A Mid-Major National Basketball Champ?

[skip-zip]

As much as I was pulling for Shaka last night, I'm ready to pull for Butler to win tomorrow night. And I hope everyone else will do the same. This could be the biggest thing to ever happen to mid-major level college basketball.

Yes, Butler is now officially the new Gonzaga. But, they are also reaching places Gonzaga never reached. Can they now close the deal and take the ultimate prize?

I think college basketball fans are learning one thing:

When teams are winning so-called "lower level conferences", they are still learning how to win. And that makes them dangerous no matter who they are playing.

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

[ZachTheZip]

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Up until the NCAAs, the only wins Butler had over major teams came in a single early season tournament against Utah, FSU, and Washington State along with one home game against Stanford.

They lost all their road games against the big boys, Louisville, Duke, and Xavier. So in total, they played seven major teams, and the rest of their schedule was filled in with crappy teams like Siena and Miss. Valley State at home.

So what we need to do is play these teams in neutral site tourneys and hope somehow we can get one or two of them to come to the JAR. It's useless to play them on the road.

From what I can tell, we have VCU at home (I'll count them as a "major" since they made the Final Four which makes them better than almost all of the "name" teams) and Temple comes to the JAR as well. Dambrot has also said we're playing in a tournament with "major" teams at the beginning of the season. That should get us five top games in winnable situations. Going on the road to face these teams is pointless. I hope we fill the rest of the schedule against solid mid-major competition or low-majors that are projected to win their conference (the RPI favors playing winning teams, no matter who those teams are winning against)

[GP1]

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Wrong lesson.

We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days.

[GP1]

Up until the NCAAs, the only wins Butler had over major teams came in a single early season tournament against Utah, FSU, and Washington State along with one home game against Stanford.

They lost all their road games against the big boys, Louisville, Duke, and Xavier. So in total, they played seven major teams, and the rest of their schedule was filled in with crappy teams like Siena and Miss. Valley State at home.

They played seven major teams and went 4-3 against them with only one home game. I'm impressed. They didn't have "only" four wins, they had four wins. "Only" is not necessary.

[Dave in Green]

No guarantees, but there's no doubt that Butler has the capability to take down UConn. I knew that UConn was a young team, but didn't realize until last night's player introductions that they started three freshmen and a sophomore along with junior Kemba Walker. The younger UConn players are extremely talented, but Butler is more experienced. On paper it looks to be a great matchup. Just hope that one team isn't stone cold and the other team makes a laugher out of it. I'd like to see another game with the closeness and intensity of last night's UConn-Kentucky battle.

On the subject of UA's OOC SOS, which has been covered extensively in other threads, the Zips have slowly increased it to the point that it's now respectable. I wouldn't have any problem with trying to schedule one or two more games against top 100 teams. But the Zips OOC SOS is already pretty close to those of several of the more successful mid-majors that we aspire for the Zips to emulate. The Zips OOC SOS could still benefit from some fine tuning, but it's no longer a glaring weakness.

[MDZip]

In other years I think Butler winning it all as an 8 seed would be labeled a fluke, but in this year and the fact that they made it to the title game last year, they would no doubt be considered a worthy national champion. A 4,500 student school. Wow.

[johnnyzip84]

In other years I think Butler winning it all as an 8 seed would be labeled a fluke, but in this year and the fact that they made it to the title game last year, they would no doubt be considered a worthy national champion. A 4,500 student school. Wow.

Based on what I've seen in the tournament, I actually think Butler should be favored in the final. Much has been made of Kemba Walker's post-season, but Sheldon (sp?) Mack has been right there too. Matt Howard just looks like a guy who won't allow the Bulldogs to lose at this point.

Butler 69

UConn 64

[zippy5]

People need to quit making a big deal of the size of the school. It's ~15 people making a difference. How many students do Duke, Nova, Wake Forest, etc have?

[GP1]

People need to quit making a big deal of the size of the school. It's ~15 people making a difference. How many students do Duke, Nova, Wake Forest, etc have?

I always chuckle at it as well. It's college, not high school.

[MDZip]

The last 25 champions of the NCAA mens basketball tournament all have enrollments of at least 14,000 (including Duke - Wake has about 7,000, just don't recall them winning a title) but having a school big enough to have the resources to do that probably is statistically insignificant. No big deal that a small school like Butler with lesser enrollments, resources and much smaller endowments might be able to do it. All of the staff, adminstration hours and potential funding are all irrelevant, all you really need are 15 people. I think you've hit on it. I suspect Muskingham college will be moving up to D-1 to win the title soon. They have 15 people.

But you're right it is not high school. In general, high school playoffs pit schools of equal size against each other. I think what Butler has done is one hell of a feat.

[Spin]

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Wrong lesson.

We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days.

+1+1+1+1

[GP1]

The last 25 champions of the NCAA mens basketball tournament all have enrollments of at least 14,000 (including Duke - Wake has about 7,000, just don't recall them winning a title) but having a school big enough to have the resources to do that probably is statistically insignificant.

Resources are money. Notre Dame is a small school and one can't say they have a lot of money. Resources come from ticket sales, ads, alumni donations, etc. If you get enough of that, you have the resources to win. Your school can be as small as 100 people with one really rich donor.

[zippy5]

The last 25 champions of the NCAA mens basketball tournament all have enrollments of at least 14,000 (including Duke - Wake has about 7,000, just don't recall them winning a title) but having a school big enough to have the resources to do that probably is statistically insignificant. No big deal that a small school like Butler with lesser enrollments, resources and much smaller endowments might be able to do it. All of the staff, adminstration hours and potential funding are all irrelevant, all you really need are 15 people. I think you've hit on it. I suspect Muskingham college will be moving up to D-1 to win the title soon. They have 15 people.

But you're right it is not high school. In general, high school playoffs pit schools of equal size against each other. I think what Butler has done is one hell of a feat.

It is a hell of a feat, i agree. Theyve overcome a lot, but imo, their school size wasnt hampering them. like i said, nova, wake, duke (though they are bigger than i thought) are just fine. all the resources you mentioned have nothing to do with student body size, which is what I was talking about.

The high school comparison is apples to oranges. They are split up due to having larger populations to pick from, obviously d-1 teams don't face that.

[Zipmeister]

The last 25 champions of the NCAA mens basketball tournament all have enrollments of at least 14,000 (including Duke - Wake has about 7,000, just don't recall them winning a title) but having a school big enough to have the resources to do that probably is statistically insignificant.

Resources are money. Notre Dame is a small school and one can't say they have a lot of money. Resources come from ticket sales, ads, alumni donations, etc. If you get enough of that, you have the resources to win. Your school can be as small as 100 people with one really rich donor.

Not only can I say Notre Dame has a lot of money, I can say they have a boatload of money, and that's a fact.

[skip-zip]

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Wrong lesson.

We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days.

And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

[ZachTheZip]

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Wrong lesson.

We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days.

And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

Only if you believe that getting those wins is based on random chance.

[skip-zip]

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Wrong lesson.

We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days.

And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

Only if you believe that getting those wins is based on random chance.

See my first post in this thread

[Dave in Green]

And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

If the goal is to have an occasional upset over a higher-ranked team, then, yes, I'd support scheduling lots of tough opponents to improve the statistical odds of scoring the occasional upset. But the real goal should be improving the overall performance of the team. So the real question should be what SOS increases your chances of becoming a better team -- an easy schedule, a balanced schedule, or a really tough schedule?

If there was a simple answer, every team would be doing it. But there isn't a simple answer. I know of no conclusive study showing that teams that deliberately set up the toughest schedules tend to become better teams than those with more balanced schedules of weaker, moderate, and stronger teams.

I suspect that the best all-around schedule is one that's balanced with a variety of opponents with varying levels of strength -- not too weak and not too strong overall.

[GP1]

The last 25 champions of the NCAA mens basketball tournament all have enrollments of at least 14,000 (including Duke - Wake has about 7,000, just don't recall them winning a title) but having a school big enough to have the resources to do that probably is statistically insignificant.

Resources are money. Notre Dame is a small school and one can't say they have a lot of money. Resources come from ticket sales, ads, alumni donations, etc. If you get enough of that, you have the resources to win. Your school can be as small as 100 people with one really rich donor.

Not only can I say Notre Dame has a lot of money, I can say they have a boatload of money, and that's a fact.

I don't know what I was thinking when I typed it....probably nothing, but I agree with you more than my statement.

[GP1]

I think some Akron fans can learn something as well:

We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Wrong lesson.

We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days.

And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

No, you increase your chance of winning by playing better in those games and living up to your potential. A team can only win one game at a time. If we play four major conference teams, we should try to win all four.

[Zipmeister]

It is time to change our objective.

For years some of you have suggested we try to become the Gonzaga of the East.

It's too late for that.

From now on, let's strive to become the Butler of Northeast Ohio.

[akronzips71]

The last 25 champions of the NCAA mens basketball tournament all have enrollments of at least 14,000 (including Duke - Wake has about 7,000, just don't recall them winning a title) but having a school big enough to have the resources to do that probably is statistically insignificant.

Resources are money. Notre Dame is a small school and one can't say they have a lot of money. Resources come from ticket sales, ads, alumni donations, etc. If you get enough of that, you have the resources to win. Your school can be as small as 100 people with one really rich donor.

Not only can I say Notre Dame has a lot of money, I can say they have a boatload of money, and that's a fact.

They are freaking Notre Dame.

The Gipper

WE learned their fight song in grade school in New York.

They have everything they need to get a national championship in every sport every year.

They are Notre Dame.

[skip-zip]

And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

If the goal is to have an occasional upset over a higher-ranked team, then, yes, I'd support scheduling lots of tough opponents to improve the statistical odds of scoring the occasional upset. But the real goal should be improving the overall performance of the team. So the real question should be what SOS increases your chances of becoming a better team -- an easy schedule, a balanced schedule, or a really tough schedule?If there was a simple answer, every team would be doing it. But there isn't a simple answer. I know of no conclusive study showing that teams that deliberately set up the toughest schedules tend to become better teams than those with more balanced schedules of weaker, moderate, and stronger teams.

I suspect that the best all-around schedule is one that's balanced with a variety of opponents with varying levels of strength -- not too weak and not too strong overall.

A fair question, except that we already know two things.

1) An easy schedule with 26 wins can still result in a complete lack of respect in national polls, and a complete shutout from the post-season selection committees. We were certainly "better" that year. Maybe even great compared to many other years. And it got us nowhere. So, we can wipe "easy schedule" off the board as an option, don't you think? We need to stop being ignorant to the fact that winning 20+ games with a poor overall SOS is helping us make up any ground on the national scene.

2) If "balanced" defines what we're doing now, then it's obviously not good enough since we weren't even in the talk for an at-large bid to the Big Dance in any of the last 6 seasons. Sprinkling Dayton and Minnesota into a 30 game schedule is just so far from where we need to be to get the job done.

[ZachTheZip]

And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

If the goal is to have an occasional upset over a higher-ranked team, then, yes, I'd support scheduling lots of tough opponents to improve the statistical odds of scoring the occasional upset. But the real goal should be improving the overall performance of the team. So the real question should be what SOS increases your chances of becoming a better team -- an easy schedule, a balanced schedule, or a really tough schedule?If there was a simple answer, every team would be doing it. But there isn't a simple answer. I know of no conclusive study showing that teams that deliberately set up the toughest schedules tend to become better teams than those with more balanced schedules of weaker, moderate, and stronger teams.

I suspect that the best all-around schedule is one that's balanced with a variety of opponents with varying levels of strength -- not too weak and not too strong overall.

A fair question, except that we already know two things.

1) An easy schedule with 26 wins can still result in a complete lack of respect in national polls, and a complete shutout from the post-season selection committees. We were certainly "better" that year. Maybe even great compared to many other years. And it got us nowhere. So, we can wipe "easy schedule" off the board as an option, don't you think? We need to stop being ignorant to the fact that winning 20+ games with a poor overall SOS is helping us make up any ground on the national scene.

2) If "balanced" defines what we're doing now, then it's obviously not good enough since we weren't even in the talk for an at-large bid to the Big Dance in any of the last 6 seasons. Sprinkling Dayton and Minnesota into a 30 game schedule is just so far from where we need to be to get the job done.

We weren't in talks for an at-large because we always manage to lose to a MAC West team or two, along with not winning against the top teams we actually did schedule. Dayton and Minnesota alone won't get us in, but Dayton, Minnesota, Miami, Temple, and Cleveland State might, if you can beat three or four of them and not lose to EMU and NIU.

By the way, what's it like to be perpetually stuck in March 2005?

[Valpo Zip]

1) An easy schedule with 26 wins can still result in a complete lack of respect in national polls, and a complete shutout from the post-season selection committees. We were certainly "better" that year. Maybe even great compared to many other years. And it got us nowhere. So, we can wipe "easy schedule" off the board as an option, don't you think? We need to stop being ignorant to the fact that winning 20+ games with a poor overall SOS is helping us make up any ground on the national scene.

If i remember correctly, we lost to Arkansas LR, Illinois-chicago, and Toledo in that season. No team with losses to these 3 will ever get an at large bid even if their record was 30-3.