<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hater:</div><div class="quote_post">Sorry, I didnt realize that Ohio State was a lock to get in the tourney last year. Apparently my understanding of this concept is quite off. So teams with an RPI outside of the top 50, an SOS outside of the top 50, a 3-10 record against top 50 teams, a .500 record in conference play, a 5-10 record on the road and a team with that lost 5 of their last 10 is apparently considered a "lock" for the NCAA tourney. Thats interesting and quite absurd. Since when did Ronald Coleman become one of the best small forwards in the country? Seriously, Voodoo! When did this happen? As for Rawle Marshall, I dont care, I simply dont. They were an 11-18 team last year and were one of the worst defensive teams in the Mid Cont. So there ya go.</div> Since when is having a top 50 RPI absolutely necessary for getting into the NCAA Tournament? Last season there were a lot of tournament teams like Texas, UCLA, UAB, Minnesota, and Iowa that had RPI's below 50. Strength of schedule factors into RPI, so I don't know why you bring that up as a separate point, but there were a lot of teams who got into the tournament who also had a strength of schedule outside of the top fifty. A .500 record in the Big Ten is solid, and the 5-5 finish included a win over Illinois, which would have put them in the tournament. They would have been a bubble team before that game, but after you beat the #1 team in the nation in their final game of the regular season, you've got a hell of a lot of momentum on your side. The committee always loves teams that finish strong and upset the high ranked teams down the final stretch of the season. Whether or not you think Ohio State would have made the tournament, you have to admitt that they were good competition for Michigan State. I never said that Ronald Coleman was one of the "best" small forwards in the NCAA, just one of the "better". Of course he doesn't rank up there with the likes of Adam Morrison and Steve Smith, but he's definitely one of the top 50% small forwards in the league. He had his ups and downs as a freshman, but he finished off the season as a starter averaging 11.8 ppg. He wasn't exactly poor competition for Ager. How can you possibly take this "I don't care" attitude on Rawle Marshall? You're trying to pass him off as subpar competition just because the rest of his team isn't any good. You do realize that Tim Smith's East Tennessee State finished with a 10-19 record this year, don't you? So by your logic if Ager put up 22 points, 4 rebounds, and 4 assists on Tim Smith, would you dismiss that performance because it was against a 10-19 team? And what about all the times that Tim Smith put up 20+ points against teams like Wofford, Elon, Furman, and Union KY? How can you use those to support your argument and then turn around and use Ager's performances against teams like Ohio State against him? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think you're mostly just disagreeing with where I ranked Maurice Ager and not so much with where I ranked Tim Smith. Maurice Ager could be higher on my list but he's not and I've given you my reasons why, numerous times and you just continue to give me the same responses. Believe me, I gotcha, I am reading your posts and I just dont agree with you. </div> I'm disagreeing with Ager's position on your rankings in relation to Tim Smith's. Ager was just the easiest player that you ranked below Smith for me to pick out because I know so much about his game and also because he was the one player on your list that I felt you underrated the most. I could really argue pretty much every player on that list's position relative to Tim Smith's, but that'd taken forever and would have been a waste of our time. You too are giving me the same responses; you're sticking up for the little guys, Smith puts up a lot of points on ETSU, Maurice Ager just started to put up big numbers last year, etc. etc. But none of those points are really valid arguments in my eyes for ranking Tim Smith fifty six spots head of Maurice Ager. I wouldn't have a problem if you were just ranking him one or two spots over Ager, but fifty six? Don't you think that's a little too much? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Either way, it doesnt change my view on Ager.</div> Nor has my view of Tim Smith changed...
First off, you need figure out what a bubble team is and what a guaranteed tourney team is. The teams you listed that got in were "bubble teams". Thats what Ohio State would have been and thats exactly what I said from the very start. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Since when is having a top 50 RPI absolutely necessary for getting into the NCAA Tournament? Last season there were a lot of tournament teams like Texas, UCLA, UAB, Minnesota, and Iowa that had RPI's below 50.</div> Texas has an RPI 41, Ucla had an RPI of 38, Minnesota had an RPI of 39, Iowa had an RPI of 42, UAB had an RPI of 49 and probably shouldnt have gotten in. Those arent in the top 50? Trust me, you're not going to be able to make stuff up to try and help your case because that just doesnt work with me. Example being your CSU and Detroit picks earlier, I mean really, Voodoo, thats disrespectful to me. Also, Ohio State finished the last ten games of year with a better record than none of those teams. Had a worse road record than all those teams. Four of the five teams had a better conference record than Ohio State as well. And those were some of the last teams to get in. They would have been a bubble team AT BEST with an outside shot at getting in. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I never said that Ronald Coleman was one of the "best" small forwards in the NCAA, just one of the "better". Of course he doesn't rank up there with the likes of Adam Morrison and Steve Smith, but he's definitely one of the top 50% small forwards in the league. He had his ups and downs as a freshman, but he finished off the season as a starter averaging 11.8 ppg. He wasn't exactly poor competition for Ager.</div> I am speechless. You just wasted 5 sentences of vaulable electrons with that post. I am sorry but Ronald Coleman is your reason for why Michigan is...um..what now? Respectable? C'mon, Voodoo, lets come back down to earth. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How can you possibly take this "I don't care" attitude on Rawle Marshall? You're trying to pass him off as subpar competition just because the rest of his team isn't any good. You do realize that Tim Smith's East Tennessee State finished with a 10-19 record this year, don't you? So by your logic if Ager put up 22 points, 4 rebounds, and 4 assists on Tim Smith, would you dismiss that performance because it was against a 10-19 team?</div> First off, defense is a team concept. You didnt know that? Sorry for being kind of a jerk here but you're not making any sense. Secondly, Rawle Marshall did not get drafted for his defense. Believe me, I know Rawle Marshall is a talented player but he got drafted for what he can on the offensive end. Oakland was a bad team last year, a poor defensive team and basically a one man team on offense. Lastly, if Ager had put up 22 points on ETSU, I would have dismissed it because they were a bad team. I am not rating teams here, I am rating players. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I wouldn't have a problem if you were just ranking him one or two spots over Ager, but fifty six? Don't you think that's a little too much?</div> Oh I certainly can agree with you there.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hater:</div><div class="quote_post">First off, you need figure out what a bubble team is and what a guaranteed tourney team is. The teams you listed that got in were "bubble teams". Thats what Ohio State would have been and thats exactly what I said from the very start.</div> First off, the whole "bubble" argument is just a waste of my time and useless nitpicking. I never said they'd be a lock. I said they'd make the tournament. Does mean that no one would doubt them leading up to Selection Sunday? Of course not. But there were teams who got at-large bids when it was all said and done that were less deserving of being in the tournament than Ohio State. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Texas has an RPI 41, Ucla had an RPI of 38, Minnesota had an RPI of 39, Iowa had an RPI of 42, UAB had an RPI of 49 and probably shouldnt have gotten in. Those arent in the top 50? Trust me, you're not going to be able to make stuff up to try and help your case because that just doesnt work with me. Example being your CSU and Detroit picks earlier, I mean really, Voodoo, thats disrespectful to me. </div> To be honest, you're the disrespectful one, accusing me of making up statistics. I pulled the 2004-05 RPI's off this website - http://rpiratings.com/mensrpi.html. That was a really classy move by you to accuse me of "trying to make up stuff to try and help your case" (as if I needed any help in this argument). You're complaining about little meaningless and subjective facts like how good Colorado State and Detroit are and in the process you seem to be missing the overall points I'm trying to make. I'm personally a fan of both teams (CSU and UDM) by the way. They have two budding stars in Jason Smith and Brandon Cotton, and although their records didn't reflect it last season, they weren't exactly pushovers, especially compared to most of the teams that East Tennessee State played. But that's a completely different topic for another day. Look how deep you are getting with your nitpicking. This whole argument about Colorado State and Detroit got started when you said that Maurice Ager's best performances have become against subpar competition. I said that Purdue wasn't exactly a pushover, and then you want to argue about whether or not their victories over Colorado State and Detroit were quality victories? Do you not realize how far removed from the original argument that is? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Also, Ohio State finished the last ten games of year with a better record than none of those teams. Had a worse road record than all those teams. Four of the five teams had a better conference record than Ohio State as well. And those were some of the last teams to get in. They would have been a bubble team AT BEST with an outside shot at getting in. </div> Let's see, did any of those other teams knock off undefeated #1 Illinois in their last regular season game? I don't think so. Ohio State may not have had a <u>better</u> record in the last ten games, but they did have equal records to some of the teams, such as Texas, and the Longhorns didn't have that win over Illinois on their resume. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I am speechless. You just wasted 5 sentences of vaulable electrons with that post. I am sorry but Ronald Coleman is your reason for why Michigan is...um..what now? Respectable? C'mon, Voodoo, lets come back down to earth.</div> Just like my time is being wasted replying to your post, right? C'mon, Hater, let's get back to earth here. Did someone log onto your screenname and post this while you were away? It's pathetic. I'm just speechless. How disrespectful. (Where have I heard that before?) Ronald Coleman isn't my reason why Michigan was respectable, but it's my reason why Maurice Ager's performance against them was. Let me make one thing clear here. The whole argument about Michigan, Purdue, and all the other teams that Ager did well against was started when you said that Maurice Ager hasn't performed well against good competition, but he was great against Duke, Florida, Kansas, Syracuse, Maryland, Texas, Minnesota, Kentucky, and North Carolina. Don't say that he wasn't effective if he just got 10-15 points either, because not only is there more to having a good game than scoring, but as I've tried to drill into your head a million times before, on a team as deep as Michigan State, you're not going to put up 20 + points too often, no matter who you are. So all of this useless typing you are doing about how I'm overrating Detroit or Ohio State is completely meaningless. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Oh I certainly can agree with you there.</div> So you agree with me? Then why don't you adjust your rankings? Why even have this argument? Alright, I concede. You're right bro'. Randolph Morris is a much better player than Maurice Ager, and Tim Smith is one of the top fifteen players in the NCAA, about to be an All-American.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hater:</div><div class="quote_post">First off, you need figure out what a bubble team is and what a guaranteed tourney team is. The teams you listed that got in were "bubble teams". Thats what Ohio State would have been and thats exactly what I said from the very start.</div> First off, the whole "bubble" argument is just a waste of my time and useless nitpicking. I never said they'd be a lock. I said they'd make the tournament. Does mean that no one would doubt them leading up to Selection Sunday? Of course not. But there were teams who got at-large bids when it was all said and done that were less deserving of being in the tournament than Ohio State. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Texas has an RPI 41, Ucla had an RPI of 38, Minnesota had an RPI of 39, Iowa had an RPI of 42, UAB had an RPI of 49 and probably shouldnt have gotten in. Those arent in the top 50? Trust me, you're not going to be able to make stuff up to try and help your case because that just doesnt work with me. Example being your CSU and Detroit picks earlier, I mean really, Voodoo, thats disrespectful to me. </div> To be honest, you're the disrespectful one, accusing me of making up statistics. I pulled the 2004-05 RPI's off this website - http://rpiratings.com/mensrpi.html. That was a really classy move by you to accuse me of "trying to make up stuff to try and help your case" (as if I needed any help in this argument). You're complaining about little meaningless and subjective facts like how good Colorado State and Detroit are and in the process you seem to be missing the overall points I'm trying to make. I'm personally a fan of both teams (CSU and UDM) by the way. They have two budding stars in Jason Smith and Brandon Cotton, and although their records didn't reflect it last season, they weren't exactly pushovers, especially compared to most of the teams that East Tennessee State played. But that's a completely different topic for another day. Look how deep you are getting with your nitpicking. This whole argument about Colorado State and Detroit got started when you said that Maurice Ager's best performances have become against subpar competition. I said that Purdue wasn't exactly a pushover, and then you want to argue about whether or not their victories over Colorado State and Detroit were quality victories? Do you not realize how far removed from the original argument that is? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Also, Ohio State finished the last ten games of year with a better record than none of those teams. Had a worse road record than all those teams. Four of the five teams had a better conference record than Ohio State as well. And those were some of the last teams to get in. They would have been a bubble team AT BEST with an outside shot at getting in. </div> Let's see, did any of those other teams knock off undefeated #1 Illinois in their last regular season game? I don't think so. Ohio State may not have had a <u>better</u> record in the last ten games, but they did have equal records to some of the teams, such as Texas, and the Longhorns didn't have that win over Illinois on their resume. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I am speechless. You just wasted 5 sentences of vaulable electrons with that post. I am sorry but Ronald Coleman is your reason for why Michigan is...um..what now? Respectable? C'mon, Voodoo, lets come back down to earth.</div> Just like my time is being wasted replying to your post, right? C'mon, Hater, let's get back to earth here. Did someone log onto your screenname and post this while you were away? It's pathetic. I'm just speechless. How disrespectful. (Where have I heard that before?) I really haven't shown any disrespect to you before, Hater, so you have no place to make condescending comments like that to me all through this thread. Do you think they're helping your argument? Ronald Coleman isn't my reason why Michigan was respectable, but it's my reason why Maurice Ager's performance against them was. Let me make one thing clear here. The whole argument about Michigan, Purdue, and all the other teams that Ager did well against was started when you said that Maurice Ager hasn't performed well against good competition, but he was great against Duke, Florida, Kansas, Syracuse, Maryland, Texas, Minnesota, Kentucky, and North Carolina. Don't say that he wasn't effective if he just got 10-15 points either, because not only is there more to having a good game than scoring, but as I've tried to drill into your head a million times before, on a team as deep as Michigan State, you're not going to put up 20 + points too often, no matter who you are. So all of this useless typing you are doing about how I'm overrating Detroit or Ohio State is completely meaningless. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Oh I certainly can agree with you there.</div> So you agree with me? Then why don't you adjust your rankings? Why even have this argument? All I know is that I'm getting tired of arguing this, as it's going in circles and headed off into annoying little sub-arguments.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But there were teams who got at-large bids when it was all said and done that were less deserving of being in the tournament than Ohio State.[/QOUTE] Name these teams and try going by the correct RPI. http://kenpom.com/rpi.php Ohio State would not have been a tourney team.
[quote name='Hater']<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But there were teams who got at-large bids when it was all said and done that were less deserving of being in the tournament than Ohio State.[/QOUTE] Name these teams and try going by the correct RPI. http://kenpom.com/rpi.php Ohio State would not have been a tourney team. So you didnt make them up, you just messed them up. Those RPI rankings are taking the postseason into consideration. In other words they include games after selection sunday, making them irrelevent to the discussion. If you're not going to make stuff up, at least try and get them right. Apparently, you do need all the help you can get in this argument. Quality victories or not. They werent good teams and I just happened to notice that most of Agers best games during the season came against poor competition. Its just an observation, I am sorry if it hurts your argument. You dont get into the tourney based off of one game. Texas may not have beaten Illinios, however, they did beat a top ten team in Oklahoma State and a top 25 team in Texas Tech in their final 10. Not to mention they did have a better winning percentage, a better conference record in a higher rated conference, a better RPI, a stronger SOS, a better record against top 50 teams and a better road record. I think they were more deserving but hey I am just going by numbers, stats and facts. You're going by...errr...something else unknown to man. In his two games against Duke last year he averaged 12 a game and added 0 assists in both games. When did MSU play UF, KU, Syracuse, Texas and MD last year? It appears as though you're taking other years into account. I'll get into that later. However, where was he against UCLA last year, or @ Wisky or against Illinios, or @ Iowa, or against Wisky the 2nd time around, or @ Indiana? All big games last year, that he didnt show up in. Want to step into the big games of the 2004 season? Okie dokie. Where was he against Duke that year? Where was he against OU that year? Where was he against UK that year? How about @ Wisky that year? How about @ Illinios that year? How about Wisky at home that year? How about Wisky in the Big Ten tourney that year? How about against Neveda in their only NCAA tourney game that year? So clearly, Ager has struggled A LOT in big games in his career. I am not saying he's struggled in every big game but he's definetly padded his stats against weaker competition. I could change them and adjust them but I would still have Tim Smith ahead of Maurice Ager and I am really not that concerned about it right now.</div> Dude, give up, or I'll take a page out of your book "How does it feel getting owned?" Ohio State is a Tourney team last year if they could have gone. Also you did a good job pointing out Ager's inconsistently, but you failed to point out Randolph Morris's. Even ask UK, Chuck Hayes was better post players, and he's 4 inches sorter!
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">So you didnt make them up, you just messed them up. Those RPI rankings are taking the postseason into consideration. In other words they include games after selection sunday, making them irrelevent to the discussion. If you're not going to make stuff up, at least try and get them right. Apparently, you do need all the help you can get in this argument.</div> Actually, I meant to post the post-tournament RPI. Think about it; we're arguing about how talented Ohio State is. What's the point of arguing whether or not they'd be a tournament team when you can just jump straight to the RPI and see how good they were for yourself? Even if you look at the pre-tournament RPI's, they had a better RPI than Iowa State and George Washington. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Quality victories or not. They werent good teams and I just happened to notice that most of Agers best games during the season came against poor competition. Its just an observation, I am sorry if it hurts your argument.</div> And Tim Smith's were? He's played a total of three or four great teams in his entire career. My argument is really not hurt at all by the fact that Ager's best games have come against teams like Ohio State, because Tim Smith's best games have come against teams like Elon. By the way, how did Tim Smith turn the ball over eleven times against Austin Peay? I mean, I know that Austin Peay is a national power house, but damn! <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You dont get into the tourney based off of one game. Texas may not have beaten Illinios, however, they did beat a top ten team in Oklahoma State and a top 25 team in Texas Tech in their final 10. Not to mention they did have a better winning percentage, a better conference record in a higher rated conference, a better RPI, a stronger SOS, a better record against top 50 teams and a better road record. I think they were more deserving but hey I am just going by numbers, stats and facts. You're going by...errr...something else unknown to man.</div> First of all, get your facts straight. They didn't beat Texas Tech in their final ten games; they lost. Oklahoma State was a great team, but they were nowhere near the talent that Illinois was. There's a big difference between knocking of the only undefeated team in the nation and knocking off Oklahoma State. One thing that you have to look at when you're examining Texas' strength of schedule, record, and statistics like that, is that they lost LaMarcus Aldridge and P.J. Tucker about halfway through the season, so their numbers are inflated from that 14-3 start that they had with the duo. After losing Tucker, they were 6-8, so I don't know how you can possibly say they finished as strongly as Ohio State. I'm not relying on something else unknown to man. If anything, that's you. You can't really explain your rankings with good reasoning. You say that you have Randolph Morris ranked so high because of potential, when there are big men with more potential and talent that you don't even rank. Then you say Tim Smith is so high because he's a consistent go-to-guy, which is in sharp contrast to your Randolph Morris pick. If anything's inconsistent, it's your rankings. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In his two games against Duke last year he averaged 12 a game and added 0 assists in both games. When did MSU play UF, KU, Syracuse, Texas and MD last year? It appears as though you're taking other years into account. I'll get into that later.</div> Ager's first game against Duke wasn't so hot, but he was a huge factor in the Sweet Sixteen game (also known as the one that actually mattered for something). Ager recorded 14 points and 6 rebounds, whereas J.J. Redick was held to 13 points and 3 rebounds. Michigan State played Florida, Kansas, Syracuse, Texas, and Maryland over Ager's freshman and sophomore years. Your taking into account games that Tim Smith played against good competition three years ago, so why shouldn't I take into account Maurice Ager's performances against good competition from that same time? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">However, where was he against UCLA last year, or @ Wisky or against Illinios, or @ Iowa, or against Wisky the 2nd time around, or @ Indiana? All big games last year, that he didnt show up in. Want to step into the big games of the 2004 season? Okie dokie. Where was he against Duke that year? Where was he against OU that year? Where was he against UK that year? How about @ Wisky that year? How about @ Illinios that year? How about Wisky at home that year? How about Wisky in the Big Ten tourney that year? How about against Neveda in their only NCAA tourney game that year? So clearly, Ager has struggled A LOT in big games in his career. I am not saying he's struggled in every big game but he's definetly padded his stats against weaker competition.</div> Don't you understand by now that when you're playing on a team as deep as Michigan State, you're not always going to have monster scoring nights? He was great in some of those games you mentioned. For example, at Iowa he was 5-6 from the field with 8 points in just 13 minutes. Does his sub-10 point scoring performance mean that he's not talented? Hell no. It just means that Paul Davis, Alan Anderson, SHannon Brown, Drew Neitzel, and Kelvin Torbert all got more touches. You can't bring up the games in his early career because at that time he wasn't starting and getting consistent minutes for the most part, so how come you expect his numbers from that time to be consistent? When he got the touches and the playing time, he usually performed very well. Overall, I just find your whole argument of him not posting good numbers on good competition consistently very weak, because the player you're supporting in this argument, Tim Smith, almost never plays any competition that's worth a damn. And you're talking about Ager padding his stats? Wow. I'm pretty much through with this debate. It's not fun to debate with someone who can't make a post without being extremely condescending and disrespectful. You state your point of view and move on; you don't talk trash. ----------------------------- BTW - This argument has gotten pretty heated. You're bringing up good points though. Let's just not let it effect our relationship further down the road.
