Hoyas #9 in new Coaches Poll/#12 in AP

[blueandgray]

Dec 22, 2008 15:58:14 GMT -5 CO_Hoya said:

Dec 22, 2008 15:28:17 GMT -5 vamosalaplaya said:

Beginning with the UConn game Georgetown plays five out of its next six games against Top 15 teams, including three on the road.

I wonder if any team has ever done that before.

The only comparable stretch I've spotted so far is the last 5 regular season games for Marquette:

2/21 at Georgetown (9)
2/25 vs. Connecticut (2)
3/1 at Louisville (19)
3/4 at Pittsburgh (3)
3/7 vs. Syracuse (14)

which, depending on seeding, could be followed by another game against a ranked team in their first BET game.

Brutal.

I think the only thing that could come close is in tourney play.... perhaps Nova's run in 1985 might compare. I believe they beat Memphis, UNC, Michigan and us. All teams were highly ranked.

[FOTP]

At last check Vegas has us ranked #9 to win it all. That is the only "poll" that matters.

I promise you they know more about the teams than any Sports Information Director or Media person.

Those polls are just ego plays for the media and a annoyance for a coach.

[aggypryd]

If we were strong on the boards, I wouldn't have any problem with the ranking.

It's time for Vaughan(sp) to stop playing like he's in the Patriot league and step up his game!!!

You too, Henry Sims!!!

[hoyasexy]

Dec 22, 2008 16:18:20 GMT -5 blueandgray said:

I think the only thing that could come close is in tourney play.... perhaps Nova's run in 1985 might compare. I believe they beat Memphis, UNC, Michigan and us. All teams were highly ranked.

Arizona's title run (1996?) went through 3 #1 seeds. Don't know if that has been done since, but it hadn't been done before.

[Boz]

Dec 22, 2008 16:58:39 GMT -5 hoyasexy said:

Dec 22, 2008 16:18:20 GMT -5 blueandgray said:

I think the only thing that could come close is in tourney play.... perhaps Nova's run in 1985 might compare. I believe they beat Memphis, UNC, Michigan and us. All teams were highly ranked.

Arizona's title run (1996?) went through 3 #1 seeds. Don't know if that has been done since, but it hadn't been done before.

Unfortunately, what Arizona's title run did not go through was a spelling test for Miles Simon.

Ba-ZING!!!

;D

[GIGAFAN99]

In the AP poll, UCLA wins the "root of all evil" award because the assumption they are good cascades down to Texas which cascades down to ND and Michigan State.

UCLA's biggest win is a 5-pointer over Miami of Ohio at Pauley. Interesting to note, Pitt and WVU beat Miami of Ohio by a mere 65 points combined.

[SirSaxa]

Dec 22, 2008 18:28:01 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

In the AP poll, UCLA wins the "root of all evil" award because the assumption they are good cascades down to Texas which cascades down to ND and Michigan State.

UCLA's biggest win is a 5-pointer over Miami of Ohio at Pauley. Interesting to note, Pitt and WVU beat Miami of Ohio by a mere 65 points combined.

But they didn't do it at Pauley Pavilion!

[lichoya68]

i love our hoyas number nine too high maybe toptwentyfive ok we will see adn the first time maybe ever first cbs game and first espn monday nite same year what you think dfw can we check it out GO HOYAS beat fit by 43 at least

[pws]

The best thing that being #9 give us is a buffer between basketball glory (top 25) and basketball purgatory (out of top 25), because joe shmoe public is to fickle to follow anyone out of the top 25. Also, while it is early in the season, earlier rankings have a strong influence on subsequent polls. Lastly, being in the top 25 at the end of the season almost assures you of an at large bid.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

actually that last point isn't always true. I forget who it happened to but it has definitely happened once.

[GIGAFAN99]

Dec 22, 2008 21:54:04 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

actually that last point isn't always true. I forget who it happened to but it has definitely happened once.

UNLV and JR Rider...but that was, shall we say, interesting circumstances.

[hoyalawyer]

Dec 22, 2008 22:03:35 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Dec 22, 2008 21:54:04 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

actually that last point isn't always true. I forget who it happened to but it has definitely happened once.

UNLV and JR Rider...but that was, shall we say, interesting circumstances.

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but it's Isaiah "Don't call me JR anymore" Rider. lol

[HometownHoya]

How did Gonzaga stay still/move up after loosing to UConn. I realize it was a higher ranked team that they lost too, but they should at least move down 1 spot (and definitely not up).

[theexorcist]

Dec 23, 2008 10:57:13 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

How did Gonzaga stay still/move up after loosing to UConn. I realize it was a higher ranked team that they lost too, but they should at least move down 1 spot (and definitely not up).

Why do you take this position? Why?

Let's say the #2 team loses to the #1 team in a close game on a neutral court. Why does the #2 team have to drop?

Or let's say the #3 team loses to the consensus #1 team in a close game, when the #2 team wins by a point against a bottom-feeder.

[HometownHoya]

I feel that if a team loses, they should pay and if they win, they shouldn't be punished. If in your first scenario, the #3 team won, I would switch the #2 & #3. I wouldn't want to move the #2 much further then 1 spot (esp since the game was close).

For your second example, I dont get what you are trying to point out? In that situation, #1 would stay 1, #2 would stay 2, and #3 would probably drop (unless the 3 teams behind them ALL lost as well) a spot.

Ill assume that you ment for #3 to beat #1. In that situation I would just switch those two teams and leave #2 at 2. They shouldn't be punished for winning, but shouldnt be rewarded for beating a bad team. Had they beat a top10 team (or rickrolled a legit top20 team) then they could argue for getting #1, #3->#2,#1->#3

[theexorcist]

Dec 23, 2008 11:26:44 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

I feel that if a team loses, they should pay and if they win, they shouldn't be punished. If in your first scenario, the #3 team won, I would switch the #2 & #3. I wouldn't want to move the #2 much further then 1 spot (esp since the game was close).

For your second example, I dont get what you are trying to point out? In that situation, #1 would stay 1, #2 would stay 2, and #3 would probably drop (unless the 3 teams behind them ALL lost as well) a spot.

Ill assume that you ment for #3 to beat #1. In that situation I would just switch those two teams and leave #2 at 2. They shouldn't be punished for winning, but shouldnt be rewarded for beating a bad team. Had they beat a top10 team (or rickrolled a legit top20 team) then they could argue for getting #1, #3->#2,#1->#3

Nope, I meant what I wrote.

The problem is that I see losing a close game to a good team as a good thing. It's easier to illustrate this with bad teams. If Coppin State loses to Pitt by a point in overtime, and Howard beats Norfolk State by a point in overtime.

According to your logic, Coppin State has to go down since they lost, and Howard has to go up. I find this logic problematic, since Pitt would be expected to beat both Coppin State and Howard, and the fact that Coppin State lost a close game to Pitt indicates that Coppin State is a good team (and says much more about them than Howard's win says about them).

[TBird41]

Dec 23, 2008 11:26:44 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

I feel that if a team loses, they should pay and if they win, they shouldn't be punished. If in your first scenario, the #3 team won, I would switch the #2 & #3. I wouldn't want to move the #2 much further then 1 spot (esp since the game was close).

For your second example, I dont get what you are trying to point out? In that situation, #1 would stay 1, #2 would stay 2, and #3 would probably drop (unless the 3 teams behind them ALL lost as well) a spot.

Ill assume that you ment for #3 to beat #1. In that situation I would just switch those two teams and leave #2 at 2. They shouldn't be punished for winning, but shouldnt be rewarded for beating a bad team. Had they beat a top10 team (or rickrolled a legit top20 team) then they could argue for getting #1, #3->#2,#1->#3

That's the kind of logic that lead to the Hoyas playing the entire MEAC every year and no one that was any good.

[HometownHoya]

Dec 23, 2008 11:44:13 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Dec 23, 2008 11:26:44 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

Nope, I meant what I wrote.

The problem is that I see losing a close game to a good team as a good thing. It's easier to illustrate this with bad teams. If Coppin State loses to Pitt by a point in overtime, and Howard beats Norfolk State by a point in overtime.

According to your logic, Coppin State has to go down since they lost, and Howard has to go up. I find this logic problematic, since Pitt would be expected to beat both Coppin State and Howard, and the fact that Coppin State lost a close game to Pitt indicates that Coppin State is a good team (and says much more about them than Howard's win says about them).

Well first of all in your examples you were using teams #1, #2, #3. I took that to mean their ranks. And last time I checked neither Coppin State, Howard, or Norfolk State are in the Top3 (let alone the Top20). Obviously the further away from the Top 25 you get, the closer the talent is, and ranking is that much more difficult.

Also, I never said that a team that loses has to go down and a team that wins has to go up. For your example, I would leave Howard where they were (unless in some alternative dimension Norfolk is in the Top20. Coppin State would not go down (definitely) and may even have a chance to go up depending on what the teams around them have done (esp if we are thinking of UConn as the #2 team).

[HometownHoya]

Dec 23, 2008 11:46:08 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

That's the kind of logic that lead to the Hoyas playing the entire MEAC every year and no one that was any good.

I don't understand how that would be though? Unless you were consistantly in the Top5 no matter what (AKA Duke, UNC, UCLA). You would be striving to be playing those teams ranked higher then you to get the chance just move up (or if you are closely ranked, switch with them). If you beat mediocre teams all the time, then you would STAY. (you dont have to always move).

I guess my original problem with Gonzaga is that they moved up! When in our society have we rewarded losers? (Except on "The Biggest Loser" and when you are in elementary school).

[theexorcist]

Dec 23, 2008 11:56:01 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

Dec 23, 2008 11:44:13 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Dec 23, 2008 11:26:44 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

Nope, I meant what I wrote.

The problem is that I see losing a close game to a good team as a good thing. It's easier to illustrate this with bad teams. If Coppin State loses to Pitt by a point in overtime, and Howard beats Norfolk State by a point in overtime.

According to your logic, Coppin State has to go down since they lost, and Howard has to go up. I find this logic problematic, since Pitt would be expected to beat both Coppin State and Howard, and the fact that Coppin State lost a close game to Pitt indicates that Coppin State is a good team (and says much more about them than Howard's win says about them).

Well first of all in your examples you were using teams #1, #2, #3. I took that to mean their ranks. And last time I checked neither Coppin State, Howard, or Norfolk State are in the Top3 (let alone the Top20). Obviously the further away from the Top 25 you get, the closer the talent is, and ranking is that much more difficult.

Also, I never said that a team that loses has to go down and a team that wins has to go up. For your example, I would leave Howard where they were (unless in some alternative dimension Norfolk is in the Top20. Coppin State would not go down (definitely) and may even have a chance to go up depending on what the teams around them have done (esp if we are thinking of UConn as the #2 team).

Ok, horse beaten after this.

The reference to Coppin, etc. was to " It's easier to illustrate this with bad teams. " And you agree that, with bad teams, it makes sense.

My logic is that, assuming the poll is perfect at a moment in time (Ha!), then playing and losing close to UNC can show that you're a good team. You don't move above UNC (obviously), but losing to a great team means more than beating an average team (this led to the MEAC comment, I'm assuming).