Games of Interest (2015-16 Edition)

[SHOXAAC]

With what's been going on in this thread, you pick that out from a Shocker fan to rail on?

Wow.

Archie Bunker is baaaaack!!!
:-)

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Yes, I picked that post out of many dumb ones. My point is that the KU troll wants to get people upset and see page after page of dumb tangential discussion. When WSU fans are picking apart KU's dominant performance over Texas last night, I'd say the troll has thoroughly succeeded. I sat quiet for multiple pages of this dumb discussion before chiming in. Please, just ignore the fool. I've now posted 2 posts too many and am going to follow my own advice.

[DUShock]

Screw the little 10.

Only the little 10 teams and their coat tail hangers can make me, in an odd way, enjoy watching KU push their stuff in every year.

I do think it's funny. Then they all swallow the D in the tournament.

KU is the only team that plays defense. Well, WV does too. I like Huggins because he just doesnt give an eff about anything. I liked Martin too, and those dumbass EMAWs ran him off and replaced him with that candy-ass Webber. Whatajoke. I also love seeing BIG time basketball being played in half empty arenas. Big Time.

Good effort Horns. Tony Homo must have shared his notes on takin it up the ass with you before the game.

FIXED

[ShockingButTrue]

FTs
KU shot 46% vs Texas. KU is 70% on the year.
WSU shot 38% vs Missouri State. WSU is 70% on the year.

KU grabs a dominate road win over an NCAA level team and we have people trying to slam the Jayhawk's for a poor FT shooting performance. The KU troll clearly accomplished his goal.

Wasn't his goal to laud the chickens "dominate" win in the mighty b12, while slighting the Shockers for dominating regularly in their conference... the same conference that is 3-1 vs. them, and that's just the tournament. Overall it's even more favorable to the Valley the last 10 years. Those are the only stats that matter, head-to-head.

[Kel Varnsen]

Wasn't his goal to laud the chickens "dominate" win in the mighty b12, while slighting the Shockers for dominating regularly in their conference... the same conference that is 3-1 vs. them, and that's just the tournament. Overall it's even more favorable to the Valley the last 10 years. Those are the only stats that matter, head-to-head.

Yeah, because the other 30 games each team plays during the year don't matter.

That's like saying the '07 Giants were better than the '07 Patriots. One game sample sizes are not exactly a good indicator of who is better, especially when other metrics point to the opposite. The Big 12 has had the highest avery Pyth rating in KenPom this year and last year, and was second in 2014.

[ShockingButTrue]

With what's been going on in this thread, you pick that out from a Shocker fan to rail on?

Wow.

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I entered this thread because of the b12 vs. MVC actual record and not because I was in front of a TV on big Monday believing the hype. Tell the truth truther!

[ShockingButTrue]

Yeah, because the other 30 games each team plays during the year don't matter.

That's like saying the '07 Giants were better than the '07 Patriots. One game sample sizes are not exactly a good indicator of who is better, especially when other metrics point to the opposite. The Big 12 has had the highest avery Pyth rating in KenPom this year and last year, and was second in 2014.

One game? Hahaahaha (truly laughing, thank you)... KenPom huh?

[ShockerFever]

Yeah, because the other 30 games each team plays during the year don't matter.

That's like saying the '07 Giants were better than the '07 Patriots. One game sample sizes are not exactly a good indicator of who is better, especially when other metrics point to the opposite. The Big 12 has had the highest avery Pyth rating in KenPom this year and last year, and was second in 2014.

If the Patriots were better, they would have won when it counted the most. That's the whole point of the postseason, amirite?

[ShockdaWorld]

So...If WSU wins the Natty, it won't be because they were the best team, as the regular season has pointed to that not being the case? GTFOH with that noise.

[Kel Varnsen]

If the Patriots were better, they would have won when it counted the most. That's the whole point of the postseason, amirite?

The point of the postseason is to find a champion. Not to find the best team. A better measure of who the best team is would be playing the same or a similar schedule and sorting out results from there.

@ShockdaWorld to your point about the Natty, it depends. Sometimes it's okay to say that we don't know who the best team is (this year is a great example with very little difference among the top 20 or so teams). Because of the tournament, we know who the champion is. It doesn't take anything away from what they accomplished. It just means that in most years, objectively finding who the best team is, especially in a large and complex sport with 350+ teams like college basketball, is pretty difficult. So we need a tournament to determine the champion. Sometimes the champion is the best team, and sometimes the champion isn't.

[Cdizzle]

Maybe we should all just vote for who the best team is.

[ShockdaWorld]

The point of the postseason is to find a champion. Not to find the best team. A better measure of who the best team is would be playing the same or a similar schedule and sorting out results from there.

@ShockdaWorld to your point about the Natty, it depends. Sometimes it's okay to say that we don't know who the best team is (this year is a great example with very little difference among the top 20 or so teams). Because of the tournament, we know who the champion is. It doesn't take anything away from what they accomplished. It just means that in most years, objectively finding who the best team is, especially in a large and complex sport with 350+ teams like college basketball, is pretty difficult. So we need a tournament to determine the champion. Sometimes the champion is the best team, and sometimes the champion isn't.

Since you put it that way, I can kind of get on board. My trouble with the argument is that we really NEVER know who the best team is by that definition. Was UK the best team when they went 38-1? Maybe, maybe not. They never had to play Wisky until the Final 4, so maybe they weren't. Seems like that makes being "the best" a moot point, when the only thing that really matters is being the champion, even if you're not the best. Is #1 the best, or is #10 the best? The only way to know is to go head to head, but even then, the best team doesn't always win, so head to head isn't a viable option. In this situation, I'll take tourney games and championships over regular season wins anytime, as being the best has no meaning.

[Kel Varnsen]

Since you put it that way, I can kind of get on board. My trouble with the argument is that we really NEVER know who the best team is by that definition. Was UK the best team when they went 38-1? Maybe, maybe not. They never had to play Wisky until the Final 4, so maybe they weren't. Seems like that makes being "the best" a moot point, when the only thing that really matters is being the champion, even if you're not the best. Is #1 the best, or is #10 the best? The only way to know is to go head to head, but even then, the best team doesn't always win, so head to head isn't a viable option. In this situation, I'll take tourney games and championships over regular season wins anytime, as being the best has no meaning.

Oh absolutely. If you asked me if I had the choice between WSU being the far and away #1 team in KenPom or whatever, and winning the national title, I take the title in a heartbeat.

[ShockingButTrue]

[QUOTE=Kel Varnsen;636057]The point of the postseason is to find a champion. Not to find the best team. A better measure of who the best team is would be playing the same or a similar schedule and sorting out results from there.

Hahaahahahahah.... Is that kinda' like "Don't believe your lying eyes?" You're a hoot! I needed that!

[HenryMuto]

Kentucky with 10 fouls, Florida with 2......just saying