The Top 25 thread

[atskooc]

14 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

That same 22 win team, with 13 conference wins, hailing from a Power 5 Conference apparently wasn't among the top 84 teams in the nation last season.

 

Ranking us would seem to be a pretty strong acknowledgement we should have made the dance.

According to the people who have no say in whether we should have made the dance.

 

[AuroranHusker]

3 hours ago, jimmykc said:

I'll be curious to see if Sports Illustrated mentions us this year for the first time in decades. Their NBA issue came out this week and the college one usually follows. And how about those Red Sox. (Sorry, I just had to throw this in somewhere).

 

Always with the Beaners. 

[AuroranHusker]

On 10/15/2018 at 5:51 PM, 49r said:

 

Agree completely.   Shavon is the exact type of leader this team is lacking.  Plus, talent-wise he's no slouch, really.

 

I'd take an Evan Taylor, even, right about this time of year... Perhaps one of the Seniors will rise up in a B1G way this upcoming season. GBR

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by AuroranHusker

[Huskerpapa]

Interestingly, many people think having a solid leader is always a great thing.  Often, you can have a leader that actually fosters negativity on a team and can lead them down a bad path.  Simply look around, you see it in industry and every day life.  (Hey Bobby, let's go play some video games, we have shot enough today - versus - Hey Bobby, let's say we shoot until one of us hits 15 3's in a row.  The winner gets a chicken dinner!)

 

I think this team has leadership, perhaps not yet in the conventional sense, but you may see it on the floor and post-game, when or if adversity is presented.

[uneblinstu]

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

That same 22 win team, with 13 conference wins, hailing from a Power 5 Conference apparently wasn't among the top 84 teams in the nation last season.

 

Ranking us would seem to be a pretty strong acknowledgement we should have made the dance.

AP voters set the field?

[HuskerFever]

7 hours ago, uneblinstu said:

Really? A 22 win team, with 13 conference wins, hailing from a Power 5 school and has it's 4 best players returning wouldn't be ranked?

 

I don't know if you heard, but the Big Ten was "down" last year. If only there was a team from the Big Ten that could've made a deep run in the tournament to prove that notion wrong...

[khoock]

8 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I don't know if you heard, but the Big Ten was "down" last year. If only there was a team from the Big Ten that could've made a deep run in the tournament to prove that notion wrong...

Michigan did lol

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, khoock said:

Michigan did lol

 

Tell that to the AP.

[aphilso1]

3 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I don't know if you heard, but the Big Ten was "down" last year. If only there was a team from the Big Ten that could've made a deep run in the tournament to prove that notion wrong...

 

Loyola making the Final Four didn't mean the Mo Valley was a good conference, so why would Michigan making it validate the B1G?  That doesn't make sense.

[HuskerFever]

13 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Loyola making the Final Four didn't mean the Mo Valley was a good conference, so why would Michigan making it validate the B1G?  That doesn't make sense.

 

It was in jest. But the Big Ten had one of the best (if not the best; it's hard to recall without looking it up again) winning percentage in the NCAA tournament last season.

[HuskerFever]

@aphilso1 Here's what I was referring to. 9-4 was a pretty good outing for the 4 teams that made it into the tournament.

 

 

[aphilso1]

1 hour ago, HuskerFever said:

@aphilso1 Here's what I was referring to. 9-4 was a pretty good outing for the 4 teams that made it into the tournament.

 

 

 

Gotcha.  Yeah, 9-4 says a lot more about the conference's strength than one team going 5-1.  I'm with you there.  I just didn't see how one team going deep says anything about the conference as a whole.

[AuroranHusker]

12 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

Interestingly, many people think having a solid leader is always a great thing.  Often, you can have a leader that actually fosters negativity on a team and can lead them down a bad path.  Simply look around, you see it in industry and every day life.  (Hey Bobby, let's go play some video games, we have shot enough today - versus - Hey Bobby, let's say we shoot until one of us hits 15 3's in a row.  The winner gets a chicken dinner!)

 

I think this team has leadership, perhaps not yet in the conventional sense, but you may see it on the floor and post-game, when or if adversity is presented.

 

I'm not following this train of thought......

 

 

[Chuck Taylor]

10 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

@aphilso1 Here's what I was referring to. 9-4 was a pretty good outing for the 4 teams that made it into the tournament.

 

 

The conference tourney records get a lot more attention than they deserve. Having one team get hot makes a big difference, especially if you don't have that many teams. The BIG got hosed on its bubble teams last year, so the lowest seed to make the tournament was a 5 in Ohio State. Better seeds generally win more games. Plus, Michigan got hot.

 

In 2017, we had 7 teams and finished 8-7. The league was better, but the results weren't. 

[Chuck Taylor]

KenPom preseason, we're 38, 9th in the BIG. 

https://kenpom.com/index.php

 

 

[Navin R. Johnson]

I don't think the Big 10 was as bad as many made it out to be last year.  It tanked in the ACC challenge and it's reputation never recovered from it.  It is also tough to determine the strength of your conference once you hit conference play as conference teams are knocking each other off. Is it better to have a few teams dominate a conference or is it better to have more balance without a dominate team or two?

[HuskerActuary]

1 hour ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

I don't think the Big 10 was as bad as many made it out to be last year.  It tanked in the ACC challenge and it's reputation never recovered from it.  It is also tough to determine the strength of your conference once you hit conference play as conference teams are knocking each other off. Is it better to have a few teams dominate a conference or is it better to have more balance without a dominate team or two?

For national perception, I've always thought it's better to have a few elite teams, and then people tend to call it a good conference no matter what how good the others are. Rightly or wrongly, that's what I've observed. Unfortunately, it looks like we might have the opposite case for the Big Ten this year (maybe too early to say for sure, though).

 

Agreed on last year. The non-conference schedules and subsequent results were not kind to the Big Ten's RPI, which had negative impacts in lots of ways (e.g. Tier 1 wins being determined by RPI... remember how some of those Big 12 teams had nearly a dozen Tier 1 and 2 wins?). The Big Ten had such fewer chances for Tier 1/2 wins based on the lagging RPI for so many teams. Thankfully, the RPI is now gone!

[Navin R. Johnson]

56 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

For national perception, I've always thought it's better to have a few elite teams, and then people tend to call it a good conference no matter what how good the others are. Rightly or wrongly, that's what I've observed. Unfortunately, it looks like we might have the opposite case for the Big Ten this year (maybe too early to say for sure, though).

 

Agreed on last year. The non-conference schedules and subsequent results were not kind to the Big Ten's RPI, which had negative impacts in lots of ways (e.g. Tier 1 wins being determined by RPI... remember how some of those Big 12 teams had nearly a dozen Tier 1 and 2 wins?). The Big Ten had such fewer chances for Tier 1/2 wins based on the lagging RPI for so many teams. Thankfully, the RPI is now gone!

 

I don't think there is really a fair way to determine SOS.  Like I said in the past, expand the field to 128 teams and eliminate the play in games and the NIT and CBI.

[Norm Peterson]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 2:06 PM, uneblinstu said:

AP voters set the field?

 

Where'd I say that?

[Norm Peterson]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 11:54 AM, atskooc said:

According to the people who have no say in whether we should have made the dance.

 

Point being?

 

If the Big Ten office says 8 fouls called against you in the Purdue game shouldn't have been called, would you say: "According to people who aren't calling penalties in games?"

 

Where is it written that acknowledgement the committee screwed you can only come from the committee?

[atskooc]

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Point being?

 

If the Big Ten office says 8 fouls called against you in the Purdue game shouldn't have been called, would you say: "According to people who aren't calling penalties in games?"

 

Where is it written that acknowledgement the committee screwed you can only come from the committee?

Had it been written that the committee screwed us last year (as it was over and over here), I can see that it would have been relevant last year.

 

Had the committee come out and said they screwed us, I can see that it would be relevant.

 

If the people who have nothing to do with the committee say we're a top-25 team before this year starts, I don't see how it's relevant to the prior year's tournament selection or any screwing of any team. I don't think the top-25 preseason rankings say anything about the previous year's tournament, nor should they. All the preseason rankings tell me is what the press thinks will happen this year, which in no way says we got screwed last year.

 

Do I think we got screwed last year? Yup. Does a handful of writers putting us on their preseason ballots validate that? Nope.

 

And of course I would say that about the fouls.  The Big Ten office doesn't wear stripes or carry a whistle.  That they came out later and said the reffing was bad, what good does that do for the game we've already played?

[Fullbacksympathy]

On 10/20/2018 at 9:15 AM, Navin R. Johnson said:

I don't think the Big 10 was as bad as many made it out to be last year.  It tanked in the ACC challenge and it's reputation never recovered from it.  It is also tough to determine the strength of your conference once you hit conference play as conference teams are knocking each other off. Is it better to have a few teams dominate a conference or is it better to have more balance without a dominate team or two?

 

It's unfortunate because I truly believe the B1G has the very best coaches, top to bottom, in the country.  Every team gets measurably better by the end of the regular season.  If there was a beginning of the year and end of the year challenge (impossible, I know), the B1G would fare quite well.  Or... you could just look at the NCAA Tournament basically every single year when no one wants to play those pesky, well-coached B1G teams like Wisconsin or MSU or Michigan.  

[Norm Peterson]

2 hours ago, atskooc said:

Had it been written that the committee screwed us last year (as it was over and over here), I can see that it would have been relevant last year.

 

Had the committee come out and said they screwed us, I can see that it would be relevant.

 

If the people who have nothing to do with the committee say we're a top-25 team before this year starts, I don't see how it's relevant to the prior year's tournament selection or any screwing of any team. I don't think the top-25 preseason rankings say anything about the previous year's tournament, nor should they. All the preseason rankings tell me is what the press thinks will happen this year, which in no way says we got screwed last year.

 

Do I think we got screwed last year? Yup. Does a handful of writers putting us on their preseason ballots validate that? Nope.

 

And of course I would say that about the fouls.  The Big Ten office doesn't wear stripes or carry a whistle.  That they came out later and said the reffing was bad, what good does that do for the game we've already played?

 

What was written was that our record last year justifies a pre-season ranking this year.

 

I just responded that what we did last year wasn't good enough to get us into the dance; therefore, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's good enough to warrant us being ranked in the pre-season this year.

 

And, if our record last year is enough to warrant a pre-season ranking this year, then ...

 

(I'll let you fill in the blank.)

[49r]

https://www.cbssports.com//college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-cincinnati-falls-out-of-the-updated-top-25-and-1-after-losing-at-home-to-ohio-state/

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, 49r said:

https://www.cbssports.com//college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-cincinnati-falls-out-of-the-updated-top-25-and-1-after-losing-at-home-to-ohio-state/

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

 

Was just about to post this.  We entered the rankings and are listed as "biggest mover."