Power Polls

ESPN's: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/powerranking?season=2010&week=17&pollId=1

5- Ohio State, 7 losses

10- New Mexico, 3 losses

14- BYU, 4 losses

21- Georgetown, 9 losses



"The Cougars' streak of three straight regular-season Mountain West titles has come to an end. BYU has one game left -- at TCU -- before the MWC tournament begins in Las Vegas next week."



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SI's: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/03/04/power.rankings.2/index.html

4- Ohio State

5- New Mexico

15- BYU



Brigham Young Cougars (27-4)

The Cougars' 83-81 loss to New Mexico last Saturday in the "biggest game in Mountain West history" was undeniably crushing, but it came with a silver lining: BYU fans found out they're going to be loaded at point guard the next couple of years.



BYU lost all-conference star Jimmer Fredette early in the second half yet had a chance to win right to the end because Michael Lloyd Jr., the team's third-string point guard (the second-stringer is hurt), came in and simply electrified the court. The sophomore, who came in averaging barely three points per game, lit up the Lobos for 19 points on 8-of-9 shooting.



Four nights later, Fredette was back in the fold for the Cougars, but coach Dave Rose wisely employed both guards at Utah. The result: Lloyd sprung for another 18 points and BYU cruised to a 71-51 win. Here's guessing we'll see more offensive sparks from Lloyd later this month.



Next up: 3/6 at TCU, 3/11 vs. TBD (Mountain West tournament).



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ohio State's current RPI: 28

If they get a 2-seed, let alone a 1-seed, I'll absolutely puke. The Big Ten is NOT a good conference this year.

Can't they just replace the words Ohio St with Evan Turner. He's the only reason Ohio St is ranked so high. He's a very good player, but he shouldn't be inflating Ohio State's ranking as much as he is.

kitic77 wrote:
Can't they just replace the words Ohio St with Evan Turner. He's the only reason Ohio St is ranked so high. He's a very good player, but he shouldn't be inflating Ohio State's ranking as much as he is.

Yes he should, look at their record with and without him.

kfilly20 wrote:

Can't they just replace the words Ohio St with Evan Turner. He's the only reason Ohio St is ranked so high. He's a very good player, but he shouldn't be inflating Ohio State's ranking as much as he is.

Yes he should, look at their record with and without him.

Again, it doesn't matter, the rankings shouldn't reflect how good I think a team IS at full strength, it should reflect their overall body of work over the season including things like injuries.

Schmoe wrote:

kitic77 wrote:
Can't they just replace the words Ohio St with Evan Turner. He's the only reason Ohio St is ranked so high. He's a very good player, but he shouldn't be inflating Ohio State's ranking as much as he is.

Yes he should, look at their record with and without him.

Again, it doesn't matter, the rankings shouldn't reflect how good I think a team IS at full strength, it should reflect their overall body of work over the season including things like injuries.

I disagree, it should be how good you are at this point in the year. Not an average of how you have been all season. The present is the only thing that matters.

Yeah, I think I'm tending to lean towards where I think you are right now.

kfilly20 wrote:

kfilly20 wrote:

Can't they just replace the words Ohio St with Evan Turner. He's the only reason Ohio St is ranked so high. He's a very good player, but he shouldn't be inflating Ohio State's ranking as much as he is.

Yes he should, look at their record with and without him.

Again, it doesn't matter, the rankings shouldn't reflect how good I think a team IS at full strength, it should reflect their overall body of work over the season including things like injuries.

I disagree, it should be how good you are at this point in the year. Not an average of how you have been all season. The present is the only thing that matters.

Both don't matter. You still have to win every game after your conference tournament.

kfilly20 wrote:

kfilly20 wrote:

Can't they just replace the words Ohio St with Evan Turner. He's the only reason Ohio St is ranked so high. He's a very good player, but he shouldn't be inflating Ohio State's ranking as much as he is.

Yes he should, look at their record with and without him.

Again, it doesn't matter, the rankings shouldn't reflect how good I think a team IS at full strength, it should reflect their overall body of work over the season including things like injuries.

I disagree, it should be how good you are at this point in the year. Not an average of how you have been all season. The present is the only thing that matters.

Yeah, I'm sure BYU is getting the benefit of the doubt for losing to NM without a good Jimmer, and I"m sure we are getting freakin little fairy bonuses for winning games without Jimmer. I mean heck, if we can win games without Jimmer, we should be getting WAY more respect than OSU for LOSING games without their best player.



The real point here: Fine okay, if you (a committee member, pollster, analyst, etc) think that it losses are justified if your best player is gone, then judge EVERYONE on that same fair scale, which, they clearly do not. Instead, they conveniently only apply it to OSU. :sick:

If you're talking about "power polls" then sure, whoever is playing the best at the moment should be in your top spot, but if you're talking about real polls, then it should be based on the resume that is the regular season schedule. Otherwise you'd have ten, twelve, maybe even fifteen loss teams taking up some of your one and two seeds, which would be stupid.

Even in a down year, the depth of the Big 10 is way better than the MWC. THey still have solid teams in Michigan State and Ohio State this year, and the rest of the conference is no cake walk like AFA or CSU or even Utah this year.



Fact of the matter is that if BYU wins the MWC tourney, which includes wins v. UNLV at the Mack and UNM, our ranking and seeding and power polls will jump big time. Winning takes care of everything, and we control that 100%. So it really is all on BYU. Just like the loss v. UNM is all on BYU. Win that one, and we would be where UNM is right now....

Lawboy wrote:
Even in a down year, the depth of the Big 10 is way better than the MWC. THey still have solid teams in Michigan State and Ohio State this year, and the rest of the conference is no cake walk like AFA or CSU or even Utah this year.

???? Do you even think before you post this stuff, or do you just shoot from the hip? That's like saying "The MWC still has solid teams like UNLV (the #3 team like MSU), UNM (the conf. champ like OSU) this year, and the rest of the conference is no cake walk like Penn State or Northwestern or even Michigan this year."



Do you even know anything about what is going on in the Big Ten this year? I mean, you just argued that the #1 and #3 teams show depth.....isn't that kind of arguing in the wrong direction? If anything, the bottom of the MWC is a more difficult "cake-walk" than the Big-Ten. It's just that .333 Wyoming doesn't sound as fierce as .333 Indiana because of the name on the front of the jerseys.



Bottom four of the MWC:



Utah 7-9 in conference 14-16 (.467)

TCU 5-11 in conference, 13-18 overall (.419)

Wyoming 3-13 in conference, 10-20 overall (.333)

Air Force 1-15 in conference, 9-20 overall (.310)



Bottom four of the Big-Ten:



Michigan 7-11 in conference, 14-16 overall (.467--who coincidentally got bushwhacked by Utah)

Iowa 4-14 in conference, 10-21 overall (.323)

Indiana 4-14 in conference, 10-20 overall (.333)

Penn State 3-15 in conference, 11-19 overall (.367) (with a loss to UNC.....Wilmington)



Top four of the MWC:



New Mexico: 14-2 in conference, 28-3 overall (.903)

Brigham Young: 13-3 in conference, 28-4 overall (.875)

UNLV: 11-5 in conference, 23-7 overall (.767)

San Diego State: 11-5 in conference, 22-8 overall (.733)



Top four of the Big-Ten:



Ohio State: 14-4 in conference, 24-7 overall (.774)

Purdue: 14-4 in conference, 26-4 overall (.867)

Michigan State: 14-4 in conference, 24-7 overall (.774)

Wisconsin: 13-5 in conference, 23-7 overall (.767)

By Sagarin Rating: RPI Rating

Utah #125 #154

TCU #181 #188

Wyoming #224 #217

Air Force #252 #251



Bottom four of the Big-Ten:



Michigan 7-11 #91 #134

Iowa 4-14 #166 #196

Indiana 4-14 #169 #214

Penn State 3-15 #126 #189



Top four of the MWC:



New Mexico: #22 #7

Brigham Young: #9 #23

UNLV #41 #47

San Diego State #49 #33



Top four of the Big-Ten:



Ohio State: #14 #29

Purdue: 14-4 #7 #11

Michigan State: #23 #26

Wisconsin: 13-5 #10 #18





CONF RPI BIG Ten #5, MWC #7.

SAGARIN Big Ten #4 MWC #8



You can call it drivel if you prefer, but Sagarin and RPI would agree with me completely. Apparently I don't just shoot from the hip.

Lawboy wrote:
By Sagarin Rating: RPI Rating

Utah #125 #154

TCU #181 #188

Wyoming #224 #217

Air Force #252 #251



Bottom four of the Big-Ten:



Michigan 7-11 #91 #134

Iowa 4-14 #166 #196

Indiana 4-14 #169 #214

Penn State 3-15 #126 #189



Top four of the MWC:



New Mexico: #22 #7

Brigham Young: #9 #23

UNLV #41 #47

San Diego State #49 #33



Top four of the Big-Ten:



Ohio State: #14 #29

Purdue: 14-4 #7 #11

Michigan State: #23 #26

Wisconsin: 13-5 #10 #18





CONF RPI BIG Ten #5, MWC #7.

SAGARIN Big Ten #4 MWC #8



You can call it drivel if you prefer, but Sagarin and RPI would agree with me completely. Apparently I don't just shoot from the hip.

For one, I would say all the evidence you provided worked against you except your last one. So I would say 6 statistics (top 4/bottom 4 record, top 4/bottom 4 RPI, top 4/bottom 4 Sagarin) are greater than your one little fact comparing the conference.



And say what you want, but you still look like a complete idiot, or should I say :utard: , for using OSU and Michigan State as examples of depth, and stating that there are no cake walks in the Big Televen (have you even seen Penn State play 1 game?!).

Lawboy wrote:
By Sagarin Rating: RPI Rating

Utah #125 #154

TCU #181 #188

Wyoming #224 #217

Air Force #252 #251



Bottom four of the Big-Ten:



Michigan 7-11 #91 #134

Iowa 4-14 #166 #196

Indiana 4-14 #169 #214

Penn State 3-15 #126 #189



Top four of the MWC:



New Mexico: #22 #7

Brigham Young: #9 #23

UNLV #41 #47

San Diego State #49 #33



Top four of the Big-Ten:



Ohio State: #14 #29

Purdue: 14-4 #7 #11

Michigan State: #23 #26

Wisconsin: 13-5 #10 #18





CONF RPI BIG Ten #5, MWC #7.

SAGARIN Big Ten #4 MWC #8



You can call it drivel if you prefer, but Sagarin and RPI would agree with me completely. Apparently I don't just shoot from the hip.

No, they wouldn't. You neglected to give us anything more than the ordinal numbers. The difference between the Big 10 and the MWC RPI is .5529 - .5436 = .0093. That sounds pretty comparable to me. It sure doesn't demonstrate that "the depth of the Big 10 is way better than the MWC," as you claim.



As for Sagarin, he also has the Pac-10 as the #6 conference, which tells you how credible his conference rankings are.

When discussing depth, do people look at how good teams at the bottom are, or how good at the top are? I know when people discuss the MWC in football, they look at TCU, Utah and BYU, with AFA next lately. They do not look at UNLV, SDSU or the bottom feeders. So excuse me for pointing to 2 of the 4 best teams in the Big 10. I should have listed all 4. My bad.



And I look like a complete idiot? Or Ute fan? For using logic, stats and teams at the top to make a point? Not sure how the evidence worked against me when the Big 10 is deeper and better rated with their top 4 than our top 4, and with their bottom 4 than our bottom 4 on average in those ratings.



If anyone is an idiot, it is those that use emotion to make an argument rather than fact, or stats. The MWC is not better than the Big 10. No way, no how. I wish we were, but we are not. And let's be honest, this is a big up year for the MWC and a down year for the Big 10. And they are still better. They have more $$$, larger population bases to recruit from, more national titles in hoops, and have earned that greater respect. And that is the reality the MWC is working against. The reason the name on the front of their jerseys means something is because they earned the right for it too. Perhaps we might actually win a tourney game this year and try to earn that respect rather than crying and whining about seeding, then losing again and again in the tourney. Just win, and we get that respect. Win once, not too much to ask is it?



By the way, tell me where I said there are no cakewalks in the Big 10. I said it would be tougher to play teams at the bottom of their conference than ours. And I stand by that. Especially since their bottom four are better ranked than our bottom 4 in the RPI and Sagarin ratings. Again, I was correct.



By the way, the name calling is juvenile.

Lawboy wrote:
When discussing depth, do people look at how good teams at the bottom are, or how good at the top are? I know when people discuss the MWC in football, they look at TCU, Utah and BYU, with AFA next lately. They do not look at UNLV, SDSU or the bottom feeders. So excuse me for pointing to 2 of the 4 best teams in the Big 10. I should have listed all 4. My bad.

Yeah, because when we talk about depth, we only look at the top? When they talk about depth, they look at the whole. Otherwise, you aren't looking very deep. This argument doesn't make sense anyways....you are the one who, in talking about depth, brought up CSU, AFA, and Utah. How does that fit in with your definition of not-so-deep depth?

And I look like a complete idiot? Or Ute fan? For using logic, stats and teams at the top to make a point? Not sure how the evidence worked against me when the Big 10 is deeper and better rated with their top 4 than our top 4, and with their bottom 4 than our bottom 4 on average in those ratings.



If anyone is an idiot, it is those that use emotion to make an argument rather than fact, or stats. The MWC is not better than the Big 10. No way, no how. I wish we were, but we are not. And let's be honest, this is a big up year for the MWC and a down year for the Big 10. And they are still better. They have more $$$, larger population bases to recruit from, more national titles in hoops, and have earned that greater respect. And that is the reality the MWC is working against. The reason the name on the front of their jerseys means something is because they earned the right for it too. Perhaps we might actually win a tourney game this year and try to earn that respect rather than crying and whining about seeding, then losing again and again in the tourney. Just win, and we get that respect. Win once, not too much to ask is it?

Wow. You really think that because Indiana won some games 20 years ago and has more population to recruit from that their 10-20 record is better than Wyomings? Really? No....this year's Indiana team did nothing to earn the right to that kind of respect. The guys winning games 20 years ago earned that respect. These guys just put on the jersey and went out and lost 20 games. That's all they have done. Indiana has won more national titles than Wyoming too.....how does that make them better than Wyoming?

By the way, tell me where I said there are no cakewalks in the Big 10.

Right when you said this:

Lawboy wrote:
Even in a down year, the depth of the Big 10 is way better than the MWC. THey still have solid teams in Michigan State and Ohio State this year, and the rest of the conference is no cake walk like AFA or CSU or even Utah this year.

I said it would be tougher to play teams at the bottom of their conference than ours. And I stand by that.

No, you didn't say that:

Lawboy wrote:
Even in a down year, the depth of the Big 10 is way better than the MWC. THey still have solid teams in Michigan State and Ohio State this year, and the rest of the conference is no cake walk like AFA or CSU or even Utah this year.

That is what you said.

Especially since their bottom four are better ranked than our bottom 4 in the RPI and Sagarin ratings. Again, I was correct.

No, you were incorrect. You said they had "no cake walk like AFA or CSU or even Utah." And I pointed out a number of teams they have who are quite similar to AFA, CSU, and Utah, they just didn't win as many games 20 years ago and they don't have as much money.....which has jack-squat to do with the depth of a conference.



Tell me Lawboy....where did I say that the MWC is better than the Big Ten? I never did. You said that the Big Ten is "way better than the MWC." Better, maybe. Way better? Not a chance. All the numbers you have given might show that the Big Ten is better, but they are far from proving the Big Ten is way better...if anything they make the two look rather similar. Then again, none of those numbers factor in how many wins a team got under Bobby Knight or how much money the school gets from donors and BCS money, so those numbers might be flawed.

I think we can easily revisit this debate after the NCAA tourney. My guess is that they get 4 teams in to our 3, and that they have teams win more games and go deeper. As they typically do. Take your MWC is similar to the Big 10 this season debate to ESPN or CBS Sports and let me know how you fare. It really does not matte how you package it. Our conference is not as good top to bottom.



At the end of the day, all I really care about is how BYU does. I hope they can FINALLY win some tourney games this year. It is embarrassing that is has been so long since the last win.

Lawboy wrote:
At the end of the day, all I really care about is how BYU does. I hope they can FINALLY win some tourney games this year. It is embarrassing that is has been so long since the last win.

If only we won more games in the 80s and 90s and had more money...... :P

snoscythe wrote:

At the end of the day, all I really care about is how BYU does. I hope they can FINALLY win some tourney games this year. It is embarrassing that is has been so long since the last win.

If only we won more games in the 80s and 90s and had more money...... :P

If you think money has nothing to do with it, get back to me in the fall when you complain about the BCS again. $$$ buys wins. Just ask the SEC in football, the ACC in hoops, The Big 10 with their fat network and every other AD fighting for every $ they can get their hands on.



And if you think respect and winning tradition do not matter, you are naive. Absolutely naive. People complain about BYU's poor seeding every year and wonder why. Perhaps winning a game or two in the tourney in the late 90's and 2000's and having that tradition of doing so might help some? If you think seeding is all based upon this year, and not partially on reputations, that is foolishness and naive. Maybe not fair, but it is how it is.

Lawboy wrote:

Lawboy wrote:
At the end of the day, all I really care about is how BYU does. I hope they can FINALLY win some tourney games this year. It is embarrassing that is has been so long since the last win.

If only we won more games in the 80s and 90s and had more money...... :P

If you think money has nothing to do with it, get back to me in the fall when you complain about the BCS again. $$$ buys wins. Just ask the SEC in football, the ACC in hoops, The Big 10 with their fat network and every other AD fighting for every $ they can get their hands on.



And if you think respect and winning tradition do not matter, you are naive. Absolutely naive. People complain about BYU's poor seeding every year and wonder why. Perhaps winning a game or two in the tourney in the late 90's and 2000's and having that tradition of doing so might help some? If you think seeding is all based upon this year, and not partially on reputations, that is foolishness and naive. Maybe not fair, but it is how it is.

In the long run, yes, money and reputation will cure your ills. But you fail to explain how all that money and history makes Indiana's 10-20 record this year any better than .333