JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Lol. My gosh man. You troll yourself
Big Ten Hoops for 2013-2014: Who Returns, Where Iowa Fits
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
another agreement. I am still curious about the laughable angle, OTHER than the part that you disagree with that deals with your favorite team, which is rather predictable
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Pssst: this isn't about you. I don't know who you are.
You are assuming I am intentionally putting Wisconsin down there just because I don't like them? LOL. I cannot stand Ohio State or Indiana. Ohio State is probably the school in the league I despise the most. But that didn't stop me from picking them to go 11-1 last year in FB or pick them high in hoops, or saying now they are still a Top 15 team sans Thomas.
I just look at your roster and don't think you are going to be all that great. I can't stand Bo Ryan but readily acknowledge he is a phenomenal coach. Boring as all get out style, but successful.
Where I pick Wisconsin has everything to do with what I think about their team and nothing to do with how much I like or dislike their coach. However, you think its about you. LOL
activebadger
Banned
12 years and NEVER finished lower than 4th. By that fact alone then picking Wisconsin 7th is either downright dumb or based on the fact that you can't stand Wisconsin having the run of success they've had.
We've finished higher with rosters less talented than the roster we bring back next year. "You'll miss the beef inside." What beef? Bruesewitz and Evans are 6-7". Frank Kaminsky's sophmore year stats are better than Jared Berggren's his sophmore year and Kaminsky is bigger than Berggren. The two new freshman are athletes like we've never had on the inside and they're developed physically.
And if Wisconsin is "boring as all get out" then what the hell is Iowa?!! You guys don't score much AND you aren't successful. You've really got no leg to stand on.
activebadger
Banned
I also don't let rivalries with other teams blind my perspective/analysis of another teams prospects. Wisconsin is much more of a rival with MSU during the Bo Ryan years than with Iowa. Iowa simply hasn't been a program Wisconsin has really had to worry about in competing for titles. That doesn't blind me to the fact that I think MSU will be really really good if Payne comes back. They'll be solid without him for one simple fundamental reason: they've got a great coach. Certain programs always produce under their coach no matter what happens to the roster and Wisconsin is one of them.
Iowa will be between 3-5. I don't see Iowa winning the league and I can give you valid reasons for it besides a "just cuz" answer. Iowa will be better next year than this year based simply on being a year older and more experienced. Iowa isn't suddenly going to become a better shooting team though because it's the same players shooting the ball. Woodbury can increase his % by getting stronger and being better able to finish near the rim. Marble is a talented player. Trey Burke is a talented player that makes his teammates better and plays within the framework of the team, he gets "his" but it's through the flow of the game. I don't see that from Marble. Championship teams need their best player to spread the wealth and bring their teammates up to a certain level. White is underrated and I think he could be 2nd team All-Big next season.
Iowa will be between 3-5. I don't see Iowa winning the league and I can give you valid reasons for it besides a "just cuz" answer. Iowa will be better next year than this year based simply on being a year older and more experienced. Iowa isn't suddenly going to become a better shooting team though because it's the same players shooting the ball. Woodbury can increase his % by getting stronger and being better able to finish near the rim. Marble is a talented player. Trey Burke is a talented player that makes his teammates better and plays within the framework of the team, he gets "his" but it's through the flow of the game. I don't see that from Marble. Championship teams need their best player to spread the wealth and bring their teammates up to a certain level. White is underrated and I think he could be 2nd team All-Big next season.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
So according to you, as long as Bo is coaching up the Vadges, they will never, ever finish below 4th place? That is your only arguement? You point to losing more in other years than this one, and still winning. What does that have to do with next year? It would be like saying that since you flipped a coin, and it came up heads twelve times in a row, that it will automatically come up heads again on the 13th flip.
Plus why do you care what someone else picks your team to finish? I'm pretty sure you didn't pick Iowa to finish in the upper half of the BIG. You gonna eat crow for that?
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
You are too biased and blind, but regarding your own team. So much so that you have to go to other teams sites, and rip on people if they don't pick the Vadges to finish better than 4th place. It is funny, but predictable, and I said as much as soon as JD posted this:
activebadger
Banned
That's not true. I picked Iowa in the upper half preseason. Check the tape, I'm sure there's a posting history somewhere.
Yeah, if something happens 12 years in a row there's no guarantee that'll happen again, that is true. However if I'm a betting man and something happens 12 years in a row, I'd be pretty comfortable expecting that predicting that'll happen a 13th time will come true. The names of the players change but one thing hasn't, and that's the coach that is on the sidelines.
I don't know that the Cubs won't win the World series this year but given that it's been 90+ years since it's happened, I'd be pretty confident in it.......
activebadger
Banned
There's a fricking thread on this site asking where I am. You guys asked for it, here I am.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Nobody asked for you in this thread....yet this is the one you came crashing into postings....
Geezzzz, I wonder if that is because JD dared to predict the Vadgers would slip in the standing?
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Just because rational thinking people see what the Vadgers are losing, and think they will slip in the standings, doesn't mean they are absurd. I think it is more absurd to ignore the facts (what Wisky is losing) and just cling to the past as proof that it will all work out. Every year is different.
Either way it matters little if you finish 4th, 5th or 6th. 9 times out of 10 that puts them in the NCAA, where it really matters. I mean what is better, finishing 4th and losing first round of the NCAA, or finishing 5th and playing in the final 4.....but breaking the "magical finishing 4th or better streak".
activebadger
Banned
This was our senior class this year:
Jared Berggren
Ryan Evans
Mike Bruesewitz
Compare that to ANY of the previous 11 senior classes that Bo Ryan has had and this is the worst one. Add in the we have the best recruiting class that Bo has ever had coming in AND we return Josh Gasser and it makes Jon Miller's prediction of a 7th place finish absolutely asinine.
activebadger
Banned
History suggests the higher you finish in your conference, the better your odds are of making the tournament. You can't win the tournament if you aren't in it (see: Iowa). History also suggests that the higher you finish in your conference the better your NCAA tournament seed is going to be and rarely do teams that are outside of the Top 4 seed lines win a national title. In fact the last one to do so was Arizona in 1997.
If you finish in the Top 4 of the BIG ten that means that most likely you are going to be in the NCAA tourney and you have a chance to be seeded 4th or better.
So yes, it matters, besides showing a phenomenal run of consistency.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Take away the name in front of the team, and tell me just how "bullish" you would be on a team losing what the Vadger lose. Lets say any other team that you don't root for?
Wisconsin loses:
41% of their scoring
53% of their rebounding
players who played 43% of all minutes played for the team
Indiana loses the following with Watford, Hulls, and Olandepo leaving. If those 3 leave, you think losing their production will hurt them for next year? Even if Zeller returns, you think they are as good next year without this production from those 3?
43% of their scoring
37% of their rebounding
players who played 42% of all minutes played for the team
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Really? Lets see how your "history" stacked up:
Michigan 4 seed, Wisky a 5 seed
Illinois a 7 seed with the same BIG record as Minny who was an 11 seed, and the same record as Purdue who didn't get in. That doesn't even take into account that the 6th place team didn't make it at all.
Look at the ACC, where Miami wins the regular season, and tourney....#2 seed. Duke a #2 seed.
Look at the Pac 10. Oregon, Arizona, and Cal all the same conference record. A #12 seed, a #6 seed, a #12 seed
Look at the Big 12. Kansas and Kansas St with the same conference record. A #1 seed, and #4 seed.
Conference record/standing means absolutely ZERO to the committee. The committee showed just how wrong you are. Conference standings mean ZERO, and I mean ZERO with seeding.
EDIT: I forgot Colorado.....JFC Activebadger if you really think conference standings mean a thing, Colorado finished 2 wins less than Oregon, and had a #10 seed.
activebadger
Banned
Certain programs are "recession" proof just like good investments. Warren Buffet might not develop the next "Google" every year but year after year his results are proven. Look at the longest NCAA tournament streaks. They belong to Kansas, Michigan State and Wisconsin. If I'm buying a stock and I wanted guaranteed results, I'm buying something that I know performs no matter what happens to the economy. In basketball terms, that is Wisconsin.
Those numbers might means something if it happened to a coach like Crean who had a couple good years with great athletes but if Izzo or Bo Ryan lost those numbers, I'd say that until proven otherwise they'll still be in the conversation at the end. If Bo was a new coach and lost those numbers I'd say the same thing but the fact is, he's done this before. Year after year after year after year.
activebadger
Banned
The equation I stated always holds true. The higher you finish in your conference the "higher" your chances are for being a better seed. Is that always the case? No it's not but the premise still holds true. It's similar to saying "the better your seed, the better chance you have at winning according to history." Does that ALWAYS hold true? No it does not but history suggests that the saying is true. It doesn't say the "higher your seed, you are guaranteed to win" it says the "better your seed, the better chance you have at winning" the same as the "higher you finish in your conference, the better your chance for a higher seed". Not guaranteed, not always but your odds are better.
Congratulations for finishing 8th grade later this year.....
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Sounds like U jelly I made it all the way to the 8th grade.....that makes sense from someone who can't get past kindergarden.....
I used specific examples to show how your "equation" is full of sh!t. There is no correlation at all between NCAA tournament seeding, and conference standings. It would be one thing if your "equation" held true for even 1/2 of the power 6 conferences....yet it doesn't.
It makes sense you didn't make it past kindergarden....as you think just because you say it, then it is true.....Warren Buffet....hahahahaha....
activebadger
Banned
So let me get this straight, you're saying that a team that finishes higher in their conference standings doesn't (on average) stand a better chance of obtaining a higher seed than one that finishes lower in their same conference standings (on average)?!!!
Sure there are outliers, i.e. Iowa having a better conference record than Illinois this season, etc and receiving a lower or no seed at all. You can cherry pick all you want from across the country but the fact remains that (on average) a team that finishes higher in their conference standings has a higher % chance of receiving a better seed. Typically what that means is that Team A that finished higher than Team B in the league "most likely" also had a stronger team out of conference as well. That doesn't always happen (i.e. Minnesota having a vastly superior non-conference resume than Iowa this year yet a weaker conference record) but it's an indicator when all other variables are blind.
Go take a statistics class. They're offered all over.
