Purdue and Kentucky in Indianapolis

[Courtsensetwo]

How was it valid to claim that McNeese sucks? They beat Clemson, the #5 seed in the region. If anything, that suggests that McNeese was under-seeded. Remember, Clemson was in the E8 last year and tied for 2nd in the ACC this year. That hardly suggests that McNeese beat a bad team. If anything, the results demonstrate that the Committee should have ranked McNeese higher than they did.

You guys have definitely had the toughest road so far, won the most OOC games and with the number of games the refs screwed you out of, you should have been the #1 overall seed. There is no other team or fanbase that we respect more than Purdue.

We so badly want to be you.

How is that? You come here sobbing for our respect...you now have it.

Good to go?

 

[apm1003]

No one is sobbing for anything.

Your post is classic courtsense style: make up something that isn't there and base a nonsense response on that made up claim.

At no time has anyone in this thread suggested that Purdue has a terribly hard path to the S16. Rather, I and others pointed out that it was not a very easy one as others in this thread stated. There is a difference between a very easy one and what actually occurred. First round upsets are not rare in the NCAA. It happens. RMK was upset 4 times by double-digit seeds, so I would think that those kind of upsets would be familiar to you.

But, of course, those facts would interfere with your position on this thread.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

No one is sobbing for anything.

Your post is classic courtsense style: make up something that isn't there and base a nonsense response on that made up claim.

At no time has anyone in this thread suggested that Purdue has a terribly hard path to the S16. Rather, I and others pointed out that it was not a very easy one as others in this thread stated. There is a difference between a very easy one and what actually occurred. First round upsets are not rare in the NCAA. It happens. RMK was upset 4 times by double-digit seeds, so I would think that those kind of upsets would be familiar to you.

But, of course, those facts would interfere with your position on this thread.

We really do just want to be you

We good to go now?

 

[zeke4ahs]

It is interesting; I recall on Selection Sunday and the days after that "those in the know" analysts on tv had High Point as the most likely to pull a big upset. So given that perception, the idea that Purdue got a break is somewhat contradicted. By the way, if you go to the ESPN.COM website and look at their NCAA Tournament contest, you will find that there were 24.4 million entries and at present no perfect brackets. The largest games that destroyed brackets were Louisville #1, McNeese #2 and High Point #3. So given that a lot of analysts and entrants thought HPU was going to win, the idea that it would be an easy win for Purdue is contradicted by the facts. There was a free market decision that High Point had a good chance to win. It wasn't just the experts picking them but lots of independent entrants as well.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

You can’t honestly believe that. It’s laughable. It’s the job of the analysts to pick a big upset. And people listening to them chose the same upset for their bracket. Huge surprise. That doesn’t make either one of those teams any better. Come on…

 

[zeke4ahs]

How was it valid to claim that McNeese sucks? They beat Clemson, the #5 seed in the region. If anything, that suggests that McNeese was under-seeded. Remember, Clemson was in the E8 last year and tied for 2nd in the ACC this year. That hardly suggests that McNeese beat a bad team. If anything, the results demonstrate that the Committee should have ranked McNeese higher than they did.

A team like McNeese can often pull a one game upset, but rarely two. And Clemson was historically bad that game .

 

[apm1003]

You can’t honestly believe that. It’s laughable. It’s the job of the analysts to pick a big upset. And people listening to them chose the same upset for their bracket. Huge surprise. That doesn’t make either one of those teams any better. Come on…

The betting spread for Purdue - High Point was 8.5 pts. Texas A&M - Yale was 7.5. Arizona - Akron was 14.5. Maryland-Grand Canyon was 10.5. These were the 4/13 games. Betting spreads are the result of cash inflows to the respective sides of the game. It is a free market and many studies have shown that the betting markets are very efficient; the results are very often close to the spreads. The spreads are not determined by tv analysts but by independent multitudes of bettors.

So looking at the spreads it was judged that of its peers, Purdue had the second most difficult opponent and not very far off from the most difficult. So I have a hard time seeing how Purdue had an easy path when compared to the other members of their peers. The free market argues otherwise. And by the way, the McNeese spread was even closer than HPU at 6,5. The very easy path argument doesn't hold up when you look at the numbers.

As for the media guys, they picked potential upsets by looking at what they thought spreads would be. I recall many talking up Yale as well, which made sense given the way the spread turned out.

 

[apm1003]

A team like McNeese can often pull a one game upset, but rarely two. And Clemson was historically bad that game .

I was not previously aware that the upset of a more highly ranked favorite could be excused on this board as just a bad game.. I seem to recall a lot of criticism of Purdue when they got upset similarly. I guess that the criticism rule has changed now; I was previously unaware that it had.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I was not previously aware that the upset of a more highly ranked favorite could be excused on this board as just a bad game.. I seem to recall a lot of criticism of Purdue when they got upset similarly. I guess that the criticism rule has changed now; I was previously unaware that it had.

Have any player's Moms dogwalked you on your board recently?

That's right, you were laughed off of your own board for being a player's parent troller.

 

[iubhounds]

High Point and McNeese St should have them battle tested, the breaks those bastards get, Houston's team probably will all come down with the flu Friday morning.

Or it will be like last year(?) when their best player went down with an injury and never came back.

 

[iubhounds]

doesn't it suck when facts get in the way of feelings??

Didn't that dogshit IU team pound the pukes by 15? ... how was that possible for a 4 seed?

 

[apm1003]

Have any player's Moms dogwalked you on your board recently?

That's right, you were laughed off of your own board for being a player's parent troller.

Like I posted before: make up stuff/mischaracterize is your standard go-to move, so here we are. Now waiting for the "run to..." post, which is Part B. This is classic courtsense; deflect, deflect, deflect. There is a pattern that everyone can see.

 

[apm1003]

Didn't that dogshit IU team pound the pukes by 15? ... how was that possible for a 4 seed?

That is a rather harsh assessment of your team that I would not agree with. I think that your team was mediocre but you take it to a very different level. The B1G has been known for years as tough to win on the road, especially in rivalry games. Seeding is highly dependent on algorithms, which are not based on a single game but rather a body of work.

 

[IUNorth]

The betting spread for Purdue - High Point was 8.5 pts. Texas A&M - Yale was 7.5. Arizona - Akron was 14.5. Maryland-Grand Canyon was 10.5. These were the 4/13 games. Betting spreads are the result of cash inflows to the respective sides of the game. It is a free market and many studies have shown that the betting markets are very efficient; the results are very often close to the spreads. The spreads are not determined by tv analysts but by independent multitudes of bettors.

So looking at the spreads it was judged that of its peers, Purdue had the second most difficult opponent and not very far off from the most difficult. So I have a hard time seeing how Purdue had an easy path when compared to the other members of their peers. The free market argues otherwise. And by the way, the McNeese spread was even closer than HPU at 6,5. The very easy path argument doesn't hold up when you look at the numbers.

As for the media guys, they picked potential upsets by looking at what they thought spreads would be. I recall many talking up Yale as well, which made sense given the way the spread turned out.

Part of that equation is betters likely don't think Purdue is as good as those other 3 teams???

And then you're conveniently not listing the 2nd round opponents, which is obviously when you should start talking about ease of "path" for higher seeded teams.

Texas A&M had to play Michigan...we know what happened to Purdue 2/3 of the time they played them this year.

Arizona had to play Oregon... I know everyone was "shaking in their boots" about McNeese...but they ain't Oregon.

Maryland played Colorado State... really the only close comparison. So maybe Maryland's was comparable? But I'm not sure you'll find many people that wouldn't say Colorado State was a markedly more difficult matchup than McNeese was. Most of their metrics had them at least 10 spots better than McNeese, as an example. And they had one of the better overall players in the tournament in Clifford.

Of the fours...they had the easiest path...without question.

 

[Bill4411]

Kenpom is a good place to look for quality of the teams. Michigan has soared recently but still lag behind most of the remaining field, including Purdue.

 

[apm1003]

Part of that equation is betters likely don't think Purdue is as good as those other 3 teams???

And then you're conveniently not listing the 2nd round opponents, which is obviously when you should start talking about ease of "path" for higher seeded teams.

Texas A&M had to play Michigan...we know what happened to Purdue 2/3 of the time they played them this year.

Arizona had to play Oregon... I know everyone was "shaking in their boots" about McNeese...but they ain't Oregon.

Maryland played Colorado State... really the only close comparison. So maybe Maryland's was comparable? But I'm not sure you'll find many people that wouldn't say Colorado State was a markedly more difficult matchup than McNeese was. Most of their metrics had them at least 10 spots better than McNeese, as an example. And they had one of the better overall players in the tournament in Clifford.

Of the fours...they had the easiest path...without question.

Maryland was a 7.5 pt. favorite over CSU. Arizona was 4.5. Texas A&M was 2.5. Again, Purdue's 2nd round opponent was not judged significantly inferior, it wasn't even judged the most inferior. Actually, the spread of spreads was only 5 points over 4 games. That strikes me as fairly tight. The math argues against your position, especially in the case of CSU. They did well, and covered, but that was not the expectation.

 

[Chicago-bound Hoosier]

Didn't that dogshit IU team pound the pukes by 15? ... how was that possible for a 4 seed?

They were screwed by the refs. Like always.

 

[IUNorth]

There should

They were screwed by the refs. Like always.

Leal should have been kicked out. If he had been, he wouldn't have been able to help shut Braden Smith down that 2nd half. Game would have been different, if so. I'm sure the NCAA committee actually took that in to account, too.

 

[kkott]

The betting spread for Purdue - High Point was 8.5 pts. Texas A&M - Yale was 7.5. Arizona - Akron was 14.5. Maryland-Grand Canyon was 10.5. These were the 4/13 games. Betting spreads are the result of cash inflows to the respective sides of the game. It is a free market and many studies have shown that the betting markets are very efficient; the results are very often close to the spreads. The spreads are not determined by tv analysts but by independent multitudes of bettors.

So looking at the spreads it was judged that of its peers, Purdue had the second most difficult opponent and not very far off from the most difficult. So I have a hard time seeing how Purdue had an easy path when compared to the other members of their peers. The free market argues otherwise. And by the way, the McNeese spread was even closer than HPU at 6,5. The very easy path argument doesn't hold up when you look at the numbers.

As for the media guys, they picked potential upsets by looking at what they thought spreads would be. I recall many talking up Yale as well, which made sense given the way the spread turned out.

Amazing how hard you contort your views to try and come up with an argument to support your belief. Purdue played a 12 and 13. One of the easiest paths without question, but similar to MD and TX Tech. So, unquestionably, they caught a break. Big deal, it's part of the tourney every year. You also caught a break in being a 4 seed, compared to UM, and to get to play in Indy. But, now I think your breaks have ended, as Houston is a tough matchup. Win here and you'll get your props, but plain to see why folks would say you've caught breaks and had an easy path so far.

 

[apm1003]

As has been pointed out, the algorithm analysis contradicts your Michigan point and the Committee places emphasis on that data by their own acknowledgement. And as you pointed out, upsets happen in the Tournament every year, either through randomness or seeding errors.

If anything, the spread data seem to argue that the Committee makes a fair number of seeding errors. You are right; Purdue played a 12 and 13. The question that should be asked is given free market evaluation of those teams, should they have been 12 and 13? The data argues against it. But if it is essentially similar to Texas Tech and Maryland, as you pointed out, then one could claim it to be not unusual as it is not really rare. Can it reasonably be classified as a break if it happens often? I would suggest not as I would think describing it that way for rare events.

Prior to this discussion, I was not familiar with the spreads as I had to look them up and I only did it for the peer group. But what I suspect that it shows is a discrimination in seeding, and likely inclusion, of P4 teams to the detriment of the other conferences' members. You would have to look more deeply to see if it is really the case but it would not surprise me if it was.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

There should

Leal should have been kicked out. If he had been, he wouldn't have been able to help shut Braden Smith down that 2nd half. Game would have been different, if so. I'm sure the NCAA committee actually took that in to account, too.

No way you could give Leal a greater punishment there than the purdue kid.

Ultimately that made the decision IMO. Sure Leal did a good job on Moze, exactly what any decent defender should do.

I seriously doubt that the comittee knew anything about the play.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Like I posted before: make up stuff/mischaracterize is your standard go-to move, so here we are. Now waiting for the "run to..." post, which is Part B. This is classic courtsense; deflect, deflect, deflect. There is a pattern that everyone can see.

I made up nothing you mindless, obsessed child.

Oops, I mean we all really respect you guys so very much and any time we are upset at Pu it is truly because we wish…with all of our hearts that we were you.

Are we good? You ok to go home now?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Kenpom is a good place to look for quality of the teams. Michigan has soared recently but still lag behind most of the remaining field, including Purdue.

Any chance you could drag this insecure poster back to The pu site? You are welcome to stay.

 

[T.M.P.]

No one is sobbing for anything.

Your post is classic courtsense style: make up something that isn't there and base a nonsense response on that made up claim.

At no time has anyone in this thread suggested that Purdue has a terribly hard path to the S16. Rather, I and others pointed out that it was not a very easy one as others in this thread stated. There is a difference between a very easy one and what actually occurred. First round upsets are not rare in the NCAA. It happens. RMK was upset 4 times by double-digit seeds, so I would think that those kind of upsets would be familiar to you.

But, of course, those facts would interfere with your position on this thread.

^^ Too dumb to use the quote function.

 

[apm1003]

^^ Too dumb to use the quote function.

Being called "dumb" by you is like being called "ugly" by a toad.

 

[apm1003]

I made up nothing you mindless, obsessed child.

Oops, I mean we all really respect you guys so very much and any time we are upset at Pu it is truly because we wish…with all of our hearts that we were you.

Are we good? You ok to go home now?

Funny how in your post you deflected the deflect charge. When you're caught doing it, when you can't answer, you ignore. Just like you did in this post. It's the standard courtsense go-to move. I'm wondering how long it takes before you come to realize that readers here know that you do it. It's really obvious.

Remember, you have already admitted to posting a charge previously on this site that you said that you had no idea if it was true. That's making things up.

 

[iubhounds]

That is a rather harsh assessment of your team that I would not agree with. I think that your team was mediocre but you take it to a very different level. The B1G has been known for years as tough to win on the road, especially in rivalry games. Seeding is highly dependent on algorithms, which are not based on a single game but rather a body of work.

you didn't catch my dry sense of humor. If they were really dogshit they would have not won at MSU

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Funny how in your post you deflected the deflect charge. When you're caught doing it, when you can't answer, you ignore. Just like you did in this post. It's the standard courtsense go-to move. I'm wondering how long it takes before you come to realize that readers here know that you do it. It's really obvious.

Remember, you have already admitted to posting a charge previously on this site that you said that you had no idea if it was true. That's making things up.

Gosh we all wish we were you

 

[Courtsensetwo]

So the 24th or 25th of my followers has taken the time and effort to create a new email account then a new account here just to follow me @boilerzz who is a suspect for several of these accounts claims that he knows who this one is and it is not a pu fan.

Welcome @Where is the link

 

[apm1003]

Gosh we all wish we were you

I am not too sure about anyone else, but I think that you are a fairly good candidate!

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I am not too sure about anyone else, but I think that you are a fairly good candidate!

Preparing for big S16 game

Run to IU board

 

[VanPastorMan]

It kind of blows my mind that UK has a bunch of Seniors playing. I think some Graduate students are playing too. They almost look like a regular team. Do you guys understand what I mean? When Cal was there it was a bunch of one and dones. Now they are just regular kids. Freaky!

 

[apm1003]

Preparing for big S16 game

Run to IU board

Here are the facts: my post was made at 4:31 PM. The game starts at 10:09 PM. It doesn't take me more than 5 1/2 hours to get ready to watch a game on tv; more like a minute to get a drink and turn on the tv. Perhaps it does require that much time for you.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

It kind of blows my mind that UK has a bunch of Seniors playing. I think some Graduate students are playing too. They almost look like a regular team. Do you guys understand what I mean? When Cal was there it was a bunch of one and dones. Now they are just regular kids. Freaky!

25,000 pissed off ky fans.

Warms my heart

 

[VanPastorMan]

How come we can't get a Zeigler? Where's our Zeigler?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Here are the facts: my post was made at 4:31 PM. The game starts at 10:09 PM. It doesn't take me more than 5 1/2 hours to get ready to watch a game on tv; more like a minute to get a drink and turn on the tv. Perhaps it does require that much time for you.

Getting close to your big game time

Run to IU board

 

[Boilermaker03]

Quit reading after you blamed the refs.

A former Michigan player pretty much blamed the refs....

 

[Boilermaker03]

The refs cost you guys what...six games this year?

Two as of last night.

 

[jet812]

Two as of last night.

Your suffering is well deserved & warms my heart.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Your suffering is well deserved & warms my heart.

I'm not suffering. I was expecting a loss. In fact, I was pleasantly pleased with our performance for the most part. Only thing I wish happened was for the refs to actually be good. Calls were missed both ways, but the most damaging ones were late in the game.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Two as of last night.

Wow, you are more objective about the season than most of your fellow fans.

I haven't seen it yet, and may not, but what transpired that cost you the game last night?

And which was the other game you reference?