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

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

UH and WSU!

(03-04-2018 12:21 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(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.

I didn't need to break out the metrics to prove that UC's program was in the toilet during the late 2000s. Nice narrative you got there.

(03-04-2018 12:21 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(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.

For someone who doesn’t like narratives, you sure created one here.

(03-04-2018 12:21 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(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.

im just gonna put this here. its from my 1st ever post here but fits well to this.


since 2011 when uc started making the tournament again here is the breakdown.

UC average seed 7 xu average seed 7 (goes up to 8 if you count the play in loss, but since they lost the play in, they didn't get in).


UC has made the 2nd round or better 4 times. xavier has made the 2nd round or better 4 times.


in the 2nd round UC played the 10, 24, 1, and 16th ranked kenpom teams. average of 13th best team.

in the 2nd round xu has played 79, 68, 38, 26. average of 53rd best team.



so i guess the data does show luck? no way!

(03-04-2018 03:28 PM)CallMeSlim Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:21 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(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.

im just gonna put this here. its from my 1st ever post here but fits well to this.


since 2011 when uc started making the tournament again here is the breakdown.

UC average seed 7 xu average seed 7 (goes up to 8 if you count the play in loss, but since they lost the play in, they didn't get in).


UC has made the 2nd round or better 4 times. xavier has made the 2nd round or better 4 times.


in the 2nd round UC played the 10, 24, 1, and 16th ranked kenpom teams. average of 13th best team.

in the 2nd round xu has played 79, 68, 38, 26. average of 53rd best team.



so i guess the data does show luck? no way!

lol this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about....screw u Xavier

(03-04-2018 03:28 PM)CallMeSlim Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:21 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(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.

im just gonna put this here. its from my 1st ever post here but fits well to this.


since 2011 when uc started making the tournament again here is the breakdown.

UC average seed 7 xu average seed 7 (goes up to 8 if you count the play in loss, but since they lost the play in, they didn't get in).


UC has made the 2nd round or better 4 times. xavier has made the 2nd round or better 4 times.


in the 2nd round UC played the 10, 24, 1, and 16th ranked kenpom teams. average of 13th best team.

in the 2nd round xu has played 79, 68, 38, 26. average of 53rd best team.



so i guess the data does show luck? no way!

Exactly. Had UC benefited from upsets to Kentucky and UCLA in recent first rounds they'd have a couple more sweet sixteen's too.

XU will get their coveted #1 seed this year unless they lose in the first round of the BE tourney.
As a #1 seed should be a romp to the SS as a #1 without needing luck or help from the stripes.

Fall short of the SS as a #1. Xposed.

What in the world is going on down in Coogtown?

Michigan beating the p!ss out of Purdue.

UH wins UConn loses


The path is good

UCF beats Tulane

The seeds are set

The path is good

No. 8 and 9 lost

UC should move to 8

(03-04-2018 06:44 PM)doss2 Wrote:  No. 8 and 9 lost

UC should move to 8

Kansas got drilled as well, but they’ll never drop below us.

(03-04-2018 06:46 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 06:44 PM)doss2 Wrote:  No. 8 and 9 lost

UC should move to 8

Kansas got drilled as well, but they’ll never drop below us.

which is a crock

KU and/or Duke....I wouldn't mind either one in the big dance at some point

(03-04-2018 02:23 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(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.

https://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankLuck

At some point, luck is bound to run out. You won't find elite company benefiting from so much of it.

(03-04-2018 09:25 PM)franzeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:23 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(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.

https://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankLuck

At some point, luck is bound to run out. You won't find elite company benefiting from so much of it.

Kind of blows the Xtrolls claim that luck didn't have anything to do with all of their close wins. Facts and stats don't lie.

Also, that luck number has nothing to do with how they won (which is even more lucky). It quantifies the degree to which their actual outcome beat the predicted result.

(03-04-2018 02:25 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  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.

My BIL is a born and bred UNC alum so i've watched a fair amount of unc. For the sake of world peace, proverbially, i am super diplomatic about their play but they don't scare me at all. That's not to say if uc and unc played we'd smoke them; but i agree about their D and their rebounding is poor. No box out. They rely on their athleticism.

i feel differently about Duke. They haven't been able to consistently put together two good halves of ball. They have been able to beat teams on sheer talent and athleticism and on occasion they'll put together a good game; but they have legit NBA talent on their roster. Set aside Grayson Allen, who is probably a second rounder at this point, they have Bagley III and Carter, the former being a top 3 player and the latter being a top 15-20 (i believe). i don't think we match up well with superior size so sparty, purdue and Duke are teams i want to avoid. i also want to avoid UVA because of their aggressive D and Nova.

(03-04-2018 09:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:25 PM)franzeal Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:23 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

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

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

https://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankLuck

At some point, luck is bound to run out. You won't find elite company benefiting from so much of it.

Kind of blows the Xtrolls claim that luck didn't have anything to do with all of their close wins. Facts and stats don't lie.

I don't agree with everything that Xpectations posts, but he is a truly good guy who loves all basketball teams -- he just has a favorite as do I. He is certainly one that I would not put in the "troll" category.

(03-04-2018 09:43 PM)eroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:25 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  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.

My BIL is a born and bred UNC alum so i've watched a fair amount of unc. For the sake of world peace, proverbially, i am super diplomatic about their play but they don't scare me at all. That's not to say if uc and unc played we'd smoke them; but i agree about their D and their rebounding is poor. No box out. They rely on their athleticism.

i feel differently about Duke. They haven't been able to consistently put together two good halves of ball. They have been able to beat teams on sheer talent and athleticism and on occasion they'll put together a good game; but they have legit NBA talent on their roster. Set aside Grayson Allen, who is probably a second rounder at this point, they have Bagley III and Carter, the former being a top 3 player and the latter being a top 15-20 (i believe). i don't think we match up well with superior size so sparty, purdue and Duke are teams i want to avoid. i also want to avoid UVA because of their aggressive D and Nova.

Duke is certainly a perplexing team, they have the talent to win it all however they could lose in the 1st Round which they did in 2012 as a 2 seed or in 2014 as a 3 seed. My Father is a Purdue alum so I watch them and they might have peaked too soon. Purdue was playing great from December until early February however they have leveled off. I agree with you on Sparty UVA, and Nova.