The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

There is no shame in getting waxed by Villanova. They are a fantastic team. But these qualitative arguments to explain away Xavier's tremendous record given their efficiency margins are very lame.

They'll be a #1 seed. But a one seed that's played games down to the wire with DePaul (x2), St. John's (x2), Georgetown at home, East Tennessee St, and Marshall. And throw in a close game against a bad Northern Iowa team. And as of now, only has 1 win over a team in the Top 25 (which took place at home in early December). Sounds like an extremely vulnerable 1 seed to me.

Doesn't mean Xavier won't go on a deep run, but I'd be a little concerned.

(03-04-2018 11:10 AM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  They'll be a #1 seed. But a one seed that's played games down to the wire with DePaul (x2), St. John's (x2), Georgetown at home, East Tennessee St, and Marshall. And as of now, only has 1 win over a team in the Top 25 (which took place at home in early December). Sounds like an extremely vulnerable 1 seed to me.

Doesn't mean Xavier won't go on a deep run, but I'd be a little concerned.

I hope they are a one and we are the two in their region

How about XU is a #1 and the first #1 to lose to a 16.

(03-04-2018 11:30 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  How about XU is a #1 and the first #1 to lose to a 16.

(03-04-2018 11:06 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  There is no shame in getting waxed by Villanova. They are a fantastic team. But these qualitative arguments to explain away Xavier's tremendous record given their efficiency margins are very lame.

Not sure what's lame about it. They are a very good team that earned their seed but if you're looking for a 1 seed that is vulnerable it's them. They're metrics suggest their not really as good as their resume. I look for that kind of thing every year when i fill out a bracket.

(03-04-2018 11:01 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:05 AM)Xpectations Wrote:  Now, if you want to make the argument that there's still some degree of "luck" involved when games are won by a single possession or so, I won't disagree, because a lot can happen.

But if you're going to argue that the metrics prove XU is a weaker team than their resume, I would bet heavily against that.

So what is the root cause of Xavier's "luck" factor. Is it purely luck? Or is it more likely apathy?

So you're arguing that X is a #1 seed caliber team due to their resume by segmenting their games but you're using selective segmentation. If you take that a step further you've played three games against second weekend type teams and gone 1-2 with two of those games being at home. The win over us was over three months ago and the two losses have been convincing. I think Xavier is a second weekend caliber team but a #1 seed and national title contender probably doesn't need to selectively segment their resume to make that case.

No, not making any argument at all regarding X's seed. My only argument is against Mark's clear overuse and trust of metrics, when metrics don't tell the whole story. My point is that Xavier's margin of victory against crappy teams--even though they've beaten all of them--is why their metrics look the way they do.

UC waxes those teams. Xavier plays down to them. But UC also struggle FAR more against good teams, whereas Xavier plays them VERY well.

Putting too much trust in metrics is a very dangerous proposition. They are a starting point but that's all they are.

(03-04-2018 09:44 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  ^You have to also factor in XU will get to play the 12, 14, and 13 seeds because they always end up playing in the bracket where the good teams get tossed early.

Always love the creative narratives. But then there's reality.

Starting with the 2000 NCAA Tournament ...

• XU Average Opponent Seed: 6.4
• UC Average Opponent Seed: 7.7
• XU Average Seed Beaten: 7.8
• UC Average Seed Beaten: 12.1
• XU Average Seed Loss: 3.4
• UC Average Seed Loss: 5.2
• XU Tournament Wins: 21
• UC Tournament Wins: 11
• XU Sweet Sixteens: 7
• UC Sweet Sixteens: 2
• XU Elite Eights: 3
• UC Elite Eights: 0
  

Again, not saying there can't be lucky breaks in the NCAA Tournament, but the data shows it's far more than luck.

(03-04-2018 12:11 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:01 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:05 AM)Xpectations Wrote:  Now, if you want to make the argument that there's still some degree of "luck" involved when games are won by a single possession or so, I won't disagree, because a lot can happen.

But if you're going to argue that the metrics prove XU is a weaker team than their resume, I would bet heavily against that.

So what is the root cause of Xavier's "luck" factor. Is it purely luck? Or is it more likely apathy?

So you're arguing that X is a #1 seed caliber team due to their resume by segmenting their games but you're using selective segmentation. If you take that a step further you've played three games against second weekend type teams and gone 1-2 with two of those games being at home. The win over us was over three months ago and the two losses have been convincing. I think Xavier is a second weekend caliber team but a #1 seed and national title contender probably doesn't need to selectively segment their resume to make that case.

No, not making any argument at all regarding X's seed. My only argument is against Mark's clear overuse and trust of metrics, when metrics don't tell the whole story. My point is that Xavier's margin of victory against crappy teams--even though they've beaten all of them--is why their metrics look the way they do.

UC waxes those teams. Xavier plays down to them. But UC also struggle FAR more against good teams, whereas Xavier plays them VERY well.

Putting too much trust in metrics is a very dangerous proposition. They are a starting point but that's all they are.

Xavier hasn't beat a team currently in the top 25 this calendar year.

Neither has UC. Not sure what your argument is.

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Neither has UC. Not sure what your argument is.

Houston

(03-04-2018 01:43 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Neither has UC. Not sure what your argument is.

Houston

Houston wasn't ranked when UC beat them were they? Just when they lost.

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Neither has UC. Not sure what your argument is.

I think that may have changed.

(03-03-2018 11:10 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 11:05 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 10:21 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The point is. Good teams lose games sometimes. UC fans overreact to each and ever loss. Kansas got stomped by a team that likely won't make the tournament today. WVU got beat by a bubble team (a UCLA/Miss State level team).

Kansas has also won some pretty big games too. What’s our big win again? We’re gonna have probably 2 more shots at big wins before the tourney. Any guesses on what those results are going to show?

bump

(03-04-2018 02:15 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:43 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Neither has UC. Not sure what your argument is.

Houston

Houston wasn't ranked when UC beat them were they? Just when they lost.

Doesn't matter where they were when they played. It's about where there are now.

(03-04-2018 02:21 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:15 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:43 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Neither has UC. Not sure what your argument is.

Houston

Houston wasn't ranked when UC beat them were they? Just when they lost.

Doesn't matter where they were when they played. It's about where there are now.

Exactly. Had UC beat Florida would UC be given credit for beating a top 5 opponent? No.

(03-04-2018 12:11 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:01 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:05 AM)Xpectations Wrote:  Now, if you want to make the argument that there's still some degree of "luck" involved when games are won by a single possession or so, I won't disagree, because a lot can happen.

But if you're going to argue that the metrics prove XU is a weaker team than their resume, I would bet heavily against that.

So what is the root cause of Xavier's "luck" factor. Is it purely luck? Or is it more likely apathy?

So you're arguing that X is a #1 seed caliber team due to their resume by segmenting their games but you're using selective segmentation. If you take that a step further you've played three games against second weekend type teams and gone 1-2 with two of those games being at home. The win over us was over three months ago and the two losses have been convincing. I think Xavier is a second weekend caliber team but a #1 seed and national title contender probably doesn't need to selectively segment their resume to make that case.

No, not making any argument at all regarding X's seed. My only argument is against Mark's clear overuse and trust of metrics, when metrics don't tell the whole story. My point is that Xavier's margin of victory against crappy teams--even though they've beaten all of them--is why their metrics look the way they do.

UC waxes those teams. Xavier plays down to them. But UC also struggle FAR more against good teams, whereas Xavier plays them VERY well.

Putting too much trust in metrics is a very dangerous proposition. They are a starting point but that's all they are.

I agree, metrics don’t tell the whole story. Part of the story you will not hear in Cincinnati is how the refs bailed them out in at least 2 games - GTown and Creighton. It’s called BE protecting it’s seeding.

Watched the Duke-North Carolina game last night. First time I have watched either team. I was amazed how great their shooters were. I was also amazed how poorly both teams on played on defense. Both teams allowed each other to get the ball within 5-6 feet of the basket with ease.

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Neither has UC. Not sure what your argument is.

The point was he made it seem like Xavier was where they were because of their play against great teams but the numbers say differently. I wasn't trying to compare them to UC, but other teams in line for a 1 seed.

(03-04-2018 11:30 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  How about XU is a #1 and the first #1 to lose to a 16.

Priceless