WVSPORTS.COM West Virginia nets No. 3 seed in NCAAs
- Thread starter Keenan Cummings
- Start date
THIS is tough?
Baylor beat Illinois 82-69 and the Bears had to go into OT to escape WVU.
Missouri beat Illinois, 81-78.
Rutgers beat Illinois, 91-88.
Maryland beat Illinois, 66-63.
Ohio State beat Illinois, 87-81.
Michigan State beat Illinois, 81-72.
I've seen you play, so not saying you might be stretching the truth here a little, but you might be.
You DO know that WVU had FOURTEEN games against Top 25 teams and was out-scored by a total of TEN points, less than 1 point a game? I don't stretch the truth. I do the analytics, then embrace the result even if I don't agree with it emotionally. Two decades as a dinosaur sportswriter taught me that.
You DO know that my reply was to WVUALLEN in regard to him talking about how he would devour Culver, right? Since you brought it up (for the 42nd time), what's so good about playing 14 ranked teams, and combining the scores of those 14 games, to come up with a ten point deficit? I don't know how many ranked teams Michigan played this season, and won't bother looking it up, but I do know that if we ended up in a 10 point deficit in those games, instead of losing four games, we would have probably lost nine games.
Well, WVU was 5-9 in those 14 games so, BY OUR STANDARDS, Michigan is about 4 losses worse than WVU. Thank you for that.
Illinois vs Loyola of Chicago seems like Kansas/Wichita State a few seasons back for some reason.
SORRY, I GOT IT WRONG AND WAS CORRECTED:
Huggins Heroes played ELEVEN games against Top 25 teams and the points total were 887 for WVU and 892 for the Top 25 opponents. WVU was -5. That still stacks up pretty damn good! Yes, 5-6 record against Top 25 teams. How many teams in America played Top 25 teams damn near even.
wvu opponents TOTALS
887 892 difference in totals: WVU -5
82 87
89 94
70 72
84 82
87 84
80 85
69 72
65 79
91 79
88 87
82 71
WVU played these top 25 teams:
#1 Gonzaga L 82-87
#3 Baylor L 89-94 in OT
#9 Texas L 70-72 W 84-82
#11/#12 Oklahoma State W 87-84 L 80-85 L 69-72
#11/#12 Kansas L 65-79 W 91-79
#21 Texas Tech W 88-87 W 82-71
So, 11 games and not 14 is right. Earlier Oklahoma was in Top 25 but dropped out late in season. Sorry.
5-6 is correct
Oklahoma dropped out.
But OU won like 5/6 Top 10 games in a month.
Beat Alabama without Reaves.
Funny thing is they played better with the guy that looks like Avatar over Manek.
He is a much better defender
But OU won like 5/6 Top 10 games in a month.
Beat Alabama without Reaves.
Funny thing is they played better with the guy that looks like Avatar over Manek.
He is a much better defender
What do you think about the 3-14 matchups?
WVU-Morehead
Oklahoma State-Liberty
North Texas-Purdue
UNC-Greensboro-Florida State
I think WVU will roll Morehead
I believe NT will hang with Purdue in the first half, but Boilers will pull away midway in the 2nd half. See the same scenario playing out with UNC-G and FSU, but FSU should win handily.
I've seen Liberty play a few times, and the Rode kid is actually the daughter of a woman that used to work with me at a previous employer. He may end up matched up with Cunningham. I think Liberty has a decent shot at pulling off the upset here, mainly due to the style they play, along with the Cowboy's youth. Obviously, OSU is used to playing against tougher competition, but they can't overlook Liberty.
Also, what do you know about Abilene Christian? They must be better than I was aware, since Texas game line is only nine.
Sorry, and maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to follow your logic, and completely unknowledgeable to your standards.
TRY THIS:
I went back and corrected some of my earlier errors, too. Sorry.
But WVU stacks up much better than Michigan is you're not a Mountaineer or Wolverines fan. Either can beat most of the teams in March Madness, though.
wvu opponents TOTALS
887 892 difference in totals: WVU -5
82 87
89 94
70 72
84 82
87 84
80 85
69 72
65 79
91 79
88 87
82 71
WVU -5 with 6-5 record
MICHIGAN
361 341 totals
70 53
92 87
67 68
79 57
53 76
Mich. +20
3-2 record
Wait so Michigan has more points and a winning percentage against the top 25 teams they have faced and this makes them worse than WVU who has a losing percentage and overall less points vs their top 25 competition? I understand that WVU was not blown out and were in all those games until the end. I also understand that WVU played more top 25 competition. But I fail to see how you can so confidently assert WVU over Michigan after illustrating that the Wolverines have a winning record and scored more points against their top competition than WVU has against theirs. And I'm a Mountaineer fan.
Last edited:
If WVU loses something horrible will have to happen.
Not possible.
Liberty has the chance to win that game.
Oklahoma State ultimately has a lot more talent.
Likekele is a 36 years old man in a 20 year old body so I just don't see a collapse but they did go 0-2 vs TCU
UNT vs Purdue is UALR vs Purdue is all over again.
UNT could be better and Purdue not as good.
I actually am a little higher on Greensboro than most because of the turnovers.
Regarding Abilene Christian. They were screwed.
They played Tech and Arkansas within 10.
They actually are a version of Tx Tech.
The issue here is Texas won't be surprised by how much of a fight they want to get into because of playing Tx Tech 3x.
Smart has connected that team to Tx Tech. So the players will be prepared to play Texas Tech.
SIMPLE. WVU PLAYED 11 GAMES AGAINST TOP 25 TEAMS. MICHIGAN SKATED BY WITH ONLY 5 GAMES AGAINST TOP 25 TEAMS. BIG 12 COMPETITION DEPTH IS MUCH BETTER THAN BIG 10. MICHIGAN IN BIG 12 WOULD HAVE HAD WORSE RECORD THAN WVU, WHICH EVEN PUSHED TO BE A LAST-MINUTE REPLACEMENT AS #1 GONZAGA'S OPPONENT WHILE WOLVERINES WERE PLAYING WUSSES IN BIG 10, WHERE WHO YOU DON'T PLAY HELPS AS MUCH AS WHO YOU DO PLAY. IN BIG 12, YOU ARE SCHEDULED TWICE AGAINST EVERY TEAM, INCLUDING 7 TOP 25 TEAMS WHEN THE REGULAR SEASON ENDED.
Last edited:
They are trying to jump start their basketball program.
Michigan hasn't recruited how they should truthfully...but as we have seen a lot of those recruits are looking to be taken care of and Beilein ran a very clean program.
The games played and cancelled were weird around Michigan
They don't have the choice now. Play the games or you are out.
I would be surprised if they made the Final 4.
To say WVU would in the same position wouldn't be true as well.
Michigan hasn't recruited how they should truthfully...but as we have seen a lot of those recruits are looking to be taken care of and Beilein ran a very clean program.
The games played and cancelled were weird around Michigan
They don't have the choice now. Play the games or you are out.
I would be surprised if they made the Final 4.
To say WVU would in the same position wouldn't be true as well.
Trying to jump start the program? Michigan has played in the title game twice out of the last six/seven final fours, and has the #1 rated recruiting class coming in next year. Quite the jump start, so hopefully the engine turns over. When will Texas jump start their program?
Last edited:
So because WVU played 11 games vs top 25 and Michigan only played 5, WVU is better? You can only play the teams in front of you and Michigan appears to have done better than WVU against their top competition by your own analysis. I love WVU and think they could beat Michigan. But I don't see how it is anything short of daft to proclaim supremacy over another team AFTER illustrating that the other team won more than they lost vs top 25 unlike yours. What is your logic that if Michigan played 6 more top 25 teams that they'd only win 1 of them to be worse than WVU? There are arguments to be made here in favor of your point that WVU is equal to or better than Michigan. However, you are just claiming it while presenting facts that contradict your supposition.
I don't believe WVU is nearly as good as Michigan. If they played 10 times, WVU would be lucky to win two of those games. You really believe Michigan would have gone at best, 10-7 playing your schedule? Michigan went 14-3 in the toughest conference in the country, and nobody other than a few homers even disputes that. I would go as far as saying Michigan would have given Baylor a run for their money at the top. Michigan missed out playing three conference games, games against Indiana, Northwestern, and Penn State, so they would have likely won those games to finish 17-3 in the conference.
CFE is just a wanna-be and a pompous leftwing blowhard. Read his Google induced ramblings...laugh...and move on.
Unlike CFE, I'll try to make some sense.
First. Michigan went 14-3 in the "toughest" conference in the country. (Note the following are end of season rankings only) The Big 10 is top heavy with 4 teams in the top 10. But overall the Big 10 has 5 top 25 teams. 5 out of 14 or .357. The Big 12 is not top heavy this year with only 1 team in the top 10. But overall the Big 12 has 6 top 25 teams. 6 out 10 or .600. This reminds me of the ACC arguments for best conference in the past when they were top heavy with 3-4 top 10 teams, but a steep drop off thereafter. It is also the problem with the mega conference where the conference can be considered the "toughest", but a team like Michigan only plays 5 teams that finished in the top 25 the whole season including their own conference tournament.
Second. Michigan had 4 postponed games. You only mention the 3 lower tier teams, but not the Illini game where in the only other match-up Michigan was crushed. It is an omission to bolster your argument and intentional. But despite that, what does it matter to bring up games against 3 teams that WVU would likely handle as well?
Third. Of those 5 games that Michigan played against teams that finished in the top 25, only 2 of them were consecutive. In fairness, they won both and against 2 top 10 teams. WVU has had to do it 3 times and since the start of conference play the Mountaineers never went more than 3 games without facing a team that finished in the top 25. Michigan had to get to game 9 before finding their first top 25 finishing team.
Fourth. WVU was crushed by Kansas early in the season. Michigan was crushed by Illinois late in the season. WVU's worse loss was Florida and WVU was not beaten soundly. Michigan's worse loss was Minnesota which was a sound beating. In fairness Michigan did at least crush a top 10 team in Iowa while WVU only soundly beat Kansas and Texas Tech from the top 25.
Ultimately, I don't think either one is head and shoulders above the other. Just like I critique CFE's blatant assertion without sound reasoning that WVU is definitely better than WVU, you are doing the same to think Michigan would win 4 out of 5 games against WVU.
First. BIG is much more than just the top four teams. You may look at teams like Purdue, Wisconsin, Maryland, Rutgers, MSU as jokes, but try playing against them in their house.
Second. As I stated, Michigan only had 3 postponed games, games against Penn State, Northwestern, and Indiana. The postponed game against Illinois was made up.
Player to player, Michigan is better than West Virginia, and would be a matchup nightmare. That's simply my opinion from watching both teams play multiple times. Michigan shoots the ball pretty good, and defends it very well. They like to take the ball to the basket as well, which is a weakness with WVU. Right now though, without Livers, West Virginia might very well beat them, but for them to face one another would require a small miracle for both teams. For WVU to beat Michigan (with Livers), WVU would have to shoot lights out, because Culver likely wouldn't have much of an impact going against Michigan's bigs. That's all my opinion, and it's fair for you to agree or disagree.
I enjoy your well thought out posts, Bell. However, you are guilty in your post above of the same data mining, of which you accuse M-Herd. In comparing the Big 12 to the B1G, you use Top 25 rankings as ammunition for your opinions that the B1G is "top heavy" and Big 12 is deeper than the B1G. There is nothing magical about the top 25 schools, as determined by voters. Now that the tournament field has been selected, wouldn't it make more sense to determine conference depth based upon the teams selected for the NCAA Tournament, as opposed to the Top 25? I would argue that the B1G is not top heavy, and, in fact, has the most quality depth in the Country, as evidenced by the fact that nine of its members have been invited to the Big Dance. You would reasonably argue, on the other hand, that the Big 12 is better because 7/10 (70%) of its conference has been invited to the Big Dance. I would counter this contention with the argument that the Big 12 tourney teams padded their records by thumping terrible teams at the bottom of the standings, and the B1G was better at the bottom of the conference, as the B1G cellar dwellers didn't go 0 for the season in conference play, as Iowa State did, or lose to a Division II school, as Kansas State did vs. Fort Hayes State. You mentioned Minnesota, but probably don't realize that the Gophers were a dominant team at home before their seven footer was injured, as they beat at Williams Arena not only Michigan, but also Ohio State, Iowa, Purdue, and Michigan State, all of which are NCAA Tournament teams. I'd also point out that only crickets could be heard on this board when the SEC won its conference challenge vs. the Big 12. We spend way too much time debating conference strength, and I'm sure that you're as tired of hearing about the B1G's strength as rival fans are sick of hearing that the Big 12 is the best conference in America, which CFE and others have said in virtually every season since WVU joined the league. The beauty of college basketball is that conference and team strength will be determined on the court in the next month.
I understand that using top 25 rankings and comparing desperate schedules isn't really a great exercise. However my involvement in this is that it was being used in the back and forth between Michigan Herd and CFE. Truth is there is no objective way to assert one over the other. So I think CFE just saying WVU is better because they played more top 25 teams doesn't hold water. I also don't think there is objective evidence that WVU only has a 20% chance to beat Michigan in a head to head match-up. Albeit MHerd did admit he just holds that opinion and is not trying to stat compare.
NO, BECAUSE WVU PLAYED 11 AGAINST TOP 25 AND MICHIGAN PLAYED ONLY 5 IT MEANS THAT WVU SURVIVED AGAINST MUCH TOUGHER COMPETITION. MICHIGAN CAKEWALKED THROUGH THE BIG 10. WVU HAD DOGFIGHTS AND WWF MATCHES IN EVERY BIG 12 GAME. WELL, NOT AGAINST IOWA STATE, WHICH LOST EVERY GAME AMID THOSE GIANTS.
^^^ HAWG WASH
One could also look at it, and easily determine that Michigan twice played top 25 Minnesota, who was legit both times Michigan played them. As the King pointed out, they lost their big man along with another starter a few weeks prior to the end of their season, and they ended up losing most of those games. Rutgers was also top 25 when Michigan played them, and even Northwestern was ranked when Michigan played them. Likely there's others if I looked hard enough. Point being, B1G plays a 20 game conference slate, so even really good teams are going to end up losing 9-10, even 11-12 games within a strong basketball conference, and by doing so, they get bounced from the Top 25 by teams that perhaps aren't as good as them, but they play in a much weaker conference, so their 19-7 record may look cuter to the eyes of the casual AP voter, who more than likely knows nothing about a majority of the teams he/her are attempting to rank.
As has been pointed out countless times, the tournament will likely shed more light on who owns the biggest nut sack. Personally, I don't look for Michigan to make a deep run. Round of 32, possibly round of 16 is the likely ceiling, but hoping others step up and can make up for the loss of Livers.
We will see when the Tournament plays out.
The B1G does have naysayers
Michigan St, Rutgers, Maryland and Wisconsin.
Good chance all 4 are out early
The B1G does have naysayers
Michigan St, Rutgers, Maryland and Wisconsin.
Good chance all 4 are out early
Going out on a limb with the #11, two #10, and a #9 seed going out early, aren't you? I think MSU has a shot at maybe beating BYU, but that's if they get past UCLA tonight, which should be very close. Rutgers/Clemson is a tossup game, as they almost mirror one another in talent and style of play. Maryland/UCONN the same thing, but Maryland is capable of beating almost anybody as well as capable of losing to almost anybody on any given night. Wisconsin has issues with teams with big men, so NC should beat them. Out of that four, Badgers should be the weakest of the weak links/lower seeds.
That leaves the B1G with 5 teams.
That is if Purdue doesn't lose.
Big 12 is favored in all 7 of their matchups.
At the highest 2 will lose
After the first game the B1G is cut in half
Big 12 is favored to have 5 or 6 teams in the Sweet 16
Tx Tech is a popular pick vs Arkansas
This is where you lost your credibility with me:
Michigan went 14-3 in the toughest conference in the country
Wrong conference. Big 12 is the toughest, this year. It changes from year to year. That's why WVU plays 11 games against Top 25 teams and Michigan played only 5 because Michigan is in the weaker conference, FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. Michigan could feast on 8 piddly teams in its conference. WVU had Iowa State for that. WVU arranged to meet Gonzaga at the minute because Huggins insisted on it. #1 team in the country and WVU lost by 5 and was leading with 6 minutes to go! Yes, Big 10 is very good at the top. But it doesn't go nearly as deep as Big 12, which had, at season's end, SEVEN Top 25 teams, 70% of the league. Big 10 has less than half its teams in the Top 25. Competition MUCH tougher in the Big 12. At the top, Big 12 and Big 10 would be coin tossups. But not when you match up Big 12 schedule against Big 10 schedule. Not even close. Every impartial expert knows that. You just refuse to believe it. That's OK. Myopic vision among fans is normal. But don't blow smoke and pretend it's a rainbow. When it comes to depth the Big 10 is a toddler compared to the Big 12. As a two-decade sportswriter I know something about the eyeball test, too.
So, Big 12 has 7 teams in the NCAA tournament, B1G has 9 teams in the NCAA tournament, but yet you feel the Big 12 goes deeper? B1G has four of the top eight seeds in the tournament, compared to two for the Big 12.
Get your eyeballs checked. Up your prescription. Do anything.
Teams by Conference:
9 – Big Ten
7 – Big 12
7 – ACC
6 – SEC
5 – Pac-12
4 – Big East
2 – American
2 – Atlantic 10
2 – Mountain West
2- Missouri Valley
The Big Ten placed more than half of their league’s teams in this year’s field, including No. 1 seeds Illinois and Michigan.
Ohio State and Iowa were No. 2 seeds while Purdue landed a No. 4 seed. Wisconsin ended up with a No. 9-seed. Rutgers and Maryland got No. 10 seeds on opposite sides of the bracket.
Michigan State will only make it to the Round of 64 if they beat fellow No. 11-seed UCLA in the First Four.
All told, that’s 64 percent of the conference.
The Big Ten and the Big 12 are strutting into the NCAA Tournament
However, the Big Ten can’t claim the highest percent of tournament teams. The Big 12 has 70 percent of their membership heading to Indianapolis, including Baylor as a No. 1.
Big 12 Tournament victors Texas came through with as a No. 3 along with Kansas and West Virginia.
The ACC also produced seven tournament teams while the SEC is bringing six. No. 4-seed Florida State is the loftiest representative from the former. No. 2-seed Alabama is tops from the SEC.
Somewhat surprising given the state of the conference, the Pac-12 secured five representatives. That’s the most for the “Conference of Champions” since 2016.
The bell of the ball is Gonzaga, one of two teams from the West Coast Conference dancing this year. The undefeated and top-seeded Bulldogs have big expectations to live up to this year.
Not according to the computers or the pundits outside of the Big 12 footprint. This is where you lose credibility.
Neither has been proven yet....
Like I said the BIG has huge shoes to fit.
Big 12 just needs one E8 school.
Could get 2-4
B1G needs 4
Could get 1-3
You're making up your own cliche and rules now. Nobody will consider your conference the best if you have seven teams seeded #8 or better, and don't have at least one Final Four team. One Elite Eight team won't cut it for either conference in the Court of Public Opinion.
Living up to the seeds.
If you are a 2 seed you should play in the Elite 8. Anything else is underperforming.
The problem with that is there are teams who aren't 2 seeds on that side of the bracket.
Arkansas
Tx Tech
Who could be as good if not better than Ohio State.
Tx Tech has a fight with Utah State but they live in the mud already...
They are the most dangerous team on that side of the bracket because they have talent....but they also bring it to a level intensity wise unlike others
I haven't seen too many teams like this...
It's not that simple. WVU lost 6 out of 11 of those games. Michigan lost 2 out of 5. You are subjectively presuming that Michigan would have done worse against those teams and that because WVU had more games against ranked teams that that experience gives WVU the edge. Your opinion is that WVU is better than Michigan and that's fine. I think WVU is slightly worse than Michigan. However the stats you keep throwing out there do not objectively prove your subjective opinion like you think they do no matter how many times you just claim it to be true.
Now, you're just trolling. So, you're predicting that Texas Tech will advance to the Elite 8? This isn't the Red Raiders team of a couple of years ago. You're just pumping them up because they thumped Texas, your fake favorite team, twice. Texas may be the only currently ranked team that Texas Tech beat all season. Nobody outside of Austin fears Texas Tech.