|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Feb 19, 2024 1:37:16 GMT -8
Yeah, regulation, not OT, my bad. Charles McKinney missed the front end of a 1-1 very late that could have iced it for us. I don't think those officials worked another game, they were bad. Jimmy ripped them pretty good in the postgame. McKinney was an 80% foul shooter, too, but a freshman. I think that the bright lights may have got him there. McKinney missed the front end of a 1-1 up 50-47 with three minutes left. Ball State went down and missed two free throws, but Teo did not box out, so Ball State kept possession. And that is when Payton committed the obvious reach for foul #5 with 2:18 left. Ball State makes two to pull within 50-49. Martin misses a free throw but makes the second to go up 51-49. Ball State misses twice but gets the rebounds both times. Allan Celestine knocks it out of bounds to save a basket with 67 seconds left. Celestine then reaches to put Ball State back on the line with 41 seconds left. Chandler Thompson makes both free throws to tie the game at 51. Teo makes his bucket with three seconds left, and Ball State calls its last timeout. Ball State throws it almost the length of court, and, unbelievably, they connect. Anderson recovers to knock the ball out of bounds, which may have been too bad, because it may have been a charge, if Anderson had not knocked the ball away. No one fronts the inbounds man, which allows Paris McCurdy to catch an easy inbounds pass four feet away from the basket. Anderson just stands there (didn't put his arms up), and McCurdy jumps into him for the "foul," making the shot in the process. One second should be left, but it was not called that way. McCurdy converts the free throw for the 54-53 win. Payton's second and fourth fouls were garbage. The second foul looked like a good boxout. The fourth foul looks like McCurdy dove to draw the foul away from the ball. The first foul was Payton being way too aggressive, and Payton tripped a guy, who was going into score for his third foul. That would clearly be some kind of intentional foul nowadays. Between points and assists, Payton accounted for 52% of Oregon State's offense in 1989-90. The Beavs clearly missed him for those 12+ minutes in the second half. Unfortunately, that’s what can happen when in large part you’re a one man team. Don’t get me wrong, loved that team and especially Payton, but they were what they were. The season before I talked some friends into making the trip up to Milwaukee from Chicago to see Beavers play Marquette. Seeing Payton was a large reason why. Only Beavs game I’ve seen outside of Gill. They won too by 3 or 4 I think. I don’t remember Payton’s stats, but don’t remember him disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 19, 2024 10:34:35 GMT -8
Payton was obviously the star, but we were far from a one-man team.
Teo was an outstanding player who, unfortunately, did not get along with Payton. Maybe because European players were new to college basketball at that time and their style of play was different. Teo was not a banger/rebounder, although people thought he should be because he was 6-7 or 6-8.
Will Brantley had the potential to be a fantastic college basketball player, and he often was early in his career. From what I heard, he did not have a good work ethic and loved the party life and that seriously retarded his development.
Scott Haskin was just too young then. Had he been a junior or senior ...
Earl Martin was an excellent player.
The other guys were workmanlike.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Feb 19, 2024 12:16:16 GMT -8
I’m not saying Payton was playing with a bunch of rec league guys, but look at your descriptions of some of them. Yes, Haskins became a great player but he wasn’t that on this team. Then you have a guy who had “potential” to be great player? Teo was decent, but as you allude to didn’t take off until not playing with Payton. And I loved Earl Martin’s game, but I guess we have different definitions for great player.
But the proof is in the pudding as they say. Ball St held Payton to 11, 5 and 3. That’s basically 15 points and 5 assists under his season averages — so equivalent to 25 points. Beavers averaged 78 ppg that season and scored 53 against Ball St. Hey look, that equals 25 points too.
Like I said, I loved Payton and this team. It is probably my second favorite behind the 1980-81 team. And mind you I did say it was “in large part” a one-man team. Doesn’t mean I liked the team any less. And it doesn’t mean some of these players didn’t go on have to better statistical years over the next one or two years. But stop Payton and you had a very good chance of beating this team. And unfortunately, that is what happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 19, 2024 12:30:23 GMT -8
McKinney was an 80% foul shooter, too, but a freshman. I think that the bright lights may have got him there. McKinney missed the front end of a 1-1 up 50-47 with three minutes left. Ball State went down and missed two free throws, but Teo did not box out, so Ball State kept possession. And that is when Payton committed the obvious reach for foul #5 with 2:18 left. Ball State makes two to pull within 50-49. Martin misses a free throw but makes the second to go up 51-49. Ball State misses twice but gets the rebounds both times. Allan Celestine knocks it out of bounds to save a basket with 67 seconds left. Celestine then reaches to put Ball State back on the line with 41 seconds left. Chandler Thompson makes both free throws to tie the game at 51. Teo makes his bucket with three seconds left, and Ball State calls its last timeout. Ball State throws it almost the length of court, and, unbelievably, they connect. Anderson recovers to knock the ball out of bounds, which may have been too bad, because it may have been a charge, if Anderson had not knocked the ball away. No one fronts the inbounds man, which allows Paris McCurdy to catch an easy inbounds pass four feet away from the basket. Anderson just stands there (didn't put his arms up), and McCurdy jumps into him for the "foul," making the shot in the process. One second should be left, but it was not called that way. McCurdy converts the free throw for the 54-53 win. Payton's second and fourth fouls were garbage. The second foul looked like a good boxout. The fourth foul looks like McCurdy dove to draw the foul away from the ball. The first foul was Payton being way too aggressive, and Payton tripped a guy, who was going into score for his third foul. That would clearly be some kind of intentional foul nowadays. Between points and assists, Payton accounted for 52% of Oregon State's offense in 1989-90. The Beavs clearly missed him for those 12+ minutes in the second half. Unfortunately, that’s what can happen when in large part you’re a one man team. Don’t get me wrong, loved that team and especially Payton, but they were what they were. The season before I talked some friends into making the trip up to Milwaukee from Chicago to see Beavers play Marquette. Seeing Payton was a large reason why. Only Beavs game I’ve seen outside of Gill. They won too by 3 or 4 I think. I don’t remember Payton’s stats, but don’t remember him disappointing. Payton played all forty minutes, playing more than 10 minutes with four fouls. Payton finished with 24 points, a rebound, eight assists, and two steals. Payton was 6/7 from inside the arc and 3/10 from beyond the arc. Eric Knox was probably the star of the game, also playing all 40 minutes: 28 points, four rebounds, nine assists, and a steal. Oregon State led 44-36 at the half. Marquette came out with their hair on fire and outscored the Beavs 16-4 to take the lead 52-48 with 11:10 left in the game. Oregon State was 2/8 with three turnovers over that stretch. Brantley and Earl Martin hit buckets to tie the game at 52, the second second half tie. The teams were tied at 59, 61, and 63 before Oregon State started to pull away. Knox gave the Beavs the lead for good with three-pointer to go up 66-63. And Knox hit his sixth and final three-pointer to go up 71-65. Marquette outscored Oregon State 6-2 to pull within two with 74 seconds left. Payton hit two free throws, but Marquette pulled back within two with 47 seconds left. Payton was fouled and had a chance to ice it but missed his second free throw to leave it a three-point game. Marquette heaved up three threes in the final 13 seconds but missed all three. Marquette came up with the first two offensive rebounds. Knox came away with the game-winning rebound to finally ice it. 76-73 Beavs. Marquette won the rebounding battle 33-21. In questionable officiating, Marquette attempted 15 more free throws than Oregon State. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Feb 19, 2024 12:40:04 GMT -8
Unfortunately, that’s what can happen when in large part you’re a one man team. Don’t get me wrong, loved that team and especially Payton, but they were what they were. The season before I talked some friends into making the trip up to Milwaukee from Chicago to see Beavers play Marquette. Seeing Payton was a large reason why. Only Beavs game I’ve seen outside of Gill. They won too by 3 or 4 I think. I don’t remember Payton’s stats, but don’t remember him disappointing. Payton played all forty minutes, playing more than 10 minutes with four fouls. Payton finished with 24 points, a rebound, eight assists, and two steals. Payton was 6/7 from inside the arc and 3/10 from beyond the arc. Eric Knox was probably the star of the game, also playing all 40 minutes: 28 points, four rebounds, nine assists, and a steal. Oregon State led 44-36 at the half. Marquette came out with their hair on fire and outscored the Beavs 16-4 to take the lead 52-48 with 11:10 left in the game. Oregon State was 2/8 with three turnovers over that stretch. Brantley and Earl Martin hit buckets to tie the game at 52, the second second half tie. The teams were tied at 59, 61, and 63 before Oregon State started to pull away. Knox gave the Beavs the lead for good with three-pointer to go up 66-63. And Knox hit his sixth and final three-pointer to go up 71-65. Marquette outscored Oregon State 6-2 to pull within two with 74 seconds left. Payton hit two free throws, but Marquette pulled back within two with 47 seconds left. Payton was fouled and had a chance to ice it but missed his second free throw to leave it a three-point game. Marquette heaved up three threes in the final 13 seconds but missed all three. Marquette came up with the first two offensive rebounds. Knox came away with the game-winning rebound to finally ice it. 76-73 Beavs. Marquette won the rebounding battle 33-21. In questionable officiating, Marquette attempted 15 more free throws than Oregon State. Willy — Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Now that I see it in front of me, I remember Knox being huge and that flurry of 3-point attempts/off rebounds at end. At least I had the winning margin right. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 19, 2024 13:56:36 GMT -8
I think that Oregon State being given a five seed that year as the Pac-10 Regular Season Champion seemed ridiculous. Also, 24-6 Ball State's RPI numbers did not include their MAC Tournament run. Ball State had nine seniors and may have been the second-best team in the entire Tournament. Ball State was the only team to stay within nine points of eventual National Champion UNLV. Basically a terrible seed for both Oregon State and Ball State to set up the meeting. After beating Oregon State, Ball State then took down the Metro Regular Season and Tourney Champion, Louisville by two before bowing out to UNLV by two in Oakland. The year before, Ball State went 29-2 and upset Pittsburgh in the first round before bowing out to Final Four-bound Illinois. Just a great Ball State team that was underrated against an Oregon State team, who got screwed in the seeding. I’m not sure you really understand seeding. Oregon State was ranked 22 after we lost in final game of regular season. We then lost first game in conf. tourney by 8 to the .500 ASU. We also had a 1-3 record against ranked opponents. Beavers seeding wasn’t ridiculous, especially when you look at the 4 seeds. Should LaSalle have been a 5 seed? Maybe the weakest resume, but they had only lost 1 game heading into tourney. Ga Tech was only 3rd in ACC, but was 5-2 against ranked teams in regular season and won ACC tourney. Like today when seeding is very much impacted by Quad 1/2 wins and Quad 3/4 losses, wins/record against ranked teams were key to seeding back then. Ball St might have been under-seeded, but again you have to rely on what happened prior to tournament to determine that not tourney results. But teams from the Mac and conferences like it were often under-seeded back then. However, they weren’t the second best team in the tournament. They were a well-coached, experienced, disciplined team whose style created problems for opponents. Ball St’s more deliberate style was the reason game was so close, but to their credit they could and maybe should have beat UNLV that night. But coming the closest to beating the champs doesn’t make you the second best team. Oregon State's RPI was 10. The Beavs were 22-6 against the 36th most-difficult SOS. And Oregon State had a higher RPI on the road. Questionable three seeds: Michigan (11), Duke (13), and Georgetown (14).
Michigan finished with a worse record and were worse on the road than Oregon State. Duke finished with a worse record against a softer SOS and were worse on the road than Oregon State. Georgetown finished with a worse record against D1 competition (four wins against non-D1 competition) and were worse on the road than Oregon State. Questionable four seeds: Louisville (16), La Salle (25), and Arkansas (27).
Louisville finished with a worse record against a softer schedule and were worse on the road than Oregon State.
La Salle compiled the nation's best record but against the 159th most-difficult SOS. (Only 292 teams in D1 at the time.)
Arkansas compiled the nation's fifth-best record but against the 97th most-difficult SOS.
I am not saying that Oregon State should have been a four-seed. I am saying that the Beavs fell down two entire lines from where they should have been.
Ball State should have been playing an actual five-seed, rather than a three-seed, which got screwed out of playing a softer first game.
1990 is generally held to be the best or second-best Tournament of all time, 24 games decided by three points or fewer. Oregon State unfortunately landed on the wrong side of one of those games in the First Round. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Feb 20, 2024 6:47:09 GMT -8
I apologize to board for this lengthy post.
Wilky —
Like I said, I don’t think you understand how NCAA seeds teams for bball tourney or you are spiking your orange Kool-aid. But now I have to wonder if you know what RPI is and how it was used — or maybe I’ve been wrong all these years. I say that because as I understand it, RPI is a rating system that takes into consideration two things — a team’s record (25%) and its SOS (75%). That’s it. No advanced or efficiency metrics like NET (which is also not the only tool used for seeding now). So when you write “Duke finished with a worse record against a softer SOS” after already giving their RPI numbers, do you not know that that is what the RPI measures and if Duke has.a higher RPi of course that is true? Or do you think we don’t know that so we’ll think that is more “proof” for your argument?
In either case, you seem to be under the impression that RPI ranking was the only tool used for seeding. It wasn’t nor was it ever intended to be. But that is the only way I can imagine that you think Oregon State should have been or ever had the chance to be a 3 seed. And you just need to look at this year’s RPI ratings to see it shouldn’t be the only tool used for seeding. As I write this, UConn is ranked 11th in RPI. If you think UConn should be a 3 seed in the tournament, I just don’t have a response cuz it’s ludicrous to anyone who has watched much bball.
Other tools used in seeding then and now include AP poll and good wins and bad losses. It is easy to see below that AP poll was (and still is) an important tool. As someone who feels RPI is flawed because of its over reliance on SOS (a useful tool but should not be 75% of a rating/ranking system), this makes sense to me and the committee it seems. Since I can’t find any published Quad breakdowns for teams during 1990 season, I came up with a simple version of good wins and bad losses. I defined good wins as those against top 25 teams and bad losses as those against .500 teams or worse. Not perfect I know, so If you have Quad record breakdowns for 1990 teams, I would love to see it.
So here is that information for OSU plus the six teams you mentioned.
Oregon State (5 seed)
RPI — 10
Final Reg Season AP — 22
Highest Reg Season AP — 16
Top 25 Record — 1-3
Bad Losses — 2
Michigan (3)
RPI — 11
Final Reg Season AP — 13
Highest Reg Season AP — 3
Top 25 Record — 6-5
Bad Losses — 1
Duke (3)
RPI — 13
Final Reg Season AP — 12
Highest Reg Season AP — 3
Top 25 Record — 3-4
Bad Losses — 0
Georgetown (3)
RPI — 14
Final Reg Season AP — 5
Highest Reg Season AP — 2
Top 25 Record — 3-3
Bad Losses — 0
Louisville (4)
RPI — 16
Final Reg Season AP — 18
Highest Reg Season AP — 4
Top 25 Record — 2-3
Bad Losses — 0
LaSalle (4)
RPI — 25
Final Reg Season AP — 11
Highest Reg Season AP — 11
Top 25 Record — 0-1
Bad Losses — 0
Arkansas (4)
RPI — 27
Final Reg Season AP — 9
Highest Reg Season AP — 3
Top 25 Record — 0-2
Bad Losses — 0
Looking at those numbers, I don’t know how you can honestly say the Beavers deserved a 3 seed. Unless of course the only tool you use for seeding is RPI. Should they have been a 4 seed? I think if you squint especially through orange-colored glasses, there is a case to be made off these numbers alone. But taking off my Beavers fan hat, I’d say committee probably got it right. And I don’t know what other tools/metrics were used for seeding.
So for Beavers, strictly our AP rank would have put us as a 6 seed. Our RPI moved us up as it should have, but not as high as we’d like because of the 2 bad losses and having only 1 good win and a .250 winning percentage against top 25 teams. That the one good win was in our third game of season and one of our bad losses took place in final game before selection day probably didn’t help. Further, we lost final game of regular season (though to ranked AZ) and our other bad loss was only 7 games before end of season. That means we lost final 2 games and were 4-3 in final 7 games with 2 bad losses. So Beavers were trending a bit downward. And I believe performance in final 10 games was still used by committee back then.
Fans believing their team got screwed with a worse seed than they deserved or not even making the tournament is nothing new. But Beavers should have been a 3 seed is next level stuff. Also, full disclosure, I hate the we lost to a team that was under-seeded whine. These days it’s usually wrapped up in KenPom numbers to “prove” it. It comes up pretty regularly on the Illini board especially with 2021 tournament (Loyola) but also 2022 (Houston). Of course with the former, I write that Beavers had no trouble with Loyola. You play the team(s) put in front of you. Quit whining when your team loses. Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the we were seeded too low around here when it comes to 2021 tourney. Guess that was the one tournament selection committee got right. Or maybe it was winning some games
|
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Feb 20, 2024 13:10:01 GMT -8
I'm a week late to this thread - but a couple years later, my roommate actually ended up contacting the athletic department and ultimately got us a VHS recording of the game for like $5. We wore that thing out. I feel like we went through a couple month bender of Keystone Light, Sega Genesis, the USC game. Details are blurry. Pretty sure it was fun though. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 20, 2024 13:23:25 GMT -8
I apologize to board for this lengthy post. Wilky — Like I said, I don’t think you understand how NCAA seeds teams for bball tourney or you are spiking your orange Kool-aid. But now I have to wonder if you know what RPI is and how it was used — or maybe I’ve been wrong all these years. I say that because as I understand it, RPI is a rating system that takes into consideration two things — a team’s record (25%) and its SOS (75%). That’s it. No advanced or efficiency metrics like NET (which is also not the only tool used for seeding now). So when you write “Duke finished with a worse record against a softer SOS” after already giving their RPI numbers, do you not know that that is what the RPI measures and if Duke has.a higher RPi of course that is true? Or do you think we don’t know that so we’ll think that is more “proof” for your argument? In either case, you seem to be under the impression that RPI ranking was the only tool used for seeding. It wasn’t nor was it ever intended to be. But that is the only way I can imagine that you think Oregon State should have been or ever had the chance to be a 3 seed. And you just need to look at this year’s RPI ratings to see it shouldn’t be the only tool used for seeding. As I write this, UConn is ranked 11th in RPI. If you think UConn should be a 3 seed in the tournament, I just don’t have a response cuz it’s ludicrous to anyone who has watched much bball. Other tools used in seeding then and now include AP poll and good wins and bad losses. It is easy to see below that AP poll was (and still is) an important tool. As someone who feels RPI is flawed because of its over reliance on SOS (a useful tool but should not be 75% of a rating/ranking system), this makes sense to me and the committee it seems. Since I can’t find any published Quad breakdowns for teams during 1990 season, I came up with a simple version of good wins and bad losses. I defined good wins as those against top 25 teams and bad losses as those against .500 teams or worse. Not perfect I know, so If you have Quad record breakdowns for 1990 teams, I would love to see it. So here is that information for OSU plus the six teams you mentioned. Oregon State (5 seed) RPI — 10 Final Reg Season AP — 22 Highest Reg Season AP — 16 Top 25 Record — 1-3 Bad Losses — 2 Michigan (3) RPI — 11 Final Reg Season AP — 13 Highest Reg Season AP — 3 Top 25 Record — 6-5 Bad Losses — 1 Duke (3) RPI — 13 Final Reg Season AP — 12 Highest Reg Season AP — 3 Top 25 Record — 3-4 Bad Losses — 0 Georgetown (3) RPI — 14 Final Reg Season AP — 5 Highest Reg Season AP — 2 Top 25 Record — 3-3 Bad Losses — 0 Louisville (4) RPI — 16 Final Reg Season AP — 18 Highest Reg Season AP — 4 Top 25 Record — 2-3 Bad Losses — 0 LaSalle (4) RPI — 25 Final Reg Season AP — 11 Highest Reg Season AP — 11 Top 25 Record — 0-1 Bad Losses — 0 Arkansas (4) RPI — 27 Final Reg Season AP — 9 Highest Reg Season AP — 3 Top 25 Record — 0-2 Bad Losses — 0 Looking at those numbers, I don’t know how you can honestly say the Beavers deserved a 3 seed. Unless of course the only tool you use for seeding is RPI. Should they have been a 4 seed? I think if you squint especially through orange-colored glasses, there is a case to be made off these numbers alone. But taking off my Beavers fan hat, I’d say committee probably got it right. And I don’t know what other tools/metrics were used for seeding. So for Beavers, strictly our AP rank would have put us as a 6 seed. Our RPI moved us up as it should have, but not as high as we’d like because of the 2 bad losses and having only 1 good win and a .250 winning percentage against top 25 teams. That the one good win was in our third game of season and one of our bad losses took place in final game before selection day probably didn’t help. Further, we lost final game of regular season (though to ranked AZ) and our other bad loss was only 7 games before end of season. That means we lost final 2 games and were 4-3 in final 7 games with 2 bad losses. So Beavers were trending a bit downward. And I believe performance in final 10 games was still used by committee back then. Fans believing their team got screwed with a worse seed than they deserved or not even making the tournament is nothing new. But Beavers should have been a 3 seed is next level stuff. Also, full disclosure, I hate the we lost to a team that was under-seeded whine. These days it’s usually wrapped up in KenPom numbers to “prove” it. It comes up pretty regularly on the Illini board especially with 2021 tournament (Loyola) but also 2022 (Houston). Of course with the former, I write that Beavers had no trouble with Loyola. You play the team(s) put in front of you. Quit whining when your team loses. Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the we were seeded too low around here when it comes to 2021 tourney. Guess that was the one tournament selection committee got right. Or maybe it was winning some games You can go back and read the projections, if you would like, but everyone had Oregon State in as a 12-seed as a best-case scenario in 2021. Personally, I think that Oregon State got very lucky to be paired with a Tennessee, who was without their power forward, and then got an overrated (but hot) Oklahoma State. Having Loyola upset Illinois helped a lot, as well, because it is difficult for me to imagine Oregon State beating Illinois. Luck ran out after that though, running into the best team from the bottom half of any of the four remaining brackets. Oregon State still had a shot, just not a great one against Houston. West Virginia, San Diego State, Rutgers, Syracuse, Morehead State, and Cleveland State were all much more beatable. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Feb 20, 2024 13:24:08 GMT -8
I'm a week late to this thread - but a couple years later, my roommate actually ended up contacting the athletic department and ultimately got us a VHS recording of the game for like $5. We wore that thing out. I feel like we went through a couple month bender of Keystone Light, Sega Genesis, the USC game. Details are blurry. Pretty sure it was fun though. Love this. What college sports is all about. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 20, 2024 13:34:12 GMT -8
I apologize to board for this lengthy post. Wilky — Like I said, I don’t think you understand how NCAA seeds teams for bball tourney or you are spiking your orange Kool-aid. But now I have to wonder if you know what RPI is and how it was used — or maybe I’ve been wrong all these years. I say that because as I understand it, RPI is a rating system that takes into consideration two things — a team’s record (25%) and its SOS (75%). That’s it. No advanced or efficiency metrics like NET (which is also not the only tool used for seeding now). So when you write “Duke finished with a worse record against a softer SOS” after already giving their RPI numbers, do you not know that that is what the RPI measures and if Duke has.a higher RPi of course that is true? Or do you think we don’t know that so we’ll think that is more “proof” for your argument? In either case, you seem to be under the impression that RPI ranking was the only tool used for seeding. It wasn’t nor was it ever intended to be. But that is the only way I can imagine that you think Oregon State should have been or ever had the chance to be a 3 seed. And you just need to look at this year’s RPI ratings to see it shouldn’t be the only tool used for seeding. As I write this, UConn is ranked 11th in RPI. If you think UConn should be a 3 seed in the tournament, I just don’t have a response cuz it’s ludicrous to anyone who has watched much bball. Other tools used in seeding then and now include AP poll and good wins and bad losses. It is easy to see below that AP poll was (and still is) an important tool. As someone who feels RPI is flawed because of its over reliance on SOS (a useful tool but should not be 75% of a rating/ranking system), this makes sense to me and the committee it seems. Since I can’t find any published Quad breakdowns for teams during 1990 season, I came up with a simple version of good wins and bad losses. I defined good wins as those against top 25 teams and bad losses as those against .500 teams or worse. Not perfect I know, so If you have Quad record breakdowns for 1990 teams, I would love to see it. So here is that information for OSU plus the six teams you mentioned. Oregon State (5 seed) RPI — 10 Final Reg Season AP — 22 Highest Reg Season AP — 16 Top 25 Record — 1-3 Bad Losses — 2 Michigan (3) RPI — 11 Final Reg Season AP — 13 Highest Reg Season AP — 3 Top 25 Record — 6-5 Bad Losses — 1 Duke (3) RPI — 13 Final Reg Season AP — 12 Highest Reg Season AP — 3 Top 25 Record — 3-4 Bad Losses — 0 Georgetown (3) RPI — 14 Final Reg Season AP — 5 Highest Reg Season AP — 2 Top 25 Record — 3-3 Bad Losses — 0 Louisville (4) RPI — 16 Final Reg Season AP — 18 Highest Reg Season AP — 4 Top 25 Record — 2-3 Bad Losses — 0 LaSalle (4) RPI — 25 Final Reg Season AP — 11 Highest Reg Season AP — 11 Top 25 Record — 0-1 Bad Losses — 0 Arkansas (4) RPI — 27 Final Reg Season AP — 9 Highest Reg Season AP — 3 Top 25 Record — 0-2 Bad Losses — 0 Looking at those numbers, I don’t know how you can honestly say the Beavers deserved a 3 seed. Unless of course the only tool you use for seeding is RPI. Should they have been a 4 seed? I think if you squint especially through orange-colored glasses, there is a case to be made off these numbers alone. But taking off my Beavers fan hat, I’d say committee probably got it right. And I don’t know what other tools/metrics were used for seeding. So for Beavers, strictly our AP rank would have put us as a 6 seed. Our RPI moved us up as it should have, but not as high as we’d like because of the 2 bad losses and having only 1 good win and a .250 winning percentage against top 25 teams. That the one good win was in our third game of season and one of our bad losses took place in final game before selection day probably didn’t help. Further, we lost final game of regular season (though to ranked AZ) and our other bad loss was only 7 games before end of season. That means we lost final 2 games and were 4-3 in final 7 games with 2 bad losses. So Beavers were trending a bit downward. And I believe performance in final 10 games was still used by committee back then. Fans believing their team got screwed with a worse seed than they deserved or not even making the tournament is nothing new. But Beavers should have been a 3 seed is next level stuff. Also, full disclosure, I hate the we lost to a team that was under-seeded whine. These days it’s usually wrapped up in KenPom numbers to “prove” it. It comes up pretty regularly on the Illini board especially with 2021 tournament (Loyola) but also 2022 (Houston). Of course with the former, I write that Beavers had no trouble with Loyola. You play the team(s) put in front of you. Quit whining when your team loses. Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the we were seeded too low around here when it comes to 2021 tourney. Guess that was the one tournament selection committee got right. Or maybe it was winning some games I responded to the end of your post. As for the rest of your post, the reason for the RPI is, in part, because of an a previous overreliance on supremely-flawed human polls. The RPI is bad but generally better than human polls, which are categorically atrocious in the early 90s. You can go back and read stuff about Oregon State in 1989-90, and they all bemoan Oregon State getting screwed in the human polls. And the reason why is because the games were often on late. Sports Illustrated made a point of highlighting that Payton and Oregon State were criminally underrated, because they are on late. They dedicated a cover and the primary article to Payton and Oregon State, because few others were talking about them nationally. To see you lean so heavily on human polls in your analysis is sad. Oregon State and Payton got no respect from the humans in 1989-90. And you are bringing up that disrespect to prove the point that they were not criminally underrated in 1989-90, when that is categorically untrue. We can talk data, but you are not going to convince me that the idiot media pollsters were correct their profoundly blatant anti-West Coast bias. Data tells me a different story, which I was trying summarize. Oregon State got screwed in the polls, because they were out West, and they got screwed in the bracket, because they were out West. RPI was making it better for Pac-10 teams (especially before the Pac-10 stupidly got rid of the Pac-10 Tournament), but had not gotten there yet in 1989-90. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 20, 2024 13:46:30 GMT -8
Lionel Simmons of La Salle won National Player of the Year Award over Payton. That should be all the evidence of West Coast bias you ever need.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 20, 2024 14:02:42 GMT -8
Lionel Simmons of La Salle won National Player of the Year Award over Payton. That should be all the evidence of West Coast bias you ever need. There were six National Player of the Year Awards given in 1990. Winners were: Naismith Lionel Simmons
AP Lionel SimmonsWooden Lionel Simmons
Robertson Lionel Simmons
NABC Lionel Simmons
The Sporting News gave their Player of the Year Award to Georgia Tech's Dennis Scott. Freaking joke! It is not lost on me that the East Coast Nets chose Derrick Coleman 1-1, allowing the West Coast Sonics to snatch up Payton at 1-2. Payton was the only future NBA Hall of Famer, who played domestically in 1990. |
|
|
|
Post by fridaynightlights on Feb 20, 2024 15:25:41 GMT -8
These are great memories for the over 40 crowd. Unfortunately, the under 40 crowds memories are mostly of losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 20, 2024 15:31:26 GMT -8
Lionel Simmons of La Salle won National Player of the Year Award over Payton. That should be all the evidence of West Coast bias you ever need. There were six National Player of the Year Awards given in 1990. Winners were: Naismith Lionel Simmons
AP Lionel SimmonsWooden Lionel Simmons
Robertson Lionel Simmons
NABC Lionel Simmons
The Sporting News gave their Player of the Year Award to Georgia Tech's Dennis Scott. Freaking joke! It is not lost on me that the East Coast Nets chose Derrick Coleman 1-1, allowing the West Coast Sonics to snatch up Payton at 1-2. Payton was the only future NBA Hall of Famer, who played domestically in 1990. It's not like Derrick Coleman was a bust. He still have a very good career despite battling numerous injuries. |
|
