My argument is that the Big East has a cap. My argument is that the Big East typically gets shafted.
What happened to Cincinnati in 2006?
How about SU in 2007?
Has anyone read my original post. All of my posts are on separate topics. This one is about the Big East having a cap on it and it being screwed year in and year out. Does anyone not think 2006 Cinci was screwed? How about SU last year? How about Nova the other year?
So with all that said the numbers back up my point that the Pac10 always gets more bids then they deserve. What has the Pac 10 done outside of UCLA lately? Does Arizona always crap out? Up until 3 years ago Zona was their best team. If you all think Stanford belonged in the tourney last year then I guess I just give up.
By the way, IBOJ never deemed it necessary to comment on my post about 80% of the Pac 10 being in Pomeroy's top 50, with 9th Place Cal clocking in at 56. That would seemingly shed some light on the strength of the Pac 10 this season, but it wasn't worth his time to respond. Interesting.
Just to make it more obvious, 56/9 = 6.2. In other words, unless there is no more than the Big Six conferences plus Xavier in the top 56, the Pac 10 is suspiciously overrepresented.
P.S. There are just as many Pac 10 teams in the Top 50 as there are Big East teams. Pac 10 = 10. Big East = 16. Want to keep harping on ratios? Yes Villanova is 51, Cal is 56. No difference.
__________________
Speaking about his use of the veto pen to eliminate wasteful spending, [McCain] declared, "I will veto every single beer [. . .]"
I was just watching college gameday and bobby knight said that Arizona St. deserved to be in because 'they were one of the few teams that played a better than average non-conference schedule'. Yup. They played the 301st toughest non-conference schedule. That's certainly better than average. Can we please get people who know what they're talking about on there?
__________________
'07-'08 Locks of the Day Champ 73-42-1 (63%) ATS
2008 Basketball Forum NCAA Tourney Challenge Champion
Of course we can not. Arizona State doesn't belong in if you're going to take the entire body of work into account. Why are we not doing that? An RPI of 81? A SOS of 71? Even with the #1 Pac-10, that shows you their non-conference was horrible.
__________________
My favorite NBA players: Kobe Bryant * Carmelo Anthony * Ben Gordon * Deron Williams * Joe Johnson * Kevin Martin * Tim Duncan * Kyle Lowry * Thad Young * Amare Stoudemire * Dwight Howard * Josh Smith * Brandon Roy * LaMarcus Aldridge * Rudy Gay * Al Horford * Brandan Wright * Craig Smith * Renaldo Balkman
2008-09 Favorite Rookies: Jerryd Bayless (POR), Roy Hibbert (IND), Greg Oden (POR), Jamont Gordon (undrafted), Chris Douglas-Roberts (NJN), Joe Alexander (MIL), Patrick Ewing, Jr. (SAC)
College Basketball: "Where 7-Foot Bigs Foul Out Happen"
Can we please get people who know what they're talking about on there?
What did you expect? Put Lunardi and and some other bracketologist on there and people would start complaining about having guys on there that have no clue about basketball. Knight, Digger, and several of those other guys are on there for one reason - because they know about the game. They're useful only for halftime talks and and pre-game matchup talks. Stop complaining. If you want to listen to pencil head talk, listen to ESPNU's podcast... As I speak, "math guy" Lunardi is calling in on Gameday. You can't have the same guys (Lunardi, Bilas, etc.) in studio, at the games, etc.
And Arizona St. will be a home team in the NIT tournament this year.
I realized I was slightly undervaluing the Pac10. So now that we see what the selection committee has done I think we can agree regardless of the ASU argument everyone has overrated the pac10. The only seeding arguments are Butler, Wazzu and Oregon and South Bama.
Oregon's resume is a complete joke, I'll stop back in a week and we can talk about how tough the pac10 was. I know its hard to judge a conference on one year in the tournament but there is one thing that is a fact and they are the worst performing conference with regards to bid yields and wins out of all of them.
So I knew the Big East deserved 8 bids, I knew the pac10 deserved 5.5-6 bids and I guess I was right. Oregon St. was a guaranteed two wins for the entire conference. The worst team in the last 20 years in a power conference, maybe ever. Although you all know it the Big East probably deserved 9 bids. Syracuse's resume stacked up favorably against all the bubble teams.
Someone said Oregon and SU resume was about equal, I think you are blind. Wait till the Big East has some experience next year we'll have several contenders for the title. Maybe even get 9 bids "Oh the Horror".
I knew the ACC deserved 4 max. I wonder how Vitales investigation is going with Virginia Tech. Did Doug Gottleib cry himself to sleep tonight?
Quick note: The Big East wound up with 7 teams in the top 27 and 9 in the top 54.
The pac10 had 4 in the top 29 and 7 out of the top 82.
Last edited by I_Bleed_Orange_Juice : 03-17-2008 at 03:28 AM.
The Big East has arguably had the worst snub the last three years.
2005 West Virginia
2006 Cincinnati
2007 Syracuse
Does anyone really disagree with this? Really lets see how another conference would take it. It doesn't matter what they do the future of college Basketball is in the Big East mega conference at least until we split up.
2005 West Virginia made it to the Elite Eight losing to Louisville.
__________________
My favorite NBA players: Kobe Bryant * Carmelo Anthony * Ben Gordon * Deron Williams * Joe Johnson * Kevin Martin * Tim Duncan * Kyle Lowry * Thad Young * Amare Stoudemire * Dwight Howard * Josh Smith * Brandon Roy * LaMarcus Aldridge * Rudy Gay * Al Horford * Brandan Wright * Craig Smith * Renaldo Balkman
2008-09 Favorite Rookies: Jerryd Bayless (POR), Roy Hibbert (IND), Greg Oden (POR), Jamont Gordon (undrafted), Chris Douglas-Roberts (NJN), Joe Alexander (MIL), Patrick Ewing, Jr. (SAC)
College Basketball: "Where 7-Foot Bigs Foul Out Happen"
The Big East has arguably had the worst snub the last three years.
2005 West Virginia
2006 Cincinnati
2007 Syracuse
Does anyone really disagree with this? Really lets see how another conference would take it. It doesn't matter what they do the future of college Basketball is in the Big East mega conference at least until we split up.
2008 - No Big East Snubs
2007 - Stanford clearly did not deserve to get in..... but without a doubt the biggest snub in 2007 was Drexel .. who had 6 top 100 road wins, 3 top 50 road wins (one against Syracuse), and 2 top 20 road wins!!. Syracuse, Texas Tech, and Arkansas were all a toss up...it could have went either way on those teams.
2006 - LMAO at Cincinnati (your using RPI as your base for that ridiculous assessment,,,, so then I guess Clemson, Alabama. Florida St were all bigger snubs then Syracuse in 2007). The biggest snubs was probably Creighton. I know you picked Cincinnati solely because they had the lowest RPI of any BCS Conference snub. Did you ever notice that Seton Hall has the hihgest RPI that year to get an at-large?
2005 - No Big East Snubs. Notre Dame had an RPI of 73, which was the best of any Big East tournament team. DOn't you remember the classic West Virginia-Wake Forest game in the second round rhat year. I really liked Mike Gansey - just a smart player who had a nose for the ball.
2004 - Notre Dame was the biggest Big East snub, and it's not like it was not unfair. There was several similar BCS teams that did not get in.
2003 - Seton hall was very close that year. I thought they had deserved it over Colorado, but once again at 17-12, Seton Hall was not a major snub.
I'm not going to go back further because from 1999-2002 the Big East was in a bit of a down turn... they are in an upturn right now and have been consistently one of the top three conferences for a few years. And in fact they got the benefit of the doubt 2 of the last 3 years with Villanova and Seton Hall.
So I really think you need to stop whining and get over it.
There has only been one true SNUB since 2003 and they are the 2007 Drexel team,
Although you all know it the Big East probably deserved 9 bids. Syracuse's resume stacked up favorably against all the bubble teams.
PLEASE, PLEASE, stop it. How does Syracuse's 6-11 record against top 100 teams stack up "FAVOURABLY" against anybody... and stop referencing +200 games.
Quote:
Someone said Oregon and SU resume was about equal, I think you are blind. Wait till the Big East has some experience next year we'll have several contenders for the title. Maybe even get 9 bids "Oh the Horror".
So your argument against someone arguing that the resume's are equal. is saying that Syracuse and several other Big East teams will be contenders next year. Awesome.
Please tell me how Syracuse's resume was so much better then Oregon's? No doubt Oregon is not a 9 seed, but there conference record is a wash with Syracuse's. 9-9 in the Pac-10 equates to 9-9 in the Big East... so let's bring it to OOC. They lost three road games. Given their raod win over Kansas St it was slightly better. Oregon has just a bit better profile then SU (not much), but your suggestion on blindness is idiotic.
I knew the ACC deserved 4 max. I wonder how Vitales investigation is going with Virginia Tech. Did Doug Gottleib cry himself to sleep tonight?
Quick note: The Big East wound up with 7 teams in the top 27 and 9 in the top 54.
The pac10 had 4 in the top 29 and 7 out of the top 82.[/quote]
Your an absolute tool. You realize that does nothing to prove that a 9-9 record in one conference vs the other, because we are comparing 16 friggin teams vs 10 teams. A 5th place team in the Pac-10 is like an 8th place team in the Big East.... voila ORegon=Villanova
Sorry mods, but I can't handle so much bias when its not even supported properly.
Talk about a West Coast Bias ???
