Ok, like, 2 days ago we told you that Boise State only had 19 wins last year vs Division 1 teams. Yet you have decided to continue with your incorrect talking point about 20-wins like a barnacle on a ship... which leads me to question other numbers and facts that you've thrown out there at us, like removing Big East wins vs "teams getting top-25 votes" (your creation)... under your rules we're the only f@#$#& conference that gets wins subtracted. So PC beat BC, who was getting votes... that's a win vs a team getting votes... like, Villanova doesn't lose its "win vs a #2 team", Kansas, if Kansas drops to #6... Villanova beat a #2 team, period. Otherwise you're moving goalposts, targets, and using smoke and mirrors to screw with us.

Again, last year Boise State beat "Corban" by 56 points, and "Walla Walla" (no, really) by 67 points. You should correct your numbers.

Also, I don't have the time to check if there were any other sub-20-win NCAA teams last year. Also, because you spend a lot of time looking these things up, I asked if you could put together a breakdown of the ACC vs top-25, top-50, top-100, and top-200 teams several times over the last week and you've provided nothing. Why? Cuz the ACC numbers are freakin horrible? Or you're stalling in the hope that ACC numbers improve?

End of the day, if BC turns out to be a 10-19 team, the committee won't give a rip at all that they were receiving votes. If Kansas turns out to be a .500 team, Nova's win vs them won't mean nearly as much as you think it should. The whole process is a moving target quite frankly. A win over a team could be viewed as great today, but then that team loses a few games, and it's not nearly as great . Or vice versa- a win over a team not seen as great today isn't much, but then they get 3-4 wins, and it looks a lot better. The RPI Top 50 number is not top 50 when they played. It's the Current RPI top 50. That's just how the numbers work.

As far as the 20 win thing- ok, 2 2 years ago and 1 last year. Out of 37 spots. Pretty much you need 20 wins to make the tourney. Most of our teams if they go 8-10 in conference play won't come close to 20 wins- like at 17-18 wins. That's just not good enough any more.

As far as your thing on the ACC- they have 12 games coming up this week vs the Big Ten. And right now quite frankly- ACC is #8 RPI. They are in trouble. But to show you something- right now, they are 2-14 vs RPI top 50. Right now, we are 3-14 vs RPI top 50.[/quote]

Steve, you are taking 2 unrelated facts - 20 wins and tourney selection - which are correlated and drawing a causative relationship where none necessarily exists

The fact that teams won 20 games does not mean that's why they were selected. The committee has much more sophisticated tools at their disposal. The fact is that the teams that present the complete package that the committee is looking for tend to have a lot of wins - 20 or more - and not so many losses. But much more important is who you beat, how good your overall level of competition was, who you lost to, and how your team is playing as it approaches the tournament. Different committees place emphasis on different elements in that package, but those are the key things they look for. Their are multiple power rating systems out there just as there are for the BCS which capture all of that information far better than "20 wins" does. Either you or I can come up with a list of teams with 20 wins who failed to be selected, proving that 20 wins doesn't get you in. And regardless of the last year or two, there are plenty of examples of teams with 17, 18, or 19 wins who have made the tournament if enough of those wins were high quality wins, if few if any of the losses were against bad teams, and if they are trending upward late in the season.

If nothing else, we have all of these exempted tournaments early in the season - more than ever before - which teams are using to pad their win totals. It used to be a 26 game season + the conference tournament (1-3 games). But now teams are adding so many games that 20 wins doesn't necessarily mean much for one team while 18 or 19 may mean a lot for another.

[stever20]

I think Bill for one- if you only have 17-18 wins now- you generally speaking will have 14-15 losses. All teams are playing 31-32 games at least, so if you have 18 wins playing 32 games- you have 14 losses. You almost have to get to the 20 wins so you have only 11-12 losses.
just looking last 4 tournaments-
2013- 3 12+ loss teams made tournament(all had 20 wins)
2012- 7 12+ loss teams made tournament(all but 2 had 20 wins)
2011- 7 12+ loss teams made tournament(2/7 had 20 wins, other 5 had 19)
2010- 4 12+ loss teams made touranment(all had 20 wins)
So, of the 21 teams last 4 years with 12+ losses that made the tourny, 14 of those teams had 20+ wins. Only 7 had fewer, and all had at least 19 wins.

Also, the committee has totally de-emphasized how a team is playing towards the tourney. Great case in point was a few years ago Nova when they went off the deep end, but still got a 9 seed.

[stever20]

the last 17 win team to make the tourney at large was Alabama in 2006. They were 17-12.

2004 and 2003 Alabama made it also with 17 wins. 2004 17-12 and 2003 17-11(cincy also made it at 17-11)
2001 Ga Tech 17-12

It's not been since 2001 that a team with a mediocre record made it in(Georgia at 16-14).

So last 13 years- only 6 teams have made the tourney with fewer than 18 wins. And all played 30 or fewer games.

[Demon22]

You know, I just want to say that on behalf of DePaul fans everywhere, we're getting pretty tired of carrying this conference on our backs. Time for the rest of you to step up and start pulling your own weight.

[stever20]

You know, I just want to say that on behalf of DePaul fans everywhere, we're getting pretty tired of carrying this conference on our backs. Time for the rest of you to step up and start pulling your own weight.

lol, the post of the day!!!!!

Now step up and beat Arizona St this week