1.) We are talking about this season.
2.) They didn't play anyone in the non conference.
3.) They won't win the Big-12, and they have more losses coming.
How are Houston and Purdue
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
2.) They didn't play anyone in the non conference.
3.) They won't win the Big-12, and they have more losses coming.
Houston, maybe! Particularly since they have joined the big 12 and are doing pretty well their first year. Purdue will get bounced before the 2nd weekend. Big 10 isn't very strong, Painter is a choke artist and Purdue just always underperforms on that stage.
I'm a tree?
Edey walks every time he gets the ball inside and it’s never called. Also, 3 seconds doesn’t exist for him. He lives in the paint.
I haven’t seen enough of Houston to have an opinion. I know they commit 900 fouls a game and only about 20 are called.
I haven’t seen enough of Houston to have an opinion. I know they commit 900 fouls a game and only about 20 are called.
1) Fair point but they are 18-2 THIS SEASON
2) So what? Is it some requirement you have to play someone good in the non conference to be a good team? Why can't they just be a good team playing a crappy non conference schedule? Not for anything but they did play Texas AM out of conference. The same team that knocked us off. They also beat Utah, Dayton and Xavier. I get those aren't sexy names but they are top 50 teams.
3) Of course they will have losses. That just comes with playing in a good conference. That being said, they will probably win that conference or come in second.
Both well coached teams who know what they are. I'd give the edge to Houston because I feel their D is better.
1.) They are 18-2 this season, and didn't play a soul until they got to their conference. Lost 2 road games back to back when they did get into conference play. Like I said, they aren't a top 2 or 3 team, and you will see that once the season plays out. Like I originally said.
2.) Yes, the best teams teams play good OOC schedules?
3.) No, they won't win that conference. They are 5-2 with games @ Kansas, @ Oklahoma, @ Baylor, @ Cincinnati, @ Texas, and they've also got Kansas and Iowa State @ home.
Last edited:
How in the hell do you think “the NCAA” is responsible for how Houston and Purdue are rated?
Can’t wait to hear this answer.
Well, allow me to introduce you to the NET rankings which the NCAA heavily utilizes to seed teams. Next, let me also introduce you to the NCAA selection committee which is who actually seeds the teams.
The net, kenpom and others are also heavily utilized by the media voting members in their regular season rankings, unless of course you truly beleive those voters are actually watching all the games, or even most of them.
Now, do you need any further explanation, or are you able to discern from that?
I would say I can't wait to hear the reply, but we both know that isn't coming.
Last edited:
The NET is the only ranking system that the Committee uses as part of its seeding criteria. And its results come simply from processing data through a purely objective mathematical algorithm. There is no way to rig it to favor Purdue and Houston. And the NCAA has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of the other rankings out there.
Purdue may very well crash and burn in the tourney yet again, but they have ABSOLUTELY earned their lofty ranking thus far. Not only do they have the best record, but also have the best collection of quality wins of anyone thus far this season. Hell, just in early part of the non-con season alone they knocked off Arizona, Tennessee, Marquette, Xavier, Alabama, etc.
If the season ended today, Purdue would've clearly earned a No. 1 seed. Simply because nobody else had achieved a better body of work thus far. Not because of favoritism from the NCAA or anyone else.
Lol, if you honestly beleive that is the only criteria the committee uses or that the NCAA has no bearing on rankings or seeding, you're incredibly naive.
They aren't even ranked first in the net currently. How would that get them the best record and all that? How is there record better than Uconn? They are essentially identical yet Uconn is 3 spots lower.
Xavier is currently 54 in the net. I wouldn't call that a big win. That's like UK calling Miami a big win.
I would say several teams have better wins.
Aike, it's a valid question... I think this is the best answer you can find on Houston and Purdue.
My 2 cents ?
Sampson coaches a style thats defense oriented and recruits that kind of player, develops the long lasting players into a very cohesive unit. He's a fine coach for that program. They're legit good. have been for awhile, but I'm not sure if they can translate the sustained good performances overall into a title. They don't strike me as having enough offensive firepower to get it done, in the end.
Purdue, again, well coached. We should all know Painter is good. How he recruits and builds players / teams as well. they have a good unit, much the same as Houston, and Edey puts them over the top. This might actually be their year, but again, if anything gets them, it'll be a lack of offensive firepower that trips them up, I'd say.
Defensively, that'll be what trips us up ...
lol
but hey, Houston and Purdue have done well this year. I'll give them that. Let's see how they fare as it progresses. They got some tough games here on out, as much everyone does.
The cream rises to the top, so we shall see
The humans through various polls rate Houston and Purdue high.
The computers, many of them rate Houston and Purdue high.
I dunno maybe Houston and Purdue are just really good this season.
The computers, many of them rate Houston and Purdue high.
I dunno maybe Houston and Purdue are just really good this season.
Aike, it's a valid question... I think this is the best answer you can find on Houston and Purdue.
My 2 cents ?
Sampson coaches a style thats defense oriented and recruits that kind of player, develops the long lasting players into a very cohesive unit. He's a fine coach for that program. They're legit good. have been for awhile, but I'm not sure if they can translate the sustained good performances overall into a title. They don't strike me as having enough offensive firepower to get it done, in the end.
Purdue, again, well coached. We should all know Painter is good. How he recruits and builds players / teams as well. they have a good unit, much the same as Houston, and Edey puts them over the top. This might actually be their year, but again, if anything gets them, it'll be a lack of offensive firepower that trips them up, I'd say.
Defensively, that'll be what trips us up ...
lol
but hey, Houston and Purdue have done well this year. I'll give them that. Let's see how they fare as it progresses. They got some tough games here on out, as much everyone does.
The cream rises to the top, so we shall see
FWIW this isn't your typical Purdue.
They are 2nd in offensively efficiency but they are also 13th defensively.
This is easily the best version of Purdue
Just looking at this season I'd say they have more experience and probably healthier as well. They have 2 losses to UKs 4 so not like it's a big difference.
If UK had its entire roster for all games I'd say they would be 18 and 1. Sc probably a loss but with a more established rotation a much closer game.
If UK had its entire roster for all games I'd say they would be 18 and 1. Sc probably a loss but with a more established rotation a much closer game.
I mean, do y'all watch them play? They are good basketball teams. Really good, in fact.
Purdue has already defeated the following this season (most on neutral floors):
Tennessee
Alabama
Arizona
Marquette
Gonzaga
Illinois
Anyone seriously questioning Purdue as a top 3 team this year is completely biased and being ridiculous, frankly.
Purdue has already defeated the following this season (most on neutral floors):
Tennessee
Alabama
Arizona
Marquette
Gonzaga
Illinois
Anyone seriously questioning Purdue as a top 3 team this year is completely biased and being ridiculous, frankly.
How exactly do you think the NCAA has a "bearing" on what the rankings are?
The AP poll simply represents the votes of sportswriters and media members working for private outlets all across the country. Do you think the NCAA has a goon squad calling up everyone with a vote and giving them "you better vote for Houston or Purdue or else!" threats?
And others like the KenPom and RPI rankings simply represent the results of objective computer formulas devised by some private nerds out there with no affiliation with the NCAA whatsoever. Do you think the NCAA has employed a squad of elite hackers to break into their systems and alter the formula to favor Houston and Purdue?
As for the NET being the only ranking system used by the Committee, I'm simply stating what the Committee itself has repeatedly said: the NET is the only ranking system that is part of their criteria and that they look at when deciding seeds ..and even then it is only used as an advisory tool, it is not dispositive. Now maybe they're lying about that, but even if so, it still would not be the NCAA that's responsible for supposedly overranking them in those other polls.
You brought up Cal first in this thread, genius.
I get being overly defensive about family members and or loved ones, but damn man. You Cal sycophants are getting paranoid and swinging at shadows.
I already answered the first part in very simplistic responses for you. You can go read that response again.
Lol, do you honestly believe those voters just watch all the games each week?
You don't have to threaten anyone to be influential in their voting/decision making process. Lol, don't watch so many movies, man!
LMAO, so, if the committee just used NET RANKINGS, there would be very little to no need for a committee. You could simply pick the highest ranked teams left after conference tournament/auto qualifiers and have your field. Then apply an S curve. Instead it's a very subjective process that ends up with a few suprises each year.
No, you didn't. You just made a baseless claim with no coherent fact based argument to back it up.
And I might remind you that the topic of this thread was about why Houston and Purdue were ranked so high in the current polls. The OP was NOT talking about seeding, instead he was talking about their current ranking. And you responded by claiming that "the NCAA" was doing it.
Well, that's just dumb. The folks at the NCAA have nothing to do with deciding where teams get placed in the current rankings. They don't get any votes in the subjective people polls, and they don't have any way to influence the outcome of the objective computer polls. Doing the usual "blame the NCAA" scapegoating here is just one of those empty claims dim people use when they don't think anyone will call them out for the obvious illogic.
Umm ...I did not say that the NET was something the Committee was obligated to follow ...in fact, I specifically noted that, although they consider it, "even then it is only used as an advisory tool, it is not dispositive." Did you not read that part?
The Committee has been clear about its criteria when asked. They claim they exercise their own independent judgment (hence, why they absolutely DO need to meet, discuss and argue), and the NET is the only ranking system that they are permitted to consider as part of the official criteria. However, the NET is only meant as a tool to assist them, it is NOT something that they are required to follow.
I tuned in yesterday to Purdue v Rutgers with about 6 minutes to go and watched maybe 4 minutes before switching to the start of the Ravens v Chiefs. There was one possession where Edney was camped in the lane for nearly 6 seconds. I counted it down, as I noticed he was staying in it on previous possessions. The end result was that they got him the ball and he got fouled. Much of Purdue's success is due to having the biggest, most talented plow horse in college basketball, which has become a sport that has devolved into a plodding rock fight on most nights. Purdue is fortunate to have a guy who was a three star whose talents don't translate to a spot on an NBA roster, so he had no reason to leave after one or two seasons and has developed into the biggest force in the college game today. If you take him off Purdue's roster, it changes them from a 1 seed to an 8-9 or lower seed.
As for Houston, I know next to nothing about them other than who coaches them.
The original point is that you do not have to have a collection of one and dones to be successful. Some of you may want to look at the recent final four if you feel like arguing with that. In other words, the way it's being done here is not the only way to success.
Since we beat Houston in the 2019 NCAA Tournament ... they have won 9 NCAA Tournament games and went to the Final Four and an Elite 8 ... we have 1 NCAA Tournament win.
Funny how so many people get rubbed the wrong way by this guy. I thought it was just me.
Purdue coach isn't a good coach to me. One elite 8 in almost 20 seasons there. He's had some good teams as well and choked.
Agree on Samson though with Houston. He's made them an annual tough out.
I did, you just disagreed with it so you didn't accept it. Nothing I can do for you there, man!
Right, which, if you notice, I never spoke about rankings. I spoke about seedings. You just comprehended rankings because you didn't think much about it.
Again, sure the NCAA does have influence over voting, seeding and many other things. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. But...you do you!
Sure you did! Look back a few posts, one of your posts starts with the "the only thing NCAA uses is the NET." Members use all kinds of different tools, which is well known. If they only used the net, there would be no point in a committee, nor would there be any suspense about who was in or out. We could simply look at the net rankings aside from auto qualifiers.
Again, if you believe everything the committee or NCAA tells you, that is your choice. It's just incredibly naive!
Best of luck!
Last edited:
For sure, UK has the program to put a team together about anyway a coach thinks is a winning formula.
