Power Polls

Because they are still Indiana, they still have national titles and their reputation. Similar to Notre Dame in football. I know Coach Parcells loved to say that you are what your record says you are. Which is true. But Indiana at 10-20 is still greater than Wyoming at 10-20.

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.



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.

Well Sno already addressed most of this, but yes, if you use stats/logic that are not entirely true, false, misleading, or not pertinent to the topic at hand, than yes, you are still an idiot. Saying that the Big Televen is deep because they have good teams at the top is not good evidence. Showing statistics that show the top 4 and bottom 4 teams of the Big Televen are very comparable to the MWC top 4/bottom 4 is not good evidence that the Big Televen is WAY better than the MWC.



And if you take me calling you an idiot as a direct attack on your intelligence, rather than just looking at the context and evolution of linguistics and realizing that me calling you an idiot means, "wow you are making a horrible argument right now," then perhaps you truly are an idiot. Oops.



For the record:



Big Televen vs. top 10 conferences: 7-7 vs. ACC; 3-2 vs. A-10; 1-6 vs. Big 12; 5-2 vs. Big East; 0-1 vs. C-USA; 2-3 vs. MVC; 0-2 vs. MWC; 3-0 vs. Pac-10; 3-5 vs. SEC. Total: 24-28.



MWC vs. top 10 conferences: 0-0 vs. ACC; 1-0 vs. A-10; 4-5 vs. Big 12; 1-0 vs. Big East; 2-0 vs. Big Ten; 4-2 vs. C-USA; 4-5 vs. MVC; 5-6 vs. Pac-10; 1-1 vs. SEC. Total: 22-19.



Wow.....wouldn't you know it. Again, no one can really make a for sure argument that one conference is better than the other, but to say that the Big Televen is way better than the MWC = ignorant.

I love statistics.

urroner wrote:
I love statistics.

lies, damned lies, and statistics.

FurriousCougar wrote:

I love statistics.

lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Hey Mark! How are ya!?

CougarClaw wrote:

urroner wrote:
I love statistics.

lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Hey Mark! How are ya!?

Actually it's Samuel ;)

Lawboy wrote:
Because they are still Indiana, they still have national titles and their reputation. Similar to Notre Dame in football. I know Coach Parcells loved to say that you are what your record says you are. Which is true. But Indiana at 10-20 is still greater than Wyoming at 10-20.

Posts like this are why people feel okay calling you a :utard:

If the MWC tourney had been played at the MC instead of the T&M every year, do you think the cougars might have won an NCAA game by now? I happen to think so, our boys are at a huge disadvantage in this conference.

snoscythe wrote:

Because they are still Indiana, they still have national titles and their reputation. Similar to Notre Dame in football. I know Coach Parcells loved to say that you are what your record says you are. Which is true. But Indiana at 10-20 is still greater than Wyoming at 10-20.

Posts like this are why people feel okay calling you a :utard:

wow, that was low.

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.

Yeah, real tough teams, like Illinois and Michigan, who both lost to the MWC's 6th place team.



I'd put New Mexico, BYU, SDSU, and UNLV right up there with Purdue, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Wisconsin. Our top 4 have less losses than their top 4, for starters.

Lawboy wrote:
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.

All you have established here is that the other side of the argument has more basis than yours. The big 10 has more prestige, it is true. That doesn't make them better. They 'll probably get more teams into the dance. That doesn't make them better, just better connected. They will probably have more wins. that is because they 'll get better seedings (see above). How you would fare in a debate on ESPN or CBS has ZERO to do with reality, just with eastern perceived reality (bias). That supports the other side of the argument, not yours. The only actual head to head comparison (the one thing that doesn't contain strong bias) has the MWC ahead 2-0. I don't htink there is any realistic evidence to say that the big 10 is better or deeper than the MWC, which gives all the credibility to the argument that the two conferences are pretty much equal. That being said, I think BYU and UNM are not getting a fair shake, given their records and accomplishments, from those who do the rankings, which is what this whole debate is about.