2017 Recruiting Class Could Be The Best Yet

[stever20]

I don't think you can say for certain that either Creighton or Xavier would have been a final 4 team. Xavier was not playing well all year long even with Summer. They were only 15-6 at the time of injury, and 4 of the 5 BE wins were vs Georgetown and St John's. Just had come off of a period of losing 4 of last 5 games. So to say with Summer they would have been final 4 is a reach.

Creighton sure looked great with Watson, but at the time of the injury, due to the soft schedule, they were only #19 in ken pom. So tough to say that they would have gone much further outside of the fact they would have been a top 3 or 4 seed instead of 6, and thus a better early round matchup of course. But to say final 4 is a stretch.

So don't think you can say that Big East had to have had either 7 bids or getting final four from at least 1 of Xavier or Creighton. But then again, I'd argue that even w/o final 4's- the number of units had the injuries not happened and league only gotten 4 or 5 bids would have been at least the same, if not more, than what actually happened.

You are right about Georgetown. The thing I'll say about it is thank God it happened because JT3 finally got shown the door. I just find close games to be a lot about a bounce here and a bounce there. Game played 100 times, one team would win 50 and the other team 50.

I just think the AAC is far more solid than folks here want to make it out. 3 likely top 25 teams in Cincy, SMU, and Wichita. Some up and coming teams in Houston, UCF(seems SO strange to say that). The thing that's strange is looking at them, the key is Memphis, UConn, and Temple. If those 3 can return to where they have been before- the league is super deep. Not sure how anyone objectively could look at the AAC and say they're in major trouble right now.

It's funny, just like in the Big East if we had said 4 years ago Georgetown, St John's, and Marquette had been nothing in the Big East- one would have been majorly concerned- if you had said back when AAC formed that SMU, Houston, and UCF would be as improved as they have- you would have thought with that the AAC would be doing pretty well. But just not the case.

Did you not see the difference between Xavier with and without Sumner? Goodin did good but to say having Xavier's 6'6 athletic freak at point guard who averaged 15 PPG wouldn't have made a difference to get to the final four is a little strange.

They were only 15-6 with him. You are assuming that they would have had the exact same path to the elite 8. When he got hurt- they were #28 in Ken Pom and had a RPI of 14 from what I can see. So likely like a 4 or 5 seed(though at that point they had all of 2 wins vs NCAA tourney teams- Wake and Providence). So that changes the equation considerably. 4 or 5 seed means they see one of the 1's in the RSF. Though 4/5 seed may have been optimistic- looking at Lunardi's bracketology from 1/26 (3 days before the injury) Xavier was a 6 seed.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Stever, as always I respect your opinion and enjoy the discussions you present. However, I do think you are being selective with your hypotheticals as you present. You shouldn't be able to present the AAC as being "unlucky" in close games they lost, while painting the Big East as "lucky" with close games they won. The results are what they are. Under that same argument, you have - in the past - used injuries as a reason for select AAC teams not advancing far in the tournament, but then when Big East teams have similar season-altering injuries, you classify it a being "a reach" for any of those teams to realistically go far with those key players out. You just can't have it both ways. We get your appreciation for the American, and understand you don't like when some posters don't consider them an equal, but the reality is that the Big East has had the conference success, prestige and the financial backing that the AAC does not/do not. It is what it is. The AAC board has also become a troll wasteland with all of the bans they have given out in the past 2 weeks, mostly due to the hatred and animosity they have created not only to other G5 fans but also to other P5 fans due to their abundance of obnoxious personalities.

[stever20]

Stever, as always I respect your opinion and enjoy the discussions you present. However, I do think you are being selective with your hypotheticals as you present. You shouldn't be able to present the AAC as being "unlucky" in close games they lost, while painting the Big East as "lucky" with close games they won. The results are what they are. Under that same argument, you have - in the past - used injuries as a reason for select AAC teams not advancing far in the tournament, but then when Big East teams have similar season-altering injuries, you classify it a being "a reach" for any of those teams to realistically go far with those key players out. You just can't have it both ways. We get your appreciation for the American, and understand you don't like when some posters don't consider them an equal, but the reality is that the Big East has had the conference success, prestige and the financial backing that the AAC does not/do not. It is what it is. The AAC board has also become a troll wasteland with all of the bans they have given out in the past 2 weeks, mostly due to the hatred and animosity they have created not only to other G5 fans but also to other P5 fans due to their abundance of obnoxious personalities.

My point this year with Xavier was that when the injury took place, they were only a projected 6 seed. They were only 15-6(and had just lost 4 of 5 games). When the injury with Creighton took place, they were still only projected as a 3 seed. Even with the 18-1 record. So I just don't think you can say at all that it would have been a lock for either of them to make the final 4 w/o the injuries. Could one of those teams have made the final 4? Sure. But I wouldn't have classified it as a lock at all. I think people are forgetting especially with Xavier the problems they had. Do I think Creighton would have gone further without the injury? Of course I do(esp given they lost 1st round). Do I think they would have been a lock for final 4? nope. With Xavier, you can't just assume that they're the same path they got in the NCAA tourney. Instead of them being a 11 seed, and with that path, they're probably between a 4-6 seed. Totally different animal there- especially if they're a 4/5 seed, getting one of Gonzaga, UNC, or Kansas in the RSF.

[JohnW22]

Stever, as always I respect your opinion and enjoy the discussions you present. However, I do think you are being selective with your hypotheticals as you present. You shouldn't be able to present the AAC as being "unlucky" in close games they lost, while painting the Big East as "lucky" with close games they won. The results are what they are. Under that same argument, you have - in the past - used injuries as a reason for select AAC teams not advancing far in the tournament, but then when Big East teams have similar season-altering injuries, you classify it a being "a reach" for any of those teams to realistically go far with those key players out. You just can't have it both ways. We get your appreciation for the American, and understand you don't like when some posters don't consider them an equal, but the reality is that the Big East has had the conference success, prestige and the financial backing that the AAC does not/do not. It is what it is. The AAC board has also become a troll wasteland with all of the bans they have given out in the past 2 weeks, mostly due to the hatred and animosity they have created not only to other G5 fans but also to other P5 fans due to their abundance of obnoxious personalities.

My point this year with Xavier was that when the injury took place, they were only a projected 6 seed. They were only 15-6(and had just lost 4 of 5 games). When the injury with Creighton took place, they were still only projected as a 3 seed. Even with the 18-1 record. So I just don't think you can say at all that it would have been a lock for either of them to make the final 4 w/o the injuries. Could one of those teams have made the final 4? Sure. But I wouldn't have classified it as a lock at all. I think people are forgetting especially with Xavier the problems they had. Do I think Creighton would have gone further without the injury? Of course I do(esp given they lost 1st round). Do I think they would have been a lock for final 4? nope. With Xavier, you can't just assume that they're the same path they got in the NCAA tourney. Instead of them being a 11 seed, and with that path, they're probably between a 4-6 seed. Totally different animal there- especially if they're a 4/5 seed, getting one of Gonzaga, UNC, or Kansas in the RSF.

You are playing way to many what ifs. You're saying Xavier was a projected 6 seed in case they would have had the same path but there's way to many what ifs in these secenarios to have a reasonable arguement over it.

[stever20]

Stever, as always I respect your opinion and enjoy the discussions you present. However, I do think you are being selective with your hypotheticals as you present. You shouldn't be able to present the AAC as being "unlucky" in close games they lost, while painting the Big East as "lucky" with close games they won. The results are what they are. Under that same argument, you have - in the past - used injuries as a reason for select AAC teams not advancing far in the tournament, but then when Big East teams have similar season-altering injuries, you classify it a being "a reach" for any of those teams to realistically go far with those key players out. You just can't have it both ways. We get your appreciation for the American, and understand you don't like when some posters don't consider them an equal, but the reality is that the Big East has had the conference success, prestige and the financial backing that the AAC does not/do not. It is what it is. The AAC board has also become a troll wasteland with all of the bans they have given out in the past 2 weeks, mostly due to the hatred and animosity they have created not only to other G5 fans but also to other P5 fans due to their abundance of obnoxious personalities.

My point this year with Xavier was that when the injury took place, they were only a projected 6 seed. They were only 15-6(and had just lost 4 of 5 games). When the injury with Creighton took place, they were still only projected as a 3 seed. Even with the 18-1 record. So I just don't think you can say at all that it would have been a lock for either of them to make the final 4 w/o the injuries. Could one of those teams have made the final 4? Sure. But I wouldn't have classified it as a lock at all. I think people are forgetting especially with Xavier the problems they had. Do I think Creighton would have gone further without the injury? Of course I do(esp given they lost 1st round). Do I think they would have been a lock for final 4? nope. With Xavier, you can't just assume that they're the same path they got in the NCAA tourney. Instead of them being a 11 seed, and with that path, they're probably between a 4-6 seed. Totally different animal there- especially if they're a 4/5 seed, getting one of Gonzaga, UNC, or Kansas in the RSF.

You are playing way to many what ifs. You're saying Xavier was a projected 6 seed in case they would have had the same path but there's way to many what ifs in these secenarios to have a reasonable arguement over it.

But they might not have had the same path. Could they have been a 6 seed, with a different 11 seed in their path with playing FSU 2nd round? Sure. But they could easily have gotten up to a 4/5 seed and been in a lot tougher path.. But my point is you can't just assume with Xavier that if they had been healthy they would have automatically been in the final 4. It's not by any stretch of the imagination an either BE due to the injuries gets 7 teams in the tourney or Creighton/Xavier make the final 4 situation.

[BEXU]

Oregon pounded Kansas. One could say KU had an off night. Zags didn't have a great night against NW. You play the team in front of you. X pounded Maryland, an FSU team many had in the final four and upset AZ. So Stever's "logic" doesn't work in the Dance. X generally overachieves every year. Can't remember many times we were favored after the first round. Could X have beat Kansas or Oregon. Sure. We shoot 65% from 3 on a given night, we could hang with anybody.

[stever20]

Oregon pounded Kansas. You play the team in front of you. X pounded Maryland, an FSU team many had in the final four and upset AZ. So Stever's "logic" doesn't work in the Dance. X generally overachieves every year. Can't remember many times we were favored after the first round. Could X have beat Kansas or Oregon. Sure. We shoot 65% from 3 on a given night, we could hang with anybody.

ok with Kansas, but what if they were in the bracket with UNC?

Bottom line- you just can't assume that Xavier would have made the final 4 without the injury. They didn't truly come together until the BET after they had beaten DePaul 2x(where 1 loss knocks them out of the tourney).

[Westbrook#36]

Another off season. Same old stever, the sky is falling for the BE act. How completely predictable.

[Savannah Jay]

Oregon pounded Kansas. You play the team in front of you. X pounded Maryland, an FSU team many had in the final four and upset AZ. So Stever's "logic" doesn't work in the Dance. X generally overachieves every year. Can't remember many times we were favored after the first round. Could X have beat Kansas or Oregon. Sure. We shoot 65% from 3 on a given night, we could hang with anybody.

ok with Kansas, but what if they were in the bracket with UNC?

Bottom line- you just can't assume that Xavier would have made the final 4 without the injury. They didn't truly come together until the BET after they had beaten DePaul 2x(where 1 loss knocks them out of the tourney).

Nobody is saying or assuming X would have gone to the final four. They are just saying it's possible because, you know, they made it to the elite 8 without their best player. Everything else, including your bloviated statistical what ifs and "Debby Downer on the Big East" arguments, are discussion board opinions. It is very logical to have an opinion that a team might have gone farther in the tournament if their best player hadn't gotten hurt.

What is not very logical is why you spend so much time being argumentative (just for the sake of being argumentative) on a league's message board in which you have no stake in any of the teams. I know you claim to be a fan of someone but that's obviously bullsh-- because...well...we can all read.

I am telling you...three and half minutes with a red headed woman may be your ticket to a little better outlook on life (and maybe the Big East...).

[stever20]

Oregon pounded Kansas. You play the team in front of you. X pounded Maryland, an FSU team many had in the final four and upset AZ. So Stever's "logic" doesn't work in the Dance. X generally overachieves every year. Can't remember many times we were favored after the first round. Could X have beat Kansas or Oregon. Sure. We shoot 65% from 3 on a given night, we could hang with anybody.

ok with Kansas, but what if they were in the bracket with UNC?

Bottom line- you just can't assume that Xavier would have made the final 4 without the injury. They didn't truly come together until the BET after they had beaten DePaul 2x(where 1 loss knocks them out of the tourney).

Nobody is saying or assuming X would have gone to the final four. They are just saying it's possible because, you know, they made it to the elite 8 without their best player. Everything else, including your bloviated statistical what ifs and "Debby Downer on the Big East" arguments, are discussion board opinions. It is very logical to have an opinion that a team might have gone farther in the tournament if their best player hadn't gotten hurt.

What is not very logical is why you spend so much time being argumentative (just for the sake of being argumentative) on a league's message board in which you have no stake in any of the teams. I know you claim to be a fan of someone but that's obviously bullsh-- because...well...we can all read.

I am telling you...three and half minutes with a red headed woman may be your ticket to a little better outlook on life (and maybe the Big East...).

But all I'm saying is that they would not have had the same path at all if the injury hadn't taken place. Because with him, they would not have been an 11 seed. While yes, they were projected in as a 6 seed when injury took place, very possible they would have either improved to a 4/5 seed, or dropped to a 7/8 seed. So the path is very different.

You just can't say add him to what X had in the tourney, and what could have happened. That isn't realistic at all.