ESPN says no B1G team in title hunt ....

[PU52Chevy]

People actually follow or listen to ESPN.......wow bunch of homers......

Follow your heart and own knowledge and make your own assessments.....

ESPN has been clueless for years.

 

[Boiler Wolf]

When ESPN first came into being, I loved watching Sports Center. No internet back then and it gave a wealth of information on college football and basketball you coudn't find anywhere else. I think it started to go downhill when it picked up the pro leagues (NBA, MLB, NFL). Now, Sports Center is unwatchable to me. Bunch of announcers trying to be cute,say clever things and be the news instead of reporting it. All hype and no substance.

 

[BoilerBonz]

"Very limited info"? We've never had more objective measures of relative performance ever before in the history of the sport. If anything we have too much info.

And if we are high variance with low parity, that makes seeding less important not more. I don't disagree with your comment about 8 or 9 different winners, but again that means 3, 4, or 5 seed are essentially interchangeable. We could win or lose in any round at any one of those seeds.

Honestly you're getting too worked up over perceived biases that have zero bearing on whether we win or lose a basketball. If we lose in the first round again, I'm not blaming ESPN.

Wow, you are clueless.

The only highly reliable info we have are intra-conference results. And the only basis for national rankings are inter-conference results, most of which is 2 months, or more, old, and there's a relatively limited amount. Everything else is a statistic computed off these results! And if you put inadequate GARBAGE IN any statistical estimator, no matter how good the estimator's properties may be, the result is GARBAGE OUT. This is exactly what we have in RPI, BPI, etc.

Again, this is why I say, the national rankings aren't reliable -- the only thing reliable now are relative intra-conference rankings. This is why they play the NCAAT! Because we don't know much of anything about inter-conference strength.

We'd be as well off putting names in a hat as seeding based on RPI, or anything related.

 

[IndianapolisHoops]

If your team loses because the main stream media is biased against it and gets a 5 seed instead of a 4 and then promptly loses to a 12 seed, they were never championship material to begin with. Get over it.

Dude, Butler won on a last second shot in the first round against Old Dominion in 2011 before it went to the Title Game... The year before the barely got by Murray State in 2010 before they went to the Title Game.

Butler got the bounces and made a run. Unfortunately, the last seconds of regulation in 2015 and 2016 did not go in Purdue's favor.

Get over it.

 

[cprh9u]

I think so - my modus operandi is to cheer for the Big Ten teams in the ACC-Big 10 Challenge, NCAA tournament, etc as long as they are not playing or in any way threatening Purdue. [Admittedly with little or no enthusiasm when it is MSU or IU] I do the same thing when the Big Ten is playing"outsiders" in football bowl games - I want the Big Ten to look good/great. So I can understand why you would want Indiana to look like the cradle of great basketball!

Easy there, even a LITTLE enthusiasm for IU in any circumstance is too much. I root for them to go 0-for ? every year.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

Agree - note I put no enthusiasm but only to achieve a higher goal. Actually my ideal season: Purdue 18-0, All other teams in Big Ten: 0-18 but I am told that is not realistic.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Dude, Butler won on a last second shot in the first round against Old Dominion in 2011 before it went to the Title Game... The year before the barely got by Murray State in 2010 before they went to the Title Game.

Butler got the bounces and made a run. Unfortunately, the last seconds of regulation in 2015 and 2016 did not go in Purdue's favor.

Get over it.

Get over what exactly? You seem to miss my point. But whatever. Seems to be the theme of this thread.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Get over what exactly? You seem to miss my point. But whatever. Seems to be the theme of this thread.

Exactly what is your point?

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Wow, you are clueless.

The only highly reliable info we have are intra-conference results. And the only basis for national rankings are inter-conference results, most of which is 2 months, or more, old, and there's a relatively limited amount. Everything else is a statistic computed off these results! And if you put inadequate GARBAGE IN any statistical estimator, no matter how good the estimator's properties may be, the result is GARBAGE OUT. This is exactly what we have in RPI, BPI, etc.

Again, this is why I say, the national rankings aren't reliable -- the only thing reliable now are relative intra-conference rankings. This is why they play the NCAAT! Because we don't know much of anything about inter-conference strength.

We'd be as well off putting names in a hat as seeding based on RPI, or anything related.

Alright. Whatvever. Let's just agree to disagree on this. You and I have a fundamental difference in understanding how statistics and comparative rankings work.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Exactly what is your point?

There's no international global conspiracy against Purdue and the Big Ten.

And statistics are meaningful for people who understand them.

 

[BoilerBonz]

There's no international global conspiracy against Purdue and the Big Ten.

And statistics are meaningful for people who understand them.

I agree with you on the first, there's no international conspiracy against Purdue and B1G. Tacit collusion against? Yes. But no international conspiracy.

On the second, I understand those stats as well as anyone, and they aren't worth the paper they're printed on (assuming they're still printed somewhere).

 

[nagemj02]

I agree with you on the first, there's no international conspiracy against Purdue and B1G. Tacit collusion against? Yes. But no international conspiracy.

On the second, I understand those stats as well as anyone, and they aren't worth the paper they're printed on (assuming they're still printed somewhere).

You're going to have to tell the selection committee that. I think they'll have an argument against your "garbage" statement. What will be your argument for how teams should be seeded and how at-large teams should be selected?

 

[BoilerBonz]

You're going to have to tell the selection committee that. I think they'll have an argument against your "garbage" statement. What will be your argument for how teams should be seeded and how at-large teams should be selected?

Well, I don't have to tell them, although I'd love to have the chance to explain it to them. But my guess is the typical selection committee member is the sort of idiot who thinks that if a number was spit out by a computer, then it must be right.

There are a lot of ways to improve the seeding process, but the most significant would be to avoid basing inter-conference relative strength on a limited selection of games played 2 months ago or more, which is what all the "computer" rankings do, in one way or another.

 

[rjmpu82]

ESPN always has some type of agenda, whether it be social, promotion or disenfranchising. Don't watch it much anymore unless Purdue is playing or it's a really big game. Definitely don't watch Sportscenter or listen to their daily commentary. Conversely, Purdue has done nothing to improve it's brand or perception come March. Last year we had an awesome opportunity for lots of national exposure when we were one of five teams CBS decided to follow during the tourney. Losing in the first round really hurt us I feel. We have had no real success to speak of since the Elite 8 team with Cardinal. That was a long time ago. We really need to get this monkey off of our back. Hoping this is the year.

 

[*4purdue*]

Good argument for making Purdue a #5 seed this year.

Hell, if you're good enough to win it all, then seeding makes no difference, right?!

Again, who is the "we" in "we let it happen"?

I don't think it does matter, this year especially. Cuse made it as a 9 seed last year.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

I don't think it does matter, this year especially. Cuse made it as a 9 seed last year.

10 seed, actually....but doesn't change your point that certain lower-seeded teams can still navigate through a bracket.

 

[boilernuke]

. Conversely, Purdue has done nothing to improve it's brand or perception come March.

You mean like promoting Caleb and his story? Media loves high caliber players and Purdue has an AA now along with a great story. The Big Ten perception is what is dragging Purdue down this year.

 

[NVBoilerFan]

Dude, Butler won on a last second shot in the first round against Old Dominion in 2011 before it went to the Title Game... The year before the barely got by Murray State in 2010 before they went to the Title Game.

Butler got the bounces and made a run. Unfortunately, the last seconds of regulation in 2015 and 2016 did not go in Purdue's favor.

Get over it.

So you're saying they are pretty lucky. I think there is more to it than luck, I think they just get the benefit of a lot of breaks teams like Purdue just never seem to get in the tourney. Case in point, the finish to Butler's 2011 game against Pitt in the tourney. Butler, up 1, commits a stupid foul 30 feet from the basket, against an 80% free throw shooter with about 1.5 seconds left. He hits the first to tie, misses the second, Butler's Howard gets the rebound and the officials call quite possibly the worst foul call I have ever seen in my life against Pitt. Howard hits one of two, game over. They were extremely lucky an 80% FT shooter missed the second and got a completely pitiful game winning call. I respected and even pulled for Butler a little up to that point when they weren't playing Purdue, but after that I was done. That's when you knew every time you played them, it was going to be 5 on 8 and it pretty much has been in the Crossroads Classic.

 

[ghost_of_d.]

So you're saying they are pretty lucky. I think there is more to it than luck, I think they just get the benefit of a lot of breaks teams like Purdue just never seem to get in the tourney. Case in point, the finish to Butler's 2011 game against Pitt in the tourney. Butler, up 1, commits a stupid foul 30 feet from the basket, against an 80% free throw shooter with about 1.5 seconds left. He hits the first to tie, misses the second, Butler's Howard gets the rebound and the officials call quite possibly the worst foul call I have ever seen in my life against Pitt. Howard hits one of two, game over. They were extremely lucky an 80% FT shooter missed the second and got a completely pitiful game winning call. I respected and even pulled for Butler a little up to that point when they weren't playing Purdue, but after that I was done. That's when you knew every time you played them, it was going to be 5 on 8 and it pretty much has been in the Crossroads Classic.

I remember that Pitt/Butler game, and quite a bit differently than you do. For one, Mack fouled Gilbert Brown about 60 feet from the hoop, on what was a majorly lucky break for Pitt. They inbounded the ball, and the pass was so poor that Mack nearly got to the ball before Brown did from halfway across the court. It was still basically a tie, but they called Mack for the bump.

The foul call on the ensuing rebound was 100% the right call, and just a boneheaded play by the Pitt player. For some reason, he not only tries to go over Howard's back, but he swipes down over the back and grabs Howard's arm clear as day. Judge for yourself:

 

[NVBoilerFan]

I remember that Pitt/Butler game, and quite a bit differently than you do. For one, Mack fouled Gilbert Brown about 60 feet from the hoop, on what was a majorly lucky break for Pitt. They inbounded the ball, and the pass was so poor that Mack nearly got to the ball before Brown did from halfway across the court. It was still basically a tie, but they called Mack for the bump.

The foul call on the ensuing rebound was 100% the right call, and just a boneheaded play by the Pitt player. For some reason, he not only tries to go over Howard's back, but he swipes down over the back and grabs Howard's arm clear as day. Judge for yourself:

View embedded media

I have officiated hundreds of games in the past, you only make that foul call on the rebound if an advantage is gained, for example he knock the ball loose or off of Howard out of bounds, especially with little to no time on the clock. No advantage was gained as Howard had secured the rebound. Game should have went OT. Purdue would have never in a million years got that call.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

I have officiated hundreds of games in the past, you only make that foul call on the rebound if an advantage is gained, for example he knock the ball loose or off of Howard out of bounds, especially with little to no time on the clock. No advantage was gained as Howard had secured the rebound. Game should have went OT. Purdue would have never in a million years got that call.

Case in point.....1995 Second Round against Memphis? Although, arguably there was an advantage gained...and no call.