Tweet
Hopefully this link works! I found this article extremely interseting. I actually agree with almost all of it. What are your thoughts/opinions??
-
Hopefully this link works! I found this article extremely interseting. I actually agree with almost all of it. What are your thoughts/opinions?? -
The link doesn't work unless you are an "ESPN Insider" subscriber. -
here you go for those that do not have espn insider
I was asked a question today that deserves further consideration: Has the Missouri Valley Conference, by virtue of its performance over the past two seasons, proven that it is a "big-time" league to be mentioned in the same breath as the Big East, ACC, SEC or Pac-10?
Let's consider the evidence, shall we?
Evidence for: MVC teams are 61-18 against nonconference opponents and 5-1 against Top 25 teams. Wichita State, Missouri State, Southern Illinois, Creighton, Northern Iowa and Bradley are all very capable and were postseason teams last season and could all prove worthy of NCAA bids again this season.
So far, MVC teams have beaten LSU, Syracuse, George Mason, Wyoming, Iowa, Iowa State, DePaul, St. John's, Virginia Tech, Minnesota, St. Louis, Butler, Xavier, UNC Wilmington and Western Kentucky.
Clearly, this is a big-time league and it is just as good as any other BCS conference. After all, the MVC had two -- count 'em, two -- teams in the Sweet 16 last season.
Case closed.
Evidence against: The MVC complains all the time that nobody will play its teams, yet after calling its nonconference opponents "nobodies," the MVC trots out its record as conclusive evidence that the conference is entitled to five or six NCAA bids? How does that work? If you claim that nobody plays you, how can you say that your record is so impressive?
Clearly, the MVC has some very good teams, but let's be clear: many of the "big-time" wins the conference boasts were against overrated or down major-conference teams. How, suddenly, are Minnesota, Virginia Tech, St. Louis, St. John's, Wyoming, Iowa and Iowa State considered really good teams? Of those teams, only Iowa was in the NCAA Tournament last season. All of them have had struggles this season and not one of them appears headed for the NCAA Tournament. I'm sure that coaches and administrators in those leagues will be pleased to learn that a win against those schools will be something they can all brag about and include on their résumés for inclusion into the NCAA field.
Consider the powerhouses that Northern Iowa has vanquished: Iowa and Iowa State. The Cyclones have beaten such big shots as Lake Superior State, UC Riverside, Eastern Illinois, Norfolk State, Louisiana-Monroe and Minnesota. In addition to losing to Northern Iowa, the Cyclones have lost to Drake and Iowa. Iowa is 5-5, having beaten only The Citadel, Toledo, Texas Pan American, Coppin State, and, of course, Iowa State. The Hawkeyes have been beaten by Alabama (without Jermareo Davidson) by 12, Villanova by 29, as well as by Arizona State and Virginia Tech. Are the wins over Iowa and Iowa State really two top-notch wins for Northern Iowa, or would they have been suspect losses if they had been dropped? Will we give credit to other schools outside of the MVC for beating those two teams?
And since when is beating Minnesota a quality win? So far, Minnesota has lost to Iowa State, Marist, Montana, Clemson, UAB, and Arkansas-Little Rock. Beating Minnesota this season is hardly what a good team wants to hang its hat on. I am also interested to hear a case for St. Louis being a big-time win. How is that? I am sure that Texas A&M will be pleased to know that its win over St. Louis is résumé material, because the Big 12 has not yet bragged about the big victory against the Billikens. I'm also glad to hear that Wyoming is now a big win. Apparently, Fennis Dembo is back, but I wasn't able to see the Cowboys' win over the Colorado School of Mines. Of course, Wichita State beat the Cowboys by 14, which means that UAB must be really good, too. The Blazers beat Wyoming by 21 points.
By the way, on the NCAA Tournament success argument, when was the last time an MVC team cracked the Final Four? Or does that not matter? Don't you think that the true measure of the excellence of a conference is measured over time, not just via a season or two? You see, I have never heard the traditional powers brag about how cool it was to reach the Sweet 16.
Rational opinion: OK, that stuff above was just to get you thinking. Here is what I really think.
James Lang/US Presswire
Mark Turgeon's Shockers should be evaluated as a team, not a conference member.This discussion isn't about whether the Missouri Valley Conference is a good league. It is, and there should be little debate about that. The Valley is an outstanding league that has five very good teams, and some other teams that can rise up and beat you on a given day. The five teams that are capable of making the NCAA Tournament are Wichita State, Missouri State, Southern Illinois, Creighton and Northern Iowa. Just outside of that group is Bradley, which has the chops to beat people and may just be able to improve through the season and put itself in the mix for a bid.
It is just as hard for an MVC team to get a win in its league as it is for teams in the ACC, Big 12 or any other league to get a win in theirs. League games are different because of the familiarity of the teams. Everybody knows everybody else and there are no tricks or surprises. It is the same everywhere. Wichita State can lose at Indiana State and North Carolina can lose at Clemson, and UConn can lose at St. John's. Those losses happen in every league.
But let's be clear. If we are putting the MVC or any other league on par with the best leagues in the nation, we have to stop giving the mid-majors a leg up in perception when they win, or letting the mid-majors off the hook when they lose a game. The wins lauded above are only lauded for mid-majors, not for good major programs. No good major gets credit for beating Minnesota or Iowa State. Those wins are expected. Similarly, when a major program loses to a good mid-major, there is too much blame heaped on the major. If the mid-major is good, why then would we beat up the major for playing well and losing?
Everybody loudly shouted that Bradley beat DePaul by 20 in the first game of the season. That was praised and trumpeted by the MVC as a great win. Of course, Northwestern, Purdue and UAB also beat DePaul, but we only hear about DePaul's win over Kansas when discussing Bradley's win over the Blue Demons. While the win over DePaul was heralded by MVC fans, we heard not a peep from them when Bradley went to Michigan State and lost by a whopping 29 points. That loss seemed to exist only in a parallel universe. Of course, if Michigan or Purdue were to lose at Michigan State by 29, it would be used as conclusive evidence that they cannot play dead in a cowboy movie.
I hate comparative scores, especially without context. It is too simple to say that the league's record is 61-18 and have that carry the day. Counting up wins may be instructive in some ways, but it does not make the case for a certain number of teams getting into the NCAA Tournament. Sure, trot out Bradley's DePaul win. I will counter that with losses to Tennessee Tech, a shorthanded Illinois team and Michigan State by 29 points. Tell me how good Creighton is because of the win over Xavier, and I can show you losses against Nebraska and Dayton (and if you say both of those teams are really good, then the teams they beat in their own league should get to use the same excuse). I know that Indiana State beat Butler, but the Sycamores also lost to Ball State, Middle Tennessee State and Indiana, too.
That sort of analysis is unfair, incomplete and gives the mid-majors a raw deal regarding perception. When a team is really good, like Wichita State, Southern Illinois and Missouri State, we need to say so based upon their play, not based upon their membership in a conference we like. The same thing goes for other middle teams in a power conference. The fifth-place teams in the ACC, Big East, Big Ten or Big 12 do not get big credit for beating the likes of Virginia Tech, St. John's, Minnesota or Iowa State. To the contrary, those middling power conference teams get beat up if they do not defeat those teams.
We need to analyze the merit of individual teams, not trumpet the league as if that helps us separate good teams from average ones. One cannot just discuss the merits of the league in an attempt to prop up more teams from that league. That is a weak argument, and its days are past.
Have you watched Wichita State, Southern Illinois and Missouri State play? They are all really good teams that are capable of beating almost anyone out there. The Shockers are really well-drilled and are a veteran team. The Bears are good shooters who can spread you and they play with savvy. The Salukis are perhaps the best defensive team, and they really guard the ball well and run a good motion offense that really opens up for drives. Northern Iowa and Creighton are good, but are you sure they are better than the likes of Florida State, Providence or USC? We don't know yet, because we have not yet played enough games to make a solid case either way.
I expect Wichita State, Southern Illinois and Missouri State to make the NCAA Tournament. All three are that good. I believe that Northern Iowa and Creighton will contend for bids, but I would not yet say that granting them one would be a no-brainer.
Watch the teams play -- it will be a whole lot easier to get a feel for how good they really are rather than looking at scores in the newspaper and playing the transitive property game.
Jay Bilas, a college basketball analyst for ESPN, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.John 3:16Comment
-
Thanks for the info...but this was already put up by Newsfeeder. That guy is on the ball. Who is he?**Go ** Panthers** and Buckeyes**!!Comment
-
-
Exactly, it's a bot.Originally posted by Purple For Life View PostIf I recall, an automated news bot.Comment
Comment