Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 3/15/2010
agendas?

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/14/2606897/why-did-duke-receive-favorable.html

Unreal...is there anyone out there that hasn't sold out? I love how its not about the sport/competition anymore, its all about the greenback and TV ratings...sad, sad, sad.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010
No I am just using your logic to come up with this, Illinois finished higher in the Big Ten, Had many more better wins and didn't get 'blown out by tOSU in the Big Ten final' - I think I summed up your opinion pretty well, using your logic.

That's the thing though, I'm comparing teams that had like CT success, thus its really a 1 to 1 comparison of sorts...talking about Illinois because you go there/they're your favorite team makes it look like you're pushing an agenda, especially since they lost in the CT semis and beat worse teams than MN did in the CT.

You can say anything you want, the fact is i used your logic to make that argument.

And that is so untrue, they beat an MSU and Purdue team that were missing key players and then got SMOKED by tOSU. Wisconsin is a much better team then the MSU/Purdue that MN beat, it really isn't even close.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010
No I am just using your logic to come up with this, Illinois finished higher in the Big Ten, Had many more better wins and didn't get 'blown out by tOSU in the Big Ten final' - I think I summed up your opinion pretty well, using your logic.

That's the thing though, I'm comparing teams that had like CT success, thus its really a 1 to 1 comparison of sorts...talking about Illinois because you go there/they're your favorite team makes it look like you're pushing an agenda, especially since they lost in the CT semis and beat worse teams than MN did in the CT.

You can say anything you want, the fact is i used your logic to make that argument.

And that is so untrue, they beat an MSU and Purdue team that were missing key players and then got SMOKED by tOSU. Wisconsin is a much better team then the MSU/Purdue that MN beat, it really isn't even close.

MSU and Purdue were bigger wins than Wisconsin and whoever else, period...in any ranking system

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010
No I am just using your logic to come up with this, Illinois finished higher in the Big Ten, Had many more better wins and didn't get 'blown out by tOSU in the Big Ten final' - I think I summed up your opinion pretty well, using your logic.

That's the thing though, I'm comparing teams that had like CT success, thus its really a 1 to 1 comparison of sorts...talking about Illinois because you go there/they're your favorite team makes it look like you're pushing an agenda, especially since they lost in the CT semis and beat worse teams than MN did in the CT.

You can say anything you want, the fact is i used your logic to make that argument.

And that is so untrue, they beat an MSU and Purdue team that were missing key players and then got SMOKED by tOSU. Wisconsin is a much better team then the MSU/Purdue that MN beat, it really isn't even close.

MSU and Purdue were bigger wins than Wisconsin and whoever else, period...in any ranking system

Maybe in your flawed ranking system, the fact is Purdue is a middle of the road team without Hummel and MSU played without Allen. A win is only as good as who you beat and those teams were very short handed.

Who did Minnesota beat before their shorthanded wins over MSU and Purdue this weekend ? They beat tOSU, Wisky and Butler I believe.

Illinois won @ Clemson and @ Wisky, beat Vandy, MSU and Wisky again.

Could Illinois have done more to make them a lock ? Yes, did Minnesota do anything all year to warrent getting in other then beating a few shorthanded teams late ? No.

I am only using your logic here buddy.

And before you say it, i am not being bias and saying that Illinois should have been in. I have pointed out the reasons why they were out, only saying that based on your logic that you spoke of earlier that IL should have been in over MN.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010
No I am just using your logic to come up with this, Illinois finished higher in the Big Ten, Had many more better wins and didn't get 'blown out by tOSU in the Big Ten final' - I think I summed up your opinion pretty well, using your logic.

That's the thing though, I'm comparing teams that had like CT success, thus its really a 1 to 1 comparison of sorts...talking about Illinois because you go there/they're your favorite team makes it look like you're pushing an agenda, especially since they lost in the CT semis and beat worse teams than MN did in the CT.

You can say anything you want, the fact is i used your logic to make that argument.

And that is so untrue, they beat an MSU and Purdue team that were missing key players and then got SMOKED by tOSU. Wisconsin is a much better team then the MSU/Purdue that MN beat, it really isn't even close.

MSU and Purdue were bigger wins than Wisconsin and whoever else, period...in any ranking system

Maybe in your flawed ranking system, the fact is Purdue is a middle of the road team without Hummel and MSU played without Allen. A win is only as good as who you beat and those teams were very short handed.

Who did Minnesota beat before their shorthanded wins over MSU and Purdue this weekend ? They beat tOSU, Wisky and Butler I believe.

Illinois won @ Clemson and @ Wisky, beat Vandy, MSU and Wisky again.

Could Illinois have done more to make them a lock ? Yes, did Minnesota do anything all year to warrent getting in other then beating a few shorthanded teams late ? No.

I am only using your logic here buddy.

And before you say it, i am not being bias and saying that Illinois should have been in. I have pointed out the reasons why they were out, only saying that based on your logic that you spoke of earlier that IL should have been in over MN.

I was comparing CT wins, not the entire season. FWIW, I had Illinois ahead of Minnesota last week....I should have my final ranks up shortly, however you can't tell me that Illinois had a better CT than Minnesota...it just didn't happen.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010
I was comparing CT wins, not the entire season. FWIW, I had Illinois ahead of Minnesota last week....I should have my final ranks up shortly, however you can't tell me that Illinois had a better CT than Minnesota...it just didn't happen.

You are way overvauling the two wins they got, they would not have won either if either team was at full strength. Taking tOSU to double ot is much more impressive then winning against a Hummel-less Purdue and Allen-less MSU.

How does SDSU receive an 11 seed and UNLV an 8? The two finished tied for the 3rd in MWC regular season. SDSU won 2/3 between the 2 and had an RPI of 18. Not only do the Aztecs get screwed with an 11 seed, but have to travel further than any other team in the nation.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/15/2010
No I am just using your logic to come up with this, Illinois finished higher in the Big Ten, Had many more better wins and didn't get 'blown out by tOSU in the Big Ten final' - I think I summed up your opinion pretty well, using your logic.

That's the thing though, I'm comparing teams that had like CT success, thus its really a 1 to 1 comparison of sorts...talking about Illinois because you go there/they're your favorite team makes it look like you're pushing an agenda, especially since they lost in the CT semis and beat worse teams than MN did in the CT.

You can say anything you want, the fact is i used your logic to make that argument.

And that is so untrue, they beat an MSU and Purdue team that were missing key players and then got SMOKED by tOSU. Wisconsin is a much better team then the MSU/Purdue that MN beat, it really isn't even close.

MSU and Purdue were bigger wins than Wisconsin and whoever else, period...in any ranking syste

Hmmm. Really? So in saying that, you're willing to throw out the fact that every ranking system has Wisconsin over MSU? And I meant that literally; Massey has a comparison of 25 different ranking systems, and the Badgers were ahead in all 25.

But of course you're the basketball ratings guy, so you must've known that, right?

And then should we also throw out the fact that they beat Wisconsin in Madison, one of the toughest places to play in the country?

Still think the Wisconsin win wasn't as big?

Quote: Originally Posted By sull21858 on 3/15/2010How does SDSU receive an 11 seed and UNLV an 8? The two finished tied for the 3rd in MWC regular season. SDSU won 2/3 between the 2 and had an RPI of 18. Not only do the Aztecs get screwed with an 11 seed, but have to travel further than any other team in the nation.

An 11 and an eight could intheory be the same seed because teams can be moved for conference matchup reasons. Not saying that happened her just that it is possible.

Yeah, what is really the difference in quality between an eight and an eleven in the 2010 tournament anyway? I'd suspect they were both adjusted one way or the other for seeding purposes.

Id rather my team get an 11 seed than an 8/9 anyhow. I would venture to guess that more 11 seeds make it to the sweet 16 than 8s or 9s. If they get through the first round they hit a 3 seed instead of a 1 seed.

Found an article. 11 seeds are 4 times more likely than 9 seeds to make the sweet 16, 12 seeds are 6 times more likely.

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 3/15/2010
Found an article. 11 seeds are 4 times more likely than 9 seeds to make the sweet 16, 12 seeds are 6 times more likely.

What about 13 seeds named Siena?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 3/15/2010

Found an article. 11 seeds are 4 times more likely than 9 seeds to make the sweet 16, 12 seeds are 6 times more likely.

What about 13 seeds named Siena

SIENA!!! I've seen them play last year (@ Allen) and this year (@ McCloud). They have been my sleeper team all year.