George Mason is the only Final Four team in that group in the season Hofstra beat them. You can have the names. I'll go by the quality of the team. Perception matters for the casual fan who doesn't follow that closely and only knows program names. For those who actually follow the sport closely, it's very different.Polito wrote:Oh well, hoping the Bruins improve as the yr goes on - believe they will.
I get it Wags on Mason, but name matters - it's all about perception, it's reality as the saying goes. That was def a great W that gave HU some solid attention as GMU was a ranked team at the time, but it was at home and against a mid major (ranking aside). These are the best of the modern era IMO, in no order yet:
GT
UCLA
St Johns
FSU
GMU
Next would be like St Bon, La Salle types. Ranking those is prob subjective
That was an 11-16 Rutgers team.Dooku25 wrote:If we are talking about wins against power conferences let's not forget beating Rutgers back to back years at MSG.. also beat Nebraska in 06 NIT
I agree that GT shouldn't be on top of the last. The 2015-2016 win at St. Bonaventure who went 22-9 should be above that. We came up a little short in a 69-67 overtime loss at VCU in 2018-2019 and a 71-70 loss at South Florida in 2014-2015. Mid-major fans aren't the only ones who talk like the best wins have to be against the best conferences. If you had a transcript of every word from every announcer, there would be wins called "upsets" by major team, major conference, and/or supposedly neutral announcers when the mid-major was better in all the formulas.Wags wrote:George Mason is the only Final Four team in that group in the season Hofstra beat them. You can have the names. I'll go by the quality of the team. Perception matters for the casual fan who doesn't follow that closely and only knows program names. For those who actually follow the sport closely, it's very different.Polito wrote: Oh well, hoping the Bruins improve as the yr goes on - believe they will.
I get it Wags on Mason, but name matters - it's all about perception, it's reality as the saying goes. That was def a great W that gave HU some solid attention as GMU was a ranked team at the time, but it was at home and against a mid major (ranking aside). These are the best of the modern era IMO, in no order yet:
GT
UCLA
St Johns
FSU
GMU
Next would be like St Bon, La Salle types. Ranking those is prob subjective
Also, it's hard to take seriously the shouting done every March that mids don't get a fair shake vs. P5s in terms of selection and/or seeding when I see list like the one above, with a 15-16 Georgia Tech team at the top of the list four spots ahead of a George Mason team that was nationally ranked and which played in the Final Four. Those two things don't square with each other.
I'm not disagreeing with the opinion that the George Mason wins are best in school history. They probably are. The first one at home while they were nationally ranked in coaches poll is probably the highest ranked opponent HU has ever defeated. And to say HU beat a final 4 team twice in the same year holds alot of weight.Wags wrote:That was an 11-16 Rutgers team.Dooku25 wrote:If we are talking about wins against power conferences let's not forget beating Rutgers back to back years at MSG.. also beat Nebraska in 06 NIT
Hofstra (3 seed, at home) was supposed to beat Nebraska (6 seed).
Again, big wins in "brand name" only.
Well in that case then the biggest non-con win we've ever had was beating Kent State back in '02 when they went to the Elite 8. Nobody has even brought that one up.Wags wrote:George Mason is the only Final Four team in that group in the season Hofstra beat them. You can have the names. I'll go by the quality of the team. Perception matters for the casual fan who doesn't follow that closely and only knows program names. For those who actually follow the sport closely, it's very different.
Also, it's hard to take seriously the shouting done every March that mids don't get a fair shake vs. P5s in terms of selection and/or seeding when I see list like the one above, with a 15-16 Georgia Tech team at the top of the list four spots ahead of a George Mason team that was nationally ranked and which played in the Final Four. Those two things don't square with each other.
Both can be true. The UCLA win is big, even historic. And it can still not be one of the top 3-4 wins in school history. The first George Mason win, and maybe the second (along with others) are probably bigger. The Kent State win should also be mentioned. Not mentioning Kent State actually proves my point as much as failing to mention Geroge Mason... that in the recalling the greatest wins in Hofstra history, we're more apt to mention a win over a Georgia Tech team that ended up 15-16 than a win over a Kent State team that went 30-6 and reached the Elite 8. We ascribe "great wins" to beating big names more than basing it on the quality of the opponent. But those Mason and Kent State teams were flat out better than those Georgia Tech, Penn or Rutgers teams. That's a surprising and inconsistent angle for the same group of fans who (perhaps rightfully) cry every March that P5s are unfairly favored over mids.Dooku25 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with the opinion that the George Mason wins are best in school history. They probably are. The first one at home while they were nationally ranked in coaches poll is probably the highest ranked opponent HU has ever defeated. And to say HU beat a final 4 team twice in the same year holds alot of weight.Wags wrote:That was an 11-16 Rutgers team.Dooku25 wrote:If we are talking about wins against power conferences let's not forget beating Rutgers back to back years at MSG.. also beat Nebraska in 06 NIT
Hofstra (3 seed, at home) was supposed to beat Nebraska (6 seed).
Again, big wins in "brand name" only.
But also a win against any power conference opponent regardless of if those teams were having a down year is still a big win for school like Hofstra. The Big East and Big 12 are recruiting a higher caliber of athlete so even in a down year they should be capable of beating good Hofstra teams. I'll take a win again power conference teams any day of the week. Did you see the faces of all of the UCLA players and coaches while shaking hands at the end of game? They were in stunned disbelief that they just lost to Hofstra. It's not supposed to happen regardless of if UCLA has a strong team or not this year. It's definitely a great win, historic win for us.
Even if UCLA finishes in the bottom third or bottom quarter of the Pac-12 this year (they were picked 8th)? You're not a great team simply because others who wore the same uniform before you were great. Years, eras are different, even within the same school sometimes. Same for the NBA. This year's Spurs are nowhere near the great Spurs we saw for about a two-decade stretch merely because they're same franchise.HUSID74 wrote:UCLA is up there with NC, Kentucky, Duke and Kansas. That is the Mt. Rushmore of college basketball.
Beating one of those programs is truly HISTORIC for Hofstra.
The others pale in comparison.
Not sure there's an 'argument' though, I think we're speaking to very different things.Okay, if you don't believe me, ask the NCAAT committee. If you're a mid-major bubble team, what helps your NCAAT resume more? That you beat another nationally-ranked, mid-major NCAAT-bound team, or that you beat some .500 NIT-bound P5 "big name" team? If Richmond (5-1 now) is on the bubble this year, it's going to help them way more if they beat VCU (6-0, ranked 20th now) once or twice than their win over Wisconsin (4-3 and struggling right now). That's just a fact.Polito wrote:You are clearly hell bent on winning this one Wags
Please reread my post, I specifically said the list was NOT in order. That's the first thing, so you and others can stop harping on ranking lol.
Second, I also said this is about perception. You are speaking about stats. These are two very different categories, so I don't think there's a big one is right and one is wrong here.
I know you know this, no one gives a rats rear about who 'technically' was better. I loved beating a ranked GMU team on our floor that eventually went to the FF. But the rest of the world, yes even those who really pay attention as you stated, would not note that win as being a historic one. Just a fact. You as a purist and statistician might. But others won't.
It is absolutely about the name on the jersey. I think this bothers you, but take that up with the world lol. That's the way it is. Beating GT, SJU, UCLA, FSU, Nebraska in the NIT, etc, these are all way more important and way 'bigger' wins for this program than beating a conf foe. Why? Because those programs have more tradition, more history, better talent, and bigger budgets. GMU was mostly on HU's level for all at the time.
It's literally why the Bracketbuster games were created, remember?
Name matters here just like brands matter when buying clothes. You can tell me all day long that H&M stuff is just as good as Hugo Boss, but that doesn't mean a daggone thing to me or the public. I think Louis Vitton bags are a rippoff with literally nothing in them except the basic outside material, but that doesn't change the popularity, desire to own, or the image of higher income that comes with it. Red bottom shoes for woman is basically a nice paint job lol. But having Louboutins means a helluva lot more than some Kors. It's the way it is bud. Perception is reality. Repeat it, and accept it.
Yeah, somewhere above, I said the same about the casual fan and it being different to the fan who actually follows college hoops closely (like those here). I don't care about the casual fan because a couple of days later, they'll completely forget about a win like that and won't recall it later on.stuball888 wrote:Wags to the NCAa committee you are right To the casual its all about name recognition Mist casual fans cant tell you where Hofstra or George Mason is but they know who and where UCLA is
Louis Vitton and Louboutins? You've lost me, Polito.Polito wrote:You are clearly hell bent on winning this one Wags
Please reread my post, I specifically said the list was NOT in order. That's the first thing, so you and others can stop harping on ranking lol.
Second, I also said this is about perception. You are speaking about stats. These are two very different categories, so I don't think there's a big one is right and one is wrong here.
I know you know this, no one gives a rats rear about who 'technically' was better. I loved beating a ranked GMU team on our floor that eventually went to the FF. But the rest of the world, yes even those who really pay attention as you stated, would not note that win as being a historic one. Just a fact. You as a purist and statistician might. But others won't.
It is absolutely about the name on the jersey. I think this bothers you, but take that up with the world lol. That's the way it is. Beating GT, SJU, UCLA, FSU, Nebraska in the NIT, etc, these are all way more important and way 'bigger' wins for this program than beating a conf foe. Why? Because those programs have more tradition, more history, better talent, and bigger budgets. GMU was mostly on HU's level for all at the time.
Name matters here just like brands matter when buying clothes. You can tell me all day long that H&M stuff is just as good as Hugo Boss, but that doesn't mean a daggone thing to me or the public. I think Louis Vitton bags are a rippoff with literally nothing in them except the basic outside material, but that doesn't change the popularity, desire to own, or the image of higher income that comes with it. Red bottom shoes for woman is basically a nice paint job lol. But having Louboutins means a helluva lot more than some Kors. It's the way it is bud. Perception is reality. Repeat it, and accept it.
