In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1484
Online now 1258 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Well, at least from the "experts" I saw on TV last night. They couldn't stop talking about how great they are. I saw them play a couple of times and they looked good, but have you seen their schedule? As far as I can tell, they played one team that was ranked at the end of the year: St Louis. And they lost to them, by 15, at home. Their other 4 losses were to unranked teams: South Dakota St, San Diego St, Air Force, and UNLV. Come to think of it, how are they even on the same seed line as we are? Like Gonzaga, this team has not won a game, or even played a game, against the top tier teams in the country. They are 8-3 vs top 50 (sagarin), and 0-1 vs top 25. MSU has played 1/3 of their schedule against the top 25, and the Lobos have played 1 game against them.
I totally agree with you. But the commentators not only loved UNM, they loved the Mountain West Conf. Some of the commentators said the MW was better than the B1G!!!!! And that many of their teams should make the tourney and stand toe-to-toe with anyone. Still not sure where that came from, but it were the analysts from CBS. That all started when Sir Charles said the B1G was not that good...and ended with Rex Chapman (former UK player?) said Kentucky "deserved to be in the tourney". This was all about 4 minutes before the seedings were actually announced.
I think the tourney saw the good record and conference title(s) and could not lower them below a 3 seed...which would be #9-#12 national ranking
The experts are also forgetting that UNM is coached by Steve Alford. Just like Jamie Dixon at Pitt and Rick Barnes at Texas...you always pick them to lose one round earlier than they should.
UNM is legit, as is the MW. If you have not watched them, this is not your typical UNM feast on cupcakes team. These guys can play. Snell is probably the best player in the country you have not heard of. The guy is a monster. Kendall Williams was MW player of the year, and is probably not the best player on his team. Bairstow and Kirk are solid players up front.
UNM played some good teams ooc. Beat Davidson, UCONN, won at Indiana St., beat Valpo, won at Cincy. Yes, they lost to SDSU, and SLU. But, they played a ton of tourney teams, and rolled in one of top 2 conferences in the country. They went 13-4 against tourney teams this year. That is pretty solid. MSU went 8-7 versus teams in the tourney.
Not to mention, they have a nice draw to do damage.
good perspective... you just did some research for me, too. Thanks!
Spartans ...committed to bring Paul Bunyan home in 2013.
After reading the OP's post I was ready to have them losing earlier than the Sweet Sixteen, but now your post has me thinking I'll stand pat. Those losses are pretty bad though but it is good to see that beat some tourney teams.
They're a good team from the #1 RPI conference.
Lets be honest - when comparing records 'vs. tourney teams' there is a large difference between playing teams in the top10 and teams in the top64 .. playing teams like Kansas are a world of difference from playing teams like SDSU.
The MWC as the #1 RPI conference is a joke. What current top 25 teams did anyone in the conference beat, besides the few teams in conference that beat UNM? I see Boise beat Creighton, but that's about it. UNM played a lot of NCAA tournament teams, but most of those teams were AQs. UNM's RPI is pushed way up because of that, and also due to they not scheduling teams below 250 in the RPI. Look at the seeds of the OOC teams UNM played that made the NCAA tourney: Davidson and Valpo as 14s, NMSU (2x) and SDSU as 13s, Cinci as a 10. Not exactly a murderer's row. Then the seeds of the other MWC members that made the NCAA tournament got pushed up a bit due to the conference RPI rank.
Compare that to MSU's losses, which were to the following seeds (excluding UConn). NCAA 2 seed (road), 11 seed (road), 1 seed (road), 1 seed (home), 2 seed (road), 4 seed (road), 2 seed (neutral). Then wins over 13 seed, 1 seed, 2, 4, 8, 11, 4, 4.
This post was edited by DaHorn_Spartan 13 months ago
Because the RPI calculation states that the Mountain West is the best/toughest league in the country. I'm not kidding.
meh, Alford was on the radio yesterday after Izzo: it was..........unbearable. Izzo is as smooth and articulate as they come. Alford?.......DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCHE.
They are good. How anyone can discount any team that is better than a 14 seed hasn't been paying attention lately.
This country was built by people who worked hard then went home and had just a few too many every night. Then went back to work.
Explain to me how they are legit? They have not played good teams. Well, define "good", first. If by "good", you mean top 50, well fine. But my "good" means top ten. Even top 25. They have played one team in the final top 25 - #15 - and lost at home by double digits. Playing tourney teams means nothing - unless they are seeded 8 or higher. The reason MSU went 8-7 against tourney teams is because they played many games against the top 10-15 in the nation. New Mexicos tourney teams that they played are mostly all shit teams, except for St Louis (and remember, they LOST). So, please explain how they are legit when they have 5 losses against unranked teams, and zero wins against ranked teams.
OK, if I said here is team X and they are good. However, they have no wins against top 25 and have 5 losses against unranked teams. Would you believe me that they're good?
MSU must not be very good, they went 2-5 vs 1 and 2 seeds in the NCAA tournament!
UNM had one game against teams seeded 4 and higher, and lost. Only 5 games against teams seeded higher than 8, and went 2-3 (only won home games). They managed to beat an 8, a 10, and two 13 seeds on the road, good for them. Their resume places them more as a 4 or 5 seed, not a 3.
So, it is not possible to be a good team unless you played top teams? They played who they played. They beat mighty UCONN, who must be dynamite if they beat MSU. If they suck so bad, pick them to lose then. I didn't say UNM is the best team. I said they were legit, and they were good. People love the RPI here, and they won the conference that was rated #1.
You are so into rankings.....what is Minny ranked? They aren't, but when MSU lost to them, they were pretty high. Just like when UNM beat Cincy on the road, they were #8. UNM played a pretty solid schedule, and played several true road games in non-con. They have nothing to apologize for this year, in terms of their schedule.
They lost 5 games to unranked teams. That makes them not good. Now, if they had a few wins against top teams (like top 10), then I could forgive it by saying that they are at least good enough to beat top teams. But they didn't beat any top teams. Okay, MSU lost to Uconn They lost to unranked Minn. But they also beat Kansas, Michigan, tOSU, Wisconsin, etc.
Their schedule sucks. How many times do I have to say it - they played 1 ranked team. ONE. You call that a "solid" schedule? Show me something - anything - that you think makes them worthy of a 3 seed.
Their schedule sucks. Lol. 17 games for them versus tourney teams. MSU has 15. But, those 17 are not good enough for you, so they don't count. So, beating the #8 team (when they played) at their place isn't a good win huh?
Counting UM and Wisconsin as good wins? They are lowly 4 and 5 seeds. How is that any good? I mean, UNM beat UNLV twice, and they are just a 5 seed, so they must suck. So, rule those out. So, by your very own logic, MSU played 6 games against good team (KU, IU 2x, OSU 3x). They went 2-4 against good teams. That is assuming KU is good, because they lost to unranked TCU. Again, your logic states that losing to unranked teams means you cannot be any good. Yep, way better than UNM.
I don't even care for UNM. But, it is typical thought process around here that just because they arent in the B1G or on ESPN every night, they can't be good. Again, they easily won the #1 rated RPI conference. Even if you think the RPI is a joke, it is still a decent barometer. This team is a B1G caliber type team. If they were in the B1G, they would fare very well. Nobody in the B1G would win at The Pit, and UNM would at worst go .500 on the road. They would beat the bottom half of the league, and steal a W or 2 vs the top half. This team is actually very similar to many of the MSU teams of the fairly recent past.
I discount all of UNM's wins against anyone in the MWC (along with the other MWC members' wins against each other). Look at UNM, UNLV, SDSU, and CSU. What was the best win any of those teams had? UNM's win @Cincy, a 10 seed? UNLV @Cal (12 seed) or home against ISU, an 8 seed? SDSU against 6 seed UCLA (neutral site)? CSU only beat one NCAA tournament team in the non-conf, 13 seed Montana in their first game. Boise's win @ Creighton (7 seed) maybe? As a conference, a whole conference, they have one win against seeds 6 or better in the NCAA tournament (not counting MWC members). The conference just has 5 RPI top 50 wins out of conference, and 1 RPI top 25 win.
and they got their asses handed to them by the only team in the top 25, at home no less. So yeah, a weak resume does not mean a weak team. Yet their one time to prove themselves (against a team that could very well be overrated themselves), they got taken out behind the woodshed.
Heck, they squeaked by Cincy and Cincy got killed in Big East play.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by scott91575 13 months ago
Oh yeah, the #8 team by one, and that #8 team was on the bubble come tournament time. Please don't tell me you think Cincinnati is the 8th best team in the country even at the time those two played. Cincinnati was exposed for what they are.
UNM's best win is against that #8 seed, and as you said, it was at home. A 3 seed needs a better win than that, IMO. UM is top 10, and Wiscy top 15 in the nation. Yes, those are good wins. Show me UNM's wins against top 10. Top 15. Hell, top 25. Know what? There are none. Zero. MSU beat Kansas, a one seed and top 5 in the nation. Again, I can forgive the losses. I never said "losing to an unranked team means your no good". If you couple that with zero wins against top 25 teams, THEN it means you're no good. Read my lips: ZERO wins against ranked teams, 5 losses against unranked teams. The only ranked team they played is ranked a lowly 15, and they got their asses handed to them, lost by 15 AND it was at their own home. Zero good wins coupled with 5 bad losses means that they're not good.
LOL whatever. I love how Wisconsin gets mocked here for never doing anything in the tourney, yet when MSU beats them, it is a good win. Which is it?
Either way, they are a 3 seed, deserving or not. They beat the teams on their schedule. Their OOC was solid, as is the MWC. Just because you discount it means nothing. It is the #1 RPI conference in the land, which does count for something. They have some good wins, whether you acknowledge it or not. The tourney will bear if these teams are good or not.
I will say this isn't the first time they've given UNM a 3 seed. The last time they got one (with a resume that was eerily similar to this year) they flamed out in the Round of 32 and they haven't reached the Sweet Sixteen since 1974. They're the Mountain West version of Texas and Pitt.
You're right, they could very well be legit but to slobber on them like some have is a little ridiculous.
OK, you say they have some good wins - name them. Give me their 5 best wins. Thats my point. They have none. Good teams, even really good teams, lose every once in awhile. I can overlook the 5 losses to unranked teams, if they have even a few wins against top competition. That would at least show me they are good enough to beat them. They haven't shown that.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports