2013/14 NCAA Basketball

[Paelos]

Win something. The last football one was 2002. That was over a decade ago. The last basketball one was 2000.

The conference has been worthless in the popular men's sports for more than 10 years. Put up or shut up.

[Nebu]

Yeah, I'm sick of hearing about the spectacular Big Ten academics.  Apparently AAU status doesn't help your players graduate. 

Love them or hate them, the Big 10 still has quite a few STEM programs ranked in the top 10 in the country.  You won't hear that about the SEC. 

[ghost]

Yeah, I'm sick of hearing about the spectacular Big Ten academics.  Apparently AAU status doesn't help your players graduate. 

Love them or hate them, the Big 10 still has quite a few STEM programs ranked in the top 10 in the country.  You won't hear that about the SEC. 

They do, and I won't argue that the Big Ten has better academics at their member institutions than the SEC does.  However, I don't think it's cool to hold that out as a great thing about your athletic program if it doesn't hold true for the athletes.  Same deal for UNC-  it's a great school.  They are a bunch of cheating hypocrites though, and it makes them sound like assholes when they act all superior about their "student athletes". 

[Nebu]

They do, and I won't argue that the Big Ten has better academics at their member institutions than the SEC does.  However, I don't think it's cool to hold that out as a great thing about your athletic program if it doesn't hold true for the athletes.  Same deal for UNC-  it's a great school.  They are a bunch of cheating hypocrites though, and it makes them sound like assholes when they act all superior about their "student athletes".  

They're all lying assholes when it comes to academics.  SEC, ACC, PAC 10, BIG 10... ALL of them.  However it IS a great thing for the women athletes.  Most of them get great value out of their education.  The same goes for men's sports other than football, basketball, baseball, or hockey.  Academics matter to those student athletes not trying to land a big sports contract after their sophomore year.  

If I knew I wasn't a marquee athlete or in a non-money sport, I'd choose the Big 10 over many other conferences for their academics.  It's a reasonable selling point.  You just have to realize that they aren't talking about athletes in the big dollar sports.  We all know that.

EDIT: I am biased.  I was a student athlete in the Big 10.

[ghost]

The SEC is the least hypocritical though.  They are all about the money of football and winning.  It's very transparent, actually.

Case in point for the worst role model for athletic programs-  Texas.  The new AD has nothing to talk about other than their "brand".  It pisses me the hell off.  It's shit like this that is the reason why you have the folks at Northwestern forming unions.  Players are taken advantage of with no limits, and it's often the worst at the big name academic schools, i.e. the Big Ten.

I like Minnesota.  I have a buddy that is a faculty there.  It's a great school, but you guys haven't been immune to the academic scandals either, thanks to good ole Clem Haskins (a Kentucky boy, btw....).

[Nebu]

I like Minnesota.  I have a buddy that is a faculty there.  It's a great school, but you guys haven't been immune to the academic scandals either, thanks to good ole Clem Haskins (a Kentucky boy, btw....).

I never suggested otherwise.  All I said is that there are many many student athletes that benefit from the quality academics at Big 10 universities.  They're just not typically from the big money sports.

[Paelos]

That's fine if Big 10 fans want to beat their chests at men's soccer or women's field hockey games.

When they show up in the big boy sports, I expect them to compete or be quiet. But of course, they are incapable of doing that, and instead like to bore everyone with talk of academics and traditions. Or we get talk about undefeated runs against garbage, and then the moment a difficult game appears, they get waxed.

Mind you, when the PAC-12 is bad, I don't hear the same conversations out of them. Generally when they are good, they are loud, and when they are bad, they are quiet. The exception is Oregon, who gets knob-slobbed over their OMGOFFENSEISKING nonsense before they run into an actual defense and get stomped.

[Nebu]

That's fine if Big 10 fans want to beat their chests at men's soccer or women's field hockey games.

When they show up in the big boy sports, I expect them to compete or be quiet. But of course, they are incapable of doing that, and instead like to bore everyone with talk of academics and traditions. Or we get talk about undefeated runs against garbage, and then the moment a difficult game appears, they get waxed.

Mind you, when the PAC-12 is bad, I don't hear the same conversations out of them. Generally when they are good, they are loud, and when they are bad, they are quiet. The exception is Oregon, who gets knob-slobbed over their OMGOFFENSEISKING nonsense before they run into an actual defense and get stomped.

BIG 12, SEC, and ACC are far worse than the Big 10.  The PAC 12, I'll agree, tends to be the more well behaved of the conferences.  

You should try dealing with the fans from a player's perspective.  It's a lesson in anger management.

[Paelos]

I accept that the ACC, the SEC, and the Big 12 are far worse. They win stuff. They're allowed to be obnoxious about their teams.

And I would agree that everything is worse from a player perspective. That doesn't really change my point here. I'm saying that it's fine for the Big 10 to crow about stuff if they win. But they aren't winning, and haven't won any of the money-maker sports since 2002.

[Nebu]

I accept that the ACC, the SEC, and the Big 12 are far worse. They win stuff. They're allowed to be obnoxious about their teams.

And I would agree that everything is worse from a player perspective. That doesn't really change my point here. I'm saying that it's fine for the Big 10 to crow about stuff if they win. But they aren't winning, and haven't won any of the money-maker sports since 2002.

You're missing the point of the crowing then.  It's about attracting students to their schools.  It has nothing to do with them winning or not.  

Also: The Big 10 has been to 4 of the last 10 finals in the NCAA tourney.  How is that not good?

[Chimpy]

Only the winner matters, yo!

[Paelos]

Say it in green all you want, it's the truth. You're not some mid-major conference who lives for hanging a Final Four banner because they got there. You're supposed to be the most decorated traditions blah blah blah conference in the land.

Except you don't win. The Big 10's been to 4 finals? The SEC has won 3. The ACC won 3. The Big East won 4.

The major problem is that the Big 10, and I am talking specifically football in this case, doesn't pay coaches well across the board. Out of the top 25, the Big 10 has 4 on that list. The two highest ones, Brady Hoke and Urban Meyer are fairly recent. The SEC has 10 coaches on that list. It's a big difference.

Also, of course the Big 10 has to try to attract students. The schools are in states with shitty climates, no championships in a decade, and aren't exactly known for blazing hot co-eds like the schools near the coasts. If they don't purport educational superiority, what do they sell?

[Nebu]

Also, of course the Big 10 has to try to attract students. The schools are in states with shitty climates, no championships in a decade, and aren't exactly known for blazing hot co-eds like the schools near the coasts. If they don't purport educational superiority, what do they sell?

You DO get it.  Yay for you!

[Hoax]

Oh goodie. Paelos is making an ass of himself all over the forum this week in ways only a southerner can. How grand.

[ghost]

BIG 12, SEC, and ACC are far worse than the Big 10.  The PAC 12, I'll agree, tends to be the more well behaved of the conferences.  

You should try dealing with the fans from a player's perspective.  It's a lesson in anger management.

The SEC is a bunch of damned rednecks.  It's awful.  Texas has pretty good fans, tbh.  I feel like opposing teams' fans are always treated pretty nicely when they're walking around tailgating and there is little shenanigans regarding the players. 

[Paelos]

Oh goodie. Paelos is making an ass of himself all over the forum this week in ways only a southerner can. How grand.

If Wisconsin wins this week, it'll be the first one in 14 years for the conference, and they will have earned some respect for doing something Ohio State hasn't managed to do since 1960. Michigan last won one in 1989. Michigan State in 2000.

If Kentucky wins, they get a notch closer to chasing down UCLA for the all time record in NCAA championships.

If UCONN wins, they tie Duke for their record at 4.

IF Florida wins, they move into a tie with Kansas, Louisville, and UCONN.

[Rasix]

And Wisconsin with the throw. Bottomless pit of Kentucky talent prevails.

[Paelos]

Kentucky's wins in this tournament have been completely insane.

EDIT: Oh and watching Florida get embarrassed was glorious. GLORIOUS! I hate the Gators.

[ghost]

UK average margin of victory-  4.25

They've had one of the toughest roads to the final game ever though.  Lots of tough teams along the way.

[Chimpy]

Oh hey there, Obama's pick won the tournament.

[Nebu]

Oh hey there, Obama's pick won the tournament.

BLAME OBAMA!

[Paelos]

Kentucky just couldn't keep up the comeback cats thing, which makes sense. They really skated this far while UCONN, with the exception of one early game, really dominated their matches.

All that being said, this really shows how badly the committee fucked up the seedings this year in epic fashion.

[Rasix]

I don't think the winner or final in general say anything about seeding.  The seeds may have been a bit high, but these teams had some bad losses during the year and weren't really popular picks to win it.  This UConn championship team feel like one of the weakest winners since the last UConn championship team.    There was some weirdness in the ordering past the second seed, due to the emphasis on the entire schedule, and the committee can never get the five seeds right.  They always lose in droves.

Superior talent and peaking at the right time is a good formula for winning.  Still, I think almost any team in the Elite-8 could have won it, with the exception perhaps of Dayton.  They were eventually going to be run over.  

[Ingmar]

Seeding isn't supposed to be some kind of magical predictor of who will win/lose in a single elimination, single game tournament anyway. It's just a reward for regular season performance.

[Paelos]

Seeding isn't supposed to be some kind of magical predictor of who will win/lose in a single elimination, single game tournament anyway. It's just a reward for regular season performance.

And yet, this is the highest seeded final ever, and Kentucky was preseason #1.

Duke lost 8 games but was somehow in the top 25 and ranked for a 2 seed. Kentucky lost 10 including 2 losses to Florida on the back end? Unranked and an 8 seed?

The seeding sucked. Teams that had no business with their losses got high seedings, then got exposed.

[Goumindong]

Seeding isn't supposed to be some kind of magical predictor of who will win/lose in a single elimination, single game tournament anyway. It's just a reward for regular season performance.

And yet, this is the highest seeded final ever, and Kentucky was preseason #1.

Duke lost 8 games but was somehow in the top 25 and ranked for a 2 seed. Kentucky lost 10 including 2 losses to Florida on the back end? Unranked and an 8 seed?

The seeding sucked. Teams that had no business with their losses got high seedings, then got exposed.

Basketball is a pretty random game. Not as random as baseball, but still pretty random. If you put each of those teams in a 5 or 7 game tournament the highest seeded team would win much more often and then when they were upset you could say that the seeding sucked.

[Paelos]

Highest seeded final ever. I'll just keep pointing that out.

[Nebu]

Highest seeded final ever. I'll just keep pointing that out.

With marquis players more commonly leaving college after their first or second year for the NBA, seeding will continue to be unreliable.  This year was just an exceptional example of this. 

[Goumindong]

Highest seeded final ever. I'll just keep pointing that out.

Oh no! A random event had an unlikely occurrence which actually isn't that unlikely considering the 75 iterations of the random event

I mean if i cared, i could tell you near exactly how unlikely this event was by some pretty simple statistics* but the end result is probably that "its really not that unlikely, it just hadn't happened yet"

*Regress win probability on rank differential then run millions of iterations of the monte carlo resulting from that.

[HaemishM]

No one likes a math geek.

[Goumindong]

No one likes a math geek.

Aren't everyone here programmers or academics?

[Rasix]

Paelos is a accountant that doesn't believe in stats.  Or logic.

[Nebu]

Aren't everyone here programmers or academics?

That doesn't mean that we like math OR math geeks.  

[WayAbvPar]

Paelos is a accountant that doesn't believe in stats.  Or logic.

[Ingmar]

Plus... who really gives a shit what the seeding is? Other than butthurt gamblers who don't follow the game closely enough to know if Dayton is any good but bet on games anyway.