And you like to do things the hard way, just to prove you're a "man" and make up for your inadequacies elsewhere.
Fine.
But when TC4Three says, "we let this happen." Let's be clear. "We" is not all of us. It's hard heads like you.
13 in AP Poll
- Thread starter saratogashaw
- Start date
And you like to do things the hard way, just to prove you're a "man" and make up for your inadequacies elsewhere.
Fine.
But when TC4Three says, "we let this happen." Let's be clear. "We" is not all of us. It's hard heads like you.
No. We would all have to give up bathing, break out half our teeth, become meth addicts, marry our sisters, and THEN become delusional about our team to "be just like the IU fan base."
I think you're confused.
You and I have no say in any of it. So enjoy the flipping basketball games. If Purdue is good enough then nothing to worry.
No, I'm not confused, but you are clueless. And a perfect example of what was meant by, "we let this happen."
Ha I am the clueless one? You are whining like a girl about stuff you have zero power to solve.
There we go, the gender references finally come out from the "big man." My point is, public opinion matters. This is what Izzo was talking about. But never you mind, John Wayne, man of few words but many deeds (no doubt), ride your mount off into the sunset and lecture your inferiors for not biting their lips and suffering in silence, like a manly man, as you.
Anybody who thinks seeding doesn't matter is a bit of a dumbass. Anybody who doesn't think it's political is doubling down.
Then feel free to bitch about it. But that's useful as a fart in the wind.
And it doesn't change the fact you got to go win a damn basketball game. Simple as that.
I don't care to bitch about it but I also don't choose to ignore it. If it was just about going to win a damn basketball game they could just pull names out of a hat...oh boy then the real bitching would start...most of it centered near the East coast of North America.
Wow we have some illogical people on here. Butler beat good teams. Nova beat good teams. Purdue and Wisconsin? Not so much. Who cares what Wisky was ranked when we beat them? IU was top 3 early on... does that mean a team should be given credit for beating a top 3 team b/c they beat IU? I know a lot of you are butthurt over how bad the B1G was this year, but you just have to get over it. The B1G sucked, we took advantage, life goes on.
Who cares if they looked good against a 7 or 8 seed type of team. UL actually has good wins, Wisky not so much.
Wow! So you jump on this thread to make the case against Purdue!
Is Indiana State a good team? Oh, that's right, Butler didn't beat Indiana State. But never mind, Butler beat Nova, and that's all that counts.
ESPN thanks you for parroting its spin against the B1G based on selective games. And in the process, you've demonstrated Izzo's point even more effectively than he did.
We have seen the enemy, and it is us -- or more precisely, those of us who swallow what they hear from ESPN w/o engaging in independent thought, like you.
I don't hear anybody saying that. I do think matchups are every bit as important though. I don't think things are nearly as political as they used to be. The committee is trying to be as transparent as possible. There are countless advanced metrics today that show each teams relative strength compared to others. The thing is, if there were a mixed bag of rankings showing Purdue should be higher than Butler (or whoever) and we still were being placed behind them, I might see it. But if the only metric you're using to say Purdue and the B1G is underrated is your own belief, then the only bias really at play is your own.
I count 19 games this year Butler played against a tourney or bubble team. They went 15-4. I count 12 for Purdue and they 8-4. This isn't just about Nova and you know that.
Yep, it's not like the players have to go to class or study for exams or anything................
Why don't you provide us with the details of your analysis. I suspect it largely rests on the assumption that the Big East is better than the B1G. Which, even if true, doesn't indicate Butler is better than Purdue.
What details? Pick Lunardi, Palm, whoever. What teams are in or on the bubble is common knowledge to anyone who doesn't have their tin foil hat on too tightly. Purdue has played 12 games against teams that are in or have a decent shot (I've included Illinois as a bubble team). Using the exact same metrics, I count 19 teams on Butler's schedule.
So is Palm part of this vast, east coast, mainstream media bias you're so convinced exists? Because guess what? He has Purdue at a 4 and Butler at a 3, both playing in Milwaukee.
The fact is when you believe some nefarious organization exists to promote the east coast teams at the expense of the B1G, that informs everything you see. If we get a bad draw? Bias! If we lose? Only because of Bias! And bad call against us in the tourney? Bias!
ESPN gives this conference a boatload of money to be secretly be working against it.
It's tiresome that every fan board has a group of folks who think everyone is out to get them.
Finally, I do think the B1G is down slightly this year. I think we are the only team with a legit shot at the FF. I think 2-3 teams will make the S16. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
First of all, your argument basically boils down to saying Butler should be seeded higher than Purdue because IU and UI have laid eggs late in the season and won't be NCAAT teams.
So would you include Izzo with your tin-foil hat types? It wasn't me, or others here, who omitted any B1G teams from the selection committee's top 16. As Izzo said, UVa loses to a mid-tier ACC opponent, and it's "proof" the ACC is loaded! But a red hot Minnie team loses on the road to Wisky, finally shooting the ball well again, and it precludes a deserving Minnie team from being ranked at all, when anyone who follows the B1G knows Minnie should be ranked!
Do you really go on ACC or Big East boards and find posters honestly thinking their conferences aren't getting their due this year, or that the B1G is overrated?!
What's tiresome is those who insist on interpreting every load of garbage that comes at them as "objective" because they're too naive to recognize that politics are always at work in trying to influence the selection committee, while accusing those who dare to question the process of being tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists.
Do I think Izzo has an agenda? Yes, yes I do. Maybe just maybe he's campaigning for his bubble team.
This has nothing to do with IU or UI. The fact that you can't see past that is telling.
What do you mean it has nothing to do with IU or UI?! You're pointing to how many NCAAT or bubble teams a team has played as evidence of where they should be seeded! Those are 2 teams Purdue played that would be in, or at least on the bubble, if they didn't have late season collapses. Besides, it's beyond dumb to penalize Purdue for not beating teams Purdue did not play! Again, your argument is circular logic rooted in the assumption that the Big East is better than B1G. This is the problem with RPI, etc. The end result is very much a function of the starting point (assumption).
And I didn't ask if Izzo has an agenda. I asked if you think he's a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist?
Of course Izzo has an agenda! That's my (his) point, EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA!!!
But you seem to think no one outside the B1G has agenda!
WHY?!
First of all, I included UI as a bubble team as one of the 12 we played. I didn't include IU because they're not. I essentially took teams with around 18 wins or more. Feels objective, no?
OK. I'll concede "EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA!!!" whatever that even means. Does every team and every conference look out for themselves first? Of course. But all of these completing agendas cancel themselves out when the ball is tipped.
Do I think some shadowy figure sits in the corner of the selection committee suite (speaking figuratively versus literally but who knows what you think happens) and makes sure only east coast teams get preferred seedings, that's nuts.
Well, if you included IU, then your count is wrong because including IU there are 15 games Purdue has played where the opponent is either in, or on the bubble.
No, I not only don't believe there's some "shadowy figure" behind all this, I know there's not. It doesn't take such a "shadowy figure" to spin out a narrative that others will jump on if it helps them at the expense of others. And if that narrative is supported by enough talking heads at a media outlet like ESPN, then it will get traction, especially if the victims of the narrative don't recognize what's happening behind their back.
This is how, "we let it happpen," as Izzo said. And is it any wonder it's worked so effectively when we got knuckleheads on here not only failing to recognize it but arguing that it didn't happen!!!
wtf that thread was started by a TROLL. And since moderation doesn't really exist here, it lasted.
Ok, so I misread -- dyslexia on the IU / UI thing, I guess.
Regardless, so you agree, your argument for a higher seed for Butler -- based on # of teams played in, or on the NCAAT bubble -- rests largely on IU's failure, falling off the bubble late in the season, partly because Purdue beat 'em.
Butler and Purdue have 3 common opponents: NW, IU, and Nova. Pretty hard to argue any material difference based on those comparative scores.
So if that's the only metric you're willing to compare non-conference teams, then you can clearly understand why Butler is seeded higher. They beat everyone of those teams. We did not. If not, what other metrics do you consider to differentiate?
Last edited:
Again, you're the King of Knotheads! Butler beat NW by 2 at Hinkle. Purdue beat NW by 20 at Mackey and 4 at WR. Butler beat IU by 5 on neutral floor: Purdue beat 'em by 5 in Bloomington and 11 in Mackey. And Nova beat Purdue by 3 in Mackey, early in the season, while Butler beat 'em twice in close games. So, from that, you're trying to draw reliable conclusions about Purdue vs. Butler?! If so, you're not too smart. My point was there's no separation, between your Bulldogs and my Boilers. Meanwhile, the Indy Star is in hyper-drive blathering your argument that Butler should end up in Indy, regardless of what happens from here, while Purdue should be sent to the South Pole.
4-0 = 5-1. Got it. So in a forced ranking system, say I don't know where you had to place 64 teams in some sort of order and they can't be ranked the same - and you're unwillling to acknowledge any other objective measure to differentiate - what team goes in front of the other. Remember, using your logic, you can't say they're the same. Which one do you pick?
I didn't say shared opponents is the only metric I'm willing to use. I suggested it is better than relying on wins/loses against teams in the NCAAT, or on the bubble, since a team can't control its schedule or the fact that some opponents may under perform, overall (like IU).
When did I say we can't rank Butler and Purdue the same? My point is we can't differentiate between them based on the available evidence, yet we have knotheads like Lunardi out there insisting Butler is a #3 while only now moving Purdue from a #5 to a #4 and saying Purdue can't rise above a #4. (btw, I apologize for calling you a knothead.)
I can see how one can spin Butler over Purdue, but it could just as easily be spun the other way.
And it just fries me that the narrative being spun by ESPN, Lunardi, and some others, is that B1G regular season champ -- by 2 games -- has to also win the B1G Tourney just to get in on the discussion for a #4, while Butler is anointed a #3, already, seemingly regardless of what Butler does in the Big East Tourney.
It also fries me that with this idiotic process, a B1G team could win the regular-season title handily, and the conference tourney, and still not get assigned to the NCAAT site one hour away, where a majority of its alums reside. What then is the point of supposedly re-emphasizing the regional aspect of the NCAAT?
Call me paranoid, but if IU was in our shoes, the selection committee would find a way to assign IU to Indy, even if it took making IU a #2 seed. And they'd find a way because otherwise the blow back from the Indy media and IU fans would be withering. But with Purdue, the committee knows that Purdue fans will take it with little more than a peep.
Ok. Fair enough. I think we've beat this horse to death many times over. I get your frustration. I just think advanced statistics have evolved that allow us to make a much more objective measure of two teams than we could even 10-15 years ago when all we had was media polls and the RPI. And I don't think biases play a major role in the process, while acknowledging they do exist. My argument was simply one can make a very logical argument that BU is ahead, even just slightly, of PU. And if some talking head or bracket prognosticator says so it doesn't automatically mean they're biased against PU or the B10. This is a forced ranking process so in theory no two teams are equal.
Thanks for the back and forth.
I rarely post- but I read these threads often. A point that alot of Butler ppl are ignoring that I don't think the committee will ignore are BAD losses. Butler has TWO, including one terrible loss. Those two losses could literally negate two of their quality wins. The committee will use RPI (rightly or wrongly) and they have lost to an RPI 135+ team and an RPI 235+ team. Those are brutal and Butler could punished and dragged down for those losses. Purdue on the other hand, while we have no huge wins like Butler (Nova 2x)- we also have no bad losses either. We have simply been consistently good.
Yes, thanks, let's see how the conference tourneys go and how the NCAAT seedings shake out.
For sure terrible losses but both occurred prior to the Top 16 bracket release. So it's my understanding - which may be wrong - that those losses were "baked" into the 4 seed they had at that point. So the question is whether they've done enough since to move up? The loss to Seton Hall at home didn't help, but SH is a 8-9 seed so not terrible. Wins against Nova and at X and Marquette certainly help. Question is how much.
excellent point- I too don't know if those losses were 'baked in' already. Next season will be very interesting when RPI supposedly takes a backseat and different metrics are used.
Butler also got to play Villanova the last time when they were missing a starter in 6'9 power forward Darryl Reynolds. He had 12&8 with 2 blocks and a steal in 33 minutes against Purdue. VU only goes 7 deep, so missing a full time starter that play 25 minutes a game really hurts.
They beat XU on the road without Sumner their PG who is really good and that team was already in a free fall.
these are the details that get lost in the macro assessments. I wish there was some kind of modifier on these metrics. why does beating nova without a starter get you a gold star? What a joke.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Election Results are in....it's confirmed...- Latest: Boiler Buck
-
-
-