CSNbbs

Full Version: Tell me again why........
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
18-12 Stanford is in the NCAA Tournament?


Louisville 41
Stanford 13
5:00 1st Half
OMFG IT"S BECAUSE LOUISVILLE IS PLAYING IN THEIR BACKYARD!!!!!11
thegeneral Wrote:OMFG IT"S BECAUSE LOUISVILLE IS PLAYING IN THEIR BACKYARD!!!!!11

So another words, Stanford would be down by at least 28 points to a #6 seed on that #6 seed's home court in a regular season game. Again, how does that equate to getting into the NCAA Tournament with an 18-12 record? They say you have to be able to win road games to get in the tournament.
Stanford lost big at home to two mid-major teams (Air Force and Santa Clara) that did not make the Tourney. It's atrocious that some schools only get in because they can ride on the RPI's of their conference mates. Stanford lost in the first round of the PAC-10 Tourney.
That an Arkansas was a joke. If you wanted toi got BCS school Syracuse and K State got screwed bigtime. The Pac 10 Blows as well.
I was at the Pac-10 tourney. Could have told you this was going to happen. Team didn't belong anywhere near the tournament.

One bias in tournament selection is that the committee obviously seems to think they have to throw a few more teams from the west into the thing then really belong to keep west coast TVs tuned in. Unfortunately, for them, Stanford is out of the dance before noon out there.
Stanford has more impressive wins than the MAC combined.

What would Stanford's record be with Akron's schedule?
ohiovarsity Wrote:Stanford has more impressive wins than the MAC combined.

What would Stanford's record be with Akron's schedule?

varsity... you keep telling us to let it go and move on..... why don't you take your own advice??? :shhh:
Sorry...What would Stanford's record have been with Kent State's record?

I wasn't knocking Akron there...was just pointing out that Stanford may have only had 18 wins...but beating USC and Oregon and Arizona State, etc. carries more weight than beating IPFW and Delaware State.
The only MAC team Lousiville played was Ohio and UL won by just three. Stanford on the other hand did not belong on the court with the Cards.

And why would beating Arizona State carry any weight whatsoever? They were one of the worst teams in Pac-10 history this year.
ohiovarsity Wrote:Sorry...What would Stanford's record have been with Kent State's record?

I wasn't knocking Akron there...was just pointing out that Stanford may have only had 18 wins...but beating USC and Oregon and Arizona State, etc. carries more weight than beating IPFW and Delaware State.


Well, hell with that logic, why let any mid-major team in at all? I mean if Southern Illinois played in the Big Ten they'd probably...still have 25-27 wins.

Idiot. 01-wingedeagle
MacLord Wrote:The only MAC team Lousiville played was Ohio and UL won by just three. Stanford on the other hand did not belong on the court with the Cards.

So, you are saying OU is better than Stanford?

That's a silly argument.

Samford beat OU by 14, does that mean they are better than Louisville?

MacLord Wrote:And why would beating Arizona State carry any weight whatsoever? They were one of the worst teams in Pac-10 history this year.

It doesn't carry any weight, other than the fact that ASU is a PAC 10 team. I think beating a PAC 10 team carries a big more weight than beating a Division I-AA opponent, etc. I could have named any number of other major conference wins for Stanford...ASU just popped out of my head.
Rocket_Fanatic Wrote:Idiot. 01-wingedeagle

Nice.

I'm not saying that no mid-major should be invited; but I'm also not going to say that a Kent State team with 21 wins should be in the tournament in place of Standford and their 18 wins.

I'm realistic about the issue. I'm sorry you are not.
ohiovarsity Wrote:Sorry...What would Stanford's record have been with Kent State's record?

I wasn't knocking Akron there...was just pointing out that Stanford may have only had 18 wins...but beating USC and Oregon and Arizona State, etc. carries more weight than beating IPFW and Delaware State.
I get so sick of people talking about quality wins when you beat teams from your own conference. Hell, even bad Pac 10 teams beat the top of the conference now and then. That doesn't make them any better than Akron or Kent State. Who did Stanford beat OOC? Siena, San Jose State, Northwestern, Denver, UC Davis, Texas Tech, Fresno State, and Virginia (that's two NCAA Tournament teams). Only two of those wins came on the road (another on a neutral site). They also lost to Air Force, Santa Clara, and Gonzaga (all at home). They also only went 3-6 on the road in the conference, with all three wins coming against teams not playing in the postseason. I fail to see how that non-conference waranted their inclusion in the tournament.

I'm not arguing that Kent or Akron should be in the NCAA Tournament instead of Stanford, but I'm damn sure there was someone out there with better credentials that didn't get in.
ohiovarsity Wrote:Sorry...What would Stanford's record have been with Kent State's record?

I wasn't knocking Akron there...was just pointing out that Stanford may have only had 18 wins...but beating USC and Oregon and Arizona State, etc. carries more weight than beating IPFW and Delaware State.

If USC, Oregon, Arizona State had to play a game each this season at the JAR, I would have liked the Zips odds in beating them also. But seeing as how that will never happen, it will be impossible for any MAC team to ever be good enough in the eyes if the selection committee. Its the classic catch-22 with the mid-majors, the only way to impress is to play the BCS schools, the only way that happens is at their place, and the home team wins %70+.
MikeSpicer Wrote:I get so sick of people talking about quality wins when you beat teams from your own conference.

I understand your frustration; but the fact is the teams from the PAC 10, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC are going to beat the teams from the MAC, Horizon, etc. on a regular basis.

Sure, there will be upsets and close games.

Belive me, I'd love to see more mid-majors get into the postseason. But, to argue that Kent State deserved to be there over Stanford, I have to disagree.

Are there other deserving teams that could be there in place of Stanford? I'm sure. But, my guess is they are teams from conferences like the ACC (Florida State), Big Ten (Michigan).

The poster below you mentioned the Catch-22...that it is.

But, unless we can lobby the NCAA to limit the number of teams from each conference selected for the tournament, nothing is going to change.

You want respect, you have to earn it.
Since they don't play them on a regular basis, there is not a thing to back up your thesis, ohiovarsity. You are just regurgitating the tired myth that mediocre teams from a wealthy conference are better than the better teams from perceived lesser conferences.

I love how your whole argument is based upon common opponents, i.e., pac-10 teams playing each other, and yet the one common opponent played by Louisville is dismissed out of hand. I do think the degree to which Stanford got blown out vs Ohio playing close does show that a good MAC team might have fared better. Now, I know enough about Stanford to know they had some injuries, but that's why they shouldn't have been in the tournament.

And the fact that you bring up ASU shows that you just think any Pac-10 team is better than any MAC team, regardless. ASU's team this year is a team almost any team in the MAC could have beaten.

What you call "realism" is really just elitism and status quo thinking.
Quote:I get so sick of people talking about quality wins when you beat teams from your own conference. Hell, even bad Pac 10 teams beat the top of the conference now and then.
That is exactly how I feel.

Conference RPI is solely based on your OOC schedule. That's what separates the conferences. Once you get into you conference schedule, individual team RPIs will fluctuate, but the conference RPIs will stay about the same, because a conference's W-L record will be .500 for every single conference.

When you're in a BCS conference, you have the advantages of playing 75-85% of your OOC games at home which is HUGE. Because of that reason alone, your RPI is going to be falsely inflated. That's it, right there. At the start of January, conference rankings are pretty much set in stone. Bad teams benefit by just PLAYING "good" teams in the conference. See: Stanford, Illinois, Michigan State, Arkansas, et al.

That's why you CANNOT count conference games as big wins. It doesn't make any sense at all.
<<Since they don't play them on a regular basis, there is not a thing to back up your thesis, ohiovarsity. You are just regurgitating the tired myth that mediocre teams from a wealthy conference are better than the better teams from perceived lesser conferences.>>


Is it a tired myth or is it something we see every year.

Kent State lost to Ohio State and Duke. That I know. How many MAC schools played Big Ten schools this year? How many won?

How about last year? The year before? The year before that?

How many upsets do we see in the Big Dance every year (mid-majors beating major conference teams)? The number is small.

I'd love to see more mid-majors in the tournament, because then the number would grow.

<<I love how your whole argument is based upon common opponents, i.e., pac-10 teams playing each other, and yet the one common opponent played by Louisville is dismissed out of hand.>>

No, it's not based on commont opponents. It's based on quality opponents. If Kent State played in the ACC, would they have won 20 games nine consecutive years? I'll save you the time...the answer is no. Then you could argue, if they played in the ACC, they'd get better players, play more home games, etc. Let me again save you the time...all things remain the same...but Kent State plays in the ACC.

<<I do think the degree to which Stanford got blown out vs Ohio playing close does show that a good MAC team might have fared better.>>

Maybe, but there are teams that have bad games, teams that have good games, etc. Play the game 10 more times and maybe Stanford doesn't get blown out.

Heck, the 2006-07 MAC regular season champ just got blown out by an also-ran in the NIT. What does that mean?

<<And the fact that you bring up ASU shows that you just think any Pac-10 team is better than any MAC team, regardless. ASU's team this year is a team almost any team in the MAC could have beaten.>>

Maybe...the fact is, it isn't often that MAC schools are knocking off the "big" boys; and they have plenty of chances.

<<What you call "realism" is really just elitism and status quo thinking.>>

Is it?

Believe me, I'd love to see the "big" boys get knocked off by the mids. I dont' like the current post-season structure...in basketball or football.

It's downright not fair to every member of Division I.

But, the facts are the facts...you want to play Division I, you need to be able to compete. If you can't, don't complain.

It goes back to the point about gaining respect. Win and you earn respect. Beat good teams and you earn respect.
ohiovarsity Wrote:Stanford has more impressive wins than the MAC combined.

What would Stanford's record be with Akron's schedule?

I was thinking more along the lines of Drexel, Florida State, or Syracuse should have been in the tournament instead of Stanford.......not a MAC school. I know the MAC didn't deserve any at-large bids this year.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's