Around the Country

[Nayers]

I gotta be honest, this board is full of some legit CBB fans. You back things up with stats or get the hell out. This board makes my arguments with my Minnesota and Ohio st fans at work a breeze. Thanks members!

[justinhub2003]

Originally Posted by prancer

I think there are at least 5 teams in the country that... if we played several games against them on a neutral court... we would lose more than half those games. That's my criteria for saying another team is better than UC. The things you list... kenpom, home losses... those are factors, but those aren't the be all end all criteria.

These are the first 5 teams I'd say are better than us... Nova, Purdue, Virginia, Duke, Xavier. That's not a knock against this UC team. We've got a really really good team this year. But that doesn't mean there aren't still a number of other teams out there that are better. There's no shame in recognizing that.

I think our poll ranking is bloated simply because we've had a weak schedule the last 10-15 games, compared to other top 25 teams. We haven't lost, so we've slowly risen in the polls even though we haven't beaten teams of much quality. When we were ranked in the 20's, I thought we were underrated... now I think we're a bit overrated (especially considering we're sure to rise again this Monday). Again, that's not a knock against this team. That's a knock against the methodology of the AP/Coaches Polls.

Duke has 8 tier 1 and 2 wins with 4 being tier 1

We have 11

Duke also has 2 tier 2 losses and just lost to frickin St. John’s


Duke is dreadful on defense. Duke has all the talent and yet can’t win away from home against bad teams.

[ervins84]

Originally Posted by prancer

I think there are at least 5 teams in the country that... if we played several games against them on a neutral court... we would lose more than half those games. That's my criteria for saying another team is better than UC. The things you list... kenpom, home losses... those are factors, but those aren't the be all end all criteria.

These are the first 5 teams I'd say are better than us... Nova, Purdue, Virginia, Duke, Xavier.

We'd be a 4-5 point favorite vs Xavier on a neutral court right now.

This is pretty easy to calculate using kpom given his projections are pretty much +/- 1.5 points from the Vegas line (excluding injury/or suspension type factors)

Neutral court:
We'd be roughly a 6 point dog vs Nova and Virginia, 3.5 point dog vs Purdue, and basically pickem vs MSU and Duke.

Every other team in the country were a minimum 2 point neutral court favorite.

[cincyguy13]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

Duke has 8 tier 1 and 2 wins with 4 being tier 1

We have 11

Duke also has 2 tier 2 losses and just lost to frickin St. John’s


Duke is dreadful on defense. Duke has all the talent and yet can’t win away from home against bad teams.

Are you really saying we have a better resume than duke? Just trying to understand this

[justinhub2003]

I mean you do realize that the field is incredibly weak this year right ?

Every team is losing to teams they shouldn’t lose to. And yet we aren’t. Thats a big deal.

You can say UC is a legit top 6 team and not be a homer. The rest of the field is super weak. Kansas just lost for the 3rd time at home. Them losing to ok st would be like us losing to miss state. But we didn’t . Their lose to #90 Washington would be like us losing to temple at home

We aren’t losing those games. Duke, kansas and others are

[cincyguy13]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

Duke has 8 tier 1 and 2 wins with 4 being tier 1

We have 11

Duke also has 2 tier 2 losses and just lost to frickin St. John’s


Duke is dreadful on defense. Duke has all the talent and yet can’t win away from home against bad teams.

So, a team could play, 10 teams ranked 65-75, win all of them and have a better resume than a team that plays 8 teams ranked 1-8 and wins all of them? This is really what your saying?

[ervins84]

Originally Posted by cincyguy13

Are you really saying we have a better resume than duke? Just trying to understand this

On paper, using the tiered RPI systems the committee is supposed to use, we have a pretty comparable resume.

Advanced metrics are pretty much calling the two teams a wash.

But, I doubt the committee will see it that way, until I actually see it happen.

[justinhub2003]

Originally Posted by cincyguy13

Are you really saying we have a better resume than duke? Just trying to understand this

I’m trying to say based on team sheet break downs we have the same number of tier 1 wins and 3 more tier 1 wins.

Sure they have higher quality but we have 3 more and zero losses in the tier 2 column.

Loses still matter. Last I checked they have 4 losses, 3 to teams outside the top 50 and 2 in the 80’s

Then dropping to St. John’s would be like us losing to UCF a few weeks ago. We didn’t, they did.

[justinhub2003]

Originally Posted by cincyguy13

So, a team could play, 10 teams ranked 65-75, win all of them and have a better resume than a team that plays 8 teams ranked 1-8 and wins all of them? This is really what your saying?

I’m not saying anything. I’m saying that’s what the commitee said about how it’s grouping wins and losses.

[cincyguy13]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

I mean you do realize that the field is incredibly weak this year right ?

Every team is losing to teams they shouldn’t lose to. And yet we aren’t. Thats a big deal.

You can say UC is a legit top 6 team and not be a homer. The rest of the field is super weak. Kansas just lost for the 3rd time at home. Them losing to ok st would be like us losing to miss state. But we didn’t . Their lose to #90 Washington would be like us losing to temple at home

We aren’t losing those games. Duke, kansas and others are

I think we are a good team. I think we are better than Kansas. I love the team just like you. Just saying, if your best wins are buffalo and Houston, it’s not a great argument.