KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Feb 10, 2016 23:12:19 GMT -5
Well after tonight things have gotten very interesting. Seton Hall and Providence losing actually gives us a chance to finish second in the BE. Gotta feel like the jockey at the Derby who suddenly sees an opening on the rail. The question is does he have enough horse to take advantage of it? I don't see us overtaking Xavier for second but third is certainly there for the taking.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Feb 11, 2016 8:32:38 GMT -5
Providence dropped to 36 in the RPI and Seton Hall dropped out. Those teams have tough schedules and we and Butler do as well. Maybe that's a good thing in the battle for 3rd place, but it seems like there is more and more of a chance that only 3, and maybe even 2 teams in the BE finish in the top 50. That's pretty ugly. The Committee will probably still take 4 teams, but a 5th team with only 2-3 top 50 wins is not looking good.
What's crazy is that, yeah, I think we have the best oppurtunity to get the best quality wins. All of games would be good wins.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 11, 2016 8:59:49 GMT -5
If only four (or three) Big East teams make it this year, which is certainly possible, the league really needs to do what it can to improve the overall non-conference schedule. The league has done well in past years, but not so much this year.
Marquette and Creighton -- both of which are (subjectively) decent teams -- completely killed themselves (and by extension the rest of the league) with their non-conference slate. Both team's OOC strength of schedule is right around 300th in the country. That basically disqualifies you from at-large contention if you're anywhere near the bubble. Both played at least a couple of high-profile good games, so that's not the issue. But the rest of their schedule was horrific. Creighton played 13 OOC games. Only four were against the top 150 and five were over 250. Marquette's is even more inexcusable. They played more decent teams (and performed reasonably well against them) but they scheduled some of the very worst teams in Division I. Like Creighton, it was five over 250, but four of those were over 300! (To put it in perspective, Bryant and Brown are the worst teams on our schedule both right around 300; MD-ES and Charlotte are the only other teams even over 200.) They don't need to upgrade to what we did this year, but it needs to be better.
Butler's was nearly as bad, playing four 300+ teams. (I give SH a pass....their overall schedule was pretty bad, but it's primarily because they didn't end up scheduling anyone really top-end rather than because they scheduled a bunch of dreks. To me that's more excusable than scheduling teams you know are going to be 300+ teams.)
It's just a killer to the league when this happens. It gives a team like Butler limited margin for error once they get in the league (and the same for SH). And it makes any league team's losses to Marquette and Creighton look worse than they subjectively should be. If both those teams simply trade two of their 300 level teams for merely bad teams (200-250), Creighton would be seriously fighting for a bid right now and Marquette would be a solidly top 100 team.
|
|
|
Post by goyahoya69 on Feb 11, 2016 9:31:59 GMT -5
our game AT marquette later this season is becoming more and more scary/annoying for me.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Feb 11, 2016 9:38:41 GMT -5
our game AT marquette later this season is becoming more and more scary/annoying for me. Yeah, we play the other 5 teams competing for a tourney spot and at Marquette, who is always dangerous at home. Let's say my hopes are not really high for our finish....
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Feb 11, 2016 9:39:01 GMT -5
I said back before the season started that the 3rd place team in the BE would have at least 6 losses. It's still there for the taking if these kids can pull it together. A 2nd win over Xavier would be huge. We'll still need a couple of BE tourney wins.
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,350
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 11, 2016 10:14:21 GMT -5
If only four (or three) Big East teams make it this year, which is certainly possible, the league really needs to do what it can to improve the overall non-conference schedule. The league has done well in past years, but not so much this year. Marquette and Creighton -- both of which are (subjectively) decent teams -- completely killed themselves (and by extension the rest of the league) with their non-conference slate. Both team's OOC strength of schedule is right around 300th in the country. That basically disqualifies you from at-large contention if you're anywhere near the bubble. Both played at least a couple of high-profile good games, so that's not the issue. But the rest of their schedule was horrific. Creighton played 13 OOC games. Only four were against the top 150 and five were over 250. Marquette's is even more inexcusable. They played more decent teams (and performed reasonably well against them) but they scheduled some of the very worst teams in Division I. Like Creighton, it was five over 250, but four of those were over 300! (To put it in perspective, Bryant and Brown are the worst teams on our schedule both right around 300; MD-ES and Charlotte are the only other teams even over 200.) They don't need to upgrade to what we did this year, but it needs to be better. Butler's was nearly as bad, playing four 300+ teams. (I give SH a pass....their overall schedule was pretty bad, but it's primarily because they didn't end up scheduling anyone really top-end rather than because they scheduled a bunch of dreks. To me that's more excusable than scheduling teams you know are going to be 300+ teams.) It's just a killer to the league when this happens. It gives a team like Butler limited margin for error once they get in the league (and the same for SH). And it makes any league team's losses to Marquette and Creighton look worse than they subjectively should be. If both those teams simply trade two of their 300 level teams for merely bad teams (200-250), Creighton would be seriously fighting for a bid right now and Marquette would be a solidly top 100 team. I absolutely agree with your assessment insofar as making the conference numbers stronger over all. This year, however, we shouldn't exactly be pointing fingers at other teams for reasons why the conference may get only a few teams in the tournament when the Hoyas didn't exactly "take care of business" OOC. We beat no legitimately good teams and it looks like our win against Syracuse will be discounted by the no-Boeheim factor. Throw in some really bad losses, and, despite our stronger SOS, we did the conference no favors. I'd argue that our losses did more to hurt the conference image than poor OOC scheduling by Creighton and Marquette, and way more than Butler's OOC.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 11, 2016 11:13:53 GMT -5
If only four (or three) Big East teams make it this year, which is certainly possible, the league really needs to do what it can to improve the overall non-conference schedule. The league has done well in past years, but not so much this year. Marquette and Creighton -- both of which are (subjectively) decent teams -- completely killed themselves (and by extension the rest of the league) with their non-conference slate. Both team's OOC strength of schedule is right around 300th in the country. That basically disqualifies you from at-large contention if you're anywhere near the bubble. Both played at least a couple of high-profile good games, so that's not the issue. But the rest of their schedule was horrific. Creighton played 13 OOC games. Only four were against the top 150 and five were over 250. Marquette's is even more inexcusable. They played more decent teams (and performed reasonably well against them) but they scheduled some of the very worst teams in Division I. Like Creighton, it was five over 250, but four of those were over 300! (To put it in perspective, Bryant and Brown are the worst teams on our schedule both right around 300; MD-ES and Charlotte are the only other teams even over 200.) They don't need to upgrade to what we did this year, but it needs to be better. Butler's was nearly as bad, playing four 300+ teams. (I give SH a pass....their overall schedule was pretty bad, but it's primarily because they didn't end up scheduling anyone really top-end rather than because they scheduled a bunch of dreks. To me that's more excusable than scheduling teams you know are going to be 300+ teams.) It's just a killer to the league when this happens. It gives a team like Butler limited margin for error once they get in the league (and the same for SH). And it makes any league team's losses to Marquette and Creighton look worse than they subjectively should be. If both those teams simply trade two of their 300 level teams for merely bad teams (200-250), Creighton would be seriously fighting for a bid right now and Marquette would be a solidly top 100 team. I absolutely agree with your assessment insofar as making the conference numbers stronger over all. This year, however, we shouldn't exactly be pointing fingers at other teams for reasons why the conference may get only a few teams in the tournament when the Hoyas didn't exactly "take care of business" OOC. We beat no legitimately good teams and it looks like our win against Syracuse will be discounted by the no-Boeheim factor. Throw in some really bad losses, and, despite our stronger SOS, we did the conference no favors. I'd argue that our losses did more to hurt the conference image than poor OOC scheduling by Creighton and Marquette, and way more than Butler's OOC. In terms of not doing our part and league perception, that's certainly fair if we don't qualify, no question. Even then, though, I still think what they did was worse. We didn't execute, but we at least put ourselves in position to do what we needed to do by making the proper decisions. They didn't give themselves a chance (and, by extension, didn't give us and the others in the league as much of a chance).
|
|
|
Post by michaeldm9 on Feb 11, 2016 11:45:51 GMT -5
Why are all these scenarios being discussed. If the team has not played into shape where they can win the BE tournament, They don't deserve to be there. It will just be another early round exit. They have to win BE tournament.
|
|
lda05816
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 606
|
Post by lda05816 on Feb 11, 2016 13:07:10 GMT -5
I actually think Creighton beating X hurts us. It takes a little bit of shine off of our X win (although it being on the road is huge) and that probably moves Creighton ahead of us on the bubble. Lunardi does not show the Hoyas on his first 8 out on the Bracketology updated today. With the amount of good wins we can pick up the rest of the way, this team doesn't need to win the BET for a bid at the moment. However, I'm not optimistic on picking up many W's the rest of the way and think eventually that will be the only route to the dance.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 11, 2016 13:25:41 GMT -5
I actually think Creighton beating X hurts us. It takes a little bit of shine off of our X win (although it being on the road is huge) and that probably moves Creighton ahead of us on the bubble. Lunardi does not show the Hoyas on his first 8 out on the Bracketology updated today. With the amount of good wins we can pick up the rest of the way, this team doesn't need to win the BET for a bid at the moment. However, I'm not optimistic on picking up many W's the rest of the way and think eventually that will be the only route to the dance. Creighton beating X may hurt us, but Creighton has not passed us in terms of consideration at present, at least in my view. We have more wins against and more total games against the top 50. We have two more top 100 wins than they do. Our two "bad" losses are to teams in the 100s; they have one fewer bad loss but it's to a significantly worse team than anyone we lost to (Loyola-Ill, albeit on the road). Same conference record and split head-to-head (miraculously, I recognize). They are ranked higher than us in the better rankings systems (Pomeroy, for example, and Sagarin), but it's reasonably close. The only other thing in their favor is a better overall record, but as noted, that's against an abysmal schedule, which the committee historically factors heavily. I know Lunardi disagrees with me, and if it were wholly up to me (on the basis of criteria of my choosing) I may well have them ahead of us, but I don't think the Committee would.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2016 13:39:52 GMT -5
Why are all these scenarios being discussed. If the team has not played into shape where they can win the BE tournament, They don't deserve to be there. It will just be another early round exit. They have to win BE tournament. Repeat after me. There. Is. No. Platonic. Ideal. Of. A. NCAA. Tournament. Team. We don't have to meet some standard to get in, we just need to be one of the 34 best teams that don't get an auto-bid. Not to mention that high seeds make the Sweet 16 all the time, even if they didn't play well in their conference tournament. For example, NC State was 10-8 in the ACC and lost by 22 points in the second round of the ACC tournament last year. They got an 8 seed and went to the Sweet 16. In 2014, Tennessee went 11-7 in the SEC, lost in the second round of the SEC tournament, were sent to Dayton as an 11 seed and made the Sweet 16.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Feb 11, 2016 13:49:59 GMT -5
Why are all these scenarios being discussed. If the team has not played into shape where they can win the BE tournament, They don't deserve to be there. It will just be another early round exit. They have to win BE tournament. Repeat after me. There. Is. No. Platonic. Ideal. Of. A. NCAA. Tournament. Team. We don't have to meet some standard to get in, we just need to be one of the 34 best teams that don't get an auto-bid. Not to mention that high seeds make the Sweet 16 all the time, even if they didn't play well in their conference tournament. For example, NC State was 10-8 in the ACC and lost by 22 points in the second round of the ACC tournament last year. They got an 8 seed and went to the Sweet 16. In 2014, Tennessee went 11-7 in the SEC, lost in the second round of the SEC tournament, were sent to Dayton as an 11 seed and made the Sweet 16. I don't think it will happen, as I actually think we just aren't very good, but we are overdue - long overdue - for this type of scenario. Last time we did it was 2006 - before that, maybe 1995?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2016 13:53:00 GMT -5
Repeat after me. There. Is. No. Platonic. Ideal. Of. A. NCAA. Tournament. Team. We don't have to meet some standard to get in, we just need to be one of the 34 best teams that don't get an auto-bid. Not to mention that high seeds make the Sweet 16 all the time, even if they didn't play well in their conference tournament. For example, NC State was 10-8 in the ACC and lost by 22 points in the second round of the ACC tournament last year. They got an 8 seed and went to the Sweet 16. In 2014, Tennessee went 11-7 in the SEC, lost in the second round of the SEC tournament, were sent to Dayton as an 11 seed and made the Sweet 16. I don't think it will happen, as I actually think we just aren't very good, but we are overdue - long overdue - for this type of scenario. Last time we did it was 2006 - before that, maybe 1995? 2001 is the best example. We were a #10 seed that year, and got lucky in that the #15 seed knocked off the #2 seed. We were a #7 seed in 2006.
|
|
wnyhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 497
|
Post by wnyhoya on Feb 11, 2016 13:55:11 GMT -5
Not sure if anyone has noticed this but UNC Wilmington, as it currently stands, is a top 100 win for us. They're at 77 in the RPI, one spot behind us.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldm9 on Feb 11, 2016 14:49:50 GMT -5
Why are all these scenarios being discussed. If the team has not played into shape where they can win the BE tournament, They don't deserve to be there. It will just be another early round exit. They have to win BE tournament. Repeat after me. There. Is. No. Platonic. Ideal. Of. A. NCAA. Tournament. Team. We don't have to meet some standard to get in, we just need to be one of the 34 best teams that don't get an auto-bid. Not to mention that high seeds make the Sweet 16 all the time, even if they didn't play well in their conference tournament. For example, NC State was 10-8 in the ACC and lost by 22 points in the second round of the ACC tournament last year. They got an 8 seed and went to the Sweet 16. In 2014, Tennessee went 11-7 in the SEC, lost in the second round of the SEC tournament, were sent to Dayton as an 11 seed and made the Sweet 16. You right TBird. I agree. If I start letting myself think like you I am sure to get my heart broken. Heart is already been broken from the season, But allow myself to believe that can make a NCAA run. Can't do it.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Feb 11, 2016 16:07:12 GMT -5
I actually think Creighton beating X hurts us. It takes a little bit of shine off of our X win (although it being on the road is huge) and that probably moves Creighton ahead of us on the bubble. Lunardi does not show the Hoyas on his first 8 out on the Bracketology updated today. With the amount of good wins we can pick up the rest of the way, this team doesn't need to win the BET for a bid at the moment. However, I'm not optimistic on picking up many W's the rest of the way and think eventually that will be the only route to the dance. Creighton beating X may hurt us, but Creighton has not passed us in terms of consideration at present, at least in my view. We have more wins against and more total games against the top 50. We have two more top 100 wins than they do. Our two "bad" losses are to teams in the 100s; they have one fewer bad loss but it's to a significantly worse team than anyone we lost to (Loyola-Ill, albeit on the road). Same conference record and split head-to-head (miraculously, I recognize). They are ranked higher than us in the better rankings systems (Pomeroy, for example, and Sagarin), but it's reasonably close. The only other thing in their favor is a better overall record, but as noted, that's against an abysmal schedule, which the committee historically factors heavily. I know Lunardi disagrees with me, and if it were wholly up to me (on the basis of criteria of my choosing) I may well have them ahead of us, but I don't think the Committee would. Has Lunardi actually said Creighton is ahead of us? If he did, I'm sure it's slight. I think he probably agrees what you said. Creighton is pretty deep in most bubble looks and I think we are too, but slightly ahead of them. The thing we have for us is our remaining schedule. That's what we gotta keep clinging to.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2016 16:27:52 GMT -5
Creighton beating X may hurt us, but Creighton has not passed us in terms of consideration at present, at least in my view. We have more wins against and more total games against the top 50. We have two more top 100 wins than they do. Our two "bad" losses are to teams in the 100s; they have one fewer bad loss but it's to a significantly worse team than anyone we lost to (Loyola-Ill, albeit on the road). Same conference record and split head-to-head (miraculously, I recognize). They are ranked higher than us in the better rankings systems (Pomeroy, for example, and Sagarin), but it's reasonably close. The only other thing in their favor is a better overall record, but as noted, that's against an abysmal schedule, which the committee historically factors heavily. I know Lunardi disagrees with me, and if it were wholly up to me (on the basis of criteria of my choosing) I may well have them ahead of us, but I don't think the Committee would. Has Lunardi actually said Creighton is ahead of us? If he did, I'm sure it's slight. I think he probably agrees what you said. Creighton is pretty deep in most bubble looks and I think we are too, but slightly ahead of them. The thing we have for us is our remaining schedule. That's what we gotta keep clinging to. Hope is a dangerous thing, especially when it rests entirely on winning a lot of tough conference games.
|
|
|
Post by grandmahoya on Feb 11, 2016 16:53:33 GMT -5
We have a weapon we didn't have earlier in the Season, and that is Isaac Copeland. LJ has become a star and we have a lot more confidence than we had in our early games. The final 6 games are like a separate Season and we have to win 3 or 4 out of the six, which we can do, excluding Villanova on the road, which ain't happening. But we have 3 home games that are winnable, if we play with intensity. I can dream, can't I?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2016 17:09:37 GMT -5
We have a weapon we didn't have earlier in the Season, and that is Isaac Copeland. LJ has become a star and we have a lot more confidence than we had in our early games. The final 6 games are like a separate Season and we have to win 3 or 4 out of the six, which we can do, excluding Villanova on the road, which ain't happening. But we have 3 home games that are winnable, if we play with intensity. I can dream, can't I? If the 2009 Hoyas could beat Final Four bound Nova in Philly on the last day of February, why can't this team? It doesn't make any sense, but it could happen (to be fair, we may have used up our inexplicable win already at Xavier).
|
|