Official 2009-2010 NCAA Basketball Thread

[Heads22]

The Valley favorite beat an ISU team that was picked for 8th in the league by 3.

[JuiceCruz16]

The Valley favorite beat an ISU team that was picked for 8th in the league by 3.

I agree, that is the difference. Not that they beat them by 3, but on how it is perceived as a nice win or a big win against a power conference opponent. If they were in the big 12 or were a big 10/ACC/ Big East team that win does not cause a ripple for bragin' rights as a strong team, it would do very little for there tournament resume. The Valley team would now be playing another two games against (Oklahoma State, Kansas State for example) within the week. Now win two out of three of those in your avarage week of conference play and then you might start to talk about being a contender or at least a factor in the Big 12 race.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not a big ten guy, but c'mon the Valley is NOWHERE near the big 10. They are a solid mid major conference, but night in night out playing the step up in competition every game I doubt any team would finish in the top 5-6 in the Big 10 if it played in it, let alone have two or three teams that would compete for the confrence title. The Valley might have won 2 games tops in a Valley/ACC challenge. Maybe 2 tops. Top to bottom night in night out playing in the ACC, BIG 10, Big East, Big 12, etc. is just a totally different animal them playing in the Valley or the MAC. etc. I have more respect for 6th/7th in a typical major confrence season then 2nd or 3rd in a typical mid major confrence season in most years. Just a much tougher road to go through night in and night out.

 

I dunno that I'd agree with this. Take a really good Valley team and they could compete for the upper echelon of the big ten (or any other major conference) with the chance of winning it if the stars align. I think every few years there's a mid major team that is really, really good (teams with 4-5 four year players). But in an average year, no, they probably would not be able to compete on that high of a level.

 

And despite the bad losses to Utah and Bradley, I would still bet lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of my money that if Illinios and ISU played 10 games ISU would be lucky to win 1 (let's keep this retread argument rolling!)

[RockRaines]

Yes. And in the last 4 years the Valley has finished above at least one power conference in the rpi twice, so lets not pretend the Valley is some s***ty conference here or even "mediocre," it's a pretty solid conference. But I know, I know, the Valley has some how figured out the rpi formula and that's the only reason some thing like that could possibly happen. And if some of us have "little man syndrome" it's because some of you guys need to get off your damn high horse. Saying only one team from the Valley could survive in the b10 is ridiculous or saying that Illinois State would only have a 1 percent chance of beating Illinois is absolutely insane. Not saying the Valley is better than b10 because it isn't but some of you guys think your league is sooooooo much f***ing better just cause it's the big 10 and just because the Valley is a "mid major" league.

It is so much better, sorry. I went to school at a mid-major and the talent level is so much different its not even funny. The best team in the Valley may have a chance to compete in the Big Ten, but more than one? Possibly, but not more than 2 teams would have a chance to complete whereas in the B10, at least 6 or 7 teams can compete. The NCAA tourney is VERY accurate at getting the correct teams in, there are what, 5 or 6 teams that feel "slighted" after selection? Out of all the college programs in the country thats pretty accurate. Mid Majors just dont have the firepower, and thats a fact.

 

And given that the argument is still about ISU and Illinois, would you feel more comfortable saying that maybe 2 times out of ten they win? That still shows the difference between the conference IMO, even if its a 30 percent chance at most. Win your conference title, or win some big games and you'll get in the tourney, thats all.

[Heads22]

LOL...Iowa flow chart:

 

[RockRaines]

I dunno that I'd agree with this. Take a really good Valley team and they could compete for the upper echelon of the big ten (or any other major conference) with the chance of winning it if the stars align. I think every few years there's a mid major team that is really, really good (teams with 4-5 four year players). But in an average year, no, they probably would not be able to compete on that high of a level.

 

And despite the bad losses to Utah and Bradley, I would still bet lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of my money that if Illinios and ISU played 10 games ISU would be lucky to win 1 (let's keep this retread argument rolling!)

I'd like to know who these mid majors are that would compete for a major conference title. I'd like to see one of the come in and play some away games at Purdue, Wisconsin, Duke, UNC, etc and see if they survive that schedule.

 

Here are some of the best ones this season:

 

Gonzaga, Butler, Portland, Richmond, Northern Iowa, Missouri State and Siena.

 

Some of these schools could compete for a BCS conference most of the time like Butler and Gonzaga. However most of the time they would end up somewhere in the middle of the pack most likely, which according to some, makes them "mediocre." And the question is, are there multiple teams outside of these in the conference that deserve an automatic bid over a mid range school in the ACC etc.

 

Edited December 4, 2009 by RockRaines

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd like to know who these mid majors are that would compete for a major conference title. I'd like to see one of the come in and play some away games at Purdue, Wisconsin, Duke, UNC, etc and see if they survive that schedule.

 

Here are some of the best ones this season:

 

Gonzaga, Butler, Portland, Richmond, Northern Iowa, Missouri State and Siena.

 

Some of these schools could compete for a BCS conference most of the time like Butler and Gonzaga. However most of the time they would end up somewhere in the middle of the pack most likely, which according to some, makes them "mediocre." And the question is, are there multiple teams outside of these in the conference that deserve an automatic bid over a mid range school in the ACC etc.

 

I think the 02(?) SIU team would have competed for a major title too (whatever year Weber took them to the sweet 16). Throw a team like Davidson from last year or george mason in a weak major conference and I could see them winning. But that was my point. Obvioulsy 95% of the time it's not going to happen, but every few years there's a good mid major that could compete.

 

And I don't think the road games matter that much. The ultimate winner of the conference more often than not loses those tough road games anyway.

[JuiceCruz16]

I think the 02(?) SIU team would have competed for a major title too (whatever year Weber took them to the sweet 16). Throw a team like Davidson from last year or george mason in a weak major conference and I could see them winning. But that was my point. Obvioulsy 95% of the time it's not going to happen, but every few years there's a good mid major that could compete.

 

And I don't think the road games matter that much. The ultimate winner of the conference more often than not loses those tough road games anyway.

Davidson was dangerous, but NO WAY they would have been a serious contender for a ACC title. Not a chance AT BEST they would have been middle of the pack, which should not get the NCAA bids according to some being around a .500 team in conference play.

Edited December 4, 2009 by JuiceCruz16

[RockRaines]

I think the 02(?) SIU team would have competed for a major title too (whatever year Weber took them to the sweet 16). Throw a team like Davidson from last year or george mason in a weak major conference and I could see them winning. But that was my point. Obvioulsy 95% of the time it's not going to happen, but every few years there's a good mid major that could compete.

 

And I don't think the road games matter that much. The ultimate winner of the conference more often than not loses those tough road games anyway.

Exactly, so they would end up in the middle of the pack most of the time, which are teams that shouldnt be considered according to this argument earlier in the thread.

[kev211]

And despite the bad losses to Utah and Bradley, I would still bet lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of my money that if Illinios and ISU played 10 games ISU would be lucky to win 1 (let's keep this retread argument rolling!)

It just doesn't end does it? The argument of being lucky to win one is gone, you lost to Bradley and Utah. In a top 25 coaches poll done the same way the the real coaches poll is done just with mid majors coaches Illinois state is 5th.. Bradley and Utah are worse the ISU and Illinois lost to them two nights in a row. That alone is enough to tell me that ISU would win 2-3 games(but then again you guys would just blame them on Jordan getting to much PT).

 

Rock and everyone else I'm not saying that the Valley should get the same amount of bids as the big conferences I'm just saying the the 2nd and 3rd teams in the Valley are better then the 6th and 7th teams in the Big Ten. So when the Tournament gets picked leave the 6th and 7th teams of the Big Ten out, and put in the 2nd and 3rd teams in from the MVC. You saying that the top MVC teams wouldn't be able to compete for the Big Ten is true(most years) but ISU, UNI, and Creighton could finish higher then 7th in the Big Ten which according to the committee last year is tourney worthy.

Edited December 4, 2009 by kev211

[ZoomSlowik]

It just doesn't end does it? The argument of being lucky to win one is gone, you lost to Bradley and Utah. In a top 25 coaches poll done the same way the the real coaches poll is done just with mid majors coaches Illinois state is 5th.. Bradley and Utah are worse the ISU and Illinois lost to them two nights in a row. That alone is enough to tell me that ISU would win 2-3 games(but then again you guys would just blame them on Jordan getting to much PT).

 

Rock and everyone else I'm not saying that the Valley should get the same amount of bids as the big conferences I'm just saying the the 2nd and 3rd teams in the Valley are better then the 6th and 7th teams in the Big Ten. So when the Tournament gets picked leave the 6th and 7th teams of the Big Ten out, and put in the 2nd and 3rd teams in from the MVC. You saying that the top MVC teams wouldn't be able to compete for the Big Ten is true(most years) but ISU, UNI, and Creighton could finish higher then 7th in the Big Ten which according to the committee last year is tourney worthy.

 

Um, no. If you lose 9 or 10 games playing in the MVC like UNI and ISU did last year, you're not going to have a tournament-caliber resume in the Big 10.

[kev211]

Um, no. If you lose 9 or 10 games playing in the MVC like UNI and ISU did last year, you're not going to have a tournament-caliber resume in the Big 10.

I give up like Rowand said you guys need to get off your high horse.

 

The Valley in a down year last year had two teams in Creighton and UNI that would have finished higher then 7th in the Big Ten, with the potential for a 3rd in ISU who beat Creighton twice(easily both times) and lost to UNI 3 times by a combined 9 times. ISU's record just sucked because we s*** the bed twice vs Indy State.

[ZoomSlowik]

I give up like Rowand said you guys need to get off your high horse.

 

The Valley in a down year last year had two teams in Creighton and UNI that would have finished higher then 7th in the Big Ten, with the potential for a 3rd in ISU.

 

No, they really didn't. Even playing a less daunting schedule UNI and ISU went 23-10 and 24-9 respectively. Penn State missed the tournament last year at 22-11 and 10-8 in conference. Do you really think they wouldn't have picked up a couple of more losses playing a more consistently challenging schedule?

 

Keep in mind that UNI went 1-3 against BCS-conference teams last year, losing to Iowa State and Iowa as well as UIC and Wyoming out of conference. Creighton wasn't any better, losing to Arkansas Little Rock and Nebraska out of conference and going 1-2 against BCS teams, with the win coming against an awful DePaul squad. Losses like that can be resume-killers for teams from power conferences. ISU didn't even have any out of conference games against BCS-conference competition until the NIT against K-State, which they lost.

 

SOME mid-majors can definitely hang with the big boys, but those teams typically run up 25-5 type records and win some tough games out of conference.

 

There's also a big difference between winning one game against a more highly regarded opponent and doing it consistently. Even perrenial doormat Northwestern typically beats one good team a year and took out Michigan State and Purdue on the road last year. They still didn't make the tournament because they weren't consistent enough to win more than 17 games.

Edited December 4, 2009 by ZoomSlowik

[Soxbadger]

The Valley in a down year last year had two teams in Creighton and UNI that would have finished higher then 7th in the Big Ten, with the potential for a 3rd in ISU.

 

Uh no.

 

Lets put this in perspective using Wisconsin as an example.

 

Wisconsin finished 6th last year in the Big 10, meaning that all 3 MVC teams would have to have been better than Wisconsin.

 

Wisconsin was 20-11, losing only 3 OOC games.

 

Wisconsin's OOC losses were UConn (ranked #2), Marquette and Texas (ranked #8).

 

Why do you believe that Creighton or UNI would have finished higher than Wisconsin?

 

In comparison, Creighton lost to Arkansas-Little Rock and Nebraska OOC.

 

Northern Iowa lost to Illinois Chicago, lost to Marquette by 30 (Wisconsin lost by 3), lost to Iowa by 19, lost to Wyoming and lost to Iowa State.

 

So no, I dont believe there is any rationale argument that either of those teams could have finished higher than Wisconsin.

 

Last year Wisconsin had: RPI Rank: 45 SOS Rank: 16

 

UNI: RPI Rank: 59 SOS Rank: 84

 

Creighton: RPI Rank: 40 SOS Rank: 111

 

Notice the difference in SOS.

 

Wisconsin was 16 and had similar records to 84 and 111.

 

Sorry to bring facts to this argument, but its getting ridiculous.

.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It just doesn't end does it? The argument of being lucky to win one is gone, you lost to Bradley and Utah. In a top 25 coaches poll done the same way the the real coaches poll is done just with mid majors coaches Illinois state is 5th.. Bradley and Utah are worse the ISU and Illinois lost to them two nights in a row. That alone is enough to tell me that ISU would win 2-3 games(but then again you guys would just blame them on Jordan getting to much PT).

 

Rock and everyone else I'm not saying that the Valley should get the same amount of bids as the big conferences I'm just saying the the 2nd and 3rd teams in the Valley are better then the 6th and 7th teams in the Big Ten. So when the Tournament gets picked leave the 6th and 7th teams of the Big Ten out, and put in the 2nd and 3rd teams in from the MVC. You saying that the top MVC teams wouldn't be able to compete for the Big Ten is true(most years) but ISU, UNI, and Creighton could finish higher then 7th in the Big Ten which according to the committee last year is tourney worthy.

 

Those loses were flukes. They were up big, stopped playing and couldn't regain momentum. That's what happens with true freshman on their first road trip. But whatever, they shouldn't have lost.

 

And I agree with everything Soxbadger said. There's no logic in saying the 2nd or 3rd best teams in the MVC would be 7th or more in the Big Ten, unless you're talking an incredibly good year for the MVC. There's a gigantic difference between playing 1-2 games against big ten teams and playing 22. Would there be upsets? Sure. But they wouldn't be enough to make them better than anyone except maybe Iowa and Indiana.

 

My earlier argument was that on occasion there are really really good mid majors that could compete for a major conference title. But we're talking 1, maybe 2 teams every few years.

[RockRaines]

Rock and everyone else I'm not saying that the Valley should get the same amount of bids as the big conferences I'm just saying the the 2nd and 3rd teams in the Valley are better then the 6th and 7th teams in the Big Ten. So when the Tournament gets picked leave the 6th and 7th teams of the Big Ten out, and put in the 2nd and 3rd teams in from the MVC. You saying that the top MVC teams wouldn't be able to compete for the Big Ten is true(most years) but ISU, UNI, and Creighton could finish higher then 7th in the Big Ten which according to the committee last year is tourney worthy.

Great, this is what you are saying, unfortunately you are wrong for the most part. Would they be able to finished in the top half in their better years? Probably, but year after year, no. Which is why they wont get the bid.

[RockRaines]

Uh no.

 

Lets put this in perspective using Wisconsin as an example.

 

Wisconsin finished 6th last year in the Big 10, meaning that all 3 MVC teams would have to have been better than Wisconsin.

 

Wisconsin was 20-11, losing only 3 OOC games.

 

Wisconsin's OOC losses were UConn (ranked #2), Marquette and Texas (ranked #8).

 

Why do you believe that Creighton or UNI would have finished higher than Wisconsin?

 

In comparison, Creighton lost to Arkansas-Little Rock and Nebraska OOC.

 

Northern Iowa lost to Illinois Chicago, lost to Marquette by 30 (Wisconsin lost by 3), lost to Iowa by 19, lost to Wyoming and lost to Iowa State.

 

So no, I dont believe there is any rationale argument that either of those teams could have finished higher than Wisconsin.

 

Last year Wisconsin had: RPI Rank: 45 SOS Rank: 16

 

UNI: RPI Rank: 59 SOS Rank: 84

 

Creighton: RPI Rank: 40 SOS Rank: 111

 

Notice the difference in SOS.

 

Wisconsin was 16 and had similar records to 84 and 111.

 

Sorry to bring facts to this argument, but its getting ridiculous.

.

Wow, pwned.

[Felix]

Uh no.

 

Lets put this in perspective using Wisconsin as an example.

 

Wisconsin finished 6th last year in the Big 10, meaning that all 3 MVC teams would have to have been better than Wisconsin.

 

Wisconsin was 20-11, losing only 3 OOC games.

 

Wisconsin's OOC losses were UConn (ranked #2), Marquette and Texas (ranked #8).

 

Why do you believe that Creighton or UNI would have finished higher than Wisconsin?

 

In comparison, Creighton lost to Arkansas-Little Rock and Nebraska OOC.

 

Northern Iowa lost to Illinois Chicago, lost to Marquette by 30 (Wisconsin lost by 3), lost to Iowa by 19, lost to Wyoming and lost to Iowa State.

 

So no, I dont believe there is any rationale argument that either of those teams could have finished higher than Wisconsin.

 

Last year Wisconsin had: RPI Rank: 45 SOS Rank: 16

 

UNI: RPI Rank: 59 SOS Rank: 84

 

Creighton: RPI Rank: 40 SOS Rank: 111

 

Notice the difference in SOS.

 

Wisconsin was 16 and had similar records to 84 and 111.

 

Sorry to bring facts to this argument, but its getting ridiculous.

.

Get your numbers out of here. We all know that ISU would beat any team in the nation at least 5/10 times, they're just too clutch.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Felix

[kev211]

Uh no.

 

Lets put this in perspective using Wisconsin as an example.

 

Wisconsin finished 6th last year in the Big 10, meaning that all 3 MVC teams would have to have been better than Wisconsin.

 

Wisconsin was 20-11, losing only 3 OOC games.

 

Wisconsin's OOC losses were UConn (ranked #2), Marquette and Texas (ranked #8).

 

Why do you believe that Creighton or UNI would have finished higher than Wisconsin?

 

In comparison, Creighton lost to Arkansas-Little Rock and Nebraska OOC.

 

Northern Iowa lost to Illinois Chicago, lost to Marquette by 30 (Wisconsin lost by 3), lost to Iowa by 19, lost to Wyoming and lost to Iowa State.

 

So no, I dont believe there is any rationale argument that either of those teams could have finished higher than Wisconsin.

 

Last year Wisconsin had: RPI Rank: 45 SOS Rank: 16

 

UNI: RPI Rank: 59 SOS Rank: 84

 

Creighton: RPI Rank: 40 SOS Rank: 111

 

Notice the difference in SOS.

 

Wisconsin was 16 and had similar records to 84 and 111.

 

Sorry to bring facts to this argument, but its getting ridiculous.

.

Funny because from the numbers you showed me Creighton has a higher RPI then Wisconsin.

 

RPI

 

MVC

Creightin 40

ISU 47

 

Big Ten

Minnesota 42

Michigan 44

Wisconsin 45

 

So according to your numbers the 2 and 3 Valley teams are right on par with the 3 lowest big ten tournament teams. I don't need SOS either it's already factored into RPI and of course a big ten team is going to have a higher SOS just due to conference play alone.

 

Edited December 4, 2009 by kev211

[Soxbadger]

If my argument was that RPI is a good way of valuing a team, then yes, you would be correct.

 

But since I dont believe that Duke was the best team last year (RPI 1) nor was Pitt the number 2 team (RPI 2), I dont really put much stock in RPI.

 

RPI is a fun number for people to argue about, but its not a very good number.

 

Pomeroy is much better, http://kenpom.com/rate.php?y=2009

 

62 Illinois St. MVC

76 Creighton MVC

81 Northern Iowa MVC

 

29 Wisconsin

50 Michigan

51 Minnesota

 

RPI is inherently flawed in that all that matters is you play good teams, who then win against good teams. So when Northern Iowa lost to Marquette by 30 versus Wisconsin losing by 3, its counted the exact same way, and both teams get the same credit for Marquette beating other teams.

 

RPI is outdated and not very useful.

 

But I understand that RPI is the losing schools best friend, and why many schools hang their hats on RPI as a way of justifying that they were "good" even when the facts suggest otherwise.

 

(Edit)

 

By the way Wisconsin is 6 in rpi right now, and 29 in Pomeroy.

 

So its not like Im just using Pomeroy to make my point, Pomeroy is consistently better.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Soxbadger

[fathom]

Wow, I'll give credit where it's due Mr. John Wall. Two sick plays by him already today.

[southsider2k5]

The Kentucky/UNC game was great. Kentucky is lost without Wall on the floor at this point, even with some elite talent around him. UNC has much better balance, though both teams defend the s*** out of the ball.

[LittleHurt05]

Evan Turner out 8 weeks after breaking bones in his back on a fall after dunking. Big blow for the Bucks

[Brian]

Evan Turner out 8 weeks after breaking bones in his back on a fall after dunking. Big blow for the Bucks

 

That's awful. Breaking bones in your back sounds worse then 2 months, but what do I know.

[knightni]

That's harsh. Even "The Villain" didn't deserve that.