hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,419
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Dec 15, 2017 16:14:13 GMT -5
I'd love for the program police to explain to us what manner of subject is both relevant to this season and not a dead horse. Literally the only thing we have to talk about is the schedule since we have no reasonable yardstick to see how good or bad this team is, whether there's been any real growth or development from the players, or how this system works in real college basketball. Jesse Govan's development is about as concrete as string theory or dark matter at this point - who the hell knows what we have, it's all theoretical until Saturday. Agreed. It is a message board...people can post on any relevant topic they want. Not to mention, the rumor is that if we hit 50k posts on the subject, Kansas will be on our schedule next week. So a few more to go. hm
|
|
professorhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,523
Member is Online
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:00:27 GMT -5
Super Hard Schedule vs Bubble Stats under III.
2016-2017: 14-18 SOS (9.31) Bubble Missed Tourney 2015-2016: 15-18 SOS (8.49) Bubble Missed Tourney 2013-2014: 18-15 SOS (8.27) Bubble Missed Tourney 2008-2009: 16-15 SOS (8.97) Bubble Missed Tourney Every other year of the JTIII super hard schedule we had over 20 wins and easily made the tourney based on wins: (approximate record before tournament) 05: 21-9 06: 26-6 07: 27-5 09: 23-10 10: 20-10 11: 23-8 12: 24-6 14: 21-10
So as you can see, everytime we were on the bubble the super hard schedule did not help us get into the tourney.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,858
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 15, 2017 17:07:16 GMT -5
Super Hard Schedule vs Bubble Stats under III. 2016-2017: 14-18 SOS (9.31) Bubble Missed Tourney 2015-2016: 15-18 SOS (8.49) Bubble Missed Tourney 2013-2014: 18-15 SOS (8.27) Bubble Missed Tourney 2008-2009: 16-15 SOS (8.97) Bubble Missed Tourney Every other year of the JTIII super hard schedule we had over 20 wins and easily made the tourney based on wins: (approximate record before tournament) 05: 21-9 06: 26-6 07: 27-5 09: 23-10 10: 20-10 11: 23-8 12: 24-6 14: 21-10 So as you can see, everytime we were on the bubble the super hard schedule did not help us get into the tourney. Isn't the reason they didn't get in due to their records? Which were bad to terrible in those seasons.. Cant' expect to get in with a 15+ loss season.. I don't get this line of thinking at all..
|
|
professorhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,523
Member is Online
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:11:38 GMT -5
Super Hard Schedule vs Bubble Stats under III. 2016-2017: 14-18 SOS (9.31) Bubble Missed Tourney 2015-2016: 15-18 SOS (8.49) Bubble Missed Tourney 2013-2014: 18-15 SOS (8.27) Bubble Missed Tourney 2008-2009: 16-15 SOS (8.97) Bubble Missed Tourney Every other year of the JTIII super hard schedule we had over 20 wins and easily made the tourney based on wins: (approximate record before tournament) 05: 21-9 06: 26-6 07: 27-5 09: 23-10 10: 20-10 11: 23-8 12: 24-6 14: 21-10 So as you can see, everytime we were on the bubble the super hard schedule did not help us get into the tourney. Isn't the reason they didn't get in due to their records? Which were bad to terrible in those seasons.. Cant' expect to get in with a 15+ loss season.. I don't get this line of thinking at all.. They were on the bubble in those seasons. Yet IIIs super hard schedule never helped them get in the tourney. Not once did the super hard schedule help us for bubble purposes. Super hard SOS only helped us get a higher seeding in the tourney. Which is beneficial in theory but we messed it up by losing to lower seeds. But the argument being put forth now is that the hard SOS will help us with the bubble. And the data does not show that.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,263
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:18:47 GMT -5
Isn't the reason they didn't get in due to their records? Which were bad to terrible in those seasons.. Cant' expect to get in with a 15+ loss season.. I don't get this line of thinking at all.. They were on the bubble in those seasons. Yet IIIs super hard schedule never helped them get in the tourney. Not once did the super hard schedule help us for bubble purposes. Super hard SOS only helped us get a higher seeding in the tourney. Which is beneficial in theory but we messed it up by losing to lower seeds. But the argument being put forth now is that the hard SOS will help us with the bubble. And the data does not show that. We were not on the bubble the last two seasons. In fact, we weren't even in the NIT's bubble last year.
|
|
professorhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,523
Member is Online
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:22:39 GMT -5
They were on the bubble in those seasons. Yet IIIs super hard schedule never helped them get in the tourney. Not once did the super hard schedule help us for bubble purposes. Super hard SOS only helped us get a higher seeding in the tourney. Which is beneficial in theory but we messed it up by losing to lower seeds. But the argument being put forth now is that the hard SOS will help us with the bubble. And the data does not show that. We were not on the bubble the last two seasons. In fact, we weren't even in the NIT's bubble last year. Go back and read the posts from the last two years. All we talked about for most of the season is how we were a bubble team and how the super hard SOS was going to help us out.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,858
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 15, 2017 17:23:55 GMT -5
Isn't the reason they didn't get in due to their records? Which were bad to terrible in those seasons.. Cant' expect to get in with a 15+ loss season.. I don't get this line of thinking at all.. They were on the bubble in those seasons. Yet IIIs super hard schedule never helped them get in the tourney. Not once did the super hard schedule help us for bubble purposes. Super hard SOS only helped us get a higher seeding in the tourney. Which is beneficial in theory but we messed it up by losing to lower seeds. But the argument being put forth now is that the hard SOS will help us with the bubble. And the data does not show that. Gtown was on the bubble during the season in those years but they weren't on the bubble on selection Sunday.. That's the difference Professor, they fell off the bubble due to poor performance..
|
|
professorhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,523
Member is Online
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:28:07 GMT -5
They were on the bubble in those seasons. Yet IIIs super hard schedule never helped them get in the tourney. Not once did the super hard schedule help us for bubble purposes. Super hard SOS only helped us get a higher seeding in the tourney. Which is beneficial in theory but we messed it up by losing to lower seeds. But the argument being put forth now is that the hard SOS will help us with the bubble. And the data does not show that. Gtown was on the bubble during the season in those years but they weren't on the bubble on selection Sunday.. That's the difference Professor, they fell off the bubble due to poor performance.. Do you not agree that 18-15 with a super hard SOS is a bubble team?
|
|
boxout05
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 572
|
Post by boxout05 on Dec 15, 2017 17:34:28 GMT -5
2013-2014 we finished BE play 17-14 and were told we would have made the tournament BECAUSE of our SOS and "total body of work" if we had just beaten Fricken' Depaul opening night of the BET. That should be Exhibit 1 of SOS helping.
Limiting this to just JTIII's experiences is foolish too. Every year the committee penalizes teams for not challening themselves OOC (Seth Greenberg, Wojo's early teams, etc.).
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,263
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:36:51 GMT -5
We were not on the bubble the last two seasons. In fact, we weren't even in the NIT's bubble last year. Go back and read the posts from the last two years. All we talked about for most of the season is how we were a bubble team and how the super hard SOS was going to help us out. The only time the bubble counts is right before conference tournament week (mid to late February) and into March. Last year, GU blew any chance of being a bubble team with the losing streak in February and March. We didn't even sniff the NIT bubble.
|
|
boxout05
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 572
|
Post by boxout05 on Dec 15, 2017 17:42:03 GMT -5
2015-2016: Marquette 20-13 overall, 8-10 BE RPI: 110 OOC SOS: 330 OOC RPI: 42 No postseason
2013-2014: Georgetown 17-14 overall, 8-10 BE RPI: 66 OOC SOS: 26 OOC RPI: 58 NIT 4 seed
|
|
professorhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,523
Member is Online
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:43:55 GMT -5
2015-2016: Marquette 20-13 overall, 8-10 BE RPI: 110 OOC SOS: 330 OOC RPI: 42 No postseason 2013-2014: Georgetown 17-14 overall, 8-10 BE RPI: 66 OOC SOS: 26 OOC RPI: 58 NIT 4 seed So what you are saying is hard SOS really only helps for NIT bids. Honestly I could care less about the NIT.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,858
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 15, 2017 17:44:37 GMT -5
Gtown was on the bubble during the season in those years but they weren't on the bubble on selection Sunday.. That's the difference Professor, they fell off the bubble due to poor performance.. Do you not agree that 18-15 with a super hard SOS is a bubble team? No, I don't agree.. Especially when that team was 8-10 in conference..
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,263
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 15, 2017 17:44:44 GMT -5
2013-2014 we finished 18-15 and were told we would have made the tournament BECAUSE of our SOS and "total body of work" if we had just beaten Fricken' Depaul opening night of the BET. That should be Exhibit 1 of SOS helping. Limiting this to just JTIII's experiences is foolish too. Every year the committee penalizes teams for not challening themselves OOC (Seth Greenberg, Wojo's early teams, etc.). With a DePaul W, we would have ended up with 9-9 instead of 8-10. That plus the strong SOS gets us in.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 15, 2017 19:58:56 GMT -5
If we end up as a bubble team this season and fail to reach the NCAA tournament due to our ridiculous OOC schedule, it will nevertheless have been an amazingly successful first season as coach for Ewing. I think we can all agree to that. And hopefully he will then learn that scheduling one of the worst OOC schedules in the history of college basketball isn't a route to future success. Dilly Dilly!
|
|
SFOHoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 500
|
Post by SFOHoya on Dec 15, 2017 21:13:06 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Dec 15, 2017 23:22:09 GMT -5
Laura Wagner is still terrible and only writes awful stuff about us, film at 11
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 15, 2017 23:53:43 GMT -5
Laura Wagner is still terrible and only writes awful stuff about us, film at 11 Not to mention that her final paragraph sort of torpedoes the entire article.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Dec 16, 2017 0:09:59 GMT -5
Not to mention that her final paragraph sort of torpedoes the entire article. If you want to write a piece about how historically bad the schedule is, and compare it to other schedules to try to sort out the scale and maybe try to prove that the schedule is the worst of all time - I think that's an interesting piece. That's taking Georgetown's schedule and showing it is newsworthy. She doesn't do that. She tries to rip Ewing's motivation for playing this schedule and show it is self-defeating in eliminating us from postseason play, but then admits in the last sentence that we'll be lucky to win 5 games. Ewing's absolutely right - I hate the schedule as much as anyone but do we really think Mac McClung cares what our RPI is this year? This is just ripping on your Alma Mater for Friday afternoon filler. I get that it's Deadspin, but there's no reason we should like her for what she's doing.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 16, 2017 0:15:55 GMT -5
Not to mention that her final paragraph sort of torpedoes the entire article. If you want to write a piece about how historically bad the schedule is, and compare it to other schedules to try to sort out the scale and maybe try to prove that the schedule is the worst of all time - I think that's an interesting piece. That's taking Georgetown's schedule and showing it is newsworthy. She doesn't do that. She tries to rip Ewing's motivation for playing this schedule but then admits in the last sentence that we'll be lucky to win 5 games. Ewing's absolutely right - I hate the schedule as much as anyone but do we really think Mac McClung cares what our RPI is this year? This is just ripping on your Alma Mater for Friday afternoon filler. I get that it's Deadspin, but there's no reason we should like her for what she's doing. Agreed. She could do a follow-up by showing up at the game tomorrow and asking Boeheim about the finer points of soft, home-based scheduling for sake of comparison.
|
|