Games of interest

[The Mad Hatter]

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.

BC scheduled up in the non conf and lost a ton of close games to good teams. Are they NCAA good. No way. Are they NIT good? No way. Are they quite likely at the same level as a middle of the MVC team this year? Probably. It's a sad statement about the MVC really.

I disagree that they would be fighting for 2nd or 3rd, but don't tell me they couldn't be very competitive in this year's down MVC.

1. This is the kind of stuff that gets you the reputation you have. ******* makes a completely idiotic statement about where BC would stack up in the Valley (at least as idiotic as anything you have railed against on this board), yet you use it as an excuse to go after fans on this board who have simply stated that ******* is wrong.

2. Quit putting words in people's mouths. The context of what people are saying is in response to ******* saying BC would compete for #2, so when people say they wouldn't compete, that is what they are arguing against. If you don't think that they would be 2nd or 3rd either, why are you attacking posters who are saying that?

[ShockerFever]

My patience is running thin of this very tired act.

[Cdizzle]

Here is everyone's current RPI. 6 teams ahead of BC. 4 behind. A bunch of teams not far ahead. A big lead on the bottom 4. I'm sticking with middle of the pack and very competitive. This year's MVC has 2 at the top, 4 at the bottom, and 4 in the middle. BC would be part of the middle group.

WSU - 8
ISU - 55
MSU - 115
UNI - 118
ISU - 125
DU - 164
Boston College - 169
SIU - 211
EU - 233
BU - 250
LUC - 279

Sort of. You can't just place their RPI in the league, because they haven't had to play in this league. What if you replace their losses to the Dukes, Syracuses, and Virginias with losses to Indiana State, Northern Iowa and Illinois State?

They have wins against #236, #88(n), #338, and #232(x2). That fits in BELOW the profile of Loyola. They would pick up a couple of extra wins in this league, sure, a higher subset of teams they could come close to competing with exist in the Valley. But they are a 10-win, butt-stankey (I use without hesitation), Thursday night special, plain and simple. Arguing otherwise really does disservice to your common complaint about people being dishonest.

[WstateU]

[MadaboutWu]

Here is everyone's current RPI. 6 teams ahead of BC. 4 behind. A bunch of teams not far ahead. A big lead on the bottom 4. I'm sticking with middle of the pack and very competitive. This year's MVC has 2 at the top, 4 at the bottom, and 4 in the middle. BC would be part of the middle group.

WSU - 8
ISU - 55
MSU - 115
UNI - 118
ISU - 125
DU - 164
Boston College - 169
SIU - 211
EU - 233
BU - 250
LUC - 279

BC is further from ISUr than they are from SIU, so to say a big lead on the bottom four you need to also say an even bigger deficit on 3-5. TMH nailed the context.

[Steeleshocker]

Here is everyone's current RPI. 6 teams ahead of BC. 4 behind. A bunch of teams not far ahead. A big lead on the bottom 4. I'm sticking with middle of the pack and very competitive. This year's MVC has 2 at the top, 4 at the bottom, and 4 in the middle. BC would be part of the middle group.

WSU - 8
ISU - 55
MSU - 115
UNI - 118
ISU - 125
DU - 164
Boston College - 169
SIU - 211
EU - 233
BU - 250
LUC - 279

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

[shock]

[Dave Stalwart]

Only about 30 posts to go!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

1. This is the kind of stuff that gets you the reputation you have. ******* makes a completely idiotic statement about where BC would stack up in the Valley (at least as idiotic as anything you have railed against on this board), yet you use it as an excuse to go after fans on this board who have simply stated that ******* is wrong.

2. Quit putting words in people's mouths. The context of what people are saying is in response to ******* saying BC would compete for #2, so when people say they wouldn't compete, that is what they are arguing against. If you don't think that they would be 2nd or 3rd either, why are you attacking posters who are saying that?

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.

[Kung Wu]

Butler and WSU weren't anywher near #1 when Evansville beat them. They were considered good teams, but there is a huge difference between beating those teams (and their perceived value at the time) and beating #1 after having taken them to the wire earlier in the year. Poor comparison.

If mediocre Evansville, in a good MVC year, went out an beat #1 once, and almost twice, this board would be full of talk about how deep the conference was. I don't see why this is a controversial point.

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?

[ShockTalk]

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.

[Kung Wu]

Here is everyone's current RPI. 6 teams ahead of BC. 4 behind. A bunch of teams not far ahead. A big lead on the bottom 4. I'm sticking with middle of the pack and very competitive. This year's MVC has 2 at the top, 4 at the bottom, and 4 in the middle. BC would be part of the middle group.

WSU - 8
ISU - 55
MSU - 115
UNI - 118
ISU - 125
DU - 164
Boston College - 169
SIU - 211
EU - 233
BU - 250
LUC - 279

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.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

But they are a 10-win, butt-stankey (I use without hesitation), Thursday night special, plain and simple. Arguing otherwise really does disservice to your common complaint about people being dishonest.

A quick explanation of your opinion (which you have every right to have) does not make it dishonest for me to have a differing opinion.

[Aargh]

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

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

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

BC is further from ISUr than they are from SIU, so to say a big lead on the bottom four you need to also say an even bigger deficit on 3-5. TMH nailed the context.

Yes, I worded that somewhat poorly. I just wanted to point out that the team in front of them is closer than the team immediately behind and the teams 2, 3, and 4 spots ahead are all closer than the team 2 spots behind. Minor subdetail of a tangent anyway.