2008-2009 College Basketball Thread......

[Chief Rum]

And Arizona beat Gonzaga, IIRC.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Your point appeared to me to be to point out that people criticizing the BCS brought up how March Madness selections are handled as the proper way to do it. And that (assuming one has an issue with the selections today--I don't , maybe you do), today is an indication that they were faulty in using this example to support their argument.

And I was pointing out to you that questionable results are not relevant--apples to oranges--because in this case, the selection committee is not considering the top of the top (who entirely determine who gets a title shot), but the guys barely getting in who have almost no chance of winning the title.

So, tell me what point I missed. Seems to me I am either spot on, or you need some work writing out your takes a little more clearly.

Since you'd rather toss out a false dichotomy rather than leaving open the possibility that you could have missed someone's point on this forum I'll play along.

We'll take my original statement:

I have to admit, I'm enjoying the bitching about mid-majors getting "screwed" by the committee considering the anti-BCS threads were full of how the NCAA tournament is great and mid-majors get their chance.

The point being made here is that all that was heard is the mid-majors get their chance, and they do, in NCAA basketball. I'm not debating the fact that they get their chance.

What I'm finding funny is the fact that when they miss out on that chance (in this case losing in their conference tournament) people want to throw these teams pity bids rather than actually look at their body of work and decide whether or not they stack up with the teams that got in ahead of them. Or, rather than question the system in which these smaller conferences grant their automatic bids, lets point the finger at the big schools because that's the easy answer.

With that said I'll reference my next 2 paragraphs:

The fact is you're arguing over teams that lost their chance at an auto-bid and teams that could have done more during the regular season anyways. Arizona and Minnesota probably don't deserve to be in, but it really doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

These mid-major conferences could stop screwing over their own members by handing the auto-bid to whatever team gets hot the last 3-4 games of the season and reward the team that actually wins the conference win a trip to the NCAA tourney.

I could be wrong, I was posting in a hurry because I was making dinner, but I thought for most it was fairly clear and it seemed to be the case since the conversation didn't stray off subject until you picked one part to quote and toss out the anti-BCS comment.

In future I'll consider both a full and abridged version of my posts.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The RPI says that Saint Mary's did better with their schedule than Arizona did with theirs. It's not just about quality wins, but the overall body of work. St. Mary's was 18-1 till Mills got hurt and a ranked team.

Yeah, 18-1 against complete crap. They were 12-1 nonconference against Oregon, Pacific, So. ILL (13-18), Kent State, San Jose State, Fresno, Fullerton, Morgan State and 8-21 independent Bakersfield. They played 3 teams in top 100 (all at home) in UTEP, Providence and San Diego State and went 2-1. Nice showing there. You give any Pac-10 team that schedule and they're 13-0 easy. Arizona beat San Diego State (best team there) by 13 in nonconference.

It's easy to pull out quality wins for big schools in big conferences, but they also have the luxury of playing 10 of them a year. Eventually you're going to grab a win off a good school.

Arizona had nonconference wins against San Diego State, Kansas, Gonzaga. That's light years ahead of St. Mary's wins total.

Smaller schools like St. Marys don't get those opportunities since teams are reluctant to schedule them and will not play them at their place.

Then be like Xavier and join a tourney and face Missouri, Virginia tech and Memphis (by winning). Or be like Siena and face Tennessee, Oklahoma State, Pitt and Kansas (none at home). Be like Temple and face Clemson, Kansas, Villanova and Penn State on the road. Heck, even be like Gonzaga and face neutral or road games against Oklahoma State, Maryland, Tennessee, Indiana, Washington State, Arizona, UCONN and Utah. None of those games were at home.

If St Mary's plays road/neutral games against Utah, Arizona State and Cal and wins just one - they're in the tournament. They instead took the cupcake route and didn't make it.

Like I said, St. Mary's is a better team than Arizona. We can crunch the numbers, but that's all that really matters. If the Gaels played in the Pac-10 with a healthy Mills, they finish higher than Arizona and with more quality wins.

The Gaels had 6 chances at a top 75 win this season and lost 4. Arizona's schedule had 16 top 50 games - it's hard to see St. Marys winning many of those given their performance in the rare few top 50 games they had. Let's look at common opponents. They two have 5 common opponents - Oregon, San Diego State, LMU, Santa Clara and Gonzaga. Arizona won every game and beat LMU at home, Santa Clara at home, San Diego State at home, Oregon on the road and Gonzaga at home by a combined 58 points. In those exact same games, Saint Mary's was just +30. There is no rationale reason (outside of glorifying cupcake wins) to say that St. Mary's would be a top 6 Pac 10 team.

They're playing the 7th place Pac 10 team at home in the NIT and I'll be impressed if they win that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And Arizona struggled mightily to beat a mediocre WCC school in Santa Clara at home.

The same Santa Clara team that St. Mary's beat by 1 at home with a healthy Patty Mills? Atleast Arizona beat them by 3. Arizona beat LMU (27 to 25), @ Oregon (10 to 5), San Diego State (13 to 3), and home against Gonzaga (won by 5 vs. losing by 2) with a better margin that St Mary's. So, in every common opponent and location, Arizona did better. Arizona also beat Kansas, UCLA, Washington and USC.

[Lathum]

Arles has spoken

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I know the WCC ain't bad.

FWIW (and I'm just picking something out of the discussion to quote here), the WCC is only ranked #15 in conference RPI this year.

They fall behind the 6 power conferences which you'd expect, as well as the Mountain West, A-10 and CUSA which are usually in between the mid majors and the power conferences. But they also fall behind the MVC, WAC, Horizon League, MAAC, and CAA.

They're basically one good team(Gonzaga), one mediocre team(Saint Mary's, and by mediocre I'm talking about by NCAA tournament standards, yes, 50th out of 350 is pretty good, but its nothing special at all when talking at large bids), and a bunch of absolute crap. The #3 team in the conference has an RPI of 120. The #4 team's RPI is 193, and it gets worse fast from there.

The conference ranked 14th, the CAA, boasts 3 top 100 teams and 7 top 150 teams.


So yeah, the WCC, its pretty damn bad IMO.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Since you'd rather toss out a false dichotomy rather than leaving open the possibility that you could have missed someone's point on this forum I'll play along.

We'll take my original statement:

The point being made here is that all that was heard is the mid-majors get their chance, and they do, in NCAA basketball. I'm not debating the fact that they get their chance.

What I'm finding funny is the fact that when they miss out on that chance (in this case losing in their conference tournament) people want to throw these teams pity bids rather than actually look at their body of work and decide whether or not they stack up with the teams that got in ahead of them. Or, rather than question the system in which these smaller conferences grant their automatic bids, lets point the finger at the big schools because that's the easy answer.

With that said I'll reference my next 2 paragraphs:


I could be wrong, I was posting in a hurry because I was making dinner, but I thought for most it was fairly clear and it seemed to be the case since the conversation didn't stray off subject until you picked one part to quote and toss out the anti-BCS comment.

In future I'll consider both a full and abridged version of my posts.

You're right, I believe I missed your point. My apologies.

I could quibble that your argument construction could have been clearer and more fleshed out, and that you made a mistake in hinting at your pro-BCS stance (a stance that would only serve to muddy the waters and get people worked up about an irrelevant heated discussion from another sport), but the fact is, it was all there to be read if someone were to do so.

[Tigercat]

For a bunch of west coast hippies that don't care about sports, them pac-10ers sure give some good sports arguments.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

For a bunch of west coast hippies that don't care about sports, them pac-10ers sure give some good sports arguments.

I'm just glad the PAC 10 got 6 teams in

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Radii

FWIW (and I'm just picking something out of the discussion to quote here), the WCC is only ranked #15 in conference RPI this year.

They fall behind the 6 power conferences which you'd expect, as well as the Mountain West, A-10 and CUSA which are usually in between the mid majors and the power conferences. But they also fall behind the MVC, WAC, Horizon League, MAAC, and CAA.

They're basically one good team(Gonzaga), one mediocre team(Saint Mary's, and by mediocre I'm talking about by NCAA tournament standards, yes, 50th out of 350 is pretty good, but its nothing special at all when talking at large bids), and a bunch of absolute crap. The #3 team in the conference has an RPI of 120. The #4 team's RPI is 193, and it gets worse fast from there.

The conference ranked 14th, the CAA, boasts 3 top 100 teams and 7 top 150 teams.


So yeah, the WCC, its pretty damn bad IMO.

I agree with everything you throw out here, escept that the end result "the WCC is pretty damn bad". You have to remember, as I noted above, I am out here in CA. So not only do I see the Pac 10 and WAC and MWC and WCC regularly--I also see the Big West.

That is what I define as "pretty damn bad" basketball.

By comparison, the WCC is a nice little conference that gets a lot out of a little.

[RainMaker]

I think Saint Marys did try to schedule quality opponents. Oregon was an elite 8 team 2 years ago, Southern Illinois is perennial tournament team, and Kent State had been been winning 20+ games a year for awhile. They caught those 3 schools in really down years unfortunately. I'm certain they'd love to schedule more games, but probably do want to play a few home games for their school. Unfortunately, none of the major schools have the balls to play them at home.

Your examples of Siena and Temple are nice, but neither team gets into the dance without winning their conference tournament. Neither team plays in a conference with a team as good as Gonzaga. The MAAC also isn't in the same league as the WCC.

Many of your comparisions in the teams they played are in games without Patty Mills. Remember that St. Mary's probably beats Gonzaga in Spokane with Mills healthy in that 2nd half. They probably also have a good shot to beat them at home. If you want to say that the Arizona team is better than St. Marys without Patty Mills, I definitely agree. But with Mills, they are not.

I don't know if you got to see them play earlier in the year, but they were a really good team. There is a reason the coaches and writers rated them 18th in the country Has Arizona even been ranked this year?

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Radii

yes, 50th out of 350 is pretty good, but its nothing special at all when talking at large bids)

I'm just saying that, since we have a recent *concrete* example of #34 out of 34 at-larges making the Final Four, maybe it's prudent to have a very modest tournament expansion to at least create a cushion for #34, so that #34 always makes the dance even if there are a few conference tournament upsets.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I have to admit, I'm enjoying the bitching about mid-majors getting "screwed" by the committee considering the anti-BCS threads were full of how the NCAA tournament is great and mid-majors get their chance. Now its "the mid-majors don't get enough chances against good teams during the regular season" or the committee *gasp* has evolved the way they evaluate teams.

I'm as anti-BCS and pro-midmajor as anybody you'll find. The cases are completely different. First, the NCAA tournament gives everybody a chance to make it. The BCS doesn't do that, and in fact is designed to ensure that non-BCS schools don't get their chance. Chief is right -- what we're arguing about who who should be the 30th-32nd schools in the tournament and that's not the same as deciding who should play in the national title game.

Originally Posted by Atocep

The fact is you're arguing over teams that lost their chance at an auto-bid and teams that could have done more during the regular season anyways. Arizona and Minnesota probably don't deserve to be in, but it really doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

[quote=Atocep;1969308]Why doesn't it mean shit? You seem to be saying that Arizona and Minnesota are more worthy of being in the tournament than a midmajor simply because they are in a power conference. What kind of argument is that? All you can do is win the games in front of you. Davidson beat West Virginia and their seven losses were at Oklahoma (by four points) at Duke, at Purdue, at home to Butler, Citadel and Charleston. There are only two bad losses in that group. Charleston had a better RPI than Massachusets and Texas Tech, two teams that beat Kansas. Citadel is their only bad loss. Is an 18-2 record in the Southern Conference as good as 9-9 in the Big 10? Personally I think so but ultimately why not side with the team that actually won games rather than lost the games in front of them?

You're right in suggesting that a .500 team in a power conference has the same likelihood of winning the national title as a Davidson, St. Mary's or Creighton. But I'd rather see a team that won 26 games rather than one who could barely finish .500 in their own conference.

Originally Posted by Atocep

These mid-major conferences could stop screwing over their own members by handing the auto-bid to whatever team gets hot the last 3-4 games of the season and reward the team that actually wins the conference win a trip to the NCAA tourney.

So the midmajors should screw themselves by getting less attention, money and recruiting power by doing away with the conference tournaments? The power conferences can have them with no penalty because their champion is in already, but the smaller conferences shouldn't have one? You're suggesting they shoot themselves in the foot in a different way.

[kcchief19]

There's one midmajor team that made the tournament with a real weak case. They only played three ranked teams and lost two of them. They only ranked team they beat was Gonzaga, and that's another pussy midmajor team. They only played three teams from the BCS conferences and the only one they beat was pitiful St. John's.

Good thing Memphis won their conference tournament or maybe they should be in the NIT.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think in this year's Pac 10, which wasn't as top heavy, I can see Gonzaga mixing it up at about just behind Arizona State this year, kinda like Cal, maybe a little ahead of USC and Arizona.

I'd have to disagree there. I think Gonzaga goes at least 12-6 in the conference. They have arguably 3 NBA players and have competed well against the top teams in the country. They should have beat UConn, split with Tennessee, and beat up on Maryland and OK State. They lost in Arizona at the end of a month long road trip and slaughtered Washington State.

In any event, St. Marys was better than Gonzaga when Mills was healthy, and you feel Gonzaga can compete ahead of USC and Arizona in the Pac-10.

[RainMaker]

There is still a huge difference in the NCAA Tournament in basketball and the BCS. In basketball, you have a chance to win the title no matter who you are if you win all your games. In football you don't. Boise State has a chance to win a title every year in basketball, they don't in football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But I'd rather see a team that won 26 games rather than one who could barely finish .500 in their own conference.

There's a couple of high school teams here in Georgia that could fit that criteria pretty well.

For example the Model High School girls went 31-0 before losing the the state final, but that loss came after their best player went down to a blown ACL in the semifinals. They could be slotted in to replace Arizona if that would make you feel better.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In any event, St. Marys was better than Gonzaga when Mills was healthy, and you feel Gonzaga can compete ahead of USC and Arizona in the Pac-10.

Was it really that clear?

Mills was hurt 3 minutes before the end of the 1st half and took a 6 point lead into the break that game. Are you really going to make a statement like that based 17 minutes of healthy Mills and 20 minutes of basketball?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There's one midmajor team that made the tournament with a real weak case. They only played three ranked teams and lost two of them. They only ranked team they beat was Gonzaga, and that's another pussy midmajor team. They only played three teams from the BCS conferences and the only one they beat was pitiful St. John's.

Good thing Memphis won their conference tournament or maybe they should be in the NIT.

SI

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

You're right in suggesting that a .500 team in a power conference has the same likelihood of winning the national title as a Davidson, St. Mary's or Creighton. But I'd rather see a team that won 26 games rather than one who could barely finish .500 in their own conference.

I feel the same way. There's no question that a .500 team in the power conference should have more talent top-to-bottom on its roster than a Davidson/St. Mary's, but the team that won 26 games is probably going to play a better game of basketball on the day. Winning builds chemistry, where as losing nearly half your games, even in a power conference, isn't going to do an awful lot for you come tourney time. This is why we usually see a Cinderella most years.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There's one midmajor team that made the tournament with a real weak case. They only played three ranked teams and lost two of them. They only ranked team they beat was Gonzaga, and that's another pussy midmajor team. They only played three teams from the BCS conferences and the only one they beat was pitiful St. John's.

Good thing Memphis won their conference tournament or maybe they should be in the NIT.

Memphis is a major college team playing in a mid-major conference. Just like Gonzaga. They're both treated completely differently by the committee based on what they've been able to do over a stretch of time.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm just glad the PAC 10 got 6 teams in

I'm glad those other SEC teams didn't get in, screw em! (Uh oh, someone must have knew I was going to type this, there is a mob of Southerners outside my window yelling "SEC, SEC, SEC!")

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

They only played three teams from the BCS conferences and the only one they beat was pitiful St. John's.

Good thing Memphis won their conference tournament or maybe they should be in the NIT.

Much as I hate to bring it up, Memphis also beat Tennessee. Granted, that ain't exactly saying a lot but they are from a BCS conference & Memphis did beat them. They also beat Seton Hall from the Big East, which was also a BCS conference last time I checked.

I ain't impressed by Memphis resume either, but fair is fair too.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think Saint Marys did try to schedule quality opponents. Oregon was an elite 8 team 2 years ago, Southern Illinois is perennial tournament team, and Kent State had been been winning 20+ games a year for awhile. They caught those 3 schools in really down years unfortunately.

That is some bad luck, but when there are 2 RPI top 100 games in your conference, you need those games to come through (unless you lose less than 4 games).

Your examples of Siena and Temple are nice, but neither team gets into the dance without winning their conference tournament.

Siena is a 9 seed and their RPI was 19 (4 of their 7 losses were against top 25 teams). That seems to be a good enough resume to get in - I can't remember a top 20 RPI team not making an at large.

Neither team plays in a conference with a team as good as Gonzaga. The MAAC also isn't in the same league as the WCC.

The MAAC was ranked 13th in RPI and the WCC 15th. So, it was pretty close this season.

Many of your comparisions in the teams they played are in games without Patty Mills.

No, that's not true.
home v San Diego State (Mills played 40 minutes)
road v Oregon (Mills played 36 minutes)
home v Santa Clara (Mills played 35 minutes)
home v LMU (Mills played 30 minutes)
Mills didn't play at their Gonzaga game at home, but he played almost 30 minutes in their championship game they lost by 25.

If you want to say that the Arizona team is better than St. Marys without Patty Mills, I definitely agree. But with Mills, they are not.

Even if I accepted the premise (which I don't), Mills was 3-12 against the vaunted Portland Pilots in the semis and 2-16 vs Gonzaga in the finals. You really think we would be seeing a "top form" Patty Mills on Thursday?

I don't know if you got to see them play earlier in the year, but they were a really good team. There is a reason the coaches and writers rated them 18th in the country Has Arizona even been ranked this year?

Early season rankings don't mean anything. Heck, the week St. Mary's was ranked Gonzaga wasn't in the top 25. Just because you load up on cupcakes early doesn't mean you are a great team. If you are going to only play 5 teams in the top 100, you can't have 6 losses and get in.

[Marmel]

If these mid-majors who are left out every year were really any good, you would think that one of them would win the NIT every couple of years. They don't - BCS teams always win. I think Tulsa won it once in the last 20 years, every other winner was a BCS team. There are already 29 low and mid major teams in the tournament, that is plenty.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Marmel

If these mid-majors who are left out every year were really any good, you would think that one of them would win the NIT every couple of years. They don't - BCS teams always win. I think Tulsa won it once in the last 20 years, every other winner was a BCS team. There are already 29 low and mid major teams in the tournament, that is plenty.

I'm going to be the first to play the "these teams are so unbelievably crushed by missing out on the tournament that we're not seeing them rise to the very height of their clutch potential" card before someone else does.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd have to disagree there. I think Gonzaga goes at least 12-6 in the conference. They have arguably 3 NBA players and have competed well against the top teams in the country. They should have beat UConn, split with Tennessee, and beat up on Maryland and OK State. They lost in Arizona at the end of a month long road trip and slaughtered Washington State.

In any event, St. Marys was better than Gonzaga when Mills was healthy, and you feel Gonzaga can compete ahead of USC and Arizona in the Pac-10.

12-6? Not really that much of a difference from what I said. Cal went 11-7, and I put them on about the same level.

3 NBA players? That's your standard?

These guys will have a shot at an NBA career (at least):

Washington: Brockman, Pondexter, Dentmon (hurt by size), Overton (hurt by size), Thomas (really hurt by size)
UCLA: Collison, Shipp, Dragovic, Holliday, Gordon, Lee, Aboya (if he tries to get to the league, which he may not)
Arizona State: Harden, Pendergraph, Abbott, Glasser
Cal: Randle, Christopher, Robertson, Boykin (maybe even Wilkes)
USC: DeRozan, Gibson, Hackett, Lewis, Washington, Stepheson
Arizona: Wise, Hill, Budinger
Wazzu: Rochestie, Baynes, Thompson

Some of these guys will only get sniffs and be end of roster guys or training camp roster fill at best, of course, but point is, they'll get a look. And there are higher profile recruits waiting for a chance who will prove themselves as well once they get a real chance.

Daye was passed over by most Pac 10 teams. He's a local kid, I remember his recruitment. Good player, good talent, he can play in the Pac 10--but he's no better than the top 10-15 players in the Pac 10. Heytvelt has always been considered a high major type, I'll give you that. There isn't a Pac 10 team above Wazzu that doesn't have a player at least as good or as talented, IMO. Maybe Cal, I think Heytvelt has more talent than their best players, but as a team they have more depth. Bouldin is just another shooter in the Pac 10, of which there are tons. He's nothing special.

Gonzaga is a solid team, but I don't see them finishing clearly ahead of ASU and Cal or threatening UCLA for #2 in the conference. In the mix with USC and Arizona seems about right to me for them, and St. Mary's about Wazzu's level isn't a bad estimation either.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'm going to be the first to play the "these teams are so unbelievably crushed by missing out on the tournament that we're not seeing them rise to the very height of their clutch potential" card before someone else does.

My argument isn't based around mid-major sympathy per se, but off the top of my head I can think of three mid-majors and one low-major that made the elite 8 in the last decade.

Lot more impressive than winning a meaningless tournament played at campus sites.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Marmel

If these mid-majors who are left out every year were really any good, you would think that one of them would win the NIT every couple of years. They don't - BCS teams always win. I think Tulsa won it once in the last 20 years, every other winner was a BCS team. There are already 29 low and mid major teams in the tournament, that is plenty.

Hey! You're not allowed to come crawling out to offer opinions every other year, only to return silently to hibernation!

(Hi Marmel, say hi to Daimyo for me).

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

12-6? Not really that much of a difference from what I said. Cal went 11-7, and I put them on about the same level.

That may even be a bit generous. Gonzaga is a solid team that has had chances to stand out this season and missed, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they'd finish in the top 3 in the Pac-10.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

That may even be a bit generous. Gonzaga is a solid team that has had chances to stand out this season and missed, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they'd finish in the top 3 in the Pac-10.

I agree with most of the Gonzaga talk, but I would argue that the job Mark Few has done is amazing given the resources he has and playing in a lower tier conference.

Put Few in a position with a team in a bigger conference with better facilities and more resources and he rises to the top quickly

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

That may even be a bit generous. Gonzaga is a solid team that has had chances to stand out this season and missed, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they'd finish in the top 3 in the Pac-10.

Actually, I think you're right, I am being overly generous. I see them competing with USC and Arizona and clearly behind Cal in the long run.

I think what's lost in the translation is the regularly difficult schedule. You don't get a rest point in the Pac 10. You don't get to say, "We can get up for Gonzaga or St. Mary's tonight, because we play Portland and LMU next week." Instead, it's, "Okay, we need wins, what we got...hmm, the LA schools are coming in, ouch...and then a trip to the Arizonas, ouch...then a trip to the Washingtons, looks tough...then those scrappy Bay Area clubs come into town, hmm...". It never stops, no easy wins (at least until you get to Oregon). You get teams that know you, know how to play you and have as much talent as you do, and half the time you're playing them on their courts, in front of their rabid fanbases (cuz, you know, going into Pauley, McHale, the Mac, Hoc Ed, Harmon, these are all easy ).

It's not that Gonzaga and St. Mary's can't beat these teams. It's not that their top players might be as good as most of the best players of these teams. It's the depth and the overall quality, and the night after night you have to go through in a conference on the level of the Pac 10, which you don't have to do in the WCC. You don't get to choose 5-7 games per year "to get up" for and you can mail in the rest and still get a win. You have to bring your A game every night once you hit January--or you'll lose.

[Lathum]

ChiefRum just channeled Lou Holtz

[JeffNights]

Arles pretty much layeth the smacketh down on St. Marty's in this thread here.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Actually, I think you're right, I am being overly generous. I see them competing with USC and Arizona and clearly behind Cal in the long run.

I think what's lost in the translation is the regularly difficult schedule. You don't get a rest point in the Pac 10. You don't get to say, "We can get up for Gonzaga or St. Mary's tonight, because we play Portland and LMU next week." Instead, it's, "Okay, we need wins, what we got...hmm, the LA schools are coming in, ouch...and then a trip to the Arizonas, ouch...then a trip to the Washingtons, looks tough...then those scrappy Bay Area clubs come into town, hmm...". It never stops, no easy wins (at least until you get to Oregon). You get teams that know you, know how to play you and have as much talent as you do, and half the time you're playing them on their courts, in front of their rabid fanbases (cuz, you know, going into Pauley, McHale, the Mac, Hoc Ed, Harmon, these are all easy ).

It's not that Gonzaga and St. Mary's can't beat these teams. It's not that their top players might be as good as most of the best players of these teams. It's the depth and the overall quality, and the night after night you have to go through in a conference on the level of the Pac 10, which you don't have to do in the WCC. You don't get to choose 5-7 games per year "to get up" for and you can mail in the rest and still get a win. You have to bring your A game every night once you hit January--or you'll lose.

There's so much I agree with in there a simple +1 wouldn't do it justice.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

12-6? Not really that much of a difference from what I said. Cal went 11-7, and I put them on about the same level.

3 NBA players? That's your standard?

These guys will have a shot at an NBA career (at least):

Washington: Brockman, Pondexter, Dentmon (hurt by size), Overton (hurt by size), Thomas (really hurt by size)
UCLA: Collison, Shipp, Dragovic, Holliday, Gordon, Lee, Aboya (if he tries to get to the league, which he may not)
Arizona State: Harden, Pendergraph, Abbott, Glasser
Cal: Randle, Christopher, Robertson, Boykin (maybe even Wilkes)
USC: DeRozan, Gibson, Hackett, Lewis, Washington, Stepheson
Arizona: Wise, Hill, Budinger
Wazzu: Rochestie, Baynes, Thompson

Some of these guys will only get sniffs and be end of roster guys or training camp roster fill at best, of course, but point is, they'll get a look. And there are higher profile recruits waiting for a chance who will prove themselves as well once they get a real chance.

Daye was passed over by most Pac 10 teams. He's a local kid, I remember his recruitment. Good player, good talent, he can play in the Pac 10--but he's no better than the top 10-15 players in the Pac 10. Heytvelt has always been considered a high major type, I'll give you that. There isn't a Pac 10 team above Wazzu that doesn't have a player at least as good or as talented, IMO. Maybe Cal, I think Heytvelt has more talent than their best players, but as a team they have more depth. Bouldin is just another shooter in the Pac 10, of which there are tons. He's nothing special.

Gonzaga is a solid team, but I don't see them finishing clearly ahead of ASU and Cal or threatening UCLA for #2 in the conference. In the mix with USC and Arizona seems about right to me for them, and St. Mary's about Wazzu's level isn't a bad estimation either.

Daye was not passed over by Pac-10 teams. He was offered scholarships at both ASU and Washington. He was one of the top rated fowards in all of high school and I can't fathom there was any team in the Pac-10 that would have passed on him.

He's had some trouble this year and his stock has dropped a lot. Earlier in the year he was easily considered a top 5 pick. He still has two more years to bring that stock up, but I'd still consider him a first rounder. Athletic 6'11 forwards who can shoot don't come around that often. If he could add some strength, he should be a lottery pick in the next year or two.

Heytfelt is tough to rank. He was an easy first rounder a couple years ago but his off court issues have really hurt his stock. I still think he slips into the first round considering he has a nice NBA build and is pretty athletic. In any case, he will be drafted this year.

You didn't mention Pargo who is a pretty good player. He'll get drafted late in the 2nd round probably. Don't see an NBA career for him but he'll definitely bounce around overseas like his brother.

Boldin is an odd player and I'd say he's much more than just a shooter. He's probably their best all-around player. His problem is that he isn't that athletic and that'll hurt him with his chances at the NBA. Still, he'll be the PG next year and another solid season will get him drafted. He's got real good height for the next level.

Downs is probably their biggest enigma. He should be much better than he is. The kids almost jumped straight to the NBA out of high school and was part of that Kansas recruiting class that brought in a title last year. Not going to make it in the NBA but will get a few looks.

I'd stack up the talent on Gonzaga from top to bottom against just about anyone in the Pac-10. They don't have a star that will stand out, but they have 5 really strong college players. In fact, it can be argued that Few has underachieved with this team. Many had Gonzaga as a top 5 team in the preseason.

The whole point though with Gonzaga was that St. Mary's was a better team than them with Patty Mills this year.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Actually, I think you're right, I am being overly generous. I see them competing with USC and Arizona and clearly behind Cal in the long run.

I think what's lost in the translation is the regularly difficult schedule. You don't get a rest point in the Pac 10. You don't get to say, "We can get up for Gonzaga or St. Mary's tonight, because we play Portland and LMU next week." Instead, it's, "Okay, we need wins, what we got...hmm, the LA schools are coming in, ouch...and then a trip to the Arizonas, ouch...then a trip to the Washingtons, looks tough...then those scrappy Bay Area clubs come into town, hmm...". It never stops, no easy wins (at least until you get to Oregon). You get teams that know you, know how to play you and have as much talent as you do, and half the time you're playing them on their courts, in front of their rabid fanbases (cuz, you know, going into Pauley, McHale, the Mac, Hoc Ed, Harmon, these are all easy ).

It's not that Gonzaga and St. Mary's can't beat these teams. It's not that their top players might be as good as most of the best players of these teams. It's the depth and the overall quality, and the night after night you have to go through in a conference on the level of the Pac 10, which you don't have to do in the WCC. You don't get to choose 5-7 games per year "to get up" for and you can mail in the rest and still get a win. You have to bring your A game every night once you hit January--or you'll lose.

I agree with that for the most part. But you also have to figure that a team like Gonzaga doesn't get to sit at home for the first two months of the season and play on their own campus. I think you'd be hard pressed to find another team in this country that played as grueling a non-conference schedule as them.

It's also tough to determine how any mid-major would do in a major conference because we never see those power conferences playing them on the road. With the impact home court has in college basketball, you have to factor that into any analogy. And despite what you say about mid-majors having it easier with in conference play, I would argue that Memphis could compete with the elite in any conference in the country. In fact, I guarantee they'd win the Pac-10.

I believe St. Mary's depth would hurt them in the Pac-10. Heck, with the Patty Mills injury they probably finish near the bottom. But Gonzaga has the depth and talent to hang in that conference easily.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

That is some bad luck, but when there are 2 RPI top 100 games in your conference, you need those games to come through (unless you lose less than 4 games).

Siena is a 9 seed and their RPI was 19 (4 of their 7 losses were against top 25 teams). That seems to be a good enough resume to get in - I can't remember a top 20 RPI team not making an at large.

The MAAC was ranked 13th in RPI and the WCC 15th. So, it was pretty close this season.

You use RPI in every one of your arguments here. Saint Mary's had a better RPI than Arizona. So which is it? Does RPI matter or not?

As for Siena's at-large bid, they wouldn't have an RPI if they lost to Rider or Niagara in the conference tournament. Joe Lunardi also said a week or so ago that they had no shot at an at-large. Remember that the committee is not using RPI anymore.

Originally Posted by Arles

No, that's not true.
home v San Diego State (Mills played 40 minutes)
road v Oregon (Mills played 36 minutes)
home v Santa Clara (Mills played 35 minutes)
home v LMU (Mills played 30 minutes)
Mills didn't play at their Gonzaga game at home, but he played almost 30 minutes in their championship game they lost by 25.

They won every game you listed here except for the title game. The title game was basically his second game back from injury and he was clearly not at 100%. That was not the same Patty Mills we saw earlier.

In any event, the first game against Gonzaga he was hurt right before the half. He was absolutely destroying Gonzaga and had nearly 20 points in the half. St. Mary's was going to win that game.

Originally Posted by Arles

Even if I accepted the premise (which I don't), Mills was 3-12 against the vaunted Portland Pilots in the semis and 2-16 vs Gonzaga in the finals. You really think we would be seeing a "top form" Patty Mills on Thursday?

I don't know what Patty Mills would show up in the NCAA tournament. That was the million dollar question. But before his injury, they were a better team than Arizona.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Was it really that clear?

Mills was hurt 3 minutes before the end of the 1st half and took a 6 point lead into the break that game. Are you really going to make a statement like that based 17 minutes of healthy Mills and 20 minutes of basketball?

I watched a ton of WCC basketball because it's one of conferences I bet on heavily. I remember Patty Mills lighting up Gonzaga. I believe they were up by 8 or so when he got hurt. From that half and the first part of their season, I felt SMC was a better team. Maybe that wouldn't have held up all year, but if Mills didn't get hurt, they would have easily been a tourney team.

[jbergey22]

I think the St Mary's/Arizona discussion is a tough one for this reason.

Arizona is a very talented team and has top 25 talent so they are very capable of making a a run in this tournament. St Marys played like a deserving team UNTIL their star went down.

People taking Arizona's side on this generally feel that Arizona is a more talented team(hard to argue with that) while people on St Mary's side are saying St Mary's is more deserving(hard to argue with that either). My own opinion is Arizona should be out because they folded at the end of the year when the pressure was on. Gonzaga is a top 15 team in the nation and St Marys was just as good as them the first time they played this year(1/2 game with Mills). Mills came back to early IMO and they fell apart late in the season due to this injury. I think people are misjudging how important Mills was to St Marys. IMO Mills was one of the top players in the Olympics this past year and he is a solid NBA prospect.

The committee never really makes it clear what they are trying to do. Also, Why is UCLA a 6 seed? They are capable of beating anyone in this tourny.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marmel

If these mid-majors who are left out every year were really any good, you would think that one of them would win the NIT every couple of years. They don't - BCS teams always win. I think Tulsa won it once in the last 20 years, every other winner was a BCS team. There are already 29 low and mid major teams in the tournament, that is plenty.

Up until 2006 there was no qualifying criteria for the tournament. They often times just selected the big conference schools that would be able to fill up a stadium. A few mid-majors would get in but they never received a home game and often times got thrown into the opening round games (when the field was larger).

It's gotten better since the NCAA took them over. They now have automatic qualifiers for the smaller conference regular season champs. Some mid-majors like Old Dominion, Dayton, and Hofstra have made good runs the last couple years. But still, the seeding heavily favors major conferences and very few mid-majors get the right to host a game in the tournament (especially in the later rounds). If the whole thing was played on neutral courts, I think you'd see more mid-majors do well, just like we see in the NCAA tournament.

[jbergey22]

FYI
Ken Pomeroy has St Marys rated 61st in the country(They were in the lower 30s most of the year until Mills got hurt) Arizona is currently rated 39th.

This is a great tool for any of you that havent looked at it

2009 Pomeroy Ratings

[RainMaker]

And I'm not trying to be some mid-major fanatic. My gripe here is with the hypocrisy of the NCAA committee. They used the RPI for years in selecting teams and then the minute too many mid-majors got in for their liking, they completely ignored it. In 2004 we had 12 mid-majors in the tournament. It has gradually gone down to 4.

If the mid-majors were getting pounded in the tournament, I'd understand it. But they have been pretty succesful, especially the ones that were considered bubble teams.

If the NCAA doesn't want them in the tournament, that's fine. Just make it clear that they are not allowed at-large bids. But don't play this silly game where you change the criteria everytime too many mid-majors get into the pool of 65.

[jbergey22]

I agree. I am sick of big ten teams and would much rather not see teams like Illinois, Wisky and Michigan play any more games. Illinois is perhaps the worst #5 seed I can ever remember. They are just lucky they drew the worst of the #12 seeds or thed certainly be 1 and done.

Id much rather see what the unknown can bring rather than to have to watch more of what I already know(these 3 teams are boring and they have 0 chance of getting to the final four.) Id include Minnesota on this list if I wasnt a gopher fan and this will be a good time for Tubby to start the process of bringing the gophers into the National Spotlight

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Daye was not passed over by Pac-10 teams. He was offered scholarships at both ASU and Washington. He was one of the top rated fowards in all of high school and I can't fathom there was any team in the Pac-10 that would have passed on him.

He was passed on by the top Pac 10 teams at that time, which were UCLA and Arizona, for sure, and USC and Oregon after that. Washington was in a short lull period after losing Roy and his classmates, and ASU had just hired Sendek, and had sucked for years. So maybe he wasn't "passed over", but it wasn't like he had 10 offers either.

He's had some trouble this year and his stock has dropped a lot. Earlier in the year he was easily considered a top 5 pick. He still has two more years to bring that stock up, but I'd still consider him a first rounder. Athletic 6'11 forwards who can shoot don't come around that often. If he could add some strength, he should be a lottery pick in the next year or two.

So was Jrue Holiday. Point is, there are a ton of players like this who "could be" lottery picks in the Pac 10 if they develop right, with more on the way. Daye's a good talent, but let's not make out like he's a Top 10 Pac 10 level player. He might get to that as a senior, if he stays that long.

Heytfelt is tough to rank. He was an easy first rounder a couple years ago but his off court issues have really hurt his stock. I still think he slips into the first round considering he has a nice NBA build and is pretty athletic. In any case, he will be drafted this year.

So we're in agreement.

You didn't mention Pargo who is a pretty good player. He'll get drafted late in the 2nd round probably. Don't see an NBA career for him but he'll definitely bounce around overseas like his brother.

No, I didn't. You only mentioned 3 NBA players, so I focused on the most likely players. Pargo's a decent player. Sorry, I don't see him being better than most regular SGs in the Pac 10. Definitely worse than Lewis, Christopher and Harden and has less talent than Holiday. Thomas did better on a better team--as a freshman--although I think Pargo's relative size makes him more likely to find success at the next level.

Regardless, even changing the Zags to four players with pro futures puts them at mid-table with respect to a Pac 10 comparison.

Boldin is an odd player and I'd say he's much more than just a shooter. He's probably their best all-around player. His problem is that he isn't that athletic and that'll hurt him with his chances at the NBA. Still, he'll be the PG next year and another solid season will get him drafted. He's got real good height for the next level.

Downs is probably their biggest enigma. He should be much better than he is. The kids almost jumped straight to the NBA out of high school and was part of that Kansas recruiting class that brought in a title last year. Not going to make it in the NBA but will get a few looks.

You see, these are the types of players the Pac 10 has as its 7-10 players on the bench, at best. I remember being surprised Downs got an offer from Kansas, and wasn't surprised when he didn't end up working out there.

I'd stack up the talent on Gonzaga from top to bottom against just about anyone in the Pac-10. They don't have a star that will stand out, but they have 5 really strong college players. In fact, it can be argued that Few has underachieved with this team. Many had Gonzaga as a top 5 team in the preseason.

Many ALWAYS have Gonzaga as a Top 5 team, and they haven't been to a F4 yet. I guess they were always #5. The Zags are the college mid-major dreams are made of. Everyone who has that pipe dream of elevating 5-7 other conferences to the level of the BCS conferences makes a big deal out of the Zags, kinda like baseball fans prop up the Twins and A's, or the flavor of the week non-BCS team that pops up every year in football. That doesn't mean they actually are that good.

They have two solid NBA talents (probably make a team), two borderline NBA talents (probably won't), and two decent college players (won't even get a look). And not much outside of those 6.

Compare that with UCLA--and not a particularly good UCLA team either. Collison will be in the League. Holiday, for as much as he has crapped the bed this year, will be in the League for at least a full rookie contract (and if he actually is as good as thought, he could be a star). If Shipp were playing in the WCC, he would be scoring on par with Mills. He'll be taken in the second round. If Aboya says he'll play pro ball, he'll get a look. Heck, just based on how The Prince has done in the pros, Aboya would get a look if he says he's willing. Dragovic, with his size and shooting ability, would be a second rounder. Gordon has as much athleticism as Daye, and is nearly as long. Bobo Morgan is just a big kid now, but his size alone says he gets a look. Lee looks like he's just waiting for a chance to play to take advantage. Anderson and Keefe are former McDonald's All-Americans. Even Roll qualifies as a solid college player, based on the sort of game Pargo brings qualifying as a solid college player.

Now, sure, that might be the conference's most talented team, but your point was to compare the Zags talent to any team in the conference. I think at some point in the player to player comparison, they are going to fall significantly behind UCLA as we go down the list. I suspect you will see the same thing if you run them next to USC, Washington and the Arizonas as well.

The whole point though with Gonzaga was that St. Mary's was a better team than them with Patty Mills this year.

And there just isn't proof of this. Gonzaga smoked them just a few days ago. With Mills. On top of all the other evidence that has been thrown out.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I agree. I am sick of big ten teams and would much rather not see teams like Illinois, Wisky and Michigan play any more games. Illinois is perhaps the worst #5 seed I can ever remember. They are just lucky they drew the worst of the #12 seeds or thed certainly be 1 and done.

Id much rather see what the unknown can bring rather than to have to watch more of what I already know(these 3 teams are boring and they have 0 chance of getting to the final four.) Id include Minnesota on this list if I wasnt a gopher fan and this will be a good time for Tubby to start the process of bringing the gophers into the National Spotlight

I'll enjoy watching Wisconsin clank 3's when they're down late again if they manage to stay close to Florida State.


Adding Royce White for next year and getting to see Rodney Williams go off on highlight reel dunks should make next year even more entertaining, with a chance of doing something in the Big Ten if Cobb and Bryant Allen can contribute at point.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And I'm not trying to be some mid-major fanatic. My gripe here is with the hypocrisy of the NCAA committee. They used the RPI for years in selecting teams and then the minute too many mid-majors got in for their liking, they completely ignored it. In 2004 we had 12 mid-majors in the tournament. It has gradually gone down to 4.

If the mid-majors were getting pounded in the tournament, I'd understand it. But they have been pretty succesful, especially the ones that were considered bubble teams.

If the NCAA doesn't want them in the tournament, that's fine. Just make it clear that they are not allowed at-large bids. But don't play this silly game where you change the criteria everytime too many mid-majors get into the pool of 65.

This I agree with. The committee is being hypocritical. Figure out what you want to do and do it. My argument here against St. Mary's (or at least in comparison to the Pac 10) is based on the criteria as they seem to be judged right now, but I have no problem noting that the system used is far from perfect, and that committee needs to settle what they want to do about mid-majors and just do it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I'll enjoy watching Wisconsin clank 3's when they're down late again if they manage to stay close to Florida State.


Adding Royce White for next year and getting to see Rodney Williams go off on highlight reel dunks should make next year even more entertaining, with a chance of doing something in the Big Ten if Cobb and Bryant Allen can contribute at point.

HAHA, That never gets old.

Who would have thought 2 years ago that even Tubby could have turned the corner this fast? He is winning now with marginal talent I cant wait to see what he can do when these freshmen develop and he get more classes like this. And now Kentucky doesnt even make the tourny, how fitting is that?

The future is bright in Minnesota.(talking football of course as well)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So was Jrue Holiday. Point is, there are a ton of players like this who "could be" lottery picks in the Pac 10 if they develop right, with more on the way. Daye's a good talent, but let's not make out like he's a Top 10 Pac 10 level player. He might get to that as a senior, if he stays that long.

Huge difference in the two. Jrue Holiday is a 6'3 guard. While he may have lottery talent, that makeup is a dime a dozen. Daye is an athletic 6'11 small forward with huge reach that can shoot. Freaks like Daye just don't come around that often.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

No, I didn't. You only mentioned 3 NBA players, so I focused on the most likely players. Pargo's a decent player. Sorry, I don't see him being better than most regular SGs in the Pac 10. Definitely worse than Lewis, Christopher and Harden and has less talent than Holiday. Thomas did better on a better team--as a freshman--although I think Pargo's relative size makes him more likely to find success at the next level.

Regardless, even changing the Zags to four players with pro futures puts them at mid-table with respect to a Pac 10 comparison.

You see, these are the types of players the Pac 10 has as its 7-10 players on the bench, at best. I remember being surprised Downs got an offer from Kansas, and wasn't surprised when he didn't end up working out there.

For a team with such mediocre talent, they somehow have done fairly well this year. They've done better against the RPI top 100 than any team in the Pac-10. They have some high quality wins this year and took UConn to OT in a game they probably should have won. For a middle of the pack Pac-10 team, I'm just surprised they do so much better than the Pac-10 against the better teams in college hoops. Especially since almost all those games were on the road.

As for Downs, I don't know why you'd be surprised Kansas offered him a scholarship. He was a McDonalds All-American who also got an offer from Duke. Kansas had a monster recruiting class that year that saw Rush, Chalmers and Wright come aboard. He probably should have gone to Duke where Coach K's system fits him much better. In any event, he's been a "bust" of sorts considering his hype out of high school. From what I've heard about him, his heart isn't really in basketball.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Many ALWAYS have Gonzaga as a Top 5 team, and they haven't been to a F4 yet. I guess they were always #5. The Zags are the college mid-major dreams are made of. Everyone who has that pipe dream of elevating 5-7 other conferences to the level of the BCS conferences makes a big deal out of the Zags, kinda like baseball fans prop up the Twins and A's, or the flavor of the week non-BCS team that pops up every year in football. That doesn't mean they actually are that good.

They have two solid NBA talents (probably make a team), two borderline NBA talents (probably won't), and two decent college players (won't even get a look). And not much outside of those 6.

Compare that with UCLA--and not a particularly good UCLA team either. Collison will be in the League. Holiday, for as much as he has crapped the bed this year, will be in the League for at least a full rookie contract (and if he actually is as good as thought, he could be a star). If Shipp were playing in the WCC, he would be scoring on par with Mills. He'll be taken in the second round. If Aboya says he'll play pro ball, he'll get a look. Heck, just based on how The Prince has done in the pros, Aboya would get a look if he says he's willing. Dragovic, with his size and shooting ability, would be a second rounder. Gordon has as much athleticism as Daye, and is nearly as long. Bobo Morgan is just a big kid now, but his size alone says he gets a look. Lee looks like he's just waiting for a chance to play to take advantage. Anderson and Keefe are former McDonald's All-Americans. Even Roll qualifies as a solid college player, based on the sort of game Pargo brings qualifying as a solid college player.

Now, sure, that might be the conference's most talented team, but your point was to compare the Zags talent to any team in the conference. I think at some point in the player to player comparison, they are going to fall significantly behind UCLA as we go down the list. I suspect you will see the same thing if you run them next to USC, Washington and the Arizonas as well.

UCLA has more players who will make an impact in the NBA. There may be a few others too. My statement about Gonzaga having NBA players wasn't necessarily to compare them to other teams, just to say they aren't your typical mid-major. Outside of Memphis, I don't know if you'd be able to find a mid-major with as many potential NBA talents as Gonzaga.

The Pac-10 is also an odd conference as they'll produce more lottery picks this year than any conference out there, but probably not see a team near the Final 4.

If this was any other year, I'd agree with you on Gonzaga. They tend to get overated. I think Few is a great recruiter but has a tough time developing his talent. But in my opinion, this is the best team they've ever had. I think they're a great sleeper in the tournament as some early losses the last few years has brought their national prestige down a bit. But they've beaten quality competition this year and shown they can play with one of the best teams in the country. Their bracket is also very favorable as Illinois is the potential second round opponent.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And there just isn't proof of this. Gonzaga smoked them just a few days ago. With Mills. On top of all the other evidence that has been thrown out.

That was hardly the Patty Mills from earlier in the year. I saw him play against Gonzaga the night he broke his hand, and he was making them look foolish.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

HAHA, That never gets old.

Who would have thought 2 years ago that even Tubby could have turned the corner this fast? He is winning now with marginal talent I cant wait to see what he can do when these freshmen develop and he get more classes like this. And now Kentucky doesnt even make the tourny, how fitting is that?

The future is bright in Minnesota.(talking football of course as well)

A couple years ago my D2 alma mater beat up on the Gophers. Surprised he's been able to turn things around that fast.