(02-10-2018 11:12 AM)nafstrops Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 03:54 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  UC's SOS is now projected to finish in the low to mid 50's. BFD

UC's OOC SOS currently sits at #112 which is still 80+ spots ahead of Texas Tech, 25+ spots ahead of Miami, 120+ spots ahead of Michigan State, and 75 spots or so ahead of West Virginia. Once again, BFD

Don't know where you are getting your ratings, but according to KenPom, Cincinnati has an OOC SOS of 297. West Virginia 287, the other two you mentioned are below Cincinnati.

RPI. You know...those pesky stats the Committee uses.

(02-10-2018 11:04 AM)Agust Wrote:  All this greatest team talk has me thinking how sweet it will be knowing that Houston already has a win against wsu greatest team ever and another one coming against cincys greatest team in 20+ years. (Should've been 2 if it weren't for the refs). definitely a team on the rise.

How sweet will it be when UC ends UH’s Tourney hopes?

31-2

(02-10-2018 11:00 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 10:43 AM)rosewater Wrote:  So, same as conference champion, 02 won the conference usa title where 13 lost to eventual Ncaa champion UConn, the one v. 5 seed does not carry weight since we lost in round 2. It was not like we had injuries or any excuse not to win. UCLA was as good as us that day. I think it is pretty insignificant for a number one seed to puff out their chest over wins not below the top 25 let alone the top 100.

The 02 was a pleasant surprise for me and a very fun season, but a bunch of good statistics against middling teams does not make that team better than the 13 team.

I can't take you seriously at this point. Meddling teams? They beat the crap out of the top 50 and top100. Their one seed resume looks like almost every one seed resume we've seen.

Ok, I assume you believe your opinion carries some basketball weight. If you go by straight RPI, we were not even in the top 4 that year. There was a Mariemont team in the 90s that ran up huge scores against a multitude of top 100 teams. The dirty little secret was that they could not do the same against top notch competition. The 02 team was similar. You and pay day can be in agreement about the greatness of the 02 team.

(02-10-2018 11:49 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 11:00 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 10:43 AM)rosewater Wrote:  So, same as conference champion, 02 won the conference usa title where 13 lost to eventual Ncaa champion UConn, the one v. 5 seed does not carry weight since we lost in round 2. It was not like we had injuries or any excuse not to win. UCLA was as good as us that day. I think it is pretty insignificant for a number one seed to puff out their chest over wins not below the top 25 let alone the top 100.

The 02 was a pleasant surprise for me and a very fun season, but a bunch of good statistics against middling teams does not make that team better than the 13 team.

I can't take you seriously at this point. Meddling teams? They beat the crap out of the top 50 and top100. Their one seed resume looks like almost every one seed resume we've seen.

Ok, I assume you believe your opinion carries some basketball weight. There was a Mariemont team in the 90s that ran up huge scores against a multitude of top 100 teams. The dirty little secret was that they could not do the same against top notch competition. The 02 team was similar. You and pay day can be in agreement about the greatness of the 02 team.

That’s just stupid, no one will take you seriously.

(02-10-2018 11:51 AM)payday Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 11:49 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 11:00 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 10:43 AM)rosewater Wrote:  So, same as conference champion, 02 won the conference usa title where 13 lost to eventual Ncaa champion UConn, the one v. 5 seed does not carry weight since we lost in round 2. It was not like we had injuries or any excuse not to win. UCLA was as good as us that day. I think it is pretty insignificant for a number one seed to puff out their chest over wins not below the top 25 let alone the top 100.

The 02 was a pleasant surprise for me and a very fun season, but a bunch of good statistics against middling teams does not make that team better than the 13 team.

I can't take you seriously at this point. Meddling teams? They beat the crap out of the top 50 and top100. Their one seed resume looks like almost every one seed resume we've seen.

Ok, I assume you believe your opinion carries some basketball weight. There was a Mariemont team in the 90s that ran up huge scores against a multitude of top 100 teams. The dirty little secret was that they could not do the same against top notch competition. The 02 team was similar. You and pay day can be in agreement about the greatness of the 02 team.

That’s just stupid, no one will take you seriously.

Ventured into a bubble watch thread and see that it's turned into Cincinnati history debate class.

Looks like nobody's fanbase is perfect after all.

A Hank Gathers led LM lost in the E8 to Title winner UNLV. The next year they lost regular season to Stanley Roberts and Shaquille O’Neil’s LSU during the regular season before he died before the NCAAs

In the words of Tom Cruise...it’s galactically stupid.

(02-10-2018 12:02 PM)payday Wrote:  A Hank Gathers led LM lost in the E8 to Title winner UNLV. The next year they lost regular season to Stanley Roberts and Shaquille O’Neil’s LSU during the regular season before he died before the NCAAs

In the words of Tom Cruise...it’s galactically stupid.

Who did they beat, you left that out.

(02-10-2018 12:08 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 12:02 PM)payday Wrote:  A Hank Gathers led LM lost in the E8 to Title winner UNLV. The next year they lost regular season to Stanley Roberts and Shaquille O’Neil’s LSU during the regular season before he died before the NCAAs

In the words of Tom Cruise...it’s galactically stupid.

Who did they beat, you left that out.

Everyone else.

(02-10-2018 11:49 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 11:00 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 10:43 AM)rosewater Wrote:  So, same as conference champion, 02 won the conference usa title where 13 lost to eventual Ncaa champion UConn, the one v. 5 seed does not carry weight since we lost in round 2. It was not like we had injuries or any excuse not to win. UCLA was as good as us that day. I think it is pretty insignificant for a number one seed to puff out their chest over wins not below the top 25 let alone the top 100.

The 02 was a pleasant surprise for me and a very fun season, but a bunch of good statistics against middling teams does not make that team better than the 13 team.

I can't take you seriously at this point. Meddling teams? They beat the crap out of the top 50 and top100. Their one seed resume looks like almost every one seed resume we've seen.

Ok, I assume you believe your opinion carries some basketball weight. If you go by straight RPI, we were not even in the top 4 that year. There was a Mariemont team in the 90s that ran up huge scores against a multitude of top 100 teams. The dirty little secret was that they could not do the same against top notch competition. The 02 team was similar. You and pay day can be in agreement about the greatness of the 02 team.

I would never go by straight RPI. RPI is a bad metric, but it's the one the committee always used for grouping wins so I used it. That UC team won 19 games against the kenpom top 100 as well (and again was 2nd overall in kenpom). Even with the UCLA loss they were 10-3 against the kenpom top 50. You're argument makes no sense. I'm giving you record against top competition... find me teams that did better than that... there may be 2 teams a year.

BTW that UCLA was a typically Steve Lavin team. Absolutely loaded with talent...capable of beating great teams, but losing inexplicable games. Multiple NBA players... UC was the fifth kenpom top 15 team UCLA beat that season. They also had wins over Kansas, USC, Arizona and Stanford. Both teams played well that night. I thought UC was the better team despite how well UCLA played, but a bank three from the corner, a lucky bounce late in the shot clock on a airball.. and a few other breaks kept UCLA in it and they pulled it out. Honestly, it was at one time the most disappointing UC loss for me because that team was National Championship caliber and played pretty well in defeat...and also the most frustrating because they played so well that game but a really talented, hit or miss UCLA team did as well. That one game doesn't change how great that team was all year.

There is nothing about that UC team that puts them anywhere in the ballpark of that SK team you are talking about except your weird, unsubstantiated opinion.

(02-10-2018 01:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW that UCLA was a typically Steve Lavin team. Absolutely loaded with talent...capable of beating great teams, but losing inexplicable games. Multiple NBA players... UC was the fifth kenpom top 15 team UCLA beat that season. They also had wins over Kansas, USC, Arizona and Stanford. Both teams played well that night. I thought UC was the better team despite how well UCLA played, but a bank three from the corner, a lucky bounce late in the shot clock on a airball.. and a few other breaks kept UCLA in it and they pulled it out. Honestly, it was at one time the most disappointing UC loss for me because that team was National Championship caliber and played pretty well in defeat...and also the most frustrating because they played so well that game but a really talented, hit or miss UCLA team did as well. That one game doesn't change how great that team was all year.

There is nothing about that UC team that puts them anywhere in the ballpark of that SK team you are talking about except your weird, unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought about listing our wins and their rpi rank team by team but not seeing the utility of doing so. I liked the 02 team as much as any UC team, but I do not agree with your conclusions. I believe my opinion would be more nationally held. At any rate We will have to agree to disagree.

(02-10-2018 01:52 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW that UCLA was a typically Steve Lavin team. Absolutely loaded with talent...capable of beating great teams, but losing inexplicable games. Multiple NBA players... UC was the fifth kenpom top 15 team UCLA beat that season. They also had wins over Kansas, USC, Arizona and Stanford. Both teams played well that night. I thought UC was the better team despite how well UCLA played, but a bank three from the corner, a lucky bounce late in the shot clock on a airball.. and a few other breaks kept UCLA in it and they pulled it out. Honestly, it was at one time the most disappointing UC loss for me because that team was National Championship caliber and played pretty well in defeat...and also the most frustrating because they played so well that game but a really talented, hit or miss UCLA team did as well. That one game doesn't change how great that team was all year.

There is nothing about that UC team that puts them anywhere in the ballpark of that SK team you are talking about except your weird, unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought about listing our wins and their rpi rank team by team but not seeing the utility of doing so. I liked the 02 team as much as any UC team, but I do not agree with your conclusions. I believe my opinion would be more nationally held. At any rate We will have to agree to disagree.

They were a top 10 ten team for most the year, a top 5 team for other parts of the year and were one of the 5 teams talked about for the 4 number 1 seeds by almost everyone in the National media that year. Then nationally held opinion of that team was very high. The debate was that maybe Oklahoma should have been a 1 and UC should have been the top 2. Nobody even questioned them as a top 2 seed. You're literally just talking out of your ass at this point. Nobody would put them in the same stratosphere as the SK team.

Hearing UC fans readily admit that this year's team is one of their best in decades is shocking to me. There's a lot I could say, but I won't say it.


T


...

(02-10-2018 03:14 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  Hearing UC fans readily admit that this year's team is one of their best in decades is shocking to me. There's a lot I could say, but I won't say it.


T


...

I’m interested to see how far UC’s best team in decades will go in the tournament.

(02-10-2018 03:14 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  Hearing UC fans readily admit that this year's team is one of their best in decades is shocking to me. There's a lot I could say, but I won't say it.


T


...

Curious where you're going with this. UC's kenpom (4) and Sagarin (5) are both better than wichita's best season during their recent decade run as a "national power"

(02-10-2018 03:32 PM)Doglando Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 03:14 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  Hearing UC fans readily admit that this year's team is one of their best in decades is shocking to me. There's a lot I could say, but I won't say it.


T


...

Curious where you're going with this. UC's kenpom (4) and Sagarin (5) are both better than wichita's best season during their recent decade run as a "national power"

"Eye-Test"


T


...

Again, I can't wait for the Cincy - WSU matchup if for no other reason than to see a current National Power play the best Cincy team in decades. I pray that we play like our normal selves and that Cincy has a good game.


T


...

(02-10-2018 03:36 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 03:32 PM)Doglando Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 03:14 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  Hearing UC fans readily admit that this year's team is one of their best in decades is shocking to me. There's a lot I could say, but I won't say it.


T


...

Curious where you're going with this. UC's kenpom (4) and Sagarin (5) are both better than wichita's best season during their recent decade run as a "national power"

"Eye-Test"

Cross eyed