(07-16-2019 09:28 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:08 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:38 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

I would hope so. I think most would agree that over the years we haven’t got the greatest seeds. 83 and 84 Tournaments were we’re seeded to play Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team in S16. Two definite F4 contenders. So counting the LSU screw job in 86 l, we might have gone to 4 straight F4s with decent seeds in those years.

And then you have the Cal years when we lost to UCLA only 100 or so miles from their arena. And playing Texas in Texas in ‘08. A&M in Houston. I could go on but I think I’ve made a strong case that the Blue Bloods got the good seeds and even though we were as good if not better most years from 81-86, we were not seeded anywhere close to real.

Texas A&M is a basketball blue blood?

Wow, thanks I learned something today.....

(07-18-2019 12:28 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:28 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:08 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:38 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

I would hope so. I think most would agree that over the years we haven’t got the greatest seeds. 83 and 84 Tournaments were we’re seeded to play Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team in S16. Two definite F4 contenders. So counting the LSU screw job in 86 l, we might have gone to 4 straight F4s with decent seeds in those years.

And then you have the Cal years when we lost to UCLA only 100 or so miles from their arena. And playing Texas in Texas in ‘08. A&M in Houston. I could go on but I think I’ve made a strong case that the Blue Bloods got the good seeds and even though we were as good if not better most years from 81-86, we were not seeded anywhere close to real.

Texas A&M is a basketball blue blood?

Wow, thanks I learned something today.....

A&M is not a blue blood. They got a bad seed having to play Memphis ANYWHERE.

(07-15-2019 05:39 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 04:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I don't believe the point is that we're going to be a greatly experienced team. We're not.

The point is that we return as much experience as most of the UK or Duke teams that pulled in #1 classes. And if those UK or Duke teams weren't "penalized" in preseason rankings for lack of experience, why should we expect to be? The last 10 years of #1 classes:

2010-11 UK AP preseason #11 returned 41 mpg, 12 pts, 6 rebs
2011-12 UK AP pre #2 returned 91 mpg, 39 pts, 15 rebs
2012-13 UK AP pre #3 returned 14 mpg, 5 pts, 2 rebs
2013-14 UK AP pre #1 returned 49 mpg, 20 pts, 12 rebs
2014-15 Duke AP pre #4 returned 90 mpg, 31 pts, 13 rebs
2015-16 UK AP pre #2 returned 59 mpg, 15 pts, 9 rebs
2016-17 Duke AP pre #1 returned 103 mpg, 46 pts, 13 rebs
2017-18 Duke AP pre #1 returned 43 mpg, 18 pts, 7 rebs
2018-19 Duke AP pre #4 returned 42 mpg, 11 pts, 11 rebs
2019-20 Memphis AP pre ?? returns 59 mpg, 22 pts, 8 rebs

So as far as pure experience goes, we return as much or more than 6 of the last 9 Duke and UK #1 classes. And other than the 2010-11 preseason UK ranking, all the other years had the #1 class moving their program inside the top 4.

Now, you might argue that their returning benches had higher level talent (experienced or not). Or you might argue that Penny is not a coach at their level (this is the bias I believe is at play, though none will say it). But you can't just argue "lack of experience".

pts/rebounds per game is not the same thing as experience.

That's why I also included minutes - which is absolutely, positively experience. MPG, PPG, RPG combined give a good frame of experience.

(07-16-2019 01:41 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:12 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 04:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I don't believe the point is that we're going to be a greatly experienced team. We're not.

The point is that we return as much experience as most of the UK or Duke teams that pulled in #1 classes. And if those UK or Duke teams weren't "penalized" in preseason rankings for lack of experience, why should we expect to be? The last 10 years of #1 classes:

2010-11 UK AP preseason #11 returned 41 mpg, 12 pts, 6 rebs
2011-12 UK AP pre #2 returned 91 mpg, 39 pts, 15 rebs
2012-13 UK AP pre #3 returned 14 mpg, 5 pts, 2 rebs
2013-14 UK AP pre #1 returned 49 mpg, 20 pts, 12 rebs
2014-15 Duke AP pre #4 returned 90 mpg, 31 pts, 13 rebs
2015-16 UK AP pre #2 returned 59 mpg, 15 pts, 9 rebs
2016-17 Duke AP pre #1 returned 103 mpg, 46 pts, 13 rebs
2017-18 Duke AP pre #1 returned 43 mpg, 18 pts, 7 rebs
2018-19 Duke AP pre #4 returned 42 mpg, 11 pts, 11 rebs
2019-20 Memphis AP pre ?? returns 59 mpg, 22 pts, 8 rebs

So as far as pure experience goes, we return as much or more than 6 of the last 9 Duke and UK #1 classes. And other than the 2010-11 preseason UK ranking, all the other years had the #1 class moving their program inside the top 4.

Now, you might argue that their returning benches had higher level talent (experienced or not). Or you might argue that Penny is not a coach at their level (this is the bias I believe is at play, though none will say it). But you can't just argue "lack of experience".

Great research! Katz’s remark was “severe” inexperience. I suspect he didn’t say anything close to that when Ky returned 5 ppg and Duke 11 ppg (or just pick a year).

That Kentucky team that returned 5 points ended up in the NIT.

Well, we're talking pre-season rankings - not where they ended up. They were #3 preseason.

Besides, they also had their #1 guy Noel suffer a season-ender, after which they went 4-5 to close out the season.