#6 in Coaches

[vamosalaplaya]

Sorry guys, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that I think GU was in the next bracket right below Kansas and Memphis with teams 3-10. Whether they are 4 or 8 or whatever at this point you could debate.

[Madgesdiq]

Personally, I would put UNC in the first tier with Memphis and Kansas.

[GUJook97]

Jan 28, 2008 21:46:54 GMT -5 vamosalaplaya said:

I hate Duke; that said, they belong by themselves a notch below Memphis and Kansas right now. The results speak for themselves. Since their OT loss to Pitt they haven't played a game that has gone down to the last possession and they clubbed a bunch of quality teams out of conference.

I hate Duke as much as anyone, but I gotta say, it wouldnt surprise me to see them come out with the #1 seed from the ACC. Being in this area, I am sure we have all seen a bunch of ACC games, and I defy anyone to prove that UNC is a tougher and better team than Duke. Duke is like us, they just find ways to win, especially against tough teams. I can see them beating UNC at home and on a neutral floor for the the ACC title.

All that said, I would love Duke to be the #1 seed in the region where we are #2.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

As to the BIG EAST being down this year, Lunardi's bracketology--which many folks hate, but few would say is generally pro-Hoyas or pro-BIG EAST, current projects 8 league teams in the tournament, with Seton Hall and Providence listed in his "last four out."

[Hoya TMF]

The Big East is definitely down this year. Maybe our RPI is pretty good, but it's only third behind the ACC and Pac-10. Before, last weekend the conference only hand one good OOC win and that was Pitt's one point win against Duke. Now we have two (UConn over IU). Last year, Georgetown, Pitt and Louisville seemed like legit contenders going into February and March. Right now, we are it. The rest of the conference has seemed mediocre at best. Sure it says something that all league games have been competitive, but maybe that means all of the teams are average rather than good.

Looking beyond the numbers, does any team in the Big East not maned Georgetown look like it could get past the Sweet Sixteen? Maybe that will change and UConn will get some separation given their play of late.

Now thinking about it, maybe its better to have more balance in the confenrence than great teams at the top for an overall conference profile. That could be where the difference of opinion on this board lies. I look at this league and no team scares me. If we consistenly brought our A-game we'd be unbeatable. But I guess that's the difference between the Pac-10/Big East and the Big-10/SEC. The Big-Ten and SEC are top heavy with a few contenders and horrible teams below. The Big East has one seemingly great team and several good, tourney worthy teams, but just the one that is in the first or second tier nationally.

In short, maybe the conference is better overall. Still, we don't have very many opportunities for "statement" wins like last year agaisnt Pitt and Lousiville, just good wins against decent teams.

[Madgesdiq]

Jan 29, 2008 9:59:25 GMT -5 Hoya TMF said:

The Big East is definitely down this year. Maybe our RPI is pretty good, but it's only third behind the ACC and Pac-10. Before, last weekend the conference only hand one good OOC win and that was Pitt's one point win against Duke. Now we have two (UConn over IU). Last year, Georgetown, Pitt and Louisville seemed like legit contenders going into February and March. Right now, we are it. The rest of the conference has seemed mediocre at best. Sure it says something that all league games have been competitive, but maybe that means all of the teams are average rather than good.

Looking beyond the numbers, does any team in the Big East not maned Georgetown look like it could get past the Sweet Sixteen? Maybe that will change and UConn will get some separation given their play of late.

Now thinking about it, maybe its better to have more balance in the confenrence than great teams at the top for an overall conference profile. That could be where the difference of opinion on this board lies. I look at this league and no team scares me. If we consistenly brought our A-game we'd be unbeatable. But I guess that's the difference between the Pac-10/Big East and the Big-10/SEC. The Big-Ten and SEC are top heavy with a few contenders and horrible teams below. The Big East has one seemingly great team and several good, tourney worthy teams, but just the one that is in the first or second tier nationally.

In short, maybe the conference is better overall. Still, we don't have very many opportunities for "statement" wins like last year agaisnt Pitt and Lousiville, just good wins against decent teams.

You would have received a D- in Professor "No Takey" Slakey's Argumentative Writing Class for that response. Your thesis doesn't match your conclusion.

[brooklynhoya]

I agree with hoya0206. If people want to say that the BE conference is better simply because the teams are more closely bunched together this year than the wider gap there was last year, then fine; however, the teams themselves are not better than their versions last year. Only 5 out of 16 teams this year have to play worse than .500 ball the remainder of the regular season to finish with better BE regular season records than they had last year; 8 others have to go roughly 7-4 or better for the rest of the regular season to do the same.

[guru]

Jan 29, 2008 9:59:25 GMT -5 Hoya TMF said:

The Big East is definitely down this year. Maybe our RPI is pretty good, but it's only third behind the ACC and Pac-10. Before, last weekend the conference only hand one good OOC win and that was Pitt's one point win against Duke. Now we have two (UConn over IU). Last year, Georgetown, Pitt and Louisville seemed like legit contenders going into February and March. Right now, we are it. The rest of the conference has seemed mediocre at best. Sure it says something that all league games have been competitive, but maybe that means all of the teams are average rather than good.

Looking beyond the numbers, does any team in the Big East not maned Georgetown look like it could get past the Sweet Sixteen? Maybe that will change and UConn will get some separation given their play of late.

Now thinking about it, maybe its better to have more balance in the confenrence than great teams at the top for an overall conference profile. That could be where the difference of opinion on this board lies. I look at this league and no team scares me. If we consistenly brought our A-game we'd be unbeatable. But I guess that's the difference between the Pac-10/Big East and the Big-10/SEC. The Big-Ten and SEC are top heavy with a few contenders and horrible teams below. The Big East has one seemingly great team and several good, tourney worthy teams, but just the one that is in the first or second tier nationally.

In short, maybe the conference is better overall. Still, we don't have very many opportunities for "statement" wins like last year agaisnt Pitt and Lousiville, just good wins against decent teams.

This post is an Instant Classic. If there were a Hoyatalk Classic Board, this thing would be running on a loop tonight. You must have gotten whiplash turning your head around on this subject so quickly. Kudos to you, good sir.

[brooklynhoya]

And for everyone jumping up and down about UConn's win over IU as proof of the conference's greatness, UConn lost its only other two significant OOC games, to Memphis and Gonzaga (when they had a full team). Pitt, for beating Duke, lost to Dayton by 25, and has no other OOC wins vs. teams with an RPI higher than 67. Marquette lost to Duke and only has its win vs. Wisconsin on the road to trumpet.

[Hoya TMF]

well there aren't really simple answers. once you start writing, you give more thought to the initial premise you had when you started.

maybe the conference is better from top to bottom than it was last year, but i'd prefer last year's overall conference profile where the upper tier consists of more than just one team. at least that way when we get to selection sunday, the committe says "oh, well they beat pitt twice and the last time they dominated them." wins against really good teams help more than losses to mediocre teams hurt.

[Madgesdiq]

Jan 29, 2008 10:16:23 GMT -5 brooklynhoya said:

I agree with hoya0206.

How is that possible, when he doesn't agree with himself?

[brooklynhoya]

(Sigh) Ok, Madgesdiq, I agree with SOME of hoya0206's points.

[GUJook97]

Jan 29, 2008 10:30:02 GMT -5 Hoya TMF said:

well there aren't really simple answers. once you start writing, you give more thought to the initial premise you had when you started.

maybe the conference is better from top to bottom than it was last year, but i'd prefer last year's overall conference profile where the upper tier consists of more than just one team. at least that way when we get to selection sunday, the committe says "oh, well they beat pitt twice and the last time they dominated them." wins against really good teams help more than losses to mediocre teams hurt.

Why would you prefer that? The goal is to be ready for the tournament, not to impress the media and committee to give us a #2 seed over a #3 seed. Who cares? Again, people keep acting like we have to beat 5 top ten teams to get a #2 seed. Lunardi is completely right. If the season ended today, it would be insane for us to be lower than a #2, and we still have 11-14 more big east games left.

A tough conference top to bottom with different styles of teams gets your prepared for all possibilities in March.

[Hoya TMF]

That's a fair point, but it's all about expectations. I expect this team to compete for a National Title. I want the team to face the toughest competition possible. Every power league has multiple teams that will make it to the first weekend. We will have ample opportunities to face those types of teams this year, just as we did last year. This year, however, the Big East lacks any team other than Georgetown that looks like it will be competing on that second weekend of the tournament and possibly the third. That's the kind of competition we have only faced once. The Pac-10 has UCLA, WSU and possibly Arizona, Stanford or USC. The ACC has Duke and UNC. Memphis has played us and will face Tennessee despite their terrible conference. The Big 12 has Texas and Kansas at the top. The Big Ten is terrible overall, but three of their teams are still in the top 15 and are considered at least by some to be legit Sweet 16/Elite 8 teams.

My point is that Georgetown seems to be the only team in that category from the Big East. That was the basis for my assertion that the Big East was "down." That is only one criteria by which to rate our league and maybe it's not even the best one. Overall the league might be better, but I was hoping that there would be another team in the conference to really push us for the conference title like Pitt and Louisville did last year. I don't see one just yet, but UConn and Louisville might emerge as those teams.

Yes, if the season ended today we might get a 2 seed, but the question is how will our resume look at the end of the season. I could definitely see us getting a lower seed than that because the committee looks to see what kinds of teams you have beaten throughout the year. If we don't play "elite" teams in conference and beat them, then our profile will not look as good as some other teams who have more opportunities for those kinds of statement wins.

And seeding is important because match-ups matter in the tournament. Obviously we are going to have to eventually beat a good team somewhere, but getting a #1 or #2 seed secures us an easier path. Playing "elite" teams in conference and out of conference would help us to do that. Sadly the Big East isn't offering many opportunities this year.

Hopefully that will clarify the inconsistencies in my previous post.

[theexorcist]

Hoya0206:

We've had these discussions before. A few quick points:

1. Last year's schedule was better, but not by much. Hartford, Fairfield, Ball State, JMU, Oral Roberts, Towson, Navy, and Michigan were on the schedule in addition to Oregon, Duke, and Old Dominion. Georgetown played one ranked opponent (Duke) before opening up conference play. Over the regular season, we played four ranked teams (Notre Dame, Marquette, and Pitt twice).

I hate to say it, but it worked out OK for us last time.

2. The PAC-10 has UCLA and Wazzu. Arizona, Stanford, and USC remain fringe (along the lines of Pitt or Notre Dame). Every other conference that you mention has two prime contenders, who will play each other once. Memphis may be lucky to face one other NCAA participant in conference. Most predicitions involve the Big East getting eight, or seven at the very worst. We're 3-1 against probable NCAA participants (Notre Dame, UConn, WVU and Pitt), and 1-0 against Syracuse, who looks like a bubble team.

3. You're getting down to splitting hairs when it comes to the difference between a one seed (save Kansas and Memphis) and a three seed. The main difference is the second round game.

Last year, there wasn't a massive difference between the two - three twos and three threes advanced (Vanderbilt beat Wazzu and UNLV beat Wisconsin). #3 Oregon thumped 6-11 winner Winthrop and Memphis whipped #7 seed Nevada. All the other games were relatively close (GU had to come from behind to beat BC).

4. Remember that lots of players have been hurt and suspended around the Big East. Would you want to play Memphis' schedule and then stare down eighteen BE games?

5. I hate to sound all Old Europe and stuff, but if Georgetown wins the Big East regular season (assuming they don't win some logjam at 11-7), they're not getting worse than a three seed. The league is too deep.

EDIT - one other thing which is important. You say "I expect this team to compete for a National Title. I want the team to face the toughest competition possible. "

There's a very good chance that those goals are always in alignment. In that case, competing for the national title trumps.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

BE is sick this year. We have 4 top 50 wins already (ND, Cuse, WV, UConn(who's up to 19)). we still have 4 more games against the top 50( as it stands now). with seton hall at 51 so we could add a 5th.

let's compare
top 10 RPI's of BE teams:
9, 18, 19, 22, 31, 38, 40, 41, 49, 51. ( Worst: 164)

Pac 10:
7, 10, 11, 30, 35, 54, 88, 90, 94, 235 ( worst: 235)

Big 10:
6, 20, 21, 33, 57, 77, 122, 152, 153, 169( worst: 210)

ACC:
4, 5, 27, 29, 50, 53, 69, 71, 72, 83( worst: 109)

Big 12:
3, 15, 28, 32, 39, 43, 62, 80, 105, 137(worst: 151)

SEC:
1, 13, 14, 42, 46, 52, 92, 96, 124, 128.(worst: 213)

[Hoya TMF]

Exorcist, I guess you're right; this is a rehash of the basic debate about our schedule. I have no doubt that things will work out for us. However, I am also suggesting that the numbers don't tell the whole story. Pitt has a great RPI right now, but they are riddled with injuries. UConn is still young and has two suspended players (which clearly hasn't hampered them yet, but might).

Last year it was Pittsburgh, Georgetown and then everyone else. This year it was supposed to be Georgetown, Louisville and everyone else. That hasn't panned out and despite our loss to Pitt and UConn's last two impressive victories, I think this conference is ours to lose. And there is no potential victory on our schedule, like Pitt last year, that we can hang our hat on.

However, as HoyaSinceBirth's post illustrates, maybe it won't matter come March because we will hopefully have a string of victories against Top 50 squads, thus negating the need for a "big fish" in the W column. Still, and this is may be where some of us fundamentally disagree, I'd rather we had that other team at the top of the league to push us, even if the league was not as balanced overall.

Maybe it's just too early to tell. I doubt Pitt thought we were going to be too much trouble until our January-February streak started building momentum.

[theexorcist]

Really, I'm trying.

But it seems like you're saying that Georgetown is in a bad spot because the conference is ours to lose.

Right?