I agree with the Villanova sentiment. It seems like with the exception of a couple of years Villanova was always in the middle of the pack in the Big East while UC was in the conference. The Big East breaks up and Villanova kind of becomes "the best of the rest." Their only win over a really good team was Kansas at home early in the season. In fact, that's the only win over a team that finished the regular season in the top 25 that Villanova has I think. Chris Mack can talk all he wants about how tough the new Big East was, but when Providence and St John's are tied for 3rd it's not that great of a conference. There may be a lot of parity, but that shouldn't be confused with how good a conference is.
Bracketology Thread
- Thread starter Bearcat_NTS
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
WAITE HOYT 2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 8,404
the new Big East is a decent league but if Mack is implying they are just as tough as the old he needs his head examined. No way you replace UC,Pitt,UCONN,Louisville,Syracuse and not take a hit competitively.
I would like to play MSU in the 2nd round as much as I would like herpes. I'm sorry but MSU hasn't had their core players together for a majority of the season. Now that they are all back and healthy they could easily win the whole thing. The good thing is that MSU will most certainly be higher than a 5 seed if/when they beat a highly ranked opponent in the Big10 touney.
Payne would be a NIGHTMARE match up for UC. 6-10/245 who shoots 42% from 3 and 73% from the line...not sure how you contain someone like that.
Last edited:
By being Sean Kilpatrick?
I don't agree with this at all if we're looking at individual teams. I've seen a lot of MSU and they have still looked pretty terrible since they got people back. Every time each guy came back that was supposed to be the answer and none of it has been. They're a good collection of talent I guess, but I don't think they're much different than Kentucky this season personally. Granted, Izzo is a hell of a coach, but I am not overly concerned about them.
I have a lot more problem with some of the potential matchups in the 2-3 S16 matchups. Syracuse, Duke, Kansas and even Michigan with their shooters would be tough for us because they score a ton without really needing to get in the paint.
Possible bubble implications tonight in the West Coast Conference championship between Gonzaga & BYU. The Zags are most likely in even with a loss (bracket matrix 9 seed). A BYU (bracket matrix 2nd of the 11 seeds) loss could cause a ripple effect among the last at large bids allocated to the 11 & 12 seeds.
UCalum08
Well-known member
What I think is crazy is the difference in current rankings right now between UL and UC. We are co champs with them.
UC- RPI-13 SOS-69 Top 25 W/L- 1-2 26-50 W/L-6-3
UL-RPI-24 SOS-93 Top 25 W/L-1-3 26-50 W/L-5-2
We also have way more top 25 wins than UL, by like 3 or 4. Its crazy that they are ranked 5 while we sit at 13.
It seems like on bracketology UL is getting a more favourable draw too. IMO we should be seeded better than UL based off numbers. But I'm not seeing it so far.
UC- RPI-13 SOS-69 Top 25 W/L- 1-2 26-50 W/L-6-3
UL-RPI-24 SOS-93 Top 25 W/L-1-3 26-50 W/L-5-2
We also have way more top 25 wins than UL, by like 3 or 4. Its crazy that they are ranked 5 while we sit at 13.
It seems like on bracketology UL is getting a more favourable draw too. IMO we should be seeded better than UL based off numbers. But I'm not seeing it so far.
I think the ranking disparity reflects the Cat's recent losses and l'ville's winning streak. I think B-Cat Jeff describes the rankings pretty well as a snap shot in time versus the whole season.
I guarantee the #1 priority would be to have Payne play outside more than he usually does in order to get jackson/rubles out of the paint...so tell me who would protect the rim?? I'm sorry but I don't think MSU in March should be on the wish list of anyone. I'd much rather play Cuse as they seem to have an even harder time scoring at times than we do.
By the way, does this board ever do bracket pools? Would be a great conversation topic.
UCalum08
Well-known member
I agree and realize that. But I guess my question is, since we have better numbers than UL across the board will get the better seeding than UL? I think we should but I am not sure it is going to happen.
In the most recent bracket matrix The Cats average out as 2nd of the 4 seeds and l'ville as the 3rd of the 4 seeds. It looks like the AAC tourney could give one a bump over the other. I do see your point though and whiny pitino always seems to get his way.
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
UCalum08
Well-known member
He sure does. Its def frustrating especially when the numbers don't lie. For once I would like a favourable draw in the NCAA lol. Can't think of the last time we had one.
bearcat jeff
Hoops Moderator
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 7,502
The Atlantic 10 projected to get 6 in....WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#BearcatNation
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,120
At least the bracket matrix gets it. But I see UCalum's point; why are they ranked so much higher than us in both polls? Clearly they severely factor in how much you beat opponents by, because that's the only thing I see.
Bearcat_NTS
Well-known member
I think the seeding threshold is between 2 and 4... If Cincinnati wins the conference tournament by beating Memphis/UConn and Louisville they have an opportunity to grab the last 2 seed. If they make the final, I think they'll move up to a 3 seed (over either San Diego State or Iowa State). If they lose in the quarters, they'll be a solid 4 seed and if they lose to Temple/UCF Cincinnati will hang on to the last 4...
UCalum08
Well-known member
Yeah but the numbers say differ. We are like 5-2 against teams that were ranked and UL is like 2-5. Not to mention all our tourney #/stats are better. I won't beat a dead horse but I dont think its right lol.
Not Guilty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 628
Depends on what numbers you use. The numbers you cite are why we are slightly ahead of them in pretty much every bracketology s-curve available right now.
But metrics strongly suggest that Louisville is better. And those are far more predictive than simple win/loss record against different levels of competition.
bearcat jeff
Hoops Moderator
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 7,502
"But metrics strongly suggest that Louisville is better. And those are far more predictive than simple win/loss record against different levels of competition. "
It doesn't get much more "predictive" than bottom line results. I will say until I die that metrics are good but they fail to take into account intangibles that win games. Yes they are a good indicator but the old adage "that's why they play the games" always has value. Numbers can be padded and inflated. Hustle and heart can't be measured. Case in point is the second UC/UL game. If I told you UC would shoot 28%, commit 13 turnovers, have only 8 assists and give up 40% shooting you would tell me UC was blown out. But Cincinnati out rebounded them by 8 and outscored them at the foul line by 9 and lost on a rainbow shot with 2 seconds left. Games are won and lost on the court and numbers tell a story but not the whole story.
Umm...sagarin predictor, kpom, and inpredictable (betting market regressed) are actually a lot better predictors of future results than "bottom line results" aka won/loss record (e.g. actual results).
Also those intangibles you referenced in UC/ville game sounded pretty tangible to me.