I love all the tournaments even the BTT as a fan because I love watching basketball. I just think when it comes to the conference champion it is the regulars season champion that is the real champion.
3 players drafted in 8 years
- Thread starter YOTHN
- Start date
First you claimed you didn't care about it, now you claim you love it. You blow with the wind.
Because you are making it an either\or argument, which it doesn't have to be. Thus, a false argument on your part. One can like the BTT, but like the Big Ten regular season 5X, that doesn't mean they don't like the BTT. Get it? One can value a Big Ten RS more than an Elite 8 depending on the circumstances of that Elite 8.
Case in point.
Team A wins the Big Ten RS. Beats all in state rivals. Goes to the Sweet 16, beats a 4 seed and loses to #1 seed.
Team B finishes 5th in the Big Ten. Loses to rivals. Goes to the Elite 8 after beating 11 seed, 14 seed and a 6 seed.
Which had the better year? I'm taking Team A every day and twice on Sunday.
This reminds me of a situation a few years back where a certain poster here, under a different name, on a different board, was asked a hypothetical question about the schedule strength of 2 different teams. I don't remember the exact numbers in the scenario, but Team A played a schedule where the opponents' ranks averaged much higher than Team B's opponents. The poster in question kept insisting over and over, that Team A played a tougher schedule. Finally, as if explaining quantum physics to a dog, someone else was finally able to make the poster see that a higher average ranking meant a weaker schedule.
When the light bulb (or little candle) finally lit up, it was hilarious. I wonder if the poster I am talking about will respond to this, considering how concerned he is with trying to prove that other people are frauds.
Nice equivocation, but no dice. He claimed he didn't care about it, then he loved it. The simple fact is IU's regular flameouts in the BTT have shown that they weren't the best team in the conference, even in years when they won the regular season championship. The NCAA tournament selection committee agreed, by the way.
As a fan watching basketball I love any college basketball I can watch. What I don't really care about is whether we win the BTT or not. To me winning the regular season championship is way more important to me. As a fan my priority is winning the NCAA Tournament, going to the final four and winning the conference regular season in that order.
So you don't care about the Big Ten tournament because it shows they aren't the best team, but you love the NCAA tournament, something you've said is largely about luck. Too funny how hypocritical you are.
Yes i do love the NCAA Tournament and to me it is the best sporting event in this country. This has been the way they have determined the national champions since 1939 and to me it is the best way. For me the regular season I think the best way to determine the champion is who wins it over 3 months.
Also I am not the on who said the tournament is mainly about luck. There is some luck to it by seeding or upsets like we had in 2002 where we had to play a 12, 13, 1 and a 10 seed to get to the final four.
What a load. Even for you.
So let me get this straight, you can win your conference over what you accomplished over 18 games, but what you do in ONE game in the BTT proves everything about a team. Do you even read what you write? Complete nonsense. You are starting to bore me.
You have me mistaken for some other poster because I never said the tournament was just about luck
Ask the selection committee which team they thought was the best Big Ten squad. Snicker.
That had to do more with OOC schedule and how well they played in the OOC than how they did in the BTT.
The same selection committee that put Texas A&M ahead of Kentucky? That selection committee?
You keep telling us how important the conference tournaments are. Kentucky beat Texas A&M in the tournament final. Kentucky also won the regular season title tied with A&M. Who got the higher seed? Yes, that wonderful committee. What gems they have produced over the years.
You bore me and a lot of people here.
I've never once told you how important conference tournaments are, but I haven transparently dismissed them as meaningless like you and the other settlers. But please, what did the committee think of IU's Big Ten championship? I don't bore you but rather call you out for being untruthful. Banners, remember?
Now you're just lying. You haven't once told me or anyone else here how important conference tournaments are, yet you took time to tell us about BTT flameouts? If that wasn't important, why did you bring it up? https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/3-players-drafted-in-8-years.128520/page-7#post-1756770
You also specifically brought it up as a reason why MSU was considered so good. Your criteria, not mine. https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/lunardi-new-bracketology.126432/page-2#post-1685451
You again mentioned the conference tournament as somehow showing the shortcomings of this team, when apparently the regular season couldn't do that. If not important, why did you mention it? https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/thoughts-on-recruiting.126648/page-2#post-1691031
Here's the most important one. You say "You guys are happy with S16's and first round BTT losses. The negativity you guys see is actually the high standard that some of us want." So that high standard is a BTT championship or solid finishes, which you wouldn't say if it wasn't important
https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/3-players-drafted-in-8-years.128520/page-7#post-1756770
He wanted Crean fired after 2014-15, he wanted him fired after Duke, he's good with him now.
Carp tossed up on a riverbank don't flop near as much as Scott does.
Again, Scott, you are putting words in other posters mouths. TheSpa didn't say you said it was all about luck.
Not always true. Crean's Final Four team lost the first round of the conference tournament, yet went to the Final Four. Syracuse did what in the ACC tournament this year and yet did well in the NCAA tournament.
You sound like IU Scott now.
He bet that over half of the last 20 NCAA Champs didn't win their conference tournament. In fact, 11 of 19 did - and 3 of the other eight were runner-up.
Does it ALWAYS mean you'll do well? There are very few things that are absolutes. But there is a clear connection between doing well in a conference tournament and NCAA success.
How do I sound like Scott when he said half didn't win their conference tournament and I made no claim whatsoever. In fact, I'm more in line with what you said in that it depends. For some teams it will matter, for others it doesn't.
You said this:
You were leaning toward saying the conf tournament wasn't really important (and maybe it's not absolute), but 57% of the time over the last 20 NCAA champs it has been a harbinger of things to come.
Here's the breakdown of how the last 20 did in the regular season and conference tournament. I'm going to think about what it means for a minute, but I'm leaning towards saying that an extremely good regular season is the key here.
8- Finished 1st in the Reg. Season and won the Conf. Tourney
6- Finished 1st in the Reg. Season and didn't win the Conf. Tourney
2- Finished 2nd in the Reg. Season and won Conf. Tourney
1- Finished 2nd in the Reg. Season and didn't win the Conf. Tourney
1- Finished 3rd in the Reg. Season and didn't win the Conf. Tourney
1- Finished 5th in the Reg. Season and didn't have a Conf. Tourney
1- Finished 9th in the Reg. Season and won the Conf. Tourney
I was leaning? Lol
Let me repeat, I said "not always true". That's what I said. For some it may matter, for some it may not. It isn't a one size fits all answer. Let's not play causation and correlation games here, especially at that level of statistical significance.
Of your 6 RS champs from above who didn't win their conference tournament, how did they finish in those conference tournaments?
Again, few things are absolutes.
Indicators, however, can give you a pretty sound prediction on what is likely to occur.
Agree, can be a decent indicator, but not great. Not sure where you got I was leaning on anything in my comments
2 played in the finals and 4 played in the semi-finals. One thing I'm interested in finding out (if I feel like staying awake for awhile) is how do #1 seeds who lose in the first rd. of their Tourney do. It seems like Indiana might be the only #1 seed to ever lose in their first game of the Big Ten Tourney, but I'll have to refresh my memory on that. Interesting discussion though.
I believe Michigan State lost to Penn St in 1998, but would have to look it up for sure.
Latest posts
-
IU @ Purdue, Game 3: 9th inning rally gives IU the win and the series, 5-4...- Latest: Shadesof Crimson
-
Well, what'dya know.... the Government admits to mishandling Trump documents- Latest: Aloha Hoosier
-
-
