i just looked at nova's schedule

[CorduroyG]

who the h.ell have they beaten???????? they dont have a win that comes close to our win at duke. ohhh they won at providence and at seton hall, whoopydamndoo! do they even have a win as good as texas a&m on neutral court??

sorry but like ive said i dont take any of the big east teams seriously, i dont care what their record is, winning at providence and creighton and seton hall should not give you a 1 seed. theyre just beating up on a bunch of average teams. oklahoma they got blown out, virginia they lost by 11, they just lost at xavier. no way are they an elite team, come on. theyre gonzaga

 

[NYCorange]

I completely agree. I feel like they're actually a 3 or 4 seed in the tourney. They're 5-4 vs the RPI top 50. And that's generous considering the RPI considers St. Joes, Providence and Seton Hall to be top 50 RPI teams. A top team does not go 5-4, they go 7-2, or 10-3 like Kansas.

 

[CusefanATL]

they did beat xavier by 40

 

[jncuse]

Unless they win the Big East and beat Xavier along the way, a #1 will be very tough. A 1-3 record vs top 25 schools is not enough for a #1 seed... usually. But I do think that last #1 seed may have a pretty crappy resume, so who knows.

And pretty much every team in the 2 and 3 seed lines has 2 to 3 lines to sub top 50 teams (Villanova had none for a while -- Providence is probably out now) . It's totally unreasonable to say these teams that Nova are beating are at the level of WCC teams like San Deigo, Loyola Marymount or Portland State.

That is what they are doing very well this year -- not slipping up against decent #25-100 teams, when everybody else in the nation has done it fairly often
.
It's certainly enough for a 2 seed, but the 1 seed should be about teams that have not only done well overall and have multiple top wins.

 

[jncuse]

they did beat xavier by 40

Xavier is just a typical WCC school.

 

[jncuse]

I completely agree. I feel like they're actually a 3 or 4 seed in the tourney. They're 5-4 vs the RPI top 50. And that's generous considering the RPI considers St. Joes, Providence and Seton Hall to be top 50 RPI teams. A top team does not go 5-4, they go 7-2, or 10-3 like Kansas.

St. Joes and Seton Hall are #33 and #36 in KenPom. Those are valid top 50 schools.

The one that is not top 50 in KP is Providence -- that ranking has said they were overrated all year in the AP rankings and it is catching up to them now.

 

[jncuse]

I am trying to avoid picking Nova as #1 seed because of what they did head to head with Virginia, Oklahoma and Xavier.

But it's hard to clearly find 4 better teams:

- Kansas - no doubt
- Oklahoma -
- Virginia should be ahead, a little more crap against average teams, but 6 top 25 wins.

- Xavier is a draw, a tad ahead perhaps (split season). They will determine who is better at the new BET.
- Oregon has juiced up top 50 wins vs average P12 teams. Also 3 more losses.
- Miami is 8-3 vs top 50, but has 3 sub 100 losses.
- UNC is 4-5 vs top 50
- Maryland is 6-4 vs top 50, but had a bad loss at Minnesota.
- Michigan St is not there yet, but they have the ability to play up to a #1 if they win out.

It's really hard to take Nova out of the #1 line right now. I see that last spot coming down to Xavier/Nova winner in the BET, or if Michigan St makes a nice little run to close the season.

 

[jncuse]

who the h.ell have they beaten???????? they dont have a win that comes close to our win at duke. ohhh they won at providence and at seton hall, whoopydamndoo! do they even have a win as good as texas a&m on neutral court??

sorry but like ive said i dont take any of the big east teams seriously, i dont care what their record is, winning at providence and creighton and seton hall should not give you a 1 seed. theyre just beating up on a bunch of average teams. oklahoma they got blown out, virginia they lost by 11, they just lost at xavier. no way are they an elite team, come on. theyre gonzaga

Xavier has made the tournament 10 of the last 12 years.
2 Elite 8
6 Sweet 16

They are not chumps.

 

[kirbivore]

who the h.ell have they beaten???????? they dont have a win that comes close to our win at duke. ohhh they won at providence and at seton hall, whoopydamndoo! do they even have a win as good as texas a&m on neutral court??

sorry but like ive said i dont take any of the big east teams seriously, i dont care what their record is, winning at providence and creighton and seton hall should not give you a 1 seed. theyre just beating up on a bunch of average teams. oklahoma they got blown out, virginia they lost by 11, they just lost at xavier. no way are they an elite team, come on. theyre gonzaga

I take Xavier seriously, with a little Providence thrown in because of Dunn.

 

[kirbivore]

Xavier is just a typical WCC school.

Since 2008 they've made the second weekend 5 times (4 sweet 16 and 1 regional final). Much better than a typical WCC school.

 

[CorduroyG]

ok xavier is legit

nova's resume is still very unimpressive despite what the #s say.

 

[jdubs30]

Nova's blowout against X was an aberration. Nova shot 63% from the field and 52% from 3 -- if those 2 played 10 more times Novas couldn't replicate that. Not to mention that was the game Sumner for X took that nasty fall, pretty much as soon as the game started. He's one of their best players and it took the air out of X.

 

[jncuse]

Since 2008 they've made the second weekend 5 times (4 sweet 16 and 1 regional final). Much better than a typical WCC school.

No I just messing with the OP. He is entitled to take shots at Nova until they prove something (and I certainly don't think they are #1). If you want to compare them to Gonzaga in terms of blowing their seed that is fine. But I just don't agree with the Big East being like the WCC>

It's a league with 10 teams, half of which are tourney teams, 2 of which are elite to some degree.

The Big East has done really well in adding the non eastern seaboard schools over the years - 3 of those 5 teams it has added over the years were tourney teams in most years before they even joined the Big East -- Xavier, Butler, Marquette. Creighton is up and down, but it has the framework but to be a solid program. And Depaul -- well they stink. The above 3 are not power programs, but they are all usually around the top 25, and they have all had tournament success the last 10 years outside the Big East. It makes for a deep conference when the old Big East schools that are inconsistent like Providence, Seton Hall or St John's are on upswings -- these schools were always the same in the Big East, some good years, some basd.

In summary. how can you compare a conference to the WCC when 5 of its 10 team members have spent quite a bit time around the top 25 the last 10 years - Villanova, Xavier, Butler, Georgetown (only to blow it), and Marquette

 

[SoBeCuse]

Nova's blowout against X was an aberration. Nova shot 63% from the field and 52% from 3 -- if those 2 played 10 more times Novas couldn't replicate that. Not to mention that was the game Sumner for X took that nasty fall, pretty much as soon as the game started. He's one of their best players and it took the air out of X.

Exactly. I think Xavier is REALLY good and would take them 7/10 against Villanova anyplace/anywhere. Michigan St. and Xavier are the two teams I don't want to see. Xavier has been the best team in Cincinnati the past 10 years or so but get overlooked.

 

[Brooky03]

they did beat xavier by 40

What's a Xavier? Sounds made-up

 

[Brooky03]

ok xavier is legit

nova's resume is still very unimpressive despite what the #s say.

Don't give in haha. Xavier's alright. You could look in each of the power conferences and find 3-5 teams better each year. Xavier's legit for a mid-major. Just like Gonzaga though, they don't wear big boy pants.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Don't give in haha. Xavier's alright. You could look in each of the power conferences and find 3-5 teams better each year. Xavier's legit for a mid-major. Just like Gonzaga though, they don't wear big boy pants.

They have been beyond mid-major status for awhile now. Not debateable imo and I don't think any coach or media person would call them that. At least not in public where a comment like that could cost them. They always have tournament success and regularly play a much tougher conference schedule than Gonzaga. They also have owned Cincinnati the past decade in the Crosstown Shootout.

 

[Brooky03]

They have been beyond mid-major status for awhile now. Not debateable imo and I don't think any coach or media person would call them that. At least not in public where a comment like that could cost them. They always have tournament success and regularly play a much tougher conference schedule than Gonzaga. They also have owned Cincinnati the past decade in the Crosstown Shootout.

No offense intended, but I wholeheartedly disagree. They play a weak schedule (just a bunch of middle-of-the-road team, few big dogs) every year and I think their best tournament win in the last decade was over 3-seed Pitt and the second best was a 6-seed. Impressive for a mid-major. Not impressive for a power team.

Edit: Didn't read your whole post, so I might as well respond to the rest. Cincinnati hasn't been too great recently and I don't think any power programs would hang their hat on beating Cinci. It's a respectable program but not a perennial top 25 team or anything like that.

Xavier's conference slate is tougher than Gonzaga's but still far from hard. Remember, that conference is made up primarily of the teams that would finish in the bottom half of the real Big East.

 

[jncuse]

-Tournament appearances in the 10 years before the new Big East (2004-2013). These tournament appearances were all 12 seed or above (at large level)

Creighton -- 4 of 10
Xavier - , 8 of 10
Butler - 6 of 10
Marquette - 8 of 10
Depaul - 1 of 10
Villanova - 8 of 10
St. John's - 1 of 10
Providence - 1 of 10
Seton Hall - 2 of 10
Georgetown - 7 of 10

As a conference these guys managed to make the tournament 4.6 times a year for the 10 years before the new Big East. 5 out of 10 is as good as most power conferences. except they may lack that elite school.

Why are we saying it's the old name that is making the conference get to 5.

 

[SoBeCuse]

No offense intended, but I wholeheartedly disagree. They play a weak schedule (just a bunch of middle-of-the-road team, few big dogs) every year and I think their best tournament win in the last decade was over 3-seed Pitt and the second best was a 6-seed. Impressive for a mid-major. Not impressive for a power team.

Edit: Didn't read your whole post, so I might as well respond to the rest. Cincinnati hasn't been too great recently and I don't think any power programs would hang their hat on beating Cinci. It's a respectable program but not a perennial top 25 team or anything like that.

Xavier's conference slate is tougher than Gonzaga's but still far from hard. Remember, that conference is made up primarily of the teams that would finish in the bottom half of the real Big East.

We can just agree to disagree. Their SOS is 32. Better than ours. Your argument doesn't hold much merit re: their schedule year in and year out. Don't forget the A10 was never chopped liver and the top of A10 routinely beats anybody. So, they had a good SOS even then. If you need computer numbers in addition to the eye test and common knowledge to back this up I will provide it down below. Cincinnati isn't a powerhouse right now but I would bet they have been a consistent bottom of the top 25 program the past decade or so. Regardless, they have made the tournament the past five seasons. Throw out the automatic bids from weak leagues and any at large could be a Top 25 team, frankly. Coin flips. So, back to Xavier. I looked them up for the hell of it. Here are their SOS dating back to 2009. It was solid beyond then but I'm getting tired of this. Hardly, "weak."

2016: 32
2015: 8
2014: 42
2013: 60
2012: 36
2011: 56
2010: 42
2009: 46

I won't even get into tournament sucess. It's been solid (as jncuse showed). You play whomever the committee draws up. We didn't shed a tear playing Kansas State without one of their key guys out or some other over-seeded team, for instance.

 

[jncuse]

Remember, that conference is made up primarily of the teams that would finish in the bottom half of the real Big East.

That's news to me. Marquette, Nova, and Georgetown normally finished in the top half of the post 2005 formation of the Big East.

Then you add in 3 schools in 2014 that on average make the tournament 70% of the time over the last 10 yeas. Maybe you lack top 10 elite, but that is a fairly good foundation for 6 of your schools.

Sure you have 3 up and down programs, in Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall who have had recent up's. And then you have Depaul.

If you want to isolate those 4 schools, that makes up 40% of the conference...far from "primarily".

And since we all like to fantasize about the post 2005 Big East, they had 38% bottom feeders based on your definition (if you add the 4 above + South Florida + Rutgers). Power conferences have historical stinkers as well.

 

[Brooky03]

We can just agree to disagree. Their SOS is 32. Better than ours. Your argument doesn't hold much merit re: their schedule year in and year out. Don't forget the A10 was never chopped liver and the top of A10 routinely beats anybody. So, they had a good SOS even then. If you need computer numbers in addition to the eye test and common knowledge to back this up I will provide it down below. Cincinnati isn't a powerhouse right now but I would bet they have been a consistent bottom of the top 25 program the past decade or so. Regardless, they have made the tournament the past five seasons. Throw out the automatic bids from weak leagues and any at large could be a Top 25 team, frankly. Coin flips. So, back to Xavier. I looked them up for the hell of it. Here are their SOS dating back to 2009. It was solid beyond then but I'm getting tired of this. Hardly, "weak."

2016: 32
2015: 8
2014: 42
2013: 60
2012: 36
2011: 56
2010: 42
2009: 46

I won't even get into tournament sucess. It's been solid (as jncuse showed). You play whomever the committee draws up. We didn't shed a tear playing Kansas State without one of their key guys out or some other over-seeded team, for instance.

The argument absolutely has merit. Don't say we'll agree to disagree and then go on to try to tell me how I'm wrong. Their SOS is strong because, like I said, they play a lot of middle of the road teams. They avoid the good teams for the most part and avoid the really bad teams. That's why SOS cannot be looked at in a vacuum because it can be gamed. They've played and beaten practically nobody this season. That's evident when you look at their schedule. Don't pull out the 'common knowledge' passive aggressive crap, there's no need to go there.

So, considering we've established that SOS is not a good indicator on its own, and considering numbers typically in the 40's would likely be 'average' for a mid-tier team in a power conference, what have you shown that goes against my argument that they're a great mid-major but no more impressive than a mid-level power conference team?

I'll go into tournament success. They beat teams that were decent but not anything special. In other words, they've beaten teams you'd expect an average team to be able to beat. How does this make beating Xavier a big accomplishment that justifies ranking Nova #1 overall or even as a 1 seed? Syracuse fans would/should never be overly impressed with a win over Xavier to the point that we'd point to it as a huge win that should vault us up the rankings. Over the last decade+ we'd be favorites over Xavier on any court likely (and this is no exaggeration) 90% of the time. If we can't hang our hats on a win over Xavier, why can Nova?

 

[Brooky03]

That's news to me. Marquette, Nova, and Georgetown normally finished in the top half of the post 2005 formation of the Big East.

Then you add in 3 schools in 2014 that on average make the tournament 70% of the time over the last 10 yeas. Maybe you lack top 10 elite, but that is a fairly good foundation for 6 of your schools.

Sure you have 3 up and down programs, in Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall who have had recent up's. And then you have Depaul.

If you want to isolate those 4 schools, that makes up 40% of the conference...far from "primarily".

And since we all like to fantasize about the post 2005 Big East, they had 38% bottom feeders based on your definition (if you add the 4 above + South Florida + Rutgers). Power conferences have historical stinkers as well.

Your mistake is adding the 3 'newbies'. Put them in the old Big East and they'd struggle to make the Tourney.

 

[Brooky03]

Forget it. If you've quoted my most recent post that I deleted, run with it I guess. I made the mistake of trying to find a specific power conference team to compare them to and it's tough because there will always be some flaw that people can latch on to to argue a point I never intended to argue. I quit.

 

[tbonezone]

well wichita state was a #1 seed. and villanova's schedule is perennially 3x's harder than the shockers.