CBI/CIT

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

Except that all facts and numbers say Clemson is the better team and had a better strength of schedule. Clemson didn't lose to LIU, Old Dominion and Delaware St. They would have won each of those games by 20.

The metrics suggest that If they played us they'd be 6 point favorites and would win 7 out of 10 times. But hey logic and facts aren't for everyone.

It really is amazing that we win 2 of our last 8 games, both against the same pathetic team, and some think we are better than NIT teams

Seems that there's little to no correlation between playing in the CBI one year and being successful the next.

Is there any correlation between practicing a skill and improving it? If there is then extending the season to include more practice and games would be beneficial. If there isn't they should disband not just the basketball program but the entire university.

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

Except that all facts and numbers say Clemson is the better team and had a better strength of schedule. Clemson didn't lose to LIU, Old Dominion and Delaware St. They would have won each of those games by 20.

The metrics suggest that If they played us they'd be 6 point favorites and would win 7 out of 10 times. But hey logic and facts aren't for everyone.

It really is amazing that we win 2 of our last 8 games, both against the same pathetic team, and some think we are better than NIT teams

I'm ignoring the first half the season. In conference play, we beat more tournament teams than Clemson. So, clearly, all the facts don't say that they're better. If I were on the committee, I would actually consider the pre season to be like spring training.

But to their credit, they played well enough to lose close games in conference.

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.

I think Nova, Seton Hall and Marquette advance. Others 1 and done

we suck. Their are probably a 100 teams that deserve to play in post season tournament before us.

I think Nova, Seton Hall and Marquette advance. Others 1 and done

Butler has a better shot than Hall and Marquette, IMO.  MU playing South Carolina in SC is a bad beat.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 09:56:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.

Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville.  2 potential Final Four teams.  Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.

The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette.   Seriously there is no comparison 

Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year.  This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011.  And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year.  BE equivalent is DePaul.  You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 10:46:28 AM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 09:56:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.

Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville.  2 potential Final Four teams.  Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.

The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette.   Seriously there is no comparison 

Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year.  This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011.  And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year.  BE equivalent is DePaul.  You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.

Not comparing Pitt to DePaul as a program. I compared their performance this season only.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 12:15:28 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 10:46:28 AM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 09:56:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.

Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville.  2 potential Final Four teams.  Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.

The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette.   Seriously there is no comparison 

Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year.  This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011.  And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year.  BE equivalent is DePaul.  You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.

Not comparing Pitt to DePaul as a program. I compared their performance this season only.

Even there you're wrong Pitt beat Virginia and Syracuse.  Their RPI and strength of schedule was significantly better than DePaul.

Ask yourself this, do you think other BE teams would have rather played DePaul twice or Pitt twice if given a choice this year?  Wanna bet the vote by the 9 other schools would have been 9-0 in favor of DePaul being the 10th school over Pitt.

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 10:46:28 AM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 09:56:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.

Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville.  2 potential Final Four teams.  Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.

The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette.   Seriously there is no comparison 

Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year.  This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011.  And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year.  BE equivalent is DePaul.  You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.

The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 12:15:28 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 10:46:28 AM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 09:56:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.

Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville.  2 potential Final Four teams.  Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.

The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette.   Seriously there is no comparison 

Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year.  This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011.  And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year.  BE equivalent is DePaul.  You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.

The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.

That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.

Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.

Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.

Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender.  Some of you are completely clueless.  Sumner makes a difference no doubt.

And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette, DePaul etc. period.  There is no one in college basketball that will tell you otherwise.

And if Pitt had not left for the ACC instead was still in the BE Jamie Dixon would not have left Pitt to begin with.  The whole reason he left was Pitt was slipping in recruiting especially against the likes of Duke, UNC, Louisville etc.  He knew the unreal expectations of the fan base at Pitt were starting to take its toll int hat conference.  Geez look at NC St, they alone have more talent than most BE schools and they are the bottom of the ACC and fired their 4 time NCAA in 6 year coach.

Get a clue, the conferences are not even close and no one in college basketball would disagree with that notion.

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

and Marquette, the sixth best team in the big east BEAT villanova.  therefore, by this logic (i.e., the use of all caps and whether the sixth best team in a conference beat villanova) the big east is a better conference than the acc.

the RPI shows the acc as better.  the big east has the overall #1 seed and defending national champ.  the acc has more very good teams (unc, duke, louisville); although it is also just a larger conference. the acc has more tourney teams.  the acc has more non-tourney teams.  the big east got 70% of its teams in the tournament (acc has less).  big east was 8-3 versus the acc.  at the end of the day, these are both very good conferences.  due to the size, it is comparing apples to oranges to some extent, but they are much closer to each other than the big east is to the next level of conferences -- difference in RPI between acc and big east is smaller than the gap from big east to SEC/pac12/AAC.

Just like when the BE was 16 teams there were bottom feeders.  But no one is going to argue with a straight face that the BE with Pitino, Huggins, Boeheim, Calhoun, Howland/Dixon was not beter than the current makeup.  That's self evident.

In 2009 the BE got 7 out of 16, however they had 3 of the 4 no. 1 seeds and 2 more 3 seeds.  So they had 5 top 12 teams.  That's ridiculously strong.  Again the total number is nice but you have to look at the seeding to get a true idea of the strength of the conference.

I think the ACC this year is comparable if not better than the BE of 2005-2013 era.  It is very strong and the 3 NIT teams are good teams that could more than compete in the middle of the conference and the top teams, Duke, FSU, UNC, Louisville, ND, Virginia save for Villanova are much stronger top to bottom then the top to middle of the BE.  Not even close.

I think creighton was a final 4 contender before the injury. They had a great PG and lotttery pick. Plenty of talent there. Xavier I think was about as good as noter dame before their PG got hurt. They had an outside chance to make the final four.
Butler is a good team, but is not as talented of either of those teams.

Pitt, may be better then Georgetown and St. John's now. But they are going to have a tough time in the acc.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 13, 2017, 09:56:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 13, 2017, 12:53:46 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 12, 2017, 10:44:04 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM

It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.

Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.

We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team

BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.

The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East.  Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half.  You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.

Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower.  With 2 being barely in.

ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.

In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.

and Marquette, the sixth best team in the big east BEAT villanova.  therefore, by this logic (i.e., the use of all caps and whether the sixth best team in a conference beat villanova) the big east is a better conference than the acc.

the RPI shows the acc as better.  the big east has the overall #1 seed and defending national champ.  the acc has more very good teams (unc, duke, louisville); although it is also just a larger conference. the acc has more tourney teams.  the acc has more non-tourney teams.  the big east got 70% of its teams in the tournament (acc has less).  big east was 8-3 versus the acc.  at the end of the day, these are both very good conferences.  due to the size, it is comparing apples to oranges to some extent, but they are much closer to each other than the big east is to the next level of conferences -- difference in RPI between acc and big east is smaller than the gap from big east to SEC/pac12/AAC.

I'm not sure what your point is, obviously if you have more teams and more traditional power teams then your conference is better.  If that is your point then I agree.  The percentage of teams is not my concern.  That's overrated.

The Big Ten got 50 percent, so what.  They also go NO teams with a sweet 16 seed or better.  Ohio St, a normal traditional power, is hurting them the last couple of years.  Michigan St did not have a great year.  So even though they got 7 bids outside of Purdue they don't have a real threat on the second weekend.  Heck Wisconsin struggled so bad at the end that despite finishing in 2nd place in a power 5 conference and being ranked most of the year they got a 8 seed!!!

Here's Duke's run to the ACC Tourney title in Brooklyn: Clemson, Louisville, UNC and Notre Dame.

Here is their potential path to the Final Four from the East (assuming the higher seeds win): Troy, South Carolina, Baylor and Villanova.

I would argue the ACC Tourney run was/would be HARDER...

To follow up here is Villanova's run to the BE Tourney Title: SJU, SHU and Creighton... 

Just a guess but I think Duke's run was a weee bit harder. 

Providence btw was the BE 3rd seed in their Tourney.  They were one of the last 4 teams to get in the field.