menu
Logo
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: HELLO TOP 25!
Page: 3 of 5
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 12:03 PM
KC Bobcat wrote:expand_more
I agree that whoever wins on Monday night is #1, but that's as far as it goes.  Suppose Kentucky had beaten Kansas by 40 in the finals, but needed triple overtime to get by Louisville in the final 4.  Could Kansas make an obvious claim to #2?


YES!
stub
General User
S
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 1,008
person
mail
stub
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 12:32 PM
I was curious who was the lowest seed to ever win the the tourney and what their final ranking was. Here's what I found:

Unranked Villanova (25-10), an 8 seed in the tourney, beat 10 point favorite Georgetown in the final in 1985, after losing to the Hoyas twice during the season. 'Nova shot 79%! from the field in that championship game (as they say, "on a given day...").

Unfortunately, the final coaches poll seems to have been March 12, which was pre-tourney. Perhaps there was a post-season ranking some place else, but I couldn't find one.
Last Edited: 4/5/2012 12:43:27 PM by stub
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:12 PM
Any stupid poll notwithstanding, 'Nova was #1 that year.  That's why we play the tournament!
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:44 PM
I just don't agree with Monroe and OCF. I don't think one game should determine your whole season when you have 35-40 games to judge a team's worth. The championship game is an obvious exception. Just looking at tournament results is intellectually lazy to me. Teams are more than their one or two week stint in the NCAA tournament. It's too dependent on matchups.

And, of course, small sample size.
anorris
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: Bristol, CT
Post Count: 2,262
mail
anorris
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:10 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
I just don't agree with Monroe and OCF. I don't think one game should determine your whole season when you have 35-40 games to judge a team's worth. The championship game is an obvious exception. Just looking at tournament results is intellectually lazy to me. Teams are more than their one or two week stint in the NCAA tournament. It's too dependent on matchups.

And, of course, small sample size.
+1
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:54 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
I just don't agree with Monroe and OCF. I don't think one game should determine your whole season when you have 35-40 games to judge a team's worth. The championship game is an obvious exception. Just looking at tournament results is intellectually lazy to me. Teams are more than their one or two week stint in the NCAA tournament. It's too dependent on matchups.

And, of course, small sample size.



But but but then we are who we thought we were.....the worst 3rd place MAC team in america.....not deserving of a place to play in the post season...

Which brings the chicken egg thing to roost.....how do you define the best team. The one that learns to play togehter and irons out the kinks inthe system over the course of the year pointing toward peaking at the right time ....or the one that grinds it out and is tough all year long letting an obvious talent/skill/system/depth  gap ride them through the season.....

Fascinating......but I agree JSF ...in a seven game series some teams would always prevail,,,, but bring the one and done, go home loser that exists inthe Dance and the "best team" is not always gonna win.....
Last Edited: 4/5/2012 2:55:24 PM by bornacatfan
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 3:21 PM
Agree with the others. If you went by the philosophy of ranking teams according to the round they reached,  you'd be leaving Duke and Missouri out of the top 25.
LoganElm_grad09
General User
LE09
Member Since: 9/9/2010
Location: South Bloomingville, OH
Post Count: 934
person
mail
LoganElm_grad09
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 4:48 PM
Question:  wouldn't it be beneficial for us to be in the top 25 next season, so in case we would lose in the MAC tournament, the selection committee would not just take us as a 1 bid league?
KC Bobcat
General User
KB
Member Since: 11/22/2006
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post Count: 268
person
mail
KC Bobcat
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 4:51 PM
LoganElm_grad09 wrote:expand_more
Question:  wouldn't it be beneficial for us to be in the top 25 next season, so in case we would lose in the MAC tournament, the selection committee would not just take us as a 1 bid league?


I would certainly hope that if we are in the top 25 at the end of the regular season and do not win the MAC tournament, that we would still get an at large bid.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 9:03 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Agree with the others. If you went by the philosophy of ranking teams according to the round they reached,  you'd be leaving Duke and Missouri out of the top 25.
 

This year, in the final poll, that's exactly where they should be.  When it counted, they fizzled.  Fizzling, to use a technical word, in the first round should have consequences.  Now, if we let 128 teams into the tourney, as I would like to see, it would make all of this even clearer.  Or, we could just eliminate the tourney and let the polls decide whose best, as we used to do in FBS football. 
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 9:04 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Fizzling, to use a technical word, in the first round should have consequences.


It did. They dropped.

Andy Roddick beat Roger Federer at Key Biscayne. Please make the case Andy should be ranked ahead of Roger. Because, by this logic, he should be.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 9:26 PM
Analogy fails, as you well know JSF, because the tennis players play in many events per year whereas in hoops there is one big, final, all-in event.

There's some wisdom to arguing that Dukey and ssouri should be in the top 25 even though they lost in the first round...though I can make a decent argument against it (did not come thru at all when all knew that it counted).

All that aside, if you think the 'Cats were only #25, I just disagree wholeheartedly.

Somewhere 14-18 seems about right.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 9:31 PM
So then where does that put Akron? They finished ahead of us in the standings, after all. Shouldn't they at least be getting votes?

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Louisville is a top four team, for instance. I think going down the line doesn't respect the chaotic, random nature of tournaments nor how they are structured. Play that tournament again and probably at least half the Sweet Sixteen is composed of different teams. Are we better than Creighton simply because we had the benefit of the draw and ran into the #1 seed one round later? Because I have little doubt they would have dispatched USF.

I get that it "counts the most" and should be given more weight. It just shouldn't be given all the weight.
Last Edited: 4/5/2012 10:06:55 PM by JSF
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:01 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
So then where does that put Akron? They finished ahead of us in the standings, after all. Shouldn't they at least be getting votes?


They didn't get to the Big Dance, so they are SOL.  Now, if we expand to 128 teams, they'd have gotten their shot.  Who knows they might have ended up in the Sweet 16 with us, or even higher.  They didn't, and one can't really argue hypotheticals when we have a system in place that determines who's better than who.  It's like an operational definition in scientific research. 
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:06 PM
The more expand a knockout tournament, the more randomness you introduce. It's a less meaningful way of determining quality. You'll get more things like Kendall Marshall breaking his wrist and wrecking a team's chance.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:14 PM
Well, when Marshall broke his wrist, he wasn't part of the team on the field, so that's the team (minus Marshall) that you are ranking.  If we had beaten them, which we almost did, we would have been the better team.  The fact that Marshall didn't play really is very academic.  It's just like when a star gets three quick fouls and fouls out early in the second half.  You could argue that IF he hadn't fouled out, the team (a heavy favorite) would have won, but that, again, is a hypothetical.  When it mattered, he fouled out.  Perhaps the other team knew his weaknesses and induced him into fouling because of good scouting and good coaching.  Those extra factors made the underdog the better team.  They advance and the favored team goes home.  The underdog is the better team as defined by the structure of the NCAA tournament.  To me, it's a real simple matter.  OHIO is a top 16 team because we advanced to the Sweet 16.  The fact that if we had been placed in a different bracket me might not have advanced as far, or might have advanced farther is just academic.  Neither option actually happened.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:24 PM
Jeff--I get the randomness.  But so much is randomness--injuries, officiating, coaching, how it caroms off the rim or backboard, etc.  In the end, you is who you is and you achieve what you achieve.  'Cats--pretty much.  'kron--just 'kron.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:24 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Well, when Marshall broke his wrist, he wasn't part of the team on the field, so that's the team (minus Marshall) that you are ranking.  If we had beaten them, which we almost did, we would have been the better team.


No. Absolutely not. First of all, you don't discount the fact a team was missing their most important player after they had him for the first 35 or so games. Those still count. Second of all, Ohio was not a better team than North Carolina and in no way would have deserved a higher ranking if Walt's free throw goes in. That's nonsense. Third of all, because we almost beat them, does that mean we should be right next to them in the rankings?

Again: Are we better than Creighton even though they were clearly a superior team over the course of the season just because they had a harder draw than we did?

Right now, you and Monroe are basically saying, "I want to think about this as little as possible and refuse to consider any nuance."

By the way: What if Ohio rolls into next year's tournament ranked, loses in the second round, but still maintains, say, a #15 ranking? Are you going to protest that? I doubt it.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:25 PM
JSF reaching to make a point by referencing 'kron.  We need to end this thread.
Lash
General User
L
Member Since: 2/16/2011
Post Count: 130
person
mail
Lash
mail
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:37 PM
This is turning into one of those drunken bar arguments where no one will be able to be convinced they are wrong.

Only thing missing is the booze.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 4/6/2012 12:13 AM
JSF wrote:expand_more
  No. Absolutely not. First of all, you don't discount the fact a team was missing their most important player after they had him for the first 35 or so games. Those still count. Second of all, Ohio was not a better team than North Carolina and in no way would have deserved a higher ranking if Walt's free throw goes in. That's nonsense.
 

 No, I don't think it's nonsense.  You want to get into all sorts of hypotheticals about what might have happened if player X hadn't been injured, or if player Y hadn't fouled out, etc.  It's like saying the French might have repelled Germany if Hitler had attacked the Maginot Line.  It didn't happen.  If Walt makes his FT, or if DJ pulls back instead of attempting the layup that was blocked and Ohio wins, we are the better team.  We might not have been the better team if Marshall had played, but he didn't.  


JSF wrote:expand_more
Third of all, because we almost beat them, does that mean we should be right next to them in the rankings
 

No . . . we lost.  Almost only counts, as Fred Taylor used to say, in horseshoes and hand grenades.  His teams lost twice in the NCAA finals to UC.  OSU was favored both times.  UC was the best team those years, and the National Champion.  The next year it was the upstart Loyola Ramblers, who lost to BG in the regular season; if they'd lost in the NCAA tourney to BG, who knows, BG might have been National Champs.  It didn't happen.

JSF wrote:expand_more
Again: Are we better than Creighton even though they were clearly a superior team over the course of the season just because they had a harder draw than we did?
 

We deserve to be ranked higher, because we finished higher in the NCAA Tournament! 

JSF wrote:expand_more
Right now, you and Monroe are basically saying, "I want to think about this as little as possible and refuse to consider any nuance."
 

 Not really.  We are saying that there is a standard -- called the NCAA tournament  -- and it determines how good you are at the end of the season.  Doesn't mean that other teams aren't better at some other given point in time, but results on the court are all that matters when it comes to tourney time.

JSF wrote:expand_more
By the way: What if Ohio rolls into next year's tournament ranked, loses in the second round, but still maintains, say, a #15 ranking? Are you going to protest that? I doubt it.
 
 I'd still think it was wrong, but I would probably bite my tongue and enjoy the injustice.  
Last Edited: 4/6/2012 12:22:44 AM by OhioCatFan
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 4/6/2012 2:00 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
  No. Absolutely not. First of all, you don't discount the fact a team was missing their most important player after they had him for the first 35 or so games. Those still count. Second of all, Ohio was not a better team than North Carolina and in no way would have deserved a higher ranking if Walt's free throw goes in. That's nonsense.
 

 No, I don't think it's nonsense.  You want to get into all sorts of hypotheticals about what might have happened if player X hadn't been injured, or if player Y hadn't fouled out, etc.


The only hypothetical here is Ohio winning. Yeah, I think it's nonsense that you can to throw out things like "winning the ACC" because of the results of one game.


OCF wrote:expand_more
Third of all, because we almost beat them, does that mean we should be right next to them in the rankings
 

No . . . we lost.  Almost only counts


That's not true, either. A one-point loss and a 30-point loss are very different.

OCF wrote:expand_more
Again: Are we better than Creighton even though they were clearly a superior team over the course of the season just because they had a harder draw than we did?
 

We deserve to be ranked higher, because we finished higher in the NCAA Tournament!


OK, now I'll get hypothetical: Flip it. We have a better season, get a higher seed, and lose to UNC in the second round while Creighton has a worse season, gets a worse seed, and loses to UNC the round after that. Are they better than us? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

OCF wrote:expand_more
Right now, you and Monroe are basically saying, "I want to think about this as little as possible and refuse to consider any nuance."
 

 Not really.  We are saying that there is a standard -- called the NCAA tournament  -- and it determines how good you are at the end of the season.  Doesn't mean that other teams aren't better at some other given point in time, but results on the court are all that matters when it comes to tourney time.


That's fine, except the polls are supposed to take into consideration the entire season. That's what you're refusing to acknowledge. If you ask me, "Was Louisville one of the four best teams in the country this season," I'm going to say no even though they made it to the Final Four. Great accomplishment, nice run. But there were better teams.

OCF wrote:expand_more
By the way: What if Ohio rolls into next year's tournament ranked, loses in the second round, but still maintains, say, a #15 ranking? Are you going to protest that? I doubt it.
 
 I'd still think it was wrong, but I would probably bite my tongue and enjoy the injustice.  


Thank you, please pull through.

At least with Monroe, he just thinks Ohio should be ranked higher. And I think he'd say that if we had lost to USF. I respect that, even if I don't agree.
Last Edited: 4/6/2012 2:02:26 AM by JSF
Ozcat
General User
Member Since: 1/4/2005
Location: Gahanna, OH
Post Count: 820
mail
Ozcat
mail
Posted: 4/6/2012 10:25 AM
This thread proves only one thing that most around here already know:  that Monroe and OCF are sometimes off their rockers.

The NCAA Tournament seldomely crowns the best team.  UConn was not the best team last year.  They were the hottest team in the Tourney though.

We beat Michigan.  It was awesome.  It was also an absolutely perfect matchup for us.  Their strength (3 point shooting) vs our strength (3 point defense).  USF was good, but they were hardly an elite team and they finished AHEAD of Louisville in the Big East.  JSF's Creighton example is spot-on.  Matchups and timing.

Norfolk State and Lehigh are not better than Michigan, UConn, Wichita State, UNLV, Notre Dame, Virginia, San Diego State, or Saint Mary's just because they made it a round further.  BTW, how did Norfolk State do against Florida?

#25 for us is great.  We should not have been #14-#18.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 4/6/2012 10:37 AM
[/QUOTE]

Now, if we expand to 128 teams, they'd have gotten their shot.  Who knows they might have ended up in the Sweet 16 with us, or even higher.  [/QUOTE]

Slightly OT, but I've always felt that this tournament should not expand as technically every conference except the Ivy League has a "play-in" tournament -- which should count in some way as the Road to the Final Four.

All teams just want a chance. The conference tourneys provide that chance. And as Ohio showed in 2010 and this year, that chance goes a long way.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 4/6/2012 10:38 AM
Ozcat wrote:expand_more
This thread proves only one thing that most around here already know:  that Monroe and OCF are sometimes off their rockers.

The NCAA Tournament seldomely crowns the best team.  UConn was not the best team last year.  They were the hottest team in the Tourney though.

We beat Michigan.  It was awesome.  It was also an absolutely perfect matchup for us.  Their strength (3 point shooting) vs our strength (3 point defense).  USF was good, but they were hardly an elite team and they finished AHEAD of Louisville in the Big East.  JSF's Creighton example is spot-on.  Matchups and timing.

Norfolk State and Lehigh are not better than Michigan, UConn, Wichita State, UNLV, Notre Dame, Virginia, San Diego State, or Saint Mary's just because they made it a round further.  BTW, how did Norfolk State do against Florida?

#25 for us is great.  We should not have been #14-#18.


I know that it will be difficult for you to understand this, bozocat, but it's as simple as what William Felton Russell said: 'The best team always wins."

Most will right off realize who this Russell person is and what he accomplished. Or google to find these things out. You, will be too busy with gratuitous potshots to understand, of course. As usual.
Showing Messages: 51 - 75 of 112
MAC News Links



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