Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos
I do too, badly. And funk will ignorantly completely dismiss this because of the no tourney wins. But this is clearly significant.
The question I have that is an honest one is whether there's something about winning in the tourney that is significantly different than the MWC success.
Theory A: good teams are successful in every metric, be it total winning percentage, conference winning percentage, conference championships, post season success, etc. If there's an incongruent metric between NCAA success and other areas, it's most likely a data insufficiency issue or some random quirk, and over time, you will see those metrics come together.
Theory B: metrics of college basketball success are unequal. Regular season success is meaningless as a metric because the game completely changes in the post season. Future success in the post season can only be predicted by past success in the tourney NOT any other metric such as winning percentage or conference championships.
It's obvious funk is blinded by Utah's situation because Utah compared to BYU has such a quirky data relationship in post season success vs regular season success (especially last ten years). It's immature and silly for him not to acknowledge theory A to some degree.
But I'd like to understand more about this and admit there may be a partial inkling of truth to theory B.
|
The biggest stage in college hoops is the NCAA tournament. Teams are defined by their success in the tournament more than anything else. Regular season success isn't meaningless but it is secondary to tournament success. Would you rather have what UNLV did in 2006-2007 or what BYU did in 2006-2007?