Biggest takeaway from presser

[OttoMets]

Your premise is that college basketball is so much more competitive now and so much more "equal' in terms of talent distribution that gaudy records are a thing of the past. Is that correct? That's what you wrote, so I assume it's what you meant.

And then I gave you examples of gaudy records we have achieved this decade, which is only 7 years old. We have won 30 games twice and also went 28-6 in those years, the last time was 3 seasons ago.

Then, I gave you a list of about 5 teams THIS YEAR who achieved those same gaudy records that are no longer possible. Then I gave you a list of another 5 or 6 from the year before, and another 5 or 6 from the year before that.

And yet because I didn't listen to Boeheim's interview, I must be wrong. You told me what he said. I showed you the records, and you tell me I'm wrong because the records contradict JB.

You voted for Trump, right? Because apparently facts are irrelevant to your point.

His is a variation on the Bloomberg logic:

"In God we trust; everyone else, bring data.

...Unless that data contradicts God (Boeheim). Then the data's wrong and you're an entitled jerk and a terrible fan."

 

[br801]

I just watched the presser in its entirety for the first time and don't get where all the angst about Boeheim's performance and comparisons to Donald Trump are coming from. I thought he comported himself quite well.

 

[Townie72]

Your premise is that college basketball is so much more competitive now and so much more "equal' in terms of talent distribution that gaudy records are a thing of the past. Is that correct? That's what you wrote, so I assume it's what you meant.

And then I gave you examples of gaudy records we have achieved this decade, which is only 7 years old. We have won 30 games twice and also went 28-6 in those years, the last time was 3 seasons ago.

Then, I gave you a list of about 5 teams THIS YEAR who achieved those same gaudy records that are no longer possible. Then I gave you a list of another 5 or 6 from the year before, and another 5 or 6 from the year before that.

And yet because I didn't listen to Boeheim's interview, I must be wrong. You told me what he said. I showed you the records, and you tell me I'm wrong because the records contradict JB.

You voted for Trump, right? Because apparently facts are irrelevant to your point.

Because you didn't listen to the interview and yet still have opinions identifies you as one of those who likes to talk a lot more than they like to listen. (10x) But why let the opinions and thoughts of a highly credible source (In this case, JB) disturb your version of things?

JB says college basketball has changed and that greater competition and more parity are going to increasingly make gaudy records rare. You say he's wrong. (Well, not really because you haven't taken the time to hear what was actually said).

As to politics, for the first time ever I didn't vote for President. I was unable to choose between a fool and a pathological liar. If the $150 million the Clinton's got from foreign governments wasn't a payoff for future influence, I don't know what it could be.

 

[Townie72]

I just watched the presser in its entirety for the first time and don't get where all the angst about Boeheim's performance and comparisons to Donald Trump are coming from. I thought he comported himself quite well.

Don't you get it?

These guys who have thousands and thousands of posts on here haven't made the effort to listen. And the reason is clear. They don't want to hear JB and Wildhack because it might interfere with their own ideas.

 

[OttoMets]

Because you didn't listen to the interview and yet still have opinions identifies you as one of those who likes to talk a lot more than they like to listen. (10x) But why let the opinions and thoughts of a highly credible source (In this case, JB) disturb your version of things?

JB says college basketball has changed and that greater competition and more parity are going to increasingly make gaudy records rare. You say he's wrong. (Well, not really because you haven't taken the time to hear what was actually said).

As to politics, for the first time ever I didn't vote for President. I was unable to choose between a fool and a pathological liar. If the $150 million the Clinton's got from foreign governments wasn't a payoff for future influence, I don't know what it could be.

And Matt gave you unambiguous, objective numbers to show that that's not currently the case.

Five and ten years from now, when the number of 34-5 teams hasn't moved over the last two decades, perhaps this will help show that Boeheim says all sorts of silly things, especially when he's speaking off the cuff or talking from a position of interest.

 

[Townie72]

Your premise is that college basketball is so much more competitive now and so much more "equal' in terms of talent distribution that gaudy records are a thing of the past. Is that correct? That's what you wrote, so I assume it's what you meant.

And then I gave you examples of gaudy records we have achieved this decade, which is only 7 years old. We have won 30 games twice and also went 28-6 in those years, the last time was 3 seasons ago.

Then, I gave you a list of about 5 teams THIS YEAR who achieved those same gaudy records that are no longer possible. Then I gave you a list of another 5 or 6 from the year before, and another 5 or 6 from the year before that.

And yet because I didn't listen to Boeheim's interview, I must be wrong. You told me what he said. I showed you the records, and you tell me I'm wrong because the records contradict JB.

You voted for Trump, right? Because apparently facts are irrelevant to your point.

Five teams? You are saying there isn't greater parity in college basketball based on the records of five teams?

Let's look at the records of the top 100 teams over the past five years. That would be called an analysis.

Five teams don't prove ANYTHING.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Because you didn't listen to the interview and yet still have opinions identifies you as one of those who likes to talk a lot more than they like to listen. (10x) But why let the opinions and thoughts of a highly credible source (In this case, JB) disturb your version of things?

JB says college basketball has changed and that greater competition and more parity are going to increasingly make gaudy records rare. You say he's wrong. (Well, not really because you haven't taken the time to hear what was actually said).

As to politics, for the first time ever I didn't vote for President. I was unable to choose between a fool and a pathological liar. If the $150 million the Clinton's got from foreign governments wasn't a payoff for future influence, I don't know what it could be.

Did I not just provide you with 5 or so "gaudy records" from P-5 conference members from each of the last 3 years?

If Boeheim is right and it's "impossible" in today's game, then how did those coaches do it, and why did he do it, too, just a few years ago?

Your point (and Boeheim's point) has been explained ad nauseum. He's been saying this for years, in case you don't recall that. It's not like he just realized it at this last press conference.

 

[Toga]

This is a good post. Regarding the bolded paragraph above, I would argue that the reason that we have lost so many kids unexpectedly to the NBA is that for all of the players we lose because of the zone, we find kids who excel in the zone while developing their weaknesses. Jerami Grant, MCW, and now Lydon are perfect examples. Lanky, skinny guys that were under the radar, but perfect for the zone.

They may be perfect for the zone but I question the extent to which there are Top 100 players out there who actually prefer to play zone.

 

[Townie72]

And Matt gave you unambiguous, objective numbers to show that that's not currently the case.

Five and ten years from now, when the number of 34-5 teams hasn't moved over the last two decades, perhaps this will help show that Boeheim says all sorts of silly things, especially when he's speaking off the cuff or talking from a position of interest.

The records of Five teams prove that college basketball doesn't have more parity?

Now apparently you are yet another guy who hasn't listened to the presser.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Five teams? You are saying there isn't greater parity in college basketball based on the records of five teams?

Let's look at the records of the top 100 teams over the past five years. That would be called an analysis.

Five teams don't prove ANYTHING.

Newsflash, genius - "100 teams" don't go 30-5 every year. That's never been the case. A small handful of teams generate the gaudy records. They compete for the number 1 ranking and the national championship every year. Not 100 teams.

 

[OttoMets]

The records of Five teams prove that college basketball doesn't have more parity?

Now apparently you are yet another guy who hasn't listened to the presser.

Hi, moving the goalposts. Nice to see you again.

Your claim, echoing Boeheim's claim, was that parity has made it "impossible" for there to be dominant teams in college basketball.

Matt blew that up with hard facts.

Boeheim's been repeating the same soundbites about "parity" for 15 years or more. If you want to repeat as gospel throwaway remarks from the guy who says verifiable falsehoods, fine, but don't be surprised when you're corrected.

 

[Townie72]

Newsflash, genius - "100 teams" don't go 30-5 every year. That's never been the case. A small handful of teams generate the gaudy records. They compete for the number 1 ranking and the national championship every year. Not 100 teams.

I know I'm going to regret this. But let me see if I can help you understand how you might determine whether or not there is greater parity now than there was five years ago.

You would not use "teams with 30 wins" as your measure. Instead you would take a look at the distribution of records across college basketball and then look at is by segment (Top 100 or by Conference or by opponent (say P-5 competitors only so you could filter out these early season laughers)

A quicker way might to look at it by Conference but to look at in conference games only as a way of having "apples to apples" comparison.

 

[Townie72]

Newsflash, genius - "100 teams" don't go 30-5 every year. That's never been the case. A small handful of teams generate the gaudy records. They compete for the number 1 ranking and the national championship every year. Not 100 teams.

I'm starting to think this might be too difficult a concept for some to grasp.

 

[Toga]

Hi, moving the goalposts. Nice to see you again.

Your claim, echoing Boeheim's claim, was that parity has made it "impossible" for there to be dominant teams in college basketball.

Matt blew that up with hard facts.

Boeheim's been repeating the same soundbites about "parity" for 15 years or more. If you want to repeat as gospel throwaway remarks from the guy who says verifiable falsehoods, fine, but don't be surprised when you're corrected.

JB often makes good points but even when he does 8 becomes 11 and maybe becomes definitely.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I know I'm going to regret this. But let me see if I can help you understand how you might determine whether or not there is greater parity now than there was five years ago.

You would not use "teams with 30 wins" as your measure. Instead you would take a look at the distribution of records across college basketball and then look at is by segment (Top 100 or by Conference or by opponent (say P-5 competitors only so you could filter out these early season laughers)

A quicker way might to look at it by Conference but to look at in conference games only as a way of having "apples to apples" comparison.

No, you wouldn't. The premise is that there are no more great teams because of parity in college basketball. The statement is that teams CAN'T win that many games anymore, because everyone is so equal in talent. Just because the ACC teams beat each other up this year and each lost 8 to 10 games doesn't make it true in ANY other power conference in America.

I gave you the proof. You chose to ignore it because I hadn't listened to his press conference. I now have. The same facts are still true, and Boeheim only has an opinion. He's not stating a fact.

For the record, 100 teams don't have "gaudy" records every year (nice attempt to move the goal posts) - and that has NEVER been the case. Only the elite do. Until the last few years, we have been among the elite. The elite still exist. There are still the same number of teams, roughly speaking, with less than 5 losses on the season at the top of the league standings as there have been for the past 20 years.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I know I'm going to regret this. But let me see if I can help you understand how you might determine whether or not there is greater parity now than there was five years ago.

You would not use "teams with 30 wins" as your measure. Instead you would take a look at the distribution of records across college basketball and then look at is by segment (Top 100 or by Conference or by opponent (say P-5 competitors only so you could filter out these early season laughers)

A quicker way might to look at it by Conference but to look at in conference games only as a way of having "apples to apples" comparison.

Changing the point again. That's OK. You lost. I'll move on now. Thanks for playing.

 

[Townie72]

Wrong premise.

That was not JB's point or among any of his points.

But you wouldn't know because ...