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

(03-05-2018 03:21 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  North Carolina is a top 8 kenpom team. They have wins over Arkansas, Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio State, Clemson, Duke and NC State... all of these teams are solidly in the tournament, 3-5 of them will be protected seeds. They have wins over Notre Dame (twice), Louisville, and Syracuse.... all of which are on the bubble. People love to count losses and think a team isn't good. When you play 20 games against NCAA tournament caliber teams, you're probably going to lose a few of them. I still wouldn't want to see them come tournament time. They are really good.

Lately, no they are not. Losing to NC State at home this year, is not good. Getting spanked by Va. Tech is not good. Notre Dame is 18-13. I don't care what their schedule was, shy of playing Villanova every game, that's not impressive. There's no way as a person(forgetting the metrics) you look at them in this moment, having lost twice this week and eeking by a crappy Syracuse squad the week prior, and say to yourself "out of all the teams available, this is one of the 8 or so who's going to win it all."
On what basis? I could understand Duke, but UNC? No. Sorry, their losses aren't one off flukes here and there. They play weak defense, when their shots don't fall against mediocre competition they lose and you expect me to believe they're going to win 6 in a row, with that level of competition? My ass cheeks.

(03-05-2018 03:40 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 03:21 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  North Carolina is a top 8 kenpom team. They have wins over Arkansas, Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio State, Clemson, Duke and NC State... all of these teams are solidly in the tournament, 3-5 of them will be protected seeds. They have wins over Notre Dame (twice), Louisville, and Syracuse.... all of which are on the bubble. People love to count losses and think a team isn't good. When you play 20 games against NCAA tournament caliber teams, you're probably going to lose a few of them. I still wouldn't want to see them come tournament time. They are really good.

Lately, no they are not. Losing to NC State at home this year, is not good. Getting spanked by Va. Tech is not good. Notre Dame is 18-13. I don't care what their schedule was, shy of playing Villanova every game, that's not impressive. There's no way as a person(forgetting the metrics) you look at them in this moment, having lost twice this week and eeking by a crappy Syracuse squad the week prior, and say to yourself "out of all the teams available, this is one of the 8 or so who's going to win it all."
On what basis? I could understand Duke, but UNC? No. Sorry, their losses aren't one off flukes here and there. They play weak defense, when their shots don't fall against mediocre competition they lose and you expect me to believe they're going to win 6 in a row, with that level of competition? My ass cheeks.

UNC is 11-9 against NCAA tournament caliber competition (at large or bubble teams one way or the other).

UC is 5-4 against the same type of competition (again using the same criteria and even including Buffalo in that group). When you play more games against better teams you lose more games. This isn't rocket science.

Fans love to just tally losses, but based on overall body of work UNC is absolutely a top 8-12 team. Them as a 2 seed would be completely justified a little knock down to a 3 seed would be fine too.

(03-05-2018 03:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 03:40 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 03:21 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  North Carolina is a top 8 kenpom team. They have wins over Arkansas, Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio State, Clemson, Duke and NC State... all of these teams are solidly in the tournament, 3-5 of them will be protected seeds. They have wins over Notre Dame (twice), Louisville, and Syracuse.... all of which are on the bubble. People love to count losses and think a team isn't good. When you play 20 games against NCAA tournament caliber teams, you're probably going to lose a few of them. I still wouldn't want to see them come tournament time. They are really good.

Lately, no they are not. Losing to NC State at home this year, is not good. Getting spanked by Va. Tech is not good. Notre Dame is 18-13. I don't care what their schedule was, shy of playing Villanova every game, that's not impressive. There's no way as a person(forgetting the metrics) you look at them in this moment, having lost twice this week and eeking by a crappy Syracuse squad the week prior, and say to yourself "out of all the teams available, this is one of the 8 or so who's going to win it all."
On what basis? I could understand Duke, but UNC? No. Sorry, their losses aren't one off flukes here and there. They play weak defense, when their shots don't fall against mediocre competition they lose and you expect me to believe they're going to win 6 in a row, with that level of competition? My ass cheeks.

UNC is 11-9 against NCAA tournament caliber competition (at large or bubble teams one way or the other).

UC is 5-4 against the same type of competition (again using the same criteria and even including Buffalo in that group). When you play more games against better teams you lose more games. This isn't rocket science.

Fans love to just tally losses, but based on overall body of work UNC is absolutely a top 8-12 team. Them as a 2 seed would be completely justified a little knock down to a 3 seed would be fine too.

Thank you Mark for bringing sense to this conversation. I hear people griping aboout some of these teams with 8,9, 10 losses, but don't realize every game they are playing would be like us having to play Wichita, Houston, and Xavier every game. I live these Bearcats, but do people really think we would have only 4 losses with UNC's schedule.

Michigan seems a bit high

(03-05-2018 04:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Michigan seems a bit high

I think the best 5 teams are Virginia, Villanova, Duke, Michigan State and Cincinnati with the first 3 being above the rest (though if Nova is not at 100% I'm less high on them).

Among the large group of teams behind them I think I like Michigan the best. They've been climbing and climbing in all the predictive metrics the last month, which means they are playing their best basketball now. Beilein teams seem to always be great in the tournament. With the right draw I'm probably going to have Michigan going far.

(03-05-2018 03:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  UNC is 11-9 against NCAA tournament caliber competition (at large or bubble teams one way or the other).

Fans love to just tally losses, but based on overall body of work UNC is absolutely a top 8-12 team. Them as a 2 seed would be completely justified a little knock down to a 3 seed would be fine too.

The overall body doesn't matter. Would you rate a team that lost players left and right to injury by their overall body of work?
What about a team that's playing worse in the last half of their schedule, as opposed to their first half? People aren't usually capable of putting up an equal performance at anything all the time and to pretend that college basketball teams don't get better or worse by the end of a season is retarded. UCF right now is not where they were, SMU right now is not where they were, UNC right not is not where they were. UC is not where we once were.

UNC beat the crap out of Michigan back in November or December, yet they can barely beat Syracuse now. Michigan just knocked off a Michigan State team that seal clubbed UNC back in at the end of November. If I went by your logic, that shouldn't be possible. Do you think we played Xavier as well as we played Wichita State or that our team as a whole was as good then as it is now?
No. Of course not. If you can't be trusted to beat NC State, why are you so trust worthy to beat the entire field? I'm sorry, but they're not that good right now. The box-scores don't lie.

Yet that article says they're one of the teams that can win it all. Don't you think they should at least have to be a little better than 5th in their own conference first?

As far as tournament competition goes, don't you think thee 16 seeds are maybe a little worse than the 1's? How much room is there between Radford and Virginia?
Sorry, but that's not really a qualitative statement. Lots of teams are tournament caliber that aren't good either. You're implying there exists some plateau and only the best 68 teams get in and that they're all basically equal. I don't think that's even remotely true.

(03-05-2018 04:50 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 03:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  UNC is 11-9 against NCAA tournament caliber competition (at large or bubble teams one way or the other).

Fans love to just tally losses, but based on overall body of work UNC is absolutely a top 8-12 team. Them as a 2 seed would be completely justified a little knock down to a 3 seed would be fine too.

The overall body doesn't matter. Would you rate a team that lost players left and right to injury by their overall body of work?
What about a team that's playing worse in the last half of their schedule, as opposed to their first half? People aren't usually capable of putting up an equal performance at anything all the time and to pretend that college basketball teams don't get better or worse by the end of a season is retarded. UCF right now is not where they were, SMU right now is not where they were, UNC right not is not where they were. UC is not where we once were.

UNC beat the crap out of Michigan back in November or December, yet they can barely beat Syracuse now. Michigan just knocked off a Michigan State team that seal clubbed UNC back in at the end of November. If I went by your logic, that shouldn't be possible. Do you think we played Xavier as well as we played Wichita State or that our team as a whole was as good then as it is now?
No. Of course not. If you can't be trusted to beat NC State, why are you so trust worthy to beat the entire field? I'm sorry, but they're not that good right now. The box-scores don't lie.

Yet that article says they're one of the teams that can win it all. Don't you think they should at least have to be a little better than 5th in their own conference first?

As far as tournament competition goes, don't you think thee 16 seeds are maybe a little worse than the 1's? How much room is there between Radford and Virginia?
Sorry, but that's not really a qualitative statement. Lots of teams are tournament caliber that aren't good either. You're implying there exists some plateau and only the best 68 teams get in and that they're all basically equal. I don't think that's even remotely true.

I wasn't implying any such thing. I was using that as a mechanism for illustrating the truth... UNC played a ton of games against Big time competition and they won a decent percentage of them. UC played less games, and won at a fairly similar rate.

You want to further divide it?

UNC is 5-4 against protected seed type teams. Cincinnati is 2-3 (2-4 if you include Florida). These aren't the only way you group teams. I think Cincinnati is better than UNC. I think their lack of slip ups against teams outside the kenpom top 25 is big and shows their consistency. UNC played the best scheduule in the country according to kenpom. You have an off night against a team as good as NC State and you lose. UC has a bad defensive night against Tulsa they can still win or a bad game at Temple. Just counting losses is a bad way to evaluate a team. UNC has some flaws, but they've been a top 8-12 team all year. When you play a large amount of good to really good to great teams, you will tally more losses.

(03-05-2018 04:30 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 04:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Michigan seems a bit high

I think the best 5 teams are Virginia, Villanova, Duke, Michigan State and Cincinnati with the first 3 being above the rest (though if Nova is not at 100% I'm less high on them).

Among the large group of teams behind them I think I like Michigan the best. They've been climbing and climbing in all the predictive metrics the last month, which means they are playing their best basketball now. Beilein teams seem to always be great in the tournament. With the right draw I'm probably going to have Michigan going far.

Big change for Michigan this year is Defense (Kenpom #6 AdjD) with Luke Yaklich from Illinois St. being the best offseason assistant hire Beilein made. When Michigan is draining 3s like they can from all 5 positions, they can beat anybody. I think Michigan is a slightly better version of Xavier because of the improved defense. Since they started keeping Duncan Robinson near the rim and using a defense not having him guard more athletic wings near the 3 point line, Robinson is back to getting starters minutes the last month.

Quote:Yaklich’s interview process and the new assistant coach shared his primary philosophy on defense: “Contest every shot with every fiber of your being”.

Yaklich stressed simplicity in his message, noting that “if you emphasize seven or eight things, you emphasize nothing,” and said the most important element of his job is getting buy in from players on defense.

“We want to keep the ball in front,” Yaklich said. “You better be good at guarding the pick and roll. The key thing in my estimation that we really did a great job of teaching (at Illinois State) and – you can’t emphasize everything – for us it is going to be contesting shots. You have to make them miss not hope they miss.”

Evaluating last year’s Illinois State defense, a group that Yaklich called “string beans with a lot of length”, he focused on again on the ability to contest.

“We were a great help defensive team,” Yaklich said of the Illinois State defense which ranked 19th nationally in adjusted defensive efficiency.

Yaklich, according to Beilein, has been “extremely well-organized” and has brought many new ideas — which he sends in a long email to Beilein “almost every night.”

https://umhoops.com/2017/08/22/notebook-...ann-arbor/

(03-05-2018 05:04 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You want to further divide it?

UNC is 5-4 against protected seed type teams. Cincinnati is 2-3 (2-4 if you include Florida). These aren't the only way you group teams. I think Cincinnati is better than UNC. I think their lack of slip ups against teams outside the kenpom top 25 is big and shows their consistency. UNC played the best scheduule in the country according to kenpom. You have an off night against a team as good as NC State and you lose. UC has a bad defensive night against Tulsa they can still win or a bad game at Temple. Just counting losses is a bad way to evaluate a team. UNC has some flaws, but they've been a top 8-12 team all year. When you play a large amount of good to really good to great teams, you will tally more losses.

If we were talking seeding, I'd understand the sentiment. We're not though. Do you look at their work the past couple of weeks and see a team that could not only advance to the second weekend, but one that can win it all? If so, what's that faith based on? You can't use an argument about opponents in November/December to reflect a team's merits in March imo.

(03-05-2018 05:22 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 05:04 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You want to further divide it?

UNC is 5-4 against protected seed type teams. Cincinnati is 2-3 (2-4 if you include Florida). These aren't the only way you group teams. I think Cincinnati is better than UNC. I think their lack of slip ups against teams outside the kenpom top 25 is big and shows their consistency. UNC played the best scheduule in the country according to kenpom. You have an off night against a team as good as NC State and you lose. UC has a bad defensive night against Tulsa they can still win or a bad game at Temple. Just counting losses is a bad way to evaluate a team. UNC has some flaws, but they've been a top 8-12 team all year. When you play a large amount of good to really good to great teams, you will tally more losses.

If we were talking seeding, I'd understand the sentiment. We're not though. Do you look at their work the past couple of weeks and see a team that could not only advance to the second weekend, but one that can win it all? If so, what's the faith based on? You can't use an argument about opponents in November/December to reflect a team's merits in March imo.

Yes I can use that as an argument. Historically, a small sample of recent games do not equate to success in the tournament. One of the reasons the committee went away from looking at your last 10 games is there was no statistical correlation between how you played recently and how you do in the tournament... the total body of work is still a better predictor of tournament success.

A good anecdotal example is Syracuse in 2006... won 5 games in 5 days, beating really great teams to win the Big East... then promptly lost as a 5 seed in the first round. BTW, Syracuse had been a bubble type team all year... those recent games probably weren't quite as good an indicator of what they actually were.

Before UNC's two recent losses (one of which was at freaking Cameron Indoor), they won 6 straight games, 5 of which were against top 51 kenpom teams. So your premise that UNC has been a bad team lately is faulty as well.

(03-05-2018 05:27 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Yes I can use that as an argument. Historically, a small sample of recent games do not equate to success in the tournament.

Okay, take the back half of their schedule, not so small. Does that look like a world beater resume to you? It doesn't to me.

Quote: One of the reasons the committee went away from looking at your last 10 games is there was no statistical correlation between how you played recently and how you do in the tournament...

Tell that to 9th place in the Big East UConn, who in 2011 tore through the entire big East tournament and then the big one as well.
I'm sorry, but the idea that teams neither progress or regress over the course of the season is entirely disconnected from reality.

Quote:A good anecdotal example is Syracuse in 2006... won 5 games in 5 days, beating really great teams to win the Big East... then promptly lost as a 5 seed in the first round. BTW, Syracuse had been a bubble type team all year... those recent games probably weren't quite as good an indicator of what they actually were.

No such thing as good anecdotal evidence, but given that I just used one...

Quote:Before UNC's two recent losses (one of which was at freaking Cameron Indoor), they won 6 straight games, 5 of which were against top 51 kenpom teams. So your premise that UNC has been a bad team lately is faulty as well.

Those 6 wins came against crap. All wins aren't created equal. Notre Dame, NC State, Syracuse last place Pittsburgh who is 0-18 in conference isn't something I'd use to justify this team as being a National Championship contender. They had two good teams in front of them and they lost. And what about the 3 games they lost before they beat the mediocre 6?

Again, the back half of their schedule does not warrant that kind of praise IMO.

(03-05-2018 02:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  One went 7-8 in their last 15 games after playing a lot crappier OOC schedule than we did and they have still been in the top 20 every week.

Are you talking about the team coached by the guy whose suit makes him look like a 300 lb jar of mustard?

(03-05-2018 08:45 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 02:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  One went 7-8 in their last 15 games after playing a lot crappier OOC schedule than we did and they have still been in the top 20 every week.

Are you talking about the team coached by the guy whose suit makes him look like a 300 lb jar of mustard?

Let's see if the ice dancer is standing after the 1st weekend along with the jar of mustard, and anorexic uncle Festus, and we'll know which regular season schedule provided better preparation for the tournament.

(03-05-2018 09:01 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:45 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 02:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  One went 7-8 in their last 15 games after playing a lot crappier OOC schedule than we did and they have still been in the top 20 every week.

Are you talking about the team coached by the guy whose suit makes him look like a 300 lb jar of mustard?

Let's see if the ice dancer is standing after the 1st weekend along with the jar of mustard, and anorexic uncle Festus, and we'll know which regular season schedule provided better preparation for the tournament.

either way, Col. Mustard and his team have no business being ranked. They really aren't that great.

Here is my issue with UNC. They lost to Wofford at home. Without a run to the ACC finals I can't see a team with 10 losses on the two seed line. I have them as a solid three seed but the number 1 schedule isn't enough to overcome what is likely at 10th loss in the ACC tournament.

People also forget that the committee tends to rank teams within a conference. I believe the committee has 1. UVA 2. Duke 3. UNC, which is how they also will be seeded in the NCAA tournament.

My question is IF XU loses to 'Nova a third time, do they still get a #1 seed? I think the committee is waiting to see how that shakes out in the BE tournament to see who gets the #1 seed. Maybe whoever goes furthest, gets the #1 seed? No way they give two #1's to the BE. (all subject to change based on happenings this week)

(03-06-2018 10:14 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  My question is IF XU loses to 'Nova a third time, do they still get a #1 seed? I think the committee is waiting to see how that shakes out in the BE tournament to see who gets the #1 seed. Maybe whoever goes furthest, gets the #1 seed? No way they give two #1's to the BE. I think one goes to Duke. (Obviously all subject to change based on happenings this week)

Is your 4th #1 seed UVA, though? In that case, the ACC gets 2 #1's; why can't the Big East? The BE is listed the second toughest conference according to the (flawed) Conf RPI.

Based on resumes, I think the #1's are set: UVA, X, Nova, Duke

(03-06-2018 10:14 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  My question is IF XU loses to 'Nova a third time, do they still get a #1 seed? I think the committee is waiting to see how that shakes out in the BE tournament to see who gets the #1 seed. Maybe whoever goes furthest, gets the #1 seed? No way they give two #1's to the BE. I think it will be Virginia, Duke, Auburn and BE winner. (all subject to change based on happenings this week)

I think XU and Nova will both be one seeds regardless of what happens everywhere else. People always think the committee cares about conferences, they don't. It's all about resume and I just don't think there will be 4 better resumes.

I think It's UVA, Nova and Xavier. I think Kansas and Duke are battling for the 4th one seed, Kansas has it unless Duke wins the ACC tourney and Kansas doesn't win the Big 12 tourney.... or Duke makes the finals and Kansas loses early.

(03-06-2018 10:14 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  My question is IF XU loses to 'Nova a third time, do they still get a #1 seed? I think the committee is waiting to see how that shakes out in the BE tournament to see who gets the #1 seed. Maybe whoever goes furthest, gets the #1 seed? No way they give two #1's to the BE. I think it will be Virginia, Duke, Auburn and BE winner. (all subject to change based on happenings this week)

Idk, the committee has tried very hard to make clear that they are looking at each resume on an individual basis, and not getting caught up in certain lines of thinking like "losing to Nova 3 times". If their resume qualifies them, they will get them in. I believe if X and Nova both reach the final they are in. I also believe UVA is the #1 overall locked. The 4th will go to either Kansas or Duke, if they win their tournaments. If both lose, it could get dicey, maybe Auburn if they win the SEC. Either way, I think X is all but a lock for a 1 right now.

(03-06-2018 10:20 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:14 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  My question is IF XU loses to 'Nova a third time, do they still get a #1 seed? I think the committee is waiting to see how that shakes out in the BE tournament to see who gets the #1 seed. Maybe whoever goes furthest, gets the #1 seed? No way they give two #1's to the BE. I think it will be Virginia, Duke, Auburn and BE winner. (all subject to change based on happenings this week)

I think XU and Nova will both be one seeds regardless of what happens everywhere else. People always think the committee cares about conferences, they don't. It's all about resume and I just don't think there will be 4 better resumes.

I think It's UVA, Nova and Xavier. I think Kansas and Duke are battling for the 4th one seed, Kansas has it unless Duke wins the ACC tourney and Kansas doesn't win the Big 12 tourney.... or Duke makes the finals and Kansas loses early.

Losing 3 times to the same team (and not winning their conf tourney) could be a big enough black mark on their resume. Kansas could sneak in there if they win their conf tournament. XU's KenPom ranking is the worst of the 1 AND 2 seed projectors. Kansas's rankings Pom/RPI/KPI records stack up just as well as XU's. Kansas' Q1 record looks better. If one wins their conf tourney and one doesn't, that could be the difference. If Duke wins the ACC they are a #1 lock stock and barrel.

XU 14/3/4 Q1 6-4
KU 9/5/3 Q1 11-3

P.S I don't know why, but I always forget that UVA is in the ACC. So I guess really it's not about if 2 teams from the same conf get a #1 as much as I don't think XU deserves one if they lose to Nova again. (or fail to reach the finals)