Villanova number one in the AP.

[Alsacs]

I can't tell you if any school is the best program in college basketball based on the eye test or resume. I would probably not put Villanova number 1 because it lost to Oklahoma and Virginia. But Oklahoma and Virginia have lost a few more games against just decent schools that Villanova has beat.

In terms of #1 -- I would go with Oklahoma as the #1 overall seed right now. After that it's a pure pick'em for the next 3 seeds. Also remember that the College Football Committee relies on power rankings as well. And rankings such as KP, have Villanova #1.

The reason they have Villanova #1 in power rankings is that they not played a bunch of nobodies. The Big East is a respectable and very strong conference.

The resume test is pretty much a wash for anybody in the top 10 right now. I agree the eye test is not that strong for Nova for me either -- bring em on.

But if the voting was done in a CFB type setting right now, why couldn't Nova be a #1 seed right now? I think the 1 and 2 line could be picked out of a hat, except for Oklahoma.

CFB committee put Clemson first on their first rankings and it took a few more weeks before the Coaches/AP poll did the same thing.

CFB committee looked at resumes they weren't beholden to the AP/Coaches polls at all. They gave Iowa more respect first as well.

AP/Coaches poll subscribe to slot polling. Meaning you lose you go down and you win go up. The CFB committee didn't subscribe to this method. They used resumes and who you beat to slot you. Just because you won games didn't mean you went up or stayed in your slot. Notre Dame fell 2 spots for winning a game barely. Same thing happened to other teams like Ohio State etc.

I don't care if one team has 5 losses and the other team has 3 losses. To me it matters whom you have beaten, where you played them, and how good you look.

If I were doing doing an S-Curve here is my top 12
1. Oklahoma
2. Iowa
3. Kansas
4. Xavier
5. Maryland
6. Virginia
7. Villanova
8. North Carolina
9. Michigan State
10. West Virginia
11. Oregon
12. Texas A&M

I just don't think beating Xavier at home, splitting with PC and bunch mid-level P5 teams is that impressive.

 

[Alsacs]

I think our familiarity with them (and success in those last 2 games) might be a factor in us selling them short. I am just as guilty, seeing a top 10 in front of a school, and thinking we should be afraid of them. But maybe if we played some of those other schools in recent year we would think of them the same,

Just a thought -- although, I would rather we just get Nova as the 1 or 2 in the group of 8, and not test the theory.

I just want to make the tournament at this point. I am just saying us getting them in our pod would be like a World Cup Draw where you get the weak seeded team. They are still the seeded team but the not the scary one.

 

[jncuse]

Boy they sure did get a lot better since realignment. I wonder what Wright's secret is.

In the 6 year period between 2006-2011, Villanova reached the AP top 10 in 4 of those years. Twice they reached #2

I suspect Wright's secret now is the same as it was then.

 

[jncuse]

Nothing personal towards you at all, but I just hate the phrase "the eye test" that you always hear on ESPN. All the eye test means is that someone has an opinion that they can't back up using facts.

To be fair to Alsacs, while I don't agree with his interpretation at times, he is one of the best here in term of using facts to support his assessment. He is not usually an eye test guy

 

[Eric15]

To be fair to Alsacs, while I don't agree with his interpretation at times, he is one of the best here in term of using facts to support his assessment. He is not usually an eye test guy

Agreed, that's why I made it clear I wasn't criticizing him, just that I don't care for the term itself.

 

[HOFCeluck]

In the 6 year period between 2006-2011, Villanova reached the AP top 10 in 4 of those years. Twice they reached #2

I suspect Wright's secret now is the same as it was then.

Using 2006-2011 seems arbitrary given the last year of the Big East was 2013. But using that sample size, they made it to the Sweet 16 (2008), Elite 8 (2006) and Final Four (2009). They haven't come close to that kind of success since.

 

[Orangemen]

What ever become of facts to support some of these claims?

The Big East is 26-17 (60% or 58% Rutgers Adjusted) against fellow P5 schools this year. That is pretty damn good -- not just some mid major. It means it is a major player and in the top half of major conferences. They were also 5-4 against the ACC this year. They proved themselves.

Is it re-alignment that allowed these schools to do well against schools from other power conferences?
Did the WCC ever accomplish anything close to this?
Did the WCC ever have 60% of it's members in the top 50 in KenPom rating?
Or is the eye-test that this conference sucks worth more than a 26-17 record?

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the numbers. You have great posts with good info, and numbers are important, but there is more than numbers to sports.

I don't think a single big east team will get to a regional final. Maybe I'm wrong, you've probably got numbers that show I am. I don't care. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 or 3 acc teams in a regional final. Again, I don't give a sh$t what the number say.

I think the big east has become like the wcc because nova had something like a 22 game win streak in their conference (please feel free to correct the number, I know you want to). To me that is like gonzaga lording over the wcc. And technically, I called them a rich mans wcc, you need to take that into account for your numbers (though I'll admit I'm not sure how the percentage points get adjusted by adding the qualifier rich mans, but I'm guessing you do).

My opinion is that the big east is over rated and has been since realignment. Do the numbers bear that out? I don't care.

 

[jncuse]

Sure did. Nova got annual losses to Syracuse, Louisville, UConn off their schedule. They are vastly over-rated/over-seeded every year now. What happens when they hit the NCAAT? Ouch happens.

You know who else was notoriously bad for crapping the bed in the NCAA tournament in the Big East glory years before the 2013 final split? The Big East conference.

There was always usually one team each year that would reach the final 4. and partially save face from the "overrated" jeers that would come after the first weekend. But in general if you wanted to compare Big East seeds to performance for the last 10 years it was not good. Granted Pitt. Georgetown and Notre Dame bear much of the blame for this.

 

[pearl31]

Agreed, that's why I made it clear I wasn't criticizing him, just that I don't care for the term itself.

and I can take a glance at kenpom, see Wich St at #16 and Valpo at #23, and realize something's not quite right...

 

[Eric15]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the numbers. You have great posts with good info, and numbers are important, but there is more than numbers to sports.

I don't think a single big east team will get to a regional final. Maybe I'm wrong, you've probably got numbers that show I am. I don't care. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 or 3 acc teams in a regional final. Again, I don't give a sh$t what the number say.

I think the big east has become like the wcc because nova had something like a 22 game win streak in their conference (please feel free to correct the number, I know you want to). To me that is like gonzaga lording over the wcc. And technically, I called them a rich mans wcc, you need to take that into account for your numbers (though I'll admit I'm not sure how the percentage points get adjusted by adding the qualifier rich mans, but I'm guessing you do).

My opinion is that the big east is over rated and has been since realignment. Do the numbers bear that out? I don't care.

One "I couldn't care less", two "I don't cares" and one "I don't give a ."

<Sending a hug your way>

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Boy they sure did get a lot better since realignment. I wonder what Wright's secret is.

Not having to play Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Notre Dame, etc...

 

[orange2win]

Sad to say, the ACC is sinking like the Titanic as the season goes. Just 4 teams left in the Top 25. Highest #7. Doesn't help our chances.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Sure did. Nova got annual losses to Syracuse, Louisville, UConn off their schedule. They are vastly over-rated/over-seeded every year now. What happens when they hit the NCAAT? Ouch happens.

Yep. Really cleared the road for the old Big East teams.

Well, not really Georgetown. They still suck. But Nova/Providence/Seton Hall have no doubt benefited.

 

[pearl31]

Sad to say, the ACC is sinking like the Titanic as the season goes. Just 4 teams left in the Top 25. Highest #7. Doesn't help our chances.

actual chances ≠ media poll

 

[jncuse]

CFB committee put Clemson first on their first rankings and it took a few more weeks before the Coaches/AP poll did the same thing.

CFB committee looked at resumes they weren't beholden to the AP/Coaches polls at all. They gave Iowa more respect first as well.

AP/Coaches poll subscribe to slot polling. Meaning you lose you go down and you win go up. The CFB committee didn't subscribe to this method. They used resumes and who you beat to slot you. Just because you won games didn't mean you went up or stayed in your slot. Notre Dame fell 2 spots for winning a game barely. Same thing happened to other teams like Ohio State etc.

I don't care if one team has 5 losses and the other team has 3 losses. To me it matters whom you have beaten, where you played them, and how good you look.

If I were doing doing an S-Curve here is my top 12
1. Oklahoma
2. Iowa
3. Kansas
4. Xavier
5. Maryland
6. Virginia
7. Villanova
8. North Carolina
9. Michigan State
10. West Virginia
11. Oregon
12. Texas A&M

I just don't think beating Xavier at home, splitting with PC and bunch mid-level P5 teams is that impressive.

Just to be clear I was not bringing up polls into the equation either. I was talking about where they could be on the s-curve under the playoff system -- assessing results, considering power rankings they rely o. I can't really disagree with you having them at #7. I just couldn't really disagree with a group that had them at #3 or #4 either. The difference between #2 and #8 is negligible this year. I wouldn't have them ar #1.

Polls - meh, interesting to follow, makes for good arguments, but they are not a great ranking system by any means. I am not trying to stand up for Villanova as #1... I am just saying they have as much as a right to the 2/3/4 spot as about 7 or 8 teams.

 

[orange79]

Sad to say, the ACC is sinking like the Titanic as the season goes. Just 4 teams left in the Top 25. Highest #7. Doesn't help our chances.

Polls don't matter. And while the RPI is not the end-all, be-all, the ACC has the 3rd highest conference RPI. And that does matter. Hardly sinking like the Titanic.

 

[MSOrange]

How the f*** is Arcidiacono still there?

Probably the first time Jay Wright has had to help a player apply for an AARP membership.

 

[jncuse]

Using 2006-2011 seems arbitrary given the last year of the Big East was 2013. But using that sample size, they made it to the Sweet 16 (2008), Elite 8 (2006) and Final Four (2009). They haven't come close to that kind of success since.

You made it sound in your initial post that Villanova was achieving successes they had never had before only because of the new conference. If they had a nice 6 year run from 2006-2011, why couldn't they have a nice run from 2014-2106. Does the fact that Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame are struggling (relatively) in the last 3 years in the ACC compared to the lBig East, make the ACC stronger than the pre 2013 Big East. No.

If I misread your initial post my apology.

As for Nova's last 2 tourney's, they are indeed not meaningless. But they are still a small sample size that may not be representative of the future. They also failed as a #2 seed in 2010 in the Big East.

 

[jncuse]

Sad to say, the ACC is sinking like the Titanic as the season goes. Just 4 teams left in the Top 25. Highest #7. Doesn't help our chances.

No need for doom and gloom on our NCAA tourney chances. Not too worried about the lack of top 25 teams -- we are not fighting for a #1 seed.

Look at the last 4 teams that are out (by consensus):
Oregon St
Wisconsin
Clemson
Kansas st

Looking at their limited resumes should only make you feel better about our chances if we get to 9-9. (even if we lost to Wisconsin and Clemson)

 

[jncuse]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the numbers. You have great posts with good info, and numbers are important, but there is more than numbers to sports.

I don't think a single big east team will get to a regional final. Maybe I'm wrong, you've probably got numbers that show I am. I don't care. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 or 3 acc teams in a regional final. Again, I don't give a sh$t what the number say.

I think the big east has become like the wcc because nova had something like a 22 game win streak in their conference (please feel free to correct the number, I know you want to). To me that is like gonzaga lording over the wcc. And technically, I called them a rich mans wcc, you need to take that into account for your numbers (though I'll admit I'm not sure how the percentage points get adjusted by adding the qualifier rich mans, but I'm guessing you do).

My opinion is that the big east is over rated and has been since realignment. Do the numbers bear that out? I don't care.

Maybe I will respond later tonight... maybe not. Depends if I care.

 

[jncuse]

Yep. Really cleared the road for the old Big East teams.

Well, not really Georgetown. They still suck. But Nova/Providence/Seton Hall have no doubt benefited.

I am not going to say they have not benefitted. They have to a small degree.

But the driving factor behind the improvement of those teams has nothing to do with realignment -- the fact is that they are just better.

I am not going to bother re showing all the calculations I did last year unless asked because I don't feel like being insulted just for presenting information.

But I found the following last year focusing on Seton Hall, Providence and St. John's which had yet to collapse.:
- I usedArchive.org to check the KenPom ratings that exist the closest to December 31 each year.
- I used ratings from the date closest to Dec 31 because conference play has not started. That means that conference affiliation has no impact on your ranking yet.
- Those teams in general were much better on December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014 as compared to the average of December 31, 2009-Decenber 31, 2012.

That shows that conference is not what was causing the teams to look much better,,, they were just better. And for a middle of the bracket Big East team, getting a similar record was nearly as hard as there are now less cupcakes.

For a top end Big East team likeVillanova -- I agree that it has been easier to achieve a great record, because while you have as many games against decent teams (and in there case more), there has been less games against elite competition in conference.

So I guess after all that my conclusion is this:
1. The Big East had a lot of 8 seedish/NIT level teams the last few years (% wise) with not many cupcakes. this was evident by Kp ratings entering conference season
2. For that reason I don't think it is a driving factor behind Seton Hall or Providence improvment -- they are just on upward trends.
3. While the Big East has had a high % of decent teams on their schedule, there is a lack of top 4 seed level teams for Villanova to face. We had Creighton one year and Xavier this year. The argument can be made that it does indeed make it easier for them to get a dominant record. While they may be top 10, it probably inflates them a bit.

 

[dasher]

I am dead serious when I say I would rather play Villanova than any other team in the top 10. Of course my opinions are wrong a lot of the time but wow it just shows how weak the Big East has become. They will likely lose at Xavier they have ripping the Big East up now for 3 years in a row.

we are 0-2 against the Big East this year. Of course, throw in UConn and we are 1-2

 

[Alsacs]

we are 0-2 against the Big East this year. Of course, throw in UConn and we are 1-2

JB wasn't the coach in either game. Also we have improved as a team. Malachi Richardson is playing better now.
The St. John's game was a complete outlier.
Georgetown kicked our @ss though.

My point was though if we had to pick a team in the top 10 to be a potential 2nd round opponent if we were lucky I would pick Villanova and they are ranked #1 right now which I just found to be strange.

 

[jncuse]

we are 0-2 against the Big East this year. Of course, throw in UConn and we are 1-2

We need to renew our Big East rivalry with Rutgers!!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I am not going to say they have not benefitted. They have to a small degree.

But the driving factor behind the improvement of those teams has nothing to do with realignment -- the fact is that they are just better.

I am not going to bother re showing all the calculations I did last year unless asked because I don't feel like being insulted just for presenting information.

But I found the following last year focusing on Seton Hall, Providence and St. John's which had yet to collapse.:
- I usedArchive.org to check the KenPom ratings that exist the closest to December 31 each year.
- I used ratings from the date closest to Dec 31 because conference play has not started. That means that conference affiliation has no impact on your ranking yet.
- Those teams in general were much better on December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014 as compared to the average of December 31, 2009-Decenber 31, 2012.

That shows that conference is not what was causing the teams to look much better,,, they were just better. And for a middle of the bracket Big East team, getting a similar record was nearly as hard as there are now less cupcakes.

For a top end Big East team likeVillanova -- I agree that it has been easier to achieve a great record, because while you have as many games against decent teams (and in there case more), there has been less games against elite competition in conference.

So I guess after all that my conclusion is this:
1. The Big East had a lot of 8 seedish/NIT level teams the last few years (% wise) with not many cupcakes. this was evident by Kp ratings entering conference season
2. For that reason I don't think it is a driving factor behind Seton Hall or Providence improvment -- they are just on upward trends.
3. While the Big East has had a high % of decent teams on their schedule, there is a lack of top 4 seed level teams for Villanova to face. We had Creighton one year and Xavier this year. The argument can be made that it does indeed make it easier for them to get a dominant record. While they may be top 10, it probably inflates them a bit.

I feel like you can chicken or egg this one though.

Take it as true they are better. How come?