There is a difference between making the Sweet 16 and being one of the 16 best teams in the country, or even in the tournament. Being in the Sweet 16 LITERALLY MEANS that [you were either (a) a conference's automatic bid or (b) good enough to be selected as an at-large bid despite losing in your conference tournament] AND that you won your Round-of-64 and Round-of-32 games. Might we have been the 4th best team in the country last year? I don't personally think so, but in the championship tournament we only lost to UNC, who only lost to Kansas, who only lost to National Champion Kentucky. Of course, we might have only been the 61st best team in the tournament (leaving aside the "first 4" games), having only beat Michigan (who beat no one else) and South Florida (who only beat Temple). I don't think thats the case either. Short of a 64-team round robin, I don't know of a definitive way of saying that we were/were not one of the 16 best teams in the country last year, or in the tournament, but we were one of the last 16 teams in.



Coaches change. Opponents change. Guys get hurt. And, yeah, our returners would be expected to improve RELATIVE TO THEIR QUALITY LAST YEAR. But you know what? The other team wants to win too. So they're going to try to do so, and they're going to watch tape of that explosive team that came out of no where to make the sweet16 and they're going to gameplan against them. And yes, their guys got better in the offseason too, again, relative to their quality last year.

But the question isn't whether "Player-X 2013" is better than "Player-X 2012". We'll assume that he is. The scenario is more on the order of this: "OHIO-Player-X 2012" was "a" better than "AKRON-Player-X 2012" If "OHIO-Player-X's" improvement works out to be "b", and if "AKRON-Player-X's" improvement works out to be "c", then the question becomes: Who is the better player in 2013, OHIO-Player-X or AKRON-Player-X.

To solve this, we'd use the equation: (OHIO-Player-X-2012 + "b") - (Akron-Player-X-2012 + "c")

(1) If that equation equals "a", then even though both players have improved, they still have a similar talent gap as before. (2) If that equation results in a number that is greater than "a", then the OHIO player has improved more than the Akron player. (3) If that equation results in a number that is less than "a" then the Akron player has improved more than the OHIO player. REMEMBER, IN ALL 3 SCENARIOS BOTH PLAYERS IMPROVED THEIR GAME ON 2012.


Or think of it another way. IF we say that last year's OHIO players were better than last year's AKRON players (including the influence of coaching), at what percentage of their optimal capacity (taking into account their best-possible hand-eye coordination, aerobic and anaeroboic training, muscle memory, mental processing, etc) were they playing, and at what percentage was Akron's guys playing at? Maybe we're both at 50% of max and each have a lot of room to improve. Or maybe they were at 50% and we were really firing on all cylinders and were playing at 95% of max. If its the second, then Akron's got more room to improve with maturity than we do. And thems the breaks.

a)  I have no idea what you are talking about.

b)  See a).

Also, it's roundly conceded that the MAC stinks this year...that there are about 8-9 MAC teams which are quite horrid.  Whoopee, we beat up on them this year but not so much last year.  The eyes tell it--Louisville, Belmont, 'kron,etc.  So, first, we haven't performed that well in the big/tough/important games this year.

Next, last year, WHEN IT COUNTED, WE PEFORMED.  Did we follow on from that.  A decent argument that we did not can easily be made.  (An aside:  I'll explain to you what "a decent argument" is at some other time.  It's obviously something that you need help with.)

You're heading toward 'it would have been good if we'd've lost to a couple of the dregs of the MAC since that would prove that we're really on track' territory.  Don't go there.

Instead, go get some help in finding reality and a somewhat logical framework for analysis.

You'll be here all weak.

I'm gonna go do something with utility.

Other facts, certain to drive Monroe crazy:

Illinois beat Gonzaga in Spokane. 
Illinois is not ranked. 
Gonzaga is ranked #1. 

HOW COULD THAT BE!

In contrast, facts are facts.  You can argue about which team is better--which is opinion.

I voted for Obama TWICE and I don't care who knows it.

Most would conclude that we are not better than a team that we lost to.  However, whether we are or are not is an opinion.

I agree with those who complain that Akron schedules a weak non-conference schedule. I don't know whether Dambrot is a good coach or not. I do know, as you write, he has not done much, short of regular season MAC wins, in terms of winning against quality out of conference opponents or post season wins. I don't know, but it would also appear, that major programs are not beating down Dambrot's door. Do they know something? Which is ironic, because, although the jury is still obviously out on this year, if JC does not make the NCAA tournament, and/or does not win a post season game, it would seem he would be starting to follow the same model as Dambrot. Would the same people here who slammed Dambrot in the past support JC?

You can say that Illinois has underperformed in conference, but they have a nineteen point win against Ohio State and a against Indiana, in a year in which Illinois was not expect to do anything. Would anyone really prefer to have a 12-2 MAC record with no signature wins to a 11-5 MAC record, and wins against Michigan, South Florida, and close losses against Louisville and North Carolina, and a win the previous year against Georgetown, and two MAC championships? Give me those results and an 11-5 MAC record. And as good as JC's MAC record is, it will mean nothing if he can't beat Akron. Hopefully, he will figure out a way to be them in the MAC tournament.

We're 23-8 at this stage. Last year we were 23-7 as we entered the Miami game. Not all that different.

As I stated in a prior post I think it's hard to argue that a few guys are having years that might be less than they (and fans) hoped for.  I don't think you can blame a coach, or suggest it's his fault, when guys just aren't executing as well as they might have in the past. The game is physical and mental and when you get in a funk sometimes getting out of it can be tough. Nick hurt his hand. that clearly impacted his shooting. TJ had knee issues. I doubt you can argue that these events didn't have a somewhat adverse impact on the level we played to at times this year.