Well, Cinci is gonna make it this year so.

Tubby has made millions spouting this garbage.

(03-11-2018 07:03 PM)cmt Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 06:49 PM)Mimi Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 02:28 PM)cmt Wrote:  To hear the hype, even from our own coach, it is terribly hard to get to the final four unless you are in a P5 conference.

Nothing could be further from the truth

Since 2000, 31 schools have been represented in the final four.
10 of those from non P5 schools, ourselves included. Or, 32%

There have been 9 schools to appear at least 3 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those (at the time) were not P5 schools (Louisville now is)

If you subtract the perennial favorites (those 9) that leaves 22 schools, 8 of which are nonP5, Or, 36%.
All inclusive, if you are P5 and not a perennial favorite, your chances are 29%.

Therefore, a nonP5 school has a better chance than a P5 school that is not one of the Duke's, Kentucky's or Kansas' of the world. Michigan State was the winner with 5 appearances if you were wondering.

Which means to me that in a P5 league like the ACC, Wake Forest having to fight through Louisville, North Carolina and Duke, and Virginia, etc makes it extremely difficult for you to get a high seed, play at home (like Duke and UNC always do), and get to the final four. A Gonzaga type school or even a Memphis, if they have assembled the team, has a much easier road to a high seed and a final four.

In conclusion, shut up about the P5 thing in college basketball, it makes no sense.

Numbers are right.

But...you do not factor in that there are a lot more non P5 schools. Just using your numbers, 30% of the schools in the Final Four are non P5 of late.

But, not 30% of all the spots, as other than Butker no school has been more than once in your time frame, so spots are less than 30... and, more importantly, there are 64 P5 schools which there are something close to 300 non. So about 20% of the schools get about 80% of the spots.

Well, you can play with the numbers any way you want. Fully one third of the teams in the final four are from nonP5 schools. Plus, the blue bloods take up a lot of room whichever side o the railroad tracks you're on.

My point being it is easier for Gonzaga or Memphis or Xavier to get a good seed and advance to the final four than 80% of the P5 schools given equal talent.

The final four is a tough nut to crack and top nonP5 schools can there easier than say, Mississippi or Wake Forest simply because of conference schedule and therefore better records and higher seeding. I am not trying to say it is easier for Alabama A&M than Mississippi State, but it is easier for Wichita State than Kansas State.

Everyone includes the Big East as a power conference in basketball.

Sent from my LG-H811 using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-13-2018 09:19 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:03 PM)cmt Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 06:49 PM)Mimi Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 02:28 PM)cmt Wrote:  To hear the hype, even from our own coach, it is terribly hard to get to the final four unless you are in a P5 conference.

Nothing could be further from the truth

Since 2000, 31 schools have been represented in the final four.
10 of those from non P5 schools, ourselves included. Or, 32%

There have been 9 schools to appear at least 3 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those (at the time) were not P5 schools (Louisville now is)

If you subtract the perennial favorites (those 9) that leaves 22 schools, 8 of which are nonP5, Or, 36%.
All inclusive, if you are P5 and not a perennial favorite, your chances are 29%.

Therefore, a nonP5 school has a better chance than a P5 school that is not one of the Duke's, Kentucky's or Kansas' of the world. Michigan State was the winner with 5 appearances if you were wondering.

Which means to me that in a P5 league like the ACC, Wake Forest having to fight through Louisville, North Carolina and Duke, and Virginia, etc makes it extremely difficult for you to get a high seed, play at home (like Duke and UNC always do), and get to the final four. A Gonzaga type school or even a Memphis, if they have assembled the team, has a much easier road to a high seed and a final four.

In conclusion, shut up about the P5 thing in college basketball, it makes no sense.

Numbers are right.

But...you do not factor in that there are a lot more non P5 schools. Just using your numbers, 30% of the schools in the Final Four are non P5 of late.

But, not 30% of all the spots, as other than Butker no school has been more than once in your time frame, so spots are less than 30... and, more importantly, there are 64 P5 schools which there are something close to 300 non. So about 20% of the schools get about 80% of the spots.

Well, you can play with the numbers any way you want. Fully one third of the teams in the final four are from nonP5 schools. Plus, the blue bloods take up a lot of room whichever side o the railroad tracks you're on.

My point being it is easier for Gonzaga or Memphis or Xavier to get a good seed and advance to the final four than 80% of the P5 schools given equal talent.

The final four is a tough nut to crack and top nonP5 schools can there easier than say, Mississippi or Wake Forest simply because of conference schedule and therefore better records and higher seeding. I am not trying to say it is easier for Alabama A&M than Mississippi State, but it is easier for Wichita State than Kansas State.

Everyone includes the Big East as a power conference in basketball.

Sent from my LG-H811 using CSNbbs mobile app

No one includes the Big East in the P5 conferences.

(03-11-2018 07:26 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 06:26 PM)bariggins98 Wrote:  2017- Gonzaga runner up
2016- Villanova champ
2015- none

2014- UConn National champ
2013-Louisville National champ
2012 UConn and Louisville Final Four
2011- UConn (champ)VCU, Butler (runner up)
2010-Butler runner up
2009- UConn Villanova
2008- Memphis
2007- Georgetown
2006- George Mason

Please, Tubby, tell us again how it’s impossible for a non Power5 school to make the Final Four or win a championship. You’d think a “HOF” coach would be more knowledgeable about the sport that is is supposedly elite level.

Enough said.

Except that is not what Tubby said. He said "hard" not "impossible" and those numbers actually prove his point when not taken out of context. This is especially true if you consider the Big East a power conference in basketball (which pretty much everyone does, we sure as hell did when we were going to the Big East).

Sent from my LG-H811 using CSNbbs mobile app

I wasn't saying a nonP5 school has an easier time getting into the NCAAs or that a P5 school has a harder time. I wasn't saying nonP5 schools get better seeding than P5s.

What I am saying that a number 1 seed Memphis in 2008 would have had a more difficult time getting a one seed if Memphis was in the ACC. They'd would have probably lost a couple more games.

Conversely, an equally good, say, Wake Forest team, since they have to play 6-8 top 25 games (CUSA was about zero) in conference and in the conference tournament, they would have had a harder time getting a number one seed. Please don't think I think the 2008 Wake Forest team was as good as the Tigers were, it was just an hypothetical example.

The point is a nonP5 schedule is quite often way easier than a P5 schedule, so you have an easier time seeding-wise if you are a really good nonP5 team than if you were the same roster in a P5 conference.

(03-13-2018 09:31 PM)cmt Wrote:  I wasn't saying a nonP5 school has an easier time getting into the NCAAs or that a P5 school has a harder time. I wasn't saying nonP5 schools get better seeding than P5s.

What I am saying that a number 1 seed Memphis in 2008 would have had a more difficult time getting a one seed if Memphis was in the ACC. They'd would have probably lost a couple more games.

Conversely, an equally good, say, Wake Forest team, since they have to play 6-8 top 25 games (CUSA was about zero) in conference and in the conference tournament, they would have had a harder time getting a number one seed. Please don't think I think the 2008 Wake Forest team was as good as the Tigers were, it was just an hypothetical example.

The point is a nonP5 schedule is quite often way easier than a P5 schedule, so you have an easier time seeding-wise if you are a really good nonP5 team than if you were the same roster in a P5 conference.

Who were the other 1 seeds in 2008?

Sent from my LG-H811 using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-13-2018 09:35 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 09:31 PM)cmt Wrote:  I wasn't saying a nonP5 school has an easier time getting into the NCAAs or that a P5 school has a harder time. I wasn't saying nonP5 schools get better seeding than P5s.

What I am saying that a number 1 seed Memphis in 2008 would have had a more difficult time getting a one seed if Memphis was in the ACC. They'd would have probably lost a couple more games.

Conversely, an equally good, say, Wake Forest team, since they have to play 6-8 top 25 games (CUSA was about zero) in conference and in the conference tournament, they would have had a harder time getting a number one seed. Please don't think I think the 2008 Wake Forest team was as good as the Tigers were, it was just an hypothetical example.

The point is a nonP5 schedule is quite often way easier than a P5 schedule, so you have an easier time seeding-wise if you are a really good nonP5 team than if you were the same roster in a P5 conference.

Who were the other 1 seeds in 2008?

Sent from my LG-H811 using CSNbbs mobile app

Oh, I don't know, let me think, maybe UNC, UCLA and Kansas? Three blue bloods, read my above posts, they will be there regardless. But no OK State, Ole Miss, Oregon State or Purdue in the mix, if I remember right.

My point is, as a coach that knows they can put together a real live contender, the road to the final four is easier, or at least as easy, at a Memphis or Gonzaga or WSU or Villanova than any non-blue blood P5, because they are almost guaranteed to be fighting with one or 2 top 10 teams in their own conference.

"A Gonzaga type school or even a Memphis...has a much easier road to a high seed"

"it is easier for Gonzaga or Memphis or Xavier to get a good seed"

"Memphis in 2008 would have had a more difficult time getting a one seed if Memphis was in the ACC"

It sure sounds a lot like you're saying a non-power gets better seeds. If you think it's just finish first in a lesser-league with a good record and bad SOS to get a high seed, that's not true either. That would equate to non-power leagues averaging higher seeds than teams similarly rated in the advance metrics. Most analysis shows the opposite of all of this.