|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 6, 2015 8:22:06 GMT -5
The fact that we would even talk about what might happen if we go under .500 the rest of the way just proves that we're all bracing for the annual limp through February and collapse in March. It seems like ever since 2008, when JTIII and Jeff Green declared February to be Georgetown's month, it's been anything but.* *Yes, I realize we've had some very good February wins. But on the whole, it seems like this is the time of the year when we all--the players included--forget that they can hang with teams like Wisconsin and Kansas, and instead spend weeks struggling against teams like Seton Hall (or old BE stalwarts Rutgers and UCF). Without doing any research of my own--because that's not my style--I'll suggest that those records, though not terrible in isolation, reflect more than a few disappointing losses given the very high quality wins that the teams picked up earlier in the season. In how many of those 6-2 (2), 3-4 (2), 4-3, 5-3 years did we have impressive OOC wins, only to lose very winnable games to mediocre competition in February? I'm not saying I'm giving up on this team. But I just think that we frequently head into the post-season on a downswing, rather than an up. But don't the vast majority of teams? Isn't it more unusual to actually blitz your way through the end of the season without a single loss to a middling team in the final stretch? I get the very, very best teams don't (the teams that get 1 seeds or 2 seeds), but probably one or two of them do too. Last year, Louisville, SD State, Mich St., and UCLA got 4 seeds in the tournament. I just picked that seed line because it's reflective of an excellent year -- one we'd be delighted to have. Well, in February last year: Louisville lost to Memphis and Cincy (two teams with RPIs worse than Provy's this year); S.D. State lost twice to New Mexico, and played no one else of note; Michigan State was 4-6 in February and March until the B10 Tourney (including a loss to, as you know, a middling Georgetown team); and UCLA was 6-4 before the PAC12 Tourney, including a loss to Oregon State, Oregon twice, and Stanford. The point is very good teams lose games to decent teams on a fairly regular basis.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Feb 6, 2015 8:38:59 GMT -5
Isn't the point just that we are capable of beating anyone, but also of losing to anybody int eh RPI top 30? Isn't that actually true of every team and really overall a pretty good place to be?
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Feb 6, 2015 8:42:58 GMT -5
Without doing any research of my own--because that's not my style--I'll suggest that those records, though not terrible in isolation, reflect more than a few disappointing losses given the very high quality wins that the teams picked up earlier in the season. In how many of those 6-2 (2), 3-4 (2), 4-3, 5-3 years did we have impressive OOC wins, only to lose very winnable games to mediocre competition in February? I'm not saying I'm giving up on this team. But I just think that we frequently head into the post-season on a downswing, rather than an up. Somebody already said it, but the point's valid: every decent team does this--they get some impressive OOC wins and lose some very winnable games to mediocre competition in February. If this weren't the case, college basketball would be extremely boring. My point here is there isn't much of a trend. Our records in February almost perfectly correspond to how well that year's team performed overall. The three teams with losing records (05, 09, 10) were two NIT teams and the one widely regarded as the most inconsistent. Really the only surprise in 10 years was that we had a winning record last February. I called it a mood ring because "February" gets brought up by folks on both sides of the delusion/cynical spectrum depending on the situation. After we take a bad loss, you're worried that "we're all bracing for the annual limp through February". If we pull off a couple good wins in a row, folks assume it's about to be 2007 all over again. Actually, to this day there's still a sort of fetish in preseason prediction threads for the mirror image of your quote above: the "we'll take a few lumps in the non-conference season, but we'll put it together and roll through February" 2006-7 redux. And neither sentiment appears to have a basis in the historical record.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Feb 6, 2015 10:15:23 GMT -5
I just want to chip in that the technical they called on Providence was one of the worst calls I have ever seen in any sport. That play was an obvious simple personal foul and NOTHING else. JT III should have told them not to waste their time going to the monitors, doing their little huddle, and all of the other garbage that happens in these situations. Of course the defensive player follows through on the block attempt at that point- it is the 100% correct play. There was nothing remotely dirty or malicious. It stinks that Jabril went down hard, but those are the breaks. Same thing would apply if Jabril had suffered a freak season-ending injury. Thank goodness that is not the case. Nonetheless, it was an awful, horrible, embarrassing call. I don't know....playing devils advocate Derosiers could've easily just aimed for a clothesline too. Easy to say he made a play on the ball, but that does not mask all intent
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Feb 6, 2015 11:05:51 GMT -5
It was a hit to the head, intent doesn't matter in today's rules.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Feb 6, 2015 11:13:54 GMT -5
It was a hit to the head, intent doesn't matter in today's rules. I mean, a flagrant is a judgement call so intent kind of does matter
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,539
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 6, 2015 11:19:54 GMT -5
It was a hit to the head, intent doesn't matter in today's rules. I mean, a flagrant is a judgement call so intent kind of does matter Here's the Rule Book so have at it.
|
|
hoyas1995
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,327
|
Post by hoyas1995 on Feb 6, 2015 11:29:28 GMT -5
Now that Ive had 36 hours to soak in the Providence loss, I'm starting to feel pretty good about an NCAA birth.
Let's look at the facts. No losses so far outside the Top 35, and nice wins against Villanova, Indiana, and Butler.
Really the only potentially debilitating loss would be at home to Depaul, which would crush our RPI.
I'm fairly confident our guys can win 3 or 4 games (hoping for more) to round out the season.
I can see us in the scary 8/9 game
|
|
beenaround
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,474
|
Post by beenaround on Feb 6, 2015 11:48:49 GMT -5
I used to look at the brackets to project what games were "scary" for us. I think most agree with me...at this point ANY game we play in the tourney is dam scary!
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Feb 6, 2015 12:31:02 GMT -5
I mean, a flagrant is a judgement call so intent kind of does matter Here's the Rule Book so have at it. They called a dead ball technical, not a flagrant. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 contact technical foul.We can argue until the cows come home but I don't think anyone's changing anyone's mind. I wouldn't have called it, and I would bet that if we had lost on a call like that there would be several dozen posts in this thread about it along with a five-page officiating conspiracy thread. The dead ball technical's worse because it's 2 for the shooter for the personal, 2 for anyone for the technical, then the ball, rather than just 2 and the ball. Seems excessive for what it was, but I'm not sure it comes up often enough to get a rule change.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Feb 6, 2015 12:32:12 GMT -5
Now that Ive had 36 hours to soak in the Providence loss, I'm starting to feel pretty good about an NCAA birth. Let's look at the facts. No losses so far outside the Top 35, and nice wins against Villanova, Indiana, and Butler. Really the only potentially debilitating loss would be at home to Depaul, which would crush our RPI. I'm fairly confident our guys can win 3 or 4 games (hoping for more) to round out the season. I can see us in the scary 8/9 game Our numbers still look good, but we now will likely be slotted behind Prov and prbably Xavier too. If Butler beats us again, we're behind them as well. And Nova is clearly a lock (though a win over them tomorrow could put this whole discussion almost to bed). Our remaining schedule is basically a tussle between three teams that are still clawing for those at large bids. 4 with St. Johns and Seton Hall. We need to split those at worst, otherwise we are squarely on the bubble, IMO. Tons of work left to do. The recent home losses hurt.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Feb 6, 2015 12:33:25 GMT -5
Now that Ive had 36 hours to soak in the Providence loss, I'm starting to feel pretty good about an NCAA birth. Let's look at the facts. No losses so far outside the Top 35, and nice wins against Villanova, Indiana, and Butler. Really the only potentially debilitating loss would be at home to Depaul, which would crush our RPI. I'm fairly confident our guys can win 3 or 4 games (hoping for more) to round out the season. I can see us in the scary 8/9 game Our numbers still look good, but forecasting ahead to selection Sunday, we now will likely be slotted behind Prov and probably Xavier too. If Butler beats us again, we're behind them as well. And Nova is clearly a lock (though a win over them tomorrow could put this whole discussion almost to bed). Our remaining schedule is basically a tussle between three teams that are still clawing for those at large bids. 4 with St. Johns and Seton Hall. We need to split those at worst, otherwise we are squarely on the bubble, IMO. Tons of work left to do. The recent home losses hurt.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Feb 6, 2015 12:41:21 GMT -5
They called a dead ball technical, not a flagrant. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 contact technical foul.We can argue until the cows come home but I don't think anyone's changing anyone's mind. I wouldn't have called it, and I would bet that if we had lost on a call like that there would be several dozen posts in this thread about it along with a five-page officiating conspiracy thread. The dead ball technical's worse because it's 2 for the shooter for the personal, 2 for anyone for the technical, then the ball, rather than just 2 and the ball. Seems excessive for what it was, but I'm not sure it comes up often enough to get a rule change. Okay, but I'm not arguing that it should've been called, just that there's a subjective nature to making those calls, especially since your first verdict is strictly based off of real-time action.?
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Feb 6, 2015 13:16:50 GMT -5
They called a dead ball technical, not a flagrant. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 contact technical foul.We can argue until the cows come home but I don't think anyone's changing anyone's mind. I wouldn't have called it, and I would bet that if we had lost on a call like that there would be several dozen posts in this thread about it along with a five-page officiating conspiracy thread. The dead ball technical's worse because it's 2 for the shooter for the personal, 2 for anyone for the technical, then the ball, rather than just 2 and the ball. Seems excessive for what it was, but I'm not sure it comes up often enough to get a rule change. Okay, but I'm not arguing that it should've been called, just that there's a subjective nature to making those calls, especially since your first verdict is strictly based off of real-time action.? I mean it was after the whistle and a guy got knocked to the ground. I watched the replay and was wrong about the blow to the head but it is clearly after the play got blown dead. Should Jabril have not gone for a lay-up, maybe, but there wasn't much time to stop and he was already moving. Could Derosiers have moved out of the way, maybe, not entirely, but he didn't have to lower his arms onto Jabril. Obviously the whole encounter happened because Jabril does and was looking for contact, Derosiers was sick of it and didn't want him to go for an easy lay-up/dunk post whistle and neither man backed down. Unfortunately for Derosiers, it's the defensive player's fault and a hard foul after the whistle will always be worse then a regular foul, be it in the eyes of the official during the game or according to the rules after the game. Anyway, the call is pretty subjective and it was a bang-bang play. Thats why they looked at the replay.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,743
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 6, 2015 14:56:01 GMT -5
Now that Ive had 36 hours to soak in the Providence loss, I'm starting to feel pretty good about an NCAA birth. Let's look at the facts. No losses so far outside the Top 35, and nice wins against Villanova, Indiana, and Butler. Really the only potentially debilitating loss would be at home to Depaul, which would crush our RPI. I'm fairly confident our guys can win 3 or 4 games (hoping for more) to round out the season. I can see us in the scary 8/9 game Our numbers still look good, but we now will likely be slotted behind Prov and prbably Xavier too. If Butler beats us again, we're behind them as well. And Nova is clearly a lock (though a win over them tomorrow could put this whole discussion almost to bed). Our remaining schedule is basically a tussle between three teams that are still clawing for those at large bids. 4 with St. Johns and Seton Hall. We need to split those at worst, otherwise we are squarely on the bubble, IMO. Tons of work left to do. The recent home losses hurt. The selection committee doesn't really look at head to head like that. They will look at overall resume. They don't limit a conference to numbers of bids. If our resume is good enough, we'll get in. If it is better than Providence's, it won't matter much that they beat us twice head to head.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 6, 2015 15:12:32 GMT -5
Our numbers still look good, but we now will likely be slotted behind Prov and prbably Xavier too. If Butler beats us again, we're behind them as well. And Nova is clearly a lock (though a win over them tomorrow could put this whole discussion almost to bed). Our remaining schedule is basically a tussle between three teams that are still clawing for those at large bids. 4 with St. Johns and Seton Hall. We need to split those at worst, otherwise we are squarely on the bubble, IMO. Tons of work left to do. The recent home losses hurt. The selection committee doesn't really look at head to head like that. They will look at overall resume. They don't limit a conference to numbers of bids. If our resume is good enough, we'll get in. If it is better than Providence's, it won't matter much that they beat us twice head to head. Head-to-head definitely doesn't matter. Remember 2002 when we found ourselves squarely on the bubble on Selection Sunday with conference mate Boston College. We had the advantage of having smoked them by 30 points on the road that season and finished above them in the conference standings. They had a slightly higher RPI - both right around 40 coming into the big day. According to Pomeroy - who wasn't available then, but it's fascinating nonetheless - we were way better, ranking 35 to their 70. In the end, our name wasn't called but BC was. We subsequently declined the NIT invitation. God times were dark back then.
|
|
hoyas1995
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,327
|
Post by hoyas1995 on Feb 6, 2015 15:51:37 GMT -5
The selection committee doesn't really look at head to head like that. They will look at overall resume. They don't limit a conference to numbers of bids. If our resume is good enough, we'll get in. If it is better than Providence's, it won't matter much that they beat us twice head to head. Head-to-head definitely doesn't matter. Remember 2002 when we found ourselves squarely on the bubble on Selection Sunday with conference mate Boston College. We had the advantage of having smoked them by 30 points on the road that season and finished above them in the conference standings. They had a slightly higher RPI - both right around 40 coming into the big day. According to Pomeroy - who wasn't available then, but it's fascinating nonetheless - we were way better, ranking 35 to their 70. In the end, our name wasn't called but BC was. We subsequently declined the NIT invitation. God times were dark back then. I think you can thank Esherick for scheduling a game against a non-D1 opponent Marymount that didnt count as a huge reason we didnt go. If you look at the 01-02 results a little more closely I don't think we deserved to go. We beat 2 Top 25 teams all season (both in January), won 4 games against MEAC schools, lost a game at Rutgers we had locked up, and lost another head scratcher in OT at Villanova. We won the games we should have won, but failed to beat Pitt twice, Miami twice, UCONN, and the 4OT loss to Notre Dame. I think if we had won ANY of the aforementioned losses we could have gotten in the 02 tourney.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 6, 2015 19:00:01 GMT -5
Head-to-head definitely doesn't matter. Remember 2002 when we found ourselves squarely on the bubble on Selection Sunday with conference mate Boston College. We had the advantage of having smoked them by 30 points on the road that season and finished above them in the conference standings. They had a slightly higher RPI - both right around 40 coming into the big day. According to Pomeroy - who wasn't available then, but it's fascinating nonetheless - we were way better, ranking 35 to their 70. In the end, our name wasn't called but BC was. We subsequently declined the NIT invitation. God times were dark back then. I think you can thank Esherick for scheduling a game against a non-D1 opponent Marymount that didnt count as a huge reason we didnt go. If you look at the 01-02 results a little more closely I don't think we deserved to go. We beat 2 Top 25 teams all season (both in January), won 4 games against MEAC schools, lost a game at Rutgers we had locked up, and lost another head scratcher in OT at Villanova. We won the games we should have won, but failed to beat Pitt twice, Miami twice, UCONN, and the 4OT loss to Notre Dame. I think if we had won ANY of the aforementioned losses we could have gotten in the 02 tourney. Esherick's horrible OOC scheduling definitely hurt those teams' chances of making the tournament. I am glad we are beyond those days.
|
|
beenaround
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,474
|
Post by beenaround on Feb 6, 2015 22:10:38 GMT -5
Head-to-head definitely doesn't matter. Remember 2002 when we found ourselves squarely on the bubble on Selection Sunday with conference mate Boston College. We had the advantage of having smoked them by 30 points on the road that season and finished above them in the conference standings. They had a slightly higher RPI - both right around 40 coming into the big day. According to Pomeroy - who wasn't available then, but it's fascinating nonetheless - we were way better, ranking 35 to their 70. In the end, our name wasn't called but BC was. We subsequently declined the NIT invitation. God times were dark back then. I think you can thank Esherick for scheduling a game against a non-D1 opponent Marymount that didnt count as a huge reason we didnt go. If you look at the 01-02 results a little more closely I don't think we deserved to go. We beat 2 Top 25 teams all season (both in January), won 4 games against MEAC schools, lost a game at Rutgers we had locked up, and lost another head scratcher in OT at Villanova. We won the games we should have won, but failed to beat Pitt twice, Miami twice, UCONN, and the 4OT loss to Notre Dame. I think if we had won ANY of the aforementioned losses we could have gotten in the 02 tourney. He scheduled the way Big John did. It didn't hurt him as much, since the teams were generally much better, and I'm not sure RPI was used back in the day?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,743
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 6, 2015 22:26:39 GMT -5
I think you can thank Esherick for scheduling a game against a non-D1 opponent Marymount that didnt count as a huge reason we didnt go. If you look at the 01-02 results a little more closely I don't think we deserved to go. We beat 2 Top 25 teams all season (both in January), won 4 games against MEAC schools, lost a game at Rutgers we had locked up, and lost another head scratcher in OT at Villanova. We won the games we should have won, but failed to beat Pitt twice, Miami twice, UCONN, and the 4OT loss to Notre Dame. I think if we had won ANY of the aforementioned losses we could have gotten in the 02 tourney. He scheduled the way Big John did. It didn't hurt him as much, since the teams were generally much better, and I'm not sure RPI was used back in the day? Pops' scheduling was smart for the '80s. His sons' scheduling is the right for now (and frankly, since at least the late 90s).
|
|