Games of interest

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Before their victory over Syracuse it was 192. Much closer to the bottom.

I’ve seen quite a few people recently wanting to talk about teams minus their recent wins. In the right context this may have some merit, but generally, it seems silly most times. We are discussing what we think of them today. Shouldn’t we include all their games?

[ShockTalk]

Sheesh. If Evansville beat us one week ago not a SINGLE poster on here would have said "Wulp, I guess that shows how strong the Valley is." I think you made a sweeping generalization about Shockernetters from a very high horse that just jumped into a ravine. I personally will accept your apology should one be forth coming.

Also, if we aren't supposed to judge a team by how they performed against their schedule, how in the heck are we supposed to judge them?

Kung, is that not the point of all this within your first comments. You get past WSU and IN St. and the Valley is not strong. Your right, last year I was PO'd that we lost TWICE to a mediocre Evansville and a bad SIU. Yet a few here have made comments that BC is no better or worse than Loyola which must be due to their perceived strength of the Valley. I thought BC could compete for a spot in the top half of the Valley. Not that much of a stretch when you see Bradley currently as a play-in team yet only out of 4th place by one game.

As far as how to judge teams, you, JH4P, and I are really on the same page. It's how they perform against their schedule. Not just their final record or where they stand statistically in blocked shots. There is nothing that makes me think that 2/3s of the Valley is any better than BC and that's due to who those Valley teams played versus who BC played and how they did with those schedules.

[The Mad Hatter]

Fans simply stated ******* was wrong? Nothing else? Context? I took things out of context? What about "Loyola would torch Texas Tech"? What context makes that a sane statement?

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?16921-Games-of-interest&p=463846&viewfull=1#post463846

Re-read the post that started this all. These weren't fans simply stating ******* was wrong. Nothing was taken out of context. I very clearly addressed the context and told people to feel free to criticize *******. If that was all they were doing I would have no problem. I simply asked them not to counter a stupid statement of his with stupid statements of their own.

The Texas Tech comments had nothing to do with the BC/******* conversation. Conflating those comments with comments about BC is disingenuous as best.

I didn't make any comment about the Texas Tech conversation, because I don't disagree with you, but it is an outright fallacy to use people being wrong about that example as grounds for them being wrong about Boston College.

Aside from that, however, when arguing about BC's competitiveness in the MVC, you were often responding to people that had nothing to do with Tech claims. In other words, you projected the Tech claims onto everyone on this board rather than those who actually made those claims. This is the definition of putting words in people's mouths.

In general, I want to be supportive of the role you take on this board of curbing some of the stupidity (Lord knows I find Fever just as irrational as you do much of the time), but when you get so obsessed with putting certain posters in their place that you get on the side of the argument where you are desperately trying to mitigate the stupidity of *******'s statements, you lose your credibility.

I really don't want this to come across as a personal attack, because I would like to be in your corner, but it would make it a lot easier to do that if you would pick your battles rather than carpet bombing everyone on the board anytime 1 posters says something dumb.

[ShockTalk]

Except that you conveniently ignore the fact that if BC was in the Valley, their RPI would be even worse because it would be dragged down by our garbage, whereas BC's RPI is currently being held up by their conference affiliation. It's a very real possibility that they would be in the third tier with a 200+ RPI.

Actually, isn't it the point of the RPI to compare teams when different level of schedules. The thinking would be that added wins would counter playing lower teams. In theory, I believe, they would still have a 169 RPI.

[WstateU]

The title of this thread is "Games of Interest".

We need another thread titled "Opinions No One Gives A Rat's Ass About".

Lets add some Hot Sauce!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Except that you conveniently ignore the fact that if BC was in the Valley, their RPI would be even worse because it would be dragged down by our garbage, whereas BC's RPI is currently being held up by their conference affiliation. It's a very real possibility that they would be in the third tier with a 200+ RPI.

And you conveniently leave out the increase in wins that BC would see by playing a substantially easier schedule. Extra wins would balance out with lesser opponents and they would likely be right in the same spot. There is no more evidence to say they would be worse off in the RPI than there is to say that they would be better.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Sheesh. If Evansville beat us one week ago not a SINGLE poster on here would have said "Wulp, I guess that shows how strong the Valley is." I think you made a sweeping generalization about Shockernetters from a very high horse that just jumped into a ravine. I personally will accept your apology should one be forth coming.

Also, if we aren't supposed to judge a team by how they performed against their schedule, how in the heck are we supposed to judge them?

This isn't a good MVC year. Notice how I said a good year for the MVC. That's part of my argument. If the conference was good enough to be worth touting (anywhere near the level of play that the ACC has this year), WSU fans would be all over talking up the league's depth when a bottom team won the way BC has. Yet when a BCS league that everyone here hates does the same thing, the focus gets turned to how overrated the top team is for losing to a cellar dweller. That inconsistency that springs out of love for one's team and hate for "the enemy" is what I was pointing out.

As for your last sentence. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Going to have to explain a little more before I can answer your question.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The Texas Tech comments had nothing to do with the BC/******* conversation. Conflating those comments with comments about BC is disingenuous as best.

I didn't make any comment about the Texas Tech conversation, because I don't disagree with you, but it is an outright fallacy to use people being wrong about that example as grounds for them being wrong about Boston College.

Aside from that, however, when arguing about BC's competitiveness in the MVC, you were often responding to people that had nothing to do with Tech claims. In other words, you projected the Tech claims onto everyone on this board rather than those who actually made those claims. This is the definition of putting words in people's mouths.

In general, I want to be supportive of the role you take on this board of curbing some of the stupidity (Lord knows I find Fever just as irrational as you do much of the time), but when you get so obsessed with putting certain posters in their place that you get on the side of the argument where you are desperately trying to mitigate the stupidity of *******'s statements, you lose your credibility.

I really don't want this to come across as a personal attack, because I would like to be in your corner, but it would make it a lot easier to do that if you would pick your battles rather than carpet bombing everyone on the board anytime 1 posters says something dumb.

Mad Hatter, you are right. I mixed up 2 seperate conversations. Sorry about that. I stand by my arguments in each convo individually, but apologize for incorrectly merging the 2 together.

[The Mad Hatter]

Mad Hatter, you are right. I mixed up 2 seperate conversations. Sorry about that. I stand by my arguments in each convo individually, but apologize for incorrectly merging the 2 together.

No problem and I have great admiration for anyone willing to admit a mistake.

That said, I would still contend that you are being far easier on ******* than you've been on posters on this board, and I would expect the opposite to be more reasonable, since a journalist should be held to a higher standard than a random message board poster.

[_kai_]

The title of this thread is "Games of Interest".

We need another thread titled "Opinions No One Gives A Rat's Ass About".

Actually it really seems that it should be titled "Come make a generalized statement about a non MVC middle of their conference team and listen to Jamar pick a part the generalized statement bullet point by bullet point."

[Play Angry]

All times CST.

Tulsa @ Florida Atlantic, 6 PM
Alabama @ Texas A&M, 6 PM on ESPN2
SIU-Edwardsville @ Tennessee State, 7 PM on lolyeahright
#5 Duke @ UNC, 8 PM on ESPN
BYU vs. #25 Gonzaga, 10 PM on ESPN2


Really big game for BYU.

Bump.

[Yellow Bellied]

Bump.

Thank you @Play Angry:

[shock]

What's with all this? You do realize that a team's ranking in a stat is directly impacted by the schedule they played? 2 very similar teams playing two opposite quality schedules will end up with not at all similar stats.

I'm not talking about just a few better games by BC. Since we're almost to the end of the regular season, allow me to use projected figures:

Boston College: Top 50 - 10 games / 51-100 - 6 games / 101-200 - 10 games / 200+games - 4

Valley average: Top 50 - 4.1 games/ 51-100 - 3.6 games/ 101-200 - 10.4 games/ 200+ games - 11.2

BC played twice as many Top 100 teams and one-third as many 200+ teams. As a note, in both categories of Top 50 and 51-100, BC will play more games than each and every Valley team and no Valley team will have less than 9 200+ teams played.

I was not trying to make a point. I was merely posting facts. I know some on here don't like them, but I posted them anyways, in very simple to read formats. I have no idea why you are attacking me.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Michigan State doing their best Creighton impression, hitting 11-15 from 3 in the first half, yet only lead by 10 (Back to back took it from 4 to 10 on two quick possessions.)

[Kung Wu]

This isn't a good MVC year. Notice how I said a good year for the MVC. That's part of my argument. If the conference was good enough to be worth touting (anywhere near the level of play that the ACC has this year), WSU fans would be all over talking up the league's depth when a bottom team won the way BC has. Yet when a BCS league that everyone here hates does the same thing, the focus gets turned to how overrated the top team is for losing to a cellar dweller. That inconsistency that springs out of love for one's team and hate for "the enemy" is what I was pointing out.

As for your last sentence. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Going to have to explain a little more before I can answer your question.

What are you talking about with "a good year for the MVC?" Here's what you said:

If a MVC bottom feeder played the #1 team in the country twice, once close, once actually winning, everyone here would be talking how the league was sooo strong. When an ACC team does it, focus goes to the majority of their schedule and the assumption is they still stink.

So I said (paraphrasing), "If Evansville (that would be a MVC bottom feeder) beat us (we are close enough to #1 for government work) last week, not a single poster would be claiming the MVC is strong." That totally contradicts what you posted (and you said it in a very high and mighty way). Somehow you are now morphing your original quote into something it's not that should have us taking account whether the MVC is having a good year? That was no part of any assertion you made, what-so-ever when you condescendingly slammed the Shockernet community. Perhaps you tried to weasel out of your arrogant remark in other replies, but I didn't bother reading any further because I still haven't received my apology. LOL