|
Post by sweep on Mar 26, 2019 14:34:58 GMT -6
Horrible? Compared to? This is not the B10. We are a mid major conference, and this year a very good one.
There are 6 conferences that are power conferences and the Mountain West and American have some big schools with significantly better commitment to basketball. We are next after that.
A better conference than 20+ other D1 conferences. Which mid major conference is better? How much?
Actually, the word he used was terrible not horrible but you've never been a stickler for quoting people accurately. Regardless, if the MAC was better than 20 other D-1 conferences then the metrics must be horseshit. If you want to take the time to analyze the "signature" wins by our league based on either name recognition, power 6 teams or highest-rated teams from other mid-majors I'd listen but using my own metric of watching our league opponents compared to previous seasons didn't demonstrate to me the MAC was anything other than one rare team and what we usually see in the league. As Calhoun noted, there were some truly horrible games I saw in January and February at Worthen. That was the norm and the caliber of athletes is equally just OK. A handful of guys who could get some minutes in the Big Ten and then everyone else. Someone will have to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Buffalo's tourney victory vs RPI #38 Arizona State is the MAC's highest ranked OOC win this season.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Mar 26, 2019 14:48:27 GMT -6
Actually, the word he used was terrible not horrible but you've never been a stickler for quoting people accurately. Reality check needed here.
The MAC was ''HORRIBLE'' this past season. Did you really watch ANY MAC games? Those were two different posts, but regardless I don't know that I'd agree the MAC was horrible or terrible. Just not anything special or the strongest ever as cited by our Coach. That is pure fantasy or bullshit as I like to put it.
|
|
|
Post by cbcjanney on Mar 26, 2019 15:28:24 GMT -6
It's hard to use the postseason as justification or not for the MAC's placement amongst non-power-conferences. (KenPom's rankings used below)
MAC #1 Buffalo beat Pac-12 #3 Arizona State handily but lost to Big 12 #1 handily. Agreed, the margin of defeat was very disappointing. MAC #2 Toledo lost on the road to a Big East team. No one denies the Big East is stronger than the MAC. MAC #5 Central Mich likewise lost on the road to a Big East team. Again, all recognize the Big East is stronger than the MAC. MAC #8 Kent State lost on the road to #4 Sun Belt team. Like Buffalo, a disappointing result considering Kent had several previous road wins vs similarly ranked opponents including Pac-12 #5, yet still not a game Kent was favored to win. If Kent as MAC #8 plays Sun Belt same #8 on a neutral court, Kent is a sizable favorite - tho of course no win guarantees.
All in all, the MAC won the one game it was favored in, and lost the 4 games it was the underdog. No other non-power-conference beat the MAC in the postseason with a similarly placed team. It wasn't like our #3 or #4 was losing to the OVC, Ivy, MVC, or Horizon's #5. And also, conferences like the Mountain West and A-10 who got 2 teams in the NCAA's (7th seeded Nevada, 8th seeded VCU, 8th seeded Utah St, and 13th seeded St.Louis) all lost rather resoundingly, 3 of the 4 being slight favorites - so not like the heavyweights from conferences below us really threw their weight around in the tournaments.
Others of the top 8 MAC schools opted not to participate in the lower postseason tournaments. The ones who did opt in did not pay the fees required to host a game.
Agreed the MAC eye-test wasn't always the prettiest, but depth-wise it's hard to argue where the MAC ended up ranked - with one elite team, a couple good teams, a lot of mediocre teams, but only one bad team. It's just that BSU has become used to having several terrible teams in the past to pad the W-L record.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Mar 26, 2019 16:03:07 GMT -6
I’d say anytime you beat Syracuse or West Va on their home court it’s a nice win for a mid major!
I’m curious Sweep....are you single or married?
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Mar 26, 2019 16:08:23 GMT -6
It's hard to use the postseason as justification or not for the MAC's placement amongst non-power-conferences. (KenPom's rankings used below) MAC #1 Buffalo beat Pac-12 #3 Arizona State handily but lost to Big 12 #1 handily. Agreed, the margin of defeat was very disappointing. MAC #2 Toledo lost on the road to a Big East team. No one denies the Big East is stronger than the MAC. MAC #5 Central Mich likewise lost on the road to a Big East team. Again, all recognize the Big East is stronger than the MAC. MAC #8 Kent State lost on the road to #4 Sun Belt team. Like Buffalo, a disappointing result considering Kent had several previous road wins vs similarly ranked opponents including Pac-12 #5, yet still not a game Kent was favored to win. If Kent as MAC #8 plays Sun Belt same #8 on a neutral court, Kent is a sizable favorite - tho of course no win guarantees. All in all, the MAC won the one game it was favored in, and lost the 4 games it was the underdog. No other non-power-conference beat the MAC in the postseason with a similarly placed team. It wasn't like our #3 or #4 was losing to the OVC, Ivy, MVC, or Horizon's #5. And also, conferences like the Mountain West and A-10 who got 2 teams in the NCAA's (7th seeded Nevada, 8th seeded VCU, 8th seeded Utah St, and 13th seeded St.Louis) all lost rather resoundingly, 3 of the 4 being slight favorites - so not like the heavyweights from conferences below us really threw their weight around in the tournaments. Others of the top 8 MAC schools opted not to participate in the lower postseason tournaments. The ones who did opt in did not pay the fees required to host a game. Agreed the MAC eye-test wasn't always the prettiest, but depth-wise it's hard to argue where the MAC ended up ranked - with one elite team, a couple good teams, a lot of mediocre teams, but only one bad team. It's just that BSU has become used to having several terrible teams in the past to pad the W-L record. This is good research and data, cbc. My only comment would be if the MAC is indeed as historically strong as trumpeted by our coach then I'd expect another win or two from KSU, CMU, BG or Kent despite the opponents you listed. I also would have expected some bigger signature wins in the non-con season. My only experential data is what I observed from a talent and execution standpoint by us and our league opponents as noted previously and I was not overly impressed nor did I notice any uptick compared to previous seasons. I agree that WMU was the crust of the crop but wow were there some ugly games and execution by us and several others. That doesn't scream "strongest ever" to me. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 26, 2019 16:18:43 GMT -6
I’d say anytime you beat Syracuse or West Va on their home court it’s a nice win for a mid major! I’m curious Sweep....are you single or married? Syracuse was a nice road win, but West Virginia flat-out sucked this year. Oh, by the way Ball State's RPI is currently 183 which is 58 spots worse than seasons-end last year. You might want to show that to your buddy Whitford when he starts spouting off about metrics.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 26, 2019 16:26:00 GMT -6
It's hard to use the postseason as justification or not for the MAC's placement amongst non-power-conferences. (KenPom's rankings used below) MAC #1 Buffalo beat Pac-12 #3 Arizona State handily but lost to Big 12 #1 handily. Agreed, the margin of defeat was very disappointing. MAC #2 Toledo lost on the road to a Big East team. No one denies the Big East is stronger than the MAC. MAC #5 Central Mich likewise lost on the road to a Big East team. Again, all recognize the Big East is stronger than the MAC. MAC #8 Kent State lost on the road to #4 Sun Belt team. Like Buffalo, a disappointing result considering Kent had several previous road wins vs similarly ranked opponents including Pac-12 #5, yet still not a game Kent was favored to win. If Kent as MAC #8 plays Sun Belt same #8 on a neutral court, Kent is a sizable favorite - tho of course no win guarantees. All in all, the MAC won the one game it was favored in, and lost the 4 games it was the underdog. No other non-power-conference beat the MAC in the postseason with a similarly placed team. It wasn't like our #3 or #4 was losing to the OVC, Ivy, MVC, or Horizon's #5. And also, conferences like the Mountain West and A-10 who got 2 teams in the NCAA's (7th seeded Nevada, 8th seeded VCU, 8th seeded Utah St, and 13th seeded St.Louis) all lost rather resoundingly, 3 of the 4 being slight favorites - so not like the heavyweights from conferences below us really threw their weight around in the tournaments. Others of the top 8 MAC schools opted not to participate in the lower postseason tournaments. The ones who did opt in did not pay the fees required to host a game. Agreed the MAC eye-test wasn't always the prettiest, but depth-wise it's hard to argue where the MAC ended up ranked - with one elite team, a couple good teams, a lot of mediocre teams, but only one bad team. It's just that BSU has become used to having several terrible teams in the past to pad the W-L record. This is good research and data, cbc. My only comment would be if the MAC is indeed as historically strong as trumpeted by our coach then I'd expect another win or two from KSU, CMU, BG or Kent despite the opponents you listed. I also would have expected some bigger signature wins in the non-con season. My only experential data is what I observed from a talent and execution standpoint by us and our league opponents as noted previously and I was not overly impressed nor did I notice any uptick compared to previous seasons. I agree that WMU was the crust of the crop but wow were there some ugly games and execution by us and several others. That doesn't scream "strongest ever" to me. Not even close. Toledo's best OOC win is Cal Irvine, and Bowling Green's is Wisconsin Green Bay. I have hard time calling either of those teams "good". This conference has a serious lack of quality wins.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Mar 27, 2019 6:16:18 GMT -6
Our signature win was beating Loyola in Chicago. They won the MVC regular season title, only to lose in their tournament championship game by two points to Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 27, 2019 14:57:28 GMT -6
Coach will have talent with newcomers but will have a challenge. He's done so well, extension or not, wonder if they can keep him. Not any more wondering about that. The new coach will have the challenge, plus the challenge of retaining his recruits. Would not be shocked to see JUCOs go with Oates to Alabama.
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Mar 28, 2019 10:20:58 GMT -6
Interesting that cbcjanney points to a number of MAC losses to PROVE the MAC is strong. Look at this conference for what it is...A nothing in eyes of most viewers. I understand you can't get the students to walk across the street to watch a game.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 28, 2019 14:39:24 GMT -6
Interesting that cbcjanney points to a number of MAC losses to PROVE the MAC is strong. Look at this conference for what it is...A nothing in eyes of most viewers. I understand you can't get the students to walk across the street to watch a game. That's not what he proved. What he proved was that analyzing the strength of the conference based only on post-season win/loss records is an inadequate way to answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Mar 28, 2019 21:53:52 GMT -6
That 20 point beat down Buffalo took at the hands of Texas Tech as Sweep called it doesn’t look so bad with Texas Tech up 24 over Michigan with 4 minutes to go.
As I said Tech is very tough and we could very well see them in the Final 4
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Mar 28, 2019 22:25:58 GMT -6
That 20 point beat down Buffalo took at the hands of Texas Tech as Sweep called it doesn’t look so bad with Texas Tech up 24 over Michigan with 4 minutes to go. As I said Tech is very tough and we could very well see them in the Final 4 Yes, I will admit after seeing the Texas Tech beat-down of Michigan it appears Buffalo got an unlucky draw facing Texas Tech in the second round.
|
|
|
Post by DanT on Mar 30, 2019 19:53:26 GMT -6
BSU had a good first half of the season. And their ranking at that time was consistent with the way we played. The second half of the season was quite a different story, And BSU was ranked at the end of the season where they should have been. But that ranking was much higher than most, if not all, 11th seeded MAC Tourney teams.
My conclusion: The MAC as a whole was better this year than most previous seasons. Not the best, but definately not "horrible" or "terrible"..
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 31, 2019 7:56:54 GMT -6
The nature of computer rankings is such that it takes them a while to catch up with a team that falls off a cliff like BSU did. One sign of this is when a team loses a series of games to teams ranked lower than them....which is exactly what BSU did. In fact, I don't think, for example, the KenPom rankings ever caught up with the magnitude of BSU's crash dive. You might think of BSU's final ranking as sort of an average between the early season and the classic Whitford "stretch run". You could say that's a reasonable portrayal of the totality of the season, but it overstates where they where at the end.
|
|