Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Your chance to assert wrong in a big way.
Page: 6 of 6
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/4/2013 2:36 AM
cc cat wrote:expand_more
The NCAA generally gets the best teams (as compared to NIT etc).  Would anyone dispute that?  So, I don't get the argument about 'there are four tournaments.

I am referring to the four regions where teams are assigned by a committee and have no ability to play the teams from another region.  The regions are hardly "equal" and become even more unbalanced based of upsets.  Because of the regional approach, it is impossible, and inappropriate to say Wichita State is better than, and should be ranked higher than, Duke because they won their regional tournament while Duke lost in the finals of theirs.  Or that Marquette is better than Kansas because they made it to the finals of their regional tournament while Kansas lost in their regional semis.

Teams play about 30 or so games per year, with most of them counting toward getting into the NCAA and many of them being in the NCAAs.  So, you can compare teams.

Agree, over the course of that body of work a comparison is more valid than over the course of two weekends.

I'm a business man.  I judge on results.

As am I.  But your argument is like taking one criteria - sales - and using that to decide "best product."  Does Horton build the best home?  Trex build the best composite deck?  GM the best car?  My clients, would argue no - there are too many other influences to solely look at sales. Additionally, you are taking one criteria and compressing it into two weekends.  The only comparison in business that I have experienced like that is advertising sweeps and everyone (in the industry) knows how misleading and inaccurate that model is.


Sorry; but I'll take reality over theory.  We beat Georgetown, so better when it counted  Same with Wichita State over columbus.

And, the argument above misses the point.  Business perspective doesn't say that we companre unlike things in a contest of opinion.  Business compares actual results of two of a kind in the same area.

So, business comparison says that if A sells more than B in a key sales contest, then the conclusion that A is a better salesperson than B is not unreasonable....is the best conclusion.  Business perspective favors ACTUAL RESULTS over theory.

There was a guy on my high school hoops team who looked splendidly athletic in his uni.  Coach put him on the starting varsity in the first week of practice--heck, he looked like a ballplayer.

That lasted about a day and a half until it became evident that he could not play.  He was sent right back to the j.v. (true story).

Results > assumptions/theory.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/4/2013 2:38 AM
You can debate the facets of the results.  (Salesperson A had an easier territory....or wore a blue tie and B wore a red tie,...)

I'm interested in the factors.  But first and foremost, I know who won the contest, who deserves the higher ranking for having achieved at the key time.
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 4/4/2013 10:01 AM
I'm not arguing Wichita State versus OSU - I'm pointing out that you can not compare teams from one region to another simply because they both participated in (separate) basketball tournaments.  

To use your analogy - if salesperson A sells one item in one territory and sales person B sells another item in another territory, the comparison has too many factors to draw direct conclusions about the quality of their salesmanship.  Just as you can not compare, evaluate, and conclude that Wichita State is better than Duke because they won their region, while Duke lost in the finals of theirs.

Nor, to go back to your original contention, can you say Florida Gulf Coast is automatically 16 or better because they made it to the final four of their regional tournament.  We can discuss (I can appreciate conclude) if they were one of the top four teams in their region - but their regional semis results can not be migrated to other regions - or do you concede that point.
Last Edited: 4/4/2013 10:11:34 AM by cc-cat
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/4/2013 1:32 PM
If the teams haven't played each other, then, of course, head to head is impossible.

Yet, achievement is achievement.  If a team makes the Sweet 16, then that team is pretty good and I rank them in my end of the year top 16 most likely.  Others may differ...that's okay.
OrlandoCat
General User
OC
Member Since: 3/15/2005
Post Count: 355
person
mail
OrlandoCat
mail
Posted: 4/4/2013 7:06 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
There was a guy on my high school hoops team who looked splendidly athletic in his uni.  Coach put him on the starting varsity in the first week of practice--heck, he looked like a ballplayer.

That lasted about a day and a half until it became evident that he could not play.  He was sent right back to the j.v. (true story).

Results > assumptions/theory.


Dude, I just...so according to you..this guy that 'looked the part' (we'll call him Liberty) must have been a better basketball player then you simply because he was on varsity for a day and a half?

You do see you're making our argument for us correct?

 

Edit to add:  I think I'm over this thread

Last Edited: 4/4/2013 7:08:03 PM by OrlandoCat
MariettaCatFanatic
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 417
mail
MariettaCatFanatic
mail
Posted: 4/4/2013 10:59 PM

By your logic Monroe...I suppose also that NC State was a better team than Florida St. last year in college football as well as Washington better than Stanford.

Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/5/2013 12:11 AM
OrlandoCat wrote:expand_more
There was a guy on my high school hoops team who looked splendidly athletic in his uni.  Coach put him on the starting varsity in the first week of practice--heck, he looked like a ballplayer.

That lasted about a day and a half until it became evident that he could not play.  He was sent right back to the j.v. (true story).

Results > assumptions/theory.


Dude, I just...so according to you..this guy that 'looked the part' (we'll call him Liberty) must have been a better basketball player then you simply because he was on varsity for a day and a half?

You do see you're making our argument for us correct?

 

Edit to add:  I think I'm over this thread



I don't get your point at all.  Liberty won when it counted, so they got in the tourney.  So, to me, they are okay.

That dude who 'looked good in uni' was a lesser player than others on the team because they diced him up in practice--actual performance.

I don't remember who beat whom in football.  But bowl appearances ...if that's what it was..are not comparable to NCAA tournament.

You all who don't get this actual performance part amuse me.  You put your judgment over actual results.  Kinda like like arguing against reality.

Get into it.
Last Edited: 4/5/2013 12:12:43 AM by Monroe Slavin
Showing Messages: 126 - 132 of 132
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)