Doug Gottlieb bagging on BYU - ESPNU Podcast 2/28/11

Andy Katz trying to defend BYU's 1-seed in Lunardi's Bracket and Gottlieb saying the America has fallen in love with a story which explains our ranking. He said we don't play a tough enough schedule to warrant a 1 -seed. Isn't our RPI and SOS part of the reason we're ranked so high?? He said we're a top 10 sure but putting us ahead of Texas is ridiculous. Couldn't you make the same argument for Duke?? The ACC sucks this year but Gottlieb says the atmosphere in ACC games is much harder than what BYU plays. Try playing at the Pitt, at SDSU, at UNLV or at the Marriot Center.



Gottlieb does call BYU and Ohio State GREAT teams though but thanks for the extra motivation Doug!!!

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but if BYU doesn't deserve a #1 seed, no one does this year. No one has a better resume at this point. RPI is #1. Look at all the conference leaders BYU has beaten. Unbelievable that the whole "MWC is weak" theory is still alive. Isn't the MWC ranked 4th of ALL the conferences in RPI? It's not #1, but it's not Pac-10 either.



Doug who? Foolish stuff coming from you man. Hopefully at some point you learn to zip up your own pants and do some homework before talking.

BYU just doesn't pass the eye test. prime example of what I am talking about. During the SDSU game on Saturday while Jackson Emery was dominating defensively, one of the announcers said that he was "deceptively athletic". I am not going to dig too deep into what that means, we all already know. The only thing BYU can do is get into the Tourney and beat up on some more teams that pass the eye test with our "deceptive" athleticism.

Some people have not come to terms with the fact that the 1 and done rule in NCAA hoops has killed some the of the traditional programs and their conferences because they get more of the 1 and done players, and then have to constantly reload/rebuild, while other good teams play kids for 4 years, have more experience and cohesiveness, even if less raw talent. What Butler did last year may have seemed strange, but it will become more normal, unless the NBA rules changes. Certain schools like UNC, Kentucky, Ohio State, etc have been hurt by it, while others are catching up. Simple as that.

Calm down, not a big deal. ESPN just wants to have something to debate. Gottlieb took the antagonist position. Who cares. If BYU wins out, will be a 1 or a 2 seed, in the West, and either one is as good as the other (2 seed might even be better if it helps us avoid KSU in the 2nd round).

I had the podcast playing while trolling around the house and my wife turned to me and said, "Who's this idiot? Do we really need to listen to this?"



ESPN had to find somebody to disagree with them.

Y 4 Ever wrote:
Calm down, not a big deal. ESPN just wants to have something to debate. Gottlieb took the antagonist position. Who cares. If BYU wins out, will be a 1 or a 2 seed, in the West, and either one is as good as the other (2 seed might even be better if it helps us avoid KSU in the 2nd round).

It was funny listening to doug... he said he knows what the numbers (i.e. RPI, SOS, etc) say but doesn't agree with them. That's the beauty of numbers, unless the data that is given to the formulas are incorrect or biased, the numbers are accurate. They don't lie. They don't hold conference bias's. They don't care what the school name is. He acknowledged the numbers were in favor of BYU but his OPINION is different.



I really don't care what he thinks, it was just funny listening to him. I agree 4 Ever, if we can avoid K-state or other super athletic teams until the sweet 16 I'd take a 2 instead of a 1.

radius19 wrote:

Calm down, not a big deal. ESPN just wants to have something to debate. Gottlieb took the antagonist position. Who cares. If BYU wins out, will be a 1 or a 2 seed, in the West, and either one is as good as the other (2 seed might even be better if it helps us avoid KSU in the 2nd round).

It was funny listening to doug... he said he knows what the numbers (i.e. RPI, SOS, etc) but doesn't agree with them. That's the beauty of numbers, unless the data that is given to the formulas are incorrect or biased, the numbers are accurate. They don't lie. They don't hold conference bias's. They don't care what the school name is. He acknowledged the numbers were in favor of BYU but his OPINION is different.



I really don't care what he thinks, it was just funny listening to him. I agree 4 Ever, if we can avoid K-state or other super athletic teams until the sweet 16 I'd take a 2 instead of a 1.

Isn't it great? Year after year it's "Well, BYU's SOS is only 45 so they don't deserve better than a 7 or 8 seed." This year it's "Well, RPI and SOS don't really mean that much it's more about beating big name teams which they haven't done." The spinning makes me dizzy...

radius19 wrote:
It was funny listening to doug... he said he knows what the numbers (i.e. RPI, SOS, etc) say but doesn't agree with them. That's the beauty of numbers, unless the data that is given to the formulas are incorrect or biased, the numbers are accurate. They don't lie. They don't hold conference bias's. They don't care what the school name is. He acknowledged the numbers were in favor of BYU but his OPINION is different.

Numbers, like the truth, don't have an agenda.

There was another very funny point in the discussion. Doug said UCLA lost at home to Cal and Andy Katz corrected him, saying the game UCLA lost to Cal was @ Cal. Dougs response... Well, they should have lost at home to CAL. What little credibility doug had in my mind was lost forever in that moment. Doug apparently lives in a world of "should have's and should not have's" instead of "did's and did not's." Hence, he gives BYU no credit for what it have did (win a ton of games, most being on the road) and have not did (lose to BAD teams) but punishes them for things that they should have did (somehow play teams that won't play them or be in a different conference) and should not have did (be in the MWC).

You can't win against people with this type of logic.



(PS Karl Malone grammar intended)

Is it any wonder that Doug is so close in spelling to Douche? :D

redneckjedi wrote:
Is it any wonder that Doug is so close in spelling to Douche? :D

Doug is simply a Dog, but with a lot of :utard: in it.

I have been listening to this ESPN broadcast all season. Doug was a player for Oklahoma St. I get the feeling that he is has been assigned to BCS teams and teams on the East Coast. I think a lot of it is just familiarity bias. He hasn't seen BYU play live. He hasn't seen us play much at all.

hey there! Lots of great Dougs out there, don't get caught on the Doug when you can attack the Gottlieb, I mean what is that?

hawkwing wrote:
hey there! Lots of great Dougs out there, don't get caught on the Doug when you can attack the Gottlieb, I mean what is that?

There are consequences to having certain names. Would you like to have any of the following names that have taken severe beatings in the past several decades

Barney

Bart

Fred

Hawkwing

Gollum

Doh!

Gottlieb's argument coincides nicely with my theory that in college basketball you move up more for not losing games not because of the games you win.



Look at Utah St. Did they move up two spots (from 23 to 21) because voters were that impressed by their lone win over Idaho at home? Or did they move up because teams 22 and 21 both lost?



Did BYU really "jump" anyone for beating SDSU? I don't think so. They moved from #7 to #3 because teams 1, 4, 5 and 6 all lost.



You move up because the teams in front of you lose.

radius19 wrote:
There was another very funny point in the discussion. Doug said UCLA lost at home to Cal and Andy Katz corrected him, saying the game UCLA lost to Cal was @ Cal. Dougs response... Well, they should have lost at home to CAL. What little credibility doug had in my mind was lost forever in that moment. Doug apparently lives in a world of "should have's and should not have's" instead of "did's and did not's." Hence, he gives BYU no credit for what it have did (win a ton of games, most being on the road) and have not did (lose to BAD teams) but punishes them for things that they should have did (somehow play teams that won't play them or be in a different conference) and should not have did (be in the MWC).

You can't win against people with this type of logic.



(PS Karl Malone grammar intended)

In that case BYU should have won at the PITT vs New Mexico as they blew a 10+ lead in the second half, BYU should have won against UCLA but Noah and CC we largely unavailable. What an IDIOT!!!

kitic77 wrote:
Gottlieb's argument coincides nicely with my theory that in college basketball you move up more for not losing games not because of the games you win.



Look at Utah St. Did they move up two spots (from 23 to 21) because voters were that impressed by their lone win over Idaho at home? Or did they move up because teams 22 and 21 both lost?



Did BYU really "jump" anyone for beating SDSU? I don't think so. They moved from #7 to #3 because teams 1, 4, 5 and 6 all lost.



You move up because the teams in front of you lose.

Dr. Hawkwing Johnson's right about Kitic Johnson being right. http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/saddles/sounds/johnson.wav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



You don't move up by winning, but by not losing when those in front of you lose unless you really deliver a severe beating so another highly ranked team, preferably to one in front of you.



If I were a voter, I'd really wouldn't want to say that I had made a mistake in my previous voting unless I would look like an idiot, but then again, there are those two dud(e)s who voted BYU to be number 7.

Here is also where Gottlieb's argument falls apart. He says that BYU's numbers are good, but they're not significantly better which they need to be. IMO, BYU's number are significantly better and if you took out the name BYU and asked someone to name the team, they wouldn't say BYU.



Here are the teams being bandied about as a potential #1 seed (in alphabetical order): BYU, Duke, Kansas, Notre Dame, Ohio St, Pittsburgh, Purdue, & Texas. Although ND and Purdue are the longer shots. If you look at RPI, SOS, Polls, top 25 RPI wins, top 50 RPI wins and sub-50 RPI losses here's how it looks. I'm giving the top team in each area 8 pts and the last team 1 pt.



RPI: 1 BYU (8pts), 2 Kansas (7pts), 3 Ohio St (6 pts), 5 Duke (5pts), 6 Purdue (4pts), 7 Pittsburgh (3pts), 9 Texas (2pts), 10 Notre Dame (1pt).



SOS: 12 BYU (16pts), 16 Kansas (14pts), 20 Purdue (10pts), 23 Texas (7pts), 24 Pittsburgh (7pts), 36 Ohio St (9pts), 40 Notre Dame (3pts), 46 Duke (7pts)



Polls (took the average): 1 Ohio St (17 pts), 2 Kansas (21 pts), 3 BYU (22 pts), 4 Duke (12 pts), 4.5 Pittsburgh (11 pts), 6 Purdue (13 pts), 7.5 Texas (9 pts), 7.5 Notre Dame (5 pts) (since Texas and ND tied at #7, I gave them both 2 pts)



Top 25 RPI wins: 6 Pittsburgh (19pts), 6 Notre Dame (12pts), 4 BYU (28pts), 2 Kansas (26pts), 2 Ohio St (22pts), 2 Duke (17pts), 2 Purdue (18pts), 2 Texas (14pts).(since they all tied at 2 wins, I gave them all 5 pts)



Top 50 RPI wins: 9 BYU (36pts), 9 Pittsburgh (27pts), 9 Notre Dame (20pts), 8 Duke (22pts), 7 Texas (18pts), 6 Kansas (29pts), 6 Ohio St (25pts), 5 Purdue (19pts)



Sub-50 RPI Losses: 0 Kansas (37pts), 0 Ohio St (33pts), 0 Pittsburgh (35pts), 0 Notre Dame (28pts), 1 BYU (40pts), 1 Duke (26pts), 2 Purdue (21pts), 3 Texas (19pts).



Final Tally:

BYU 40 pts

Kansas 37 pts

Pittsburgh 35 pts

Ohio St 33 pts

Notre Dame 28 pts

Duke 26 pts

Purdue 21 pts

Texas 19 pts



BYU is "considerably better" than those other teams. It should also be noted that while BYU "only" has four top 25 RPI wins, they have two additional wins against the top 26 RPI (as UNLV is #26). So while those numbers counted in the top 50 wins, they didn't in the top 25. If we counted them BYU would have had an additional two points.



BYU's resume is more than comparable to ANY #1 seed. In fact, to even be mentioning teams like Duke and Purdue and Texas and compare them to what BYU has accomplished, is frankly an insult to the Cougars. They are "significantly better" than these teams. At least mathematically.