Creighton just joined a conference and recruited the bulk of their team as a mid-major school. I know what you're saying, but I think they're enough of a "mid-major" to fit. I don't consider Villanova to be such because they've just left the Big East and recruited the majority of their kids as a Big East school.

 

You're over thinking it. Creighton spent and traveled as a major school when it was in the Valley. That "mid-major" term is so trite and over-used. Schools like Creighton, Gonzaga, Xavier, VCU, and Wichita State that don't have football are all major basketball programs.

You're over thinking it. Creighton spent and traveled as a major school when it was in the Valley. That "mid-major" term is so trite and over-used. Schools like Creighton, Gonzaga, Xavier, VCU, and Wichita State that don't have football are all major basketball programs.

 

Clearly a sensitive subject for "Xavier guy"...

Clearly a sensitive subject for "Xavier guy"...

 

Guilty....but it is so dumb. Look at the basketball budgets of the schools I listed as compared to bottom half of the old BCS leagues. Not close.

You're over thinking it. Creighton spent and traveled as a major school when it was in the Valley. That "mid-major" term is so trite and over-used. Schools like Creighton, Gonzaga, Xavier, VCU, and Wichita State that don't have football are all major basketball programs.

 

That's fair. I just think the difference in a Creighton and Villanova is the kind of recruits they pull. 'Nova had the Big East, a better tv deal, was capable of getting McDonald's All-Americans, consistently put players in the NBA and is in a fertile recruiting ground in Philadelphia.

 

Creighton would love to have 1 McDonald's All American, didn't have the major conference label or a lots of games on national tv, and is in Omaha.

That's fair. I just think the difference in a Creighton and Villanova is the kind of recruits they pull. 'Nova had the Big East, could get McDonald's All-Americans, and is in Philadelphia. Creighton would love to have 1 McDonald's All American, didn't have the major conference label and is in Omaha.

 

.....and Villanova has the better coach.....and still has been curb-stomped by the Jays twice. Maybe, just maybe, those Top 100 lists aren't a guarantee of anything.

.....and Villanova has the better coach.....and still has been curb-stomped by the Jays twice.

 

And St. Louis, San Diego State, VCU, and Wichita State would probably rail UK. Only one of those teams isn't a 'mid-major' though. I agree it is kind of over-used though.

 

I wouldn't really call Creighton a 'high major', even though 'mid major' doesn't really fit them either.

 

One of the few schools that I think has shed the 'mid major' label without football or joining a conference is Gonzaga.

Guilty....but it is so dumb. Look at the basketball budgets of the schools I listed as compared to bottom half of the old BCS leagues. Not close.

 

Who are your 10 teams? Any revisions?

SMU is not a very good team. I think they'll be good in time, but it's a lot of smoke and mirrors until Larry Brown gets talent like Mudiay (and possibly Myles Turner). Xavier hasn't set the world on fire. New Mexico is a solid team with a history of being overrated then flopping in the tournament, but I know that The Pit is a tough place to win.

 

They've beaten Louisville (Kentucky did that), Memphis (no quality wins to speak of), and UConn.

 

Cincinnati is good, and I recognize that, but at the same time, I'm a stat head and there's not really a metric that they jump out at me with.

 

They're in the 230+ range in PPG and FG%. 130+ range in RPG and 160+ in APG.

 

Ken Pomeroy's ratings have them 24th overall. Yes, their adjusted D in his rankings is 6th in the nation, but that doesn't do enough to balance out a 100+ range adjusted O, strength of schedule, opponent adjust D, or opponent adjusted O. They're also 20th in Pom's 'luck' category, which is another sign that they might not be as good as their record would indicate.

 

At the end of the day, I know they can D-up, but wonder what else they'll be able to do, especially if someone runs out to a lead on them and they have to get out of their comfort zone.

 

I'm not trying to bash Cincinnati, but those are the rankings I used to verify my thoughts on teams, and that's how they came out in them. Those 3 losses, combined with the metrics and things like a 1 point win over a sub .500 Houston team and two narrow wins over a sub .500 USF team, make me hesitate to put them in the top 10 teams I'd give a chance to reach the Final Four.

 

While the metrics are great for projecting long term results, they really mean very little in a one and out tournament, and I assume you know that as well. Of your "elite" teams, how many do you feel comfortable predicting they would score more than 65 on this Cincinnati defense? I can assure you the number that would break that mark is very small. That means they will be playing tight games with one of, if not the best, closers in the game. What Pom credits as "luck" is far from it with this team in the final 5 minutes of close games.

 

As to the losses, SMU was a perfect storm situation and while they are very average on the road, that is a tough team to beat in their gym. UC was gassed from an emotional battle with UConn 48 hours earlier and SMU was playing the biggest game in 50 years for their program. Happens sometimes. The two early December games came at a time when roles were still being allocated on a team with 3 new starters and Justin Jackson totally changing his game. In total they lost to 3 likely tournament teams with 2 in tough road environments and on a neutral floor to X in a shooting performance they couldn't match in an empty gym.

 

Ultimately, you are saying you wouldn't be impressed by this UC team unless they were undefeated. I'll disagree...

While the metrics are great for projecting long term results, they really mean very little in a one and out tournament, and I assume you know that as well. Of your "elite" teams, how many do you feel comfortable predicting they would score more than 65 on this Cincinnati defense? I can assure you the number that would break that mark is very small. That means they will be playing tight games with one of, if not the best, closers in the game. What Pom credits as "luck" is far from it with this team in the final 5 minutes of close games.

 

As to the losses, SMU was a perfect storm situation and while they are very average on the road, that is a tough team to beat in their gym. UC was gassed from an emotional battle with UConn 48 hours earlier and SMU was playing the biggest game in 50 years for their program. Happens sometimes. The two early December games came at a time when roles were still being allocated on a team with 3 new starters and Justin Jackson totally changing his game. In total they lost to 3 likely tournament teams with 2 in tough road environments and on a neutral floor to X in a shooting performance they couldn't match in an empty gym.

 

Ultimately, you are saying you wouldn't be impressed by this UC team unless they were undefeated. I'll disagree...

 

I wouldn't say I'm not impressed with them, I just don't know if they have the kind of balance and scoring needed to be one of the top teams I'd pick going into the tournament.

 

I think Cincinnati is a very, very safe pick to go to the Sweet 16, I just wonder how they'd match up with a #1 seed like Kansas, Florida, or even Wichita State.

 

Going into the postseason, I'm more inclined to pick teams who have some offensive firepower because I think you eventually see a game or two where you just have to outscore someone. Definitely needs to be a balance though.

 

I do think that they have a nice "go-to" guy in Kilpatrick, and them, Ohio State, Michigan, and a few others were teams I considered putting in one of the final spots.

I wouldn't say I'm not impressed with them, I just don't know if they have the kind of balance and scoring needed to be one of the top teams I'd pick going into the tournament.

 

I think Cincinnati is a very, very safe pick to go to the Sweet 16, I just wonder how they'd match up with a #1 seed like Kansas, Florida, or even Wichita State.

 

Going into the postseason, I'm more inclined to pick teams who have some offensive firepower because I think you eventually see a game or two where you just have to outscore someone. Definitely needs to be a balance though.

 

I do think that they have a nice "go-to" guy in Kilpatrick, and them, Ohio State, Michigan, and a few others were teams I considered putting in one of the final spots.

 

I think you are on the right track, but the "questionable losses" part was off base. On the rest we mostly agree...

I think you are on the right track, but the "questionable losses" part was off base. On the rest we mostly agree...

 

 

Are you big on Syracuse? I don't see them on as much down here as they were back home, but I don't know if I'm buying all of their hype.

 

I see Arizona on Fox Southwest (our affiliate in SA) and thought that they looked really good until Ashley got hurt and haven't been the same since. It was really a huge blow for them.

 

Lots of Kansas games on the national broadcasts down here as well. I think they are for real.

Are you big on Syracuse? I don't see them on as much down here as they were back home, but I don't know if I'm buying all of their hype.

 

I see Arizona on Fox Southwest (our affiliate in SA) and thought that they looked really good until Ashley got hurt and haven't been the same since. It was really a huge blow for them.

 

Lots of Kansas games on the national broadcasts down here as well. I think they are for real.

 

Syracuse is the same risky proposition as always. They dare you to play the 3 ball lottery, and if you win they are in trouble. Love Ennis, and think Fair and Grant are really good but at some point over 4 games the risk will be the same as always.

 

I think Arizona has the talent to figure things out minus Ashley over the next month, but I'm not as in love with the TJ McConnell and Nick Johnson back court as some others. They get an incomplete at the moment as the roles are redefined.

 

I want to love Kansas, but it is hard to ignore 6 Ls even though the schedule has been brutal. If healthy I think they have the best roster...

My updated list:

 

1. Syracuse

2. Florida

3. Arizona

4. Michigan State

5. Kansas

6. Wichita State

7. Iowa

8. Villanova

9. Duke

10. Michigan

Syracuse is the same risky proposition as always. They dare you to play the 3 ball lottery, and if you win they are in trouble. Love Ennis, and think Fair and Grant are really good but at some point over 4 games the risk will be the same as always.

 

I think Arizona has the talent to figure things out minus Ashley over the next month, but I'm not as in love with the TJ McConnell and Nick Johnson back court as some others. They get an incomplete at the moment as the roles are redefined.

 

I want to love Kansas, but it is hard to ignore 6 Ls even though the schedule has been brutal. If healthy I think they have the best roster...

 

Those are basically my concerns with Syracuse in most years. 2-3 zone and nothing else is pretty one dimensional, even though I know they adjust it sometimes.

 

Some of Kansas' games are a little baffling when you look at the whole picture. Watching them, you can tell they have tons of talent and they seem to like playing together and seeming like they're playing for each other.

 

I think that the Big XII is really up this year and it's not something that the rest of the nation might have caught onto yet. At the same time, I wonder if it's just that I see more of those games now. I see the Big XII like this: your basketball schools like Kansas and Oklahoma State are always up, but some of the football schools like Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia are up too, as well as a random school like Iowa State. Put it all together and it really helps the profile of the league as a whole.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the biggest thing about the Big XII is that none of the teams are really "bad" outside of the bottom few (i.e., TCU, the only team in the conference with a losing record). Not saying that tons of them are "good", but no one is really "bad" if that makes sense. Baylor and Oklahoma State are actually in the bottom 3 of their conference standings.

Those are basically my concerns with Syracuse in most years. 2-3 zone and nothing else is pretty one dimensional, even though I know they adjust it sometimes.

 

Some of Kansas' games are a little baffling when you look at the whole picture. Watching them, you can tell they have tons of talent and they seem to like playing together and seeming like they're playing for each other.

 

I think that the Big XII is really up this year and it's not something that the rest of the nation might have caught onto yet. At the same time, I wonder if it's just that I see more of those games now. I see the Big XII like this: your basketball schools like Kansas and Oklahoma State are always up, but some of the football schools like Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia are up too, as well as a random school like Iowa State. Put it all together and it really helps the profile of the league as a whole.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the biggest thing about the Big XII is that none of the teams are really "bad" outside of the bottom few (i.e., TCU, the only team in the conference with a losing record). Not saying that tons of them are "good", but no one is really "bad" if that makes sense. Baylor and Oklahoma State are actually in the bottom 3 of their conference standings.

 

Saw what the Big 12 is going through for the last 5/6 years in the old Big East. There isn't an easy night even when the casual observer sees what is supposed to be an easy win. I think the B1G has a similar problem, but at a level probably one step below this year. When there are 10 plus teams with legit high major talent, things get put in the blender across the board...