You want to talk metrics, but Illinois is rated 68th on KenPom. That's because they're schedule isn't as difficult as Texas' schedule or Creighton's schedule.
When certain people decided to make unsubstantiated claims about Purdue and when asked to back it up, they balk.
I'll catch you up. They were talking about MSU and Kentucky and who would have a better tournament resume. Someone pointed out MSU has 3 more quad 1 wins than Kentucky. Illinois came in as a reason why MSU wasn't going to finish well because MSU lost to Illinois. I simply pointed out that Illinois is better than their record suggests being rated 71 per Kenpom. People lost their F'ing minds over that.
Your numbers are all wrong, but ok, lol.
Gotcha. I know nothing about Illinois so I won't get into that. I would say right now UK's resume looks better than MSU's but its pretty damn close. MSU has dropped 3 in a row, 2 of which are pretty questionable.
Yes, I would agree. When I entered this conversation, I wasn't aware MSU lost to Illinois.
Gotcha. Purdue could make a run, no doubt. I don't know enough about them to consider them in that next tier of teams after the clear 6 or 7. But I don't doubt they are at all.
LOL, I think you need to refresh the Kenpom page and look at what you posed. It's semantics, sure, but the numbers you wrote are not correct.
Not true, you and I went back and forth about Purdue and UNC in a few posts that spanned a few pages, but lets not act like I have 50 posts to you about Purdue.
Uh, okay, I just refreshed it and I see where Illinois slipped from 68th to 71st. Care to keep arguing?
Mmmhmm, thanks for joining the conversation with no eye test data let alone you don't want to use advance metrics. I'm sure your comments will be very helpful.
LOL, dude you are struggling with this aren't you?
Wow, what the heck are you looking at?
LOL, yeah I'm the one that isn't getting it. Right...
Historically the SEC is by far a better basketball conference than the Big 12, the last 5 years, the last 10 years, the last 20 years the last 30 or 40 years. You pick the time.
A week later, replace Michigan State with Michigan or maybe Gonzaga. Like my other four, though.
I've told you what I'm seeing in KenPom for Illinois, I've stated several times that they slid from the 68th position to the 71st position.
Why would anyone want to waste their time watching the 71st ranked team more than once?
Then proofread your shit so you don't look uninformed.
1. Iowa
Yes, I forgot who won it all 3-4 years ago off the top of my head let alone 12-13 years ago.
Your an idiot. I'm usually more cordial but I don't feel good and don't feel like dealing with you.
Dude, for the umpteenth time. All I have ever been trying to say is that a team that has an 8-15 record would typically be considered a lower 50% of the NCAA at a minimum. Yet somehow advanced metrics still has them rated in the top 20.5% out of 347 NCAA teams. Which again, would suggest that they are better, not good, but better than their record suggests. That has been my point this entire time. Again, look at the team records that are around Illinois.
Out of anything I have written, what gives you the impression I don't watch other games. We haven't talked about those other teams at all. You're reaching here.
And I said multiple times that I get that, but they're 8-15. The reason they are grouped with teams that have much better records is because those other teams have played incredibly easy schedules. That's it, we all get that.
Because all you want to do is pump BIG10 teams. You're pumping Indiana and Illinois and saying they're good teams.
