guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,595
|
Post by guru on Jan 31, 2019 15:36:04 GMT -5
Nebraska played a weak SOS and went 0-8 against Group I teams (for comparison, we're projected to have an SOS of 85 and have already won 2 Group I teams). -Penn State had an SOS north of 100, had 21 wins, and only beat OSU in the top-50 (x3). They also lost 3 in a row to end the regular season. -USC came out of the terrible PAC-?? and had one win over a top-50 team (Middle Tennessee). Again, we've already got that and would need more to get to 22 wins. -Utah had the same PAC-?? problem, two total wins over the top-50 (Arizona State and Mizzou, both at home). -Oregon came out of the historically bad PAC-??, had an SOS north of 100, beat two teams in the top-50 (Arizona and ASUx2) while losing to UConn (100+), Washington State (183 at home late in the season), and Oregon State (168) (worse than us, who have two 100+ losses to 105 LMU and 169 SMU). -Washington went 3-6 in their last 9 and came out of the weak PAC-?? (and didn't get to the 22 we're talking about). -Mississippi State had a SOS north of 100 and likewise struggled down the stretch going 4-5 in their last 9 games. So yes - not only did the PAC-??'s reputation destroy a lot of hopes, failure to actually win anything (which we've matched and would surpass if we got to 22 wins), weaker schedules overall, and weak finishes down the stretch mean that they can be differentiated from where Georgetown would be at the end of the day. Not to mention our issues with injuries, etc., would be taken into account. ETA: I think it highly unlikely we get there, but if we make the tournament, I think we're a year ahead of even the most optimistic fan's schedule. - Nebraska also had only 2 losses against Q2-Q4 teams, whereas we have 5 already and could get more. Nebraska's SoS was 96 last year, and even if we are projected at 85, that's awfully close. - USC had only 1 Q2 loss, and 1 Q3 loss. We have 3 Q2 losses, 1 Q3, and 1 Q4. - Utah may have only had one top 50 win, but if you use KenPom, we also have only 1. Even using RPI, we have 2 so far. Definitely an area where we can improve if we win some good games, though. - On Oregon, their SoS was 90, so you're wrong there. They had 4 Q1 wins and 6 Q2 wins. We will not get to those numbers. On the flip side, they also had a bunch of losses in Q2 and Q3. - Washington's SoS was 41, and they had 7 Q1/Q2 wins. So despite the PAC 12 being bad, they still played a strong schedule, that's not what kept them out. - Mississippi State did have a SoS of 101, but again, they had 4 Q1 and 6 Q2 wins, and no Q3-Q4 losses. Lots of fans thought we had a chance at the tournament coming into this year, too, so I don't think you're right about being ahead a year for even the most optimistic fans. You don't need to go game by game. The difference in conference ratings is huge - that's why those Pac 12 and Big Ten teams didn't get in. And it's why any 11 win Big East team will get in this season. Pretty simple, really. More (though it's not needed): A scenario that gets us to 11 conference wins likely includes a marquee win over a top 3/4 level NCAA tourney seed. And trying to say that making the tournament this season wouldn't put them ahead of schedule borders on trollish. It's simply untrue that "lots of fans" thought we'd make the tournament this season. Patently false.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 31, 2019 15:46:40 GMT -5
Lots of fans thought we had a chance at the tournament coming into this year, too, so I don't think you're right about being ahead a year for even the most optimistic fans. You don't need to go game by game. The difference in conference ratings is huge - that's why those Pac 12 and Big Ten teams didn't get in. And it's why any 11 win Big East team will get in this season. Pretty simple, really. And trying to say that making the tournament this season wouldn't put them ahead of schedule borders on trollish. It's simply untrue that "lots of fans" thought we'd make the tournament this season. Patently false. First, before I even saw this, I deleted that line from my post because I knew it would cause an overreaction. Second, there were multiple fans who said a tournament bid could be a possibility if things went well, including from some well respected posters. Go back to September/October and read. Third, he said "I think we're a year ahead of even the most optimistic fan's schedule." That's just patently false given that multiple posters had optimistic scenarios of us making it this year. Would that be a reasonable expectation? No, but it makes sense as an optimistic one. But, history has shown you will nitpick anything you can that I say, so go ahead. This is silly. You are absolutely right that the Pac 12 was worse last year than the Big East in 2019. And yes in RPI, the Big Ten last year (0.5523) was worse than the Big East this year (0.5753). For what it's worth, that's not true on KenPom. The Big 10 last year was +13.76, and Big East this year is +11.52. So under that metric, Big 10 2018 was better than 2019. Which means it's probably largely similar.
|
|
lda05816
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 604
|
Post by lda05816 on Jan 31, 2019 15:51:23 GMT -5
Nebraska played a weak SOS and went 0-8 against Group I teams (for comparison, we're projected to have an SOS of 85 and have already won 2 Group I teams). -Penn State had an SOS north of 100, had 21 wins, and only beat OSU in the top-50 (x3). They also lost 3 in a row to end the regular season. -USC came out of the terrible PAC-?? and had one win over a top-50 team (Middle Tennessee). Again, we've already got that and would need more to get to 22 wins. -Utah had the same PAC-?? problem, two total wins over the top-50 (Arizona State and Mizzou, both at home). -Oregon came out of the historically bad PAC-??, had an SOS north of 100, beat two teams in the top-50 (Arizona and ASUx2) while losing to UConn (100+), Washington State (183 at home late in the season), and Oregon State (168) (worse than us, who have two 100+ losses to 105 LMU and 169 SMU). -Washington went 3-6 in their last 9 and came out of the weak PAC-?? (and didn't get to the 22 we're talking about). -Mississippi State had a SOS north of 100 and likewise struggled down the stretch going 4-5 in their last 9 games. So yes - not only did the PAC-??'s reputation destroy a lot of hopes, failure to actually win anything (which we've matched and would surpass if we got to 22 wins), weaker schedules overall, and weak finishes down the stretch mean that they can be differentiated from where Georgetown would be at the end of the day. Not to mention our issues with injuries, etc., would be taken into account. ETA: I think it highly unlikely we get there, but if we make the tournament, I think we're a year ahead of even the most optimistic fan's schedule. - Nebraska also had only 2 losses against Q2-Q4 teams, whereas we have 5 already and could get more. Nebraska's SoS was 96 last year, and even if we are projected at 85, that's awfully close. - USC had only 1 Q2 loss, and 1 Q3 loss. We have 3 Q2 losses, 1 Q3, and 1 Q4. - Utah may have only had one top 50 win, but if you use KenPom, we also have only 1. Even using RPI, we have 2 so far. Definitely an area where we can improve if we win some good games, though. - On Oregon, their SoS was 90, so you're wrong there. They had 4 Q1 wins and 6 Q2 wins. We will not get to those numbers. On the flip side, they also had a bunch of losses in Q2 and Q3. - Washington's SoS was 41, and they had 7 Q1/Q2 wins. So despite the PAC 12 being bad, they still played a strong schedule, that's not what kept them out. - Mississippi State did have a SoS of 101, but again, they had 4 Q1 and 6 Q2 wins, and no Q3-Q4 losses. The bigger overall point is that once you get to the bubble and beyond you can make lots of arguments, but ultimately, our resume wouldn't be materially different from many of these teams above (and in some cases worse), even if we go 11-7. If we did that, would there be arguments for our inclusion? Sure, but so would a lot of other similar teams that played stronger schedules, and that have "good wins" on their resume that we may not have. I think most of us realize our resume needs some serious work to be in consideration. We don’t have a Q4 loss tho.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 31, 2019 15:57:06 GMT -5
We don’t have a Q4 loss tho. I agree it seems like we don't, but a lot of websites list us with a Q4 loss (like Haslametrics and Warren Nolan). What am I missing? EDIT: I see the official team sheet says we have no Q4 losses. So I don't know what's going on with those other sites.
|
|
|
Post by tribeninerhoya on Jan 31, 2019 15:58:51 GMT -5
Nebraska played a weak SOS and went 0-8 against Group I teams (for comparison, we're projected to have an SOS of 85 and have already won 2 Group I teams). -Penn State had an SOS north of 100, had 21 wins, and only beat OSU in the top-50 (x3). They also lost 3 in a row to end the regular season. -USC came out of the terrible PAC-?? and had one win over a top-50 team (Middle Tennessee). Again, we've already got that and would need more to get to 22 wins. -Utah had the same PAC-?? problem, two total wins over the top-50 (Arizona State and Mizzou, both at home). -Oregon came out of the historically bad PAC-??, had an SOS north of 100, beat two teams in the top-50 (Arizona and ASUx2) while losing to UConn (100+), Washington State (183 at home late in the season), and Oregon State (168) (worse than us, who have two 100+ losses to 105 LMU and 169 SMU). -Washington went 3-6 in their last 9 and came out of the weak PAC-?? (and didn't get to the 22 we're talking about). -Mississippi State had a SOS north of 100 and likewise struggled down the stretch going 4-5 in their last 9 games. So yes - not only did the PAC-??'s reputation destroy a lot of hopes, failure to actually win anything (which we've matched and would surpass if we got to 22 wins), weaker schedules overall, and weak finishes down the stretch mean that they can be differentiated from where Georgetown would be at the end of the day. Not to mention our issues with injuries, etc., would be taken into account. ETA: I think it highly unlikely we get there, but if we make the tournament, I think we're a year ahead of even the most optimistic fan's schedule. - Nebraska also had only 2 losses against Q2-Q4 teams, whereas we have 5 already and could get more. Nebraska's SoS was 96 last year, and even if we are projected at 85, that's awfully close. - USC had only 1 Q2 loss, and 1 Q3 loss. We have 3 Q2 losses, 1 Q3, and 1 Q4. - Utah may have only had one top 50 win, but if you use KenPom, we also have only 1. Even using RPI, we have 2 so far. Definitely an area where we can improve if we win some good games, though. - On Oregon, their SoS was 90, so you're wrong there. They had 4 Q1 wins and 6 Q2 wins. We will not get to those numbers. On the flip side, they also had a bunch of losses in Q2 and Q3. - Washington's SoS was 41, and they had 7 Q1/Q2 wins. So despite the PAC 12 being bad, they still played a strong schedule, that's not what kept them out. - Mississippi State did have a SoS of 101, but again, they had 4 Q1 and 6 Q2 wins, and no Q3-Q4 losses. The bigger overall point is that once you get to the bubble and beyond you can make lots of arguments, but ultimately, our resume wouldn't be materially different from many of these teams above (and in some cases worse), even if we go 11-7. If we did that, would there be arguments for our inclusion? Sure, but so would a lot of other similar teams that played stronger schedules, and that have "good wins" on their resume that we may not have. You're using SOS after their post-season play, which isn't pertinent to when the selection committee made their decision. For example, Oregon's SOS was 90 after playing #67 Rider and @#68 Marquette in the NIT. Just like Washington's was that high after playing @#28 St. Mary's and #47 Boise State. They still finished 3-6 in their last 9 before selection happened. Same with Nebraska, which didn't crack the top-100 until after playing @#70 Mississippi State. As to the wins, we know we need higher profile wins, but hopefully those would come with getting to 22.
|
|
lda05816
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 604
|
Post by lda05816 on Jan 31, 2019 16:00:59 GMT -5
We don’t have a Q4 loss tho. I agree it seems like we don't, but a lot of websites list us with a Q4 loss (like Haslametrics and Warren Nolan). What am I missing? I believe the committee bases the Quad losses off of NET rankings. According to our Warran Nolan NET Sheet we have none. If I’m incorrect in how that works, I apologize.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,595
|
Post by guru on Jan 31, 2019 16:06:04 GMT -5
You don't need to go game by game. The difference in conference ratings is huge - that's why those Pac 12 and Big Ten teams didn't get in. And it's why any 11 win Big East team will get in this season. Pretty simple, really. And trying to say that making the tournament this season wouldn't put them ahead of schedule borders on trollish. It's simply untrue that "lots of fans" thought we'd make the tournament this season. Patently false. First, before I even saw this, I deleted that line from my post because I knew it would cause an overreaction. Second, there were multiple fans who said a tournament bid could be a possibility if things went well, including from some well respected posters. Go back to September/October and read. Third, he said "I think we're a year ahead of even the most optimistic fan's schedule." That's just patently false given that multiple posters had optimistic scenarios of us making it this year. Would that be a reasonable expectation? No, but it makes sense as an optimistic one. But, history has shown you will nitpick anything you can that I say, so go ahead. This is silly. You are absolutely right that the Pac 12 was worse last year than the Big East in 2019. And yes in RPI, the Big Ten last year (0.5523) was worse than the Big East this year (0.5753). For what it's worth, that's not true on KenPom. The Big 10 last year was +13.76, and Big East this year is +11.52. So under that metric, Big 10 2018 was better than 2019. Which means it's probably largely similar. I don't remember many - if any - posters that were counting on an NCAA tourney bid this season. But I didn't frequent the board in the offseason so maybe I missed it. Your kenpom comparison doesn't matter - it's not a metric looked at by the committee. The RPI is (or was). Do the NET rankings also rank by conference? I'm not sure.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2019 16:11:16 GMT -5
Straight up we need wins and our metrics to go up. LMU or SMU could be a q4 loss. You need q1 wins to balance out those q3/q4 losses. We have two, need 1-2 more at the minimum. Our NET needs to go up to a more respectable number around 20 higher at the minimum. Thirdly, you need to win games. I don't love this conversation now with over 50% of the big east games left and 5 against consensus tournament teams. The next few games on our schedule are absolutely loaded with games including at Providence with AJ Reeves, at Seton Hall, 2 against Nova and home to Xavier and Butler. That's the main stretch, if you take 3-4 of those and the metrics rise, I'd have a hard time seeing how this team isn't on the right side of the bubble at that time. Tonight is a crucial one, and it looks as if 4 of the next 5 will be q1 games. This is the make or break stretch, I'm excited to see what damage we can do!
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 31, 2019 16:13:37 GMT -5
You don't need to go game by game. The difference in conference ratings is huge - that's why those Pac 12 and Big Ten teams didn't get in. And it's why any 11 win Big East team will get in this season. Pretty simple, really. And trying to say that making the tournament this season wouldn't put them ahead of schedule borders on trollish. It's simply untrue that "lots of fans" thought we'd make the tournament this season. Patently false. First, before I even saw this, I deleted that line from my post because I knew it would cause an overreaction. Second, there were multiple fans who said a tournament bid could be a possibility if things went well, including from some well respected posters. Go back to September/October and read. Third, he said "I think we're a year ahead of even the most optimistic fan's schedule." That's just patently false given that multiple posters had optimistic scenarios of us making it this year. Would that be a reasonable expectation? No, but it makes sense as an optimistic one. But, history has shown you will nitpick anything you can that I say, so go ahead. This is silly. You are absolutely right that the Pac 12 was worse last year than the Big East in 2019. And yes in RPI, the Big Ten last year (0.5523) was worse than the Big East this year (0.5753). For what it's worth, that's not true on KenPom. The Big 10 last year was +13.76, and Big East this year is +11.52. So under that metric, Big 10 2018 was better than 2019. Which means it's probably largely similar. There is a difference between saying we were expected to content for a tourny spot, like what I am understanding Guru is saying with us being a head of schedule and what you are saying with some people thought it was possible we could make the tourny. I think looking at the program in Spring 2017, its fair to say making the NCAA tournament in 2019 would have us far ahead of schedule. Which, I believe, is Guru's point.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 31, 2019 16:42:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by practice on Jan 31, 2019 16:55:40 GMT -5
Win a little more ... finish top 3 or 4 in BE ... league is going to get 3-5 teams in ...
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Jan 31, 2019 17:02:05 GMT -5
Win a little more ... finish top 3 or 4 in BE ... league is going to get 3-5 teams in ... Right now, it’s a possible 2-bid league. Way too many games left to predict.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,649
|
Post by seaweed on Jan 31, 2019 17:05:09 GMT -5
JUST KEEP WINNING
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Jan 31, 2019 17:15:10 GMT -5
Bingo. I was ready to throw in the towel with a loss to SJU.
Now I’m back on the delirious happy wavy gravy train.
Can’t imagine what tomorrow shall bring...
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2019 17:20:49 GMT -5
Win a little more ... finish top 3 or 4 in BE ... league is going to get 3-5 teams in ... Right now, it’s a possible 2-bid league. Way too many games left to predict. With how bad the A-10, Pac-12, and AAC have been 2 is unrealistic. The Big 10 has beaten up on Nebraska, Ohio St. and Indiana. I can't see a way to get to 68 with those counted in and only 2 BE teams unless the committee recognizes the little guys significantly more than ever before. Even with all of the potential bid stealers, I still see 4-5.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 31, 2019 17:40:05 GMT -5
Right now, it’s a possible 2-bid league. Way too many games left to predict. With how bad the A-10, Pac-12, and AAC have been 2 is unrealistic. The Big 10 has beaten up on Nebraska, Ohio St. and Indiana. I can't see a way to get to 68 with those counted in and only 2 BE teams unless the committee recognizes the little guys significantly more than ever before. Even with all of the potential bid stealers, I still see 4-5. www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketologyNo doubt, if the Big East gets only 2 bids it'll be because several Big East teams are near the bubble. But, look at Lunardi's latest bracket from a few days ago. You can easily imagine St. John's and Seton Hall falling off, and something like Arizona State, VCU, or Alabama getting in. If you grant that the Big East will definitely get 2 bids, getting 4 or 5 bids instead is only a few more teams, so it's easy to see how other conference teams that could fit. Of course, the exact number of at larges will depend on whether there are upsets in the auto-bids for some of the mid-major conferences, too.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 31, 2019 17:59:37 GMT -5
With how bad the A-10, Pac-12, and AAC have been 2 is unrealistic. The Big 10 has beaten up on Nebraska, Ohio St. and Indiana. I can't see a way to get to 68 with those counted in and only 2 BE teams unless the committee recognizes the little guys significantly more than ever before. Even with all of the potential bid stealers, I still see 4-5. www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketologyNo doubt, if the Big East gets only 2 bids it'll be because several Big East teams are near the bubble. But, look at Lunardi's latest bracket from a few days ago. You can easily imagine St. John's and Seton Hall falling off, and something like Arizona State, VCU, or Alabama getting in. If you grant that the Big East will definitely get 2 bids, getting 4 or 5 bids instead is only a few more teams, so it's easy to see how other conference teams that could fit. Of course, the exact number of at larges will depend on whether there are upsets in the auto-bids for some of the mid-major conferences, too. You neglect to mention that Butler and Creighton are on his last four out. This is why I think 2 Big East teams in the dance is possible but unlikely. As some Big East teams fall, it will be because another bubble Big East team is rising in its place. Sure, it could work out that we only get two in, but its more likely that we get 3-4 (Plus Georgetown as an at large bid of course) as other Big East teams are likely to be benefitting from other teams bubbles popping. Its just a matter of which ones and how much work they have to do based on where they are now.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Jan 31, 2019 18:26:13 GMT -5
- Nebraska also had only 2 losses against Q2-Q4 teams, whereas we have 5 already and could get more. Nebraska's SoS was 96 last year, and even if we are projected at 85, that's awfully close. - USC had only 1 Q2 loss, and 1 Q3 loss. We have 3 Q2 losses, 1 Q3, and 1 Q4. - Utah may have only had one top 50 win, but if you use KenPom, we also have only 1. Even using RPI, we have 2 so far. Definitely an area where we can improve if we win some good games, though. - On Oregon, their SoS was 90, so you're wrong there. They had 4 Q1 wins and 6 Q2 wins. We will not get to those numbers. On the flip side, they also had a bunch of losses in Q2 and Q3. - Washington's SoS was 41, and they had 7 Q1/Q2 wins. So despite the PAC 12 being bad, they still played a strong schedule, that's not what kept them out. - Mississippi State did have a SoS of 101, but again, they had 4 Q1 and 6 Q2 wins, and no Q3-Q4 losses. Lots of fans thought we had a chance at the tournament coming into this year, too, so I don't think you're right about being ahead a year for even the most optimistic fans. You don't need to go game by game. The difference in conference ratings is huge - that's why those Pac 12 and Big Ten teams didn't get in. And it's why any 11 win Big East team will get in this season. Pretty simple, really. More (though it's not needed): A scenario that gets us to 11 conference wins likely includes a marquee win over a top 3/4 level NCAA tourney seed. And trying to say that making the tournament this season wouldn't put them ahead of schedule borders on trollish. It's simply untrue that "lots of fans" thought we'd make the tournament this season. Patently false. It’s kind of hilarious that you and hoyasaxa2003 are saying the same thing but you insist on arguing with every post he makes. Guru: If the Hoyas go 11-7, it will likely include a Villanova/Marquette win and the Hoyas will be in. Hoyasaxa2003: If the Hoyas go 11-7, but they don’t get a win over Villanova/Marquette, the Hoyas won’t be in. Maybe give your criticism of him a rest for a couple weeks?
|
|
|
Post by stafford72 on Jan 31, 2019 18:35:46 GMT -5
There are only 2 Big East locks. Most likely a third team will emerge either as a third place finisher with 20 wins or by making it to the finals of the BE tourney. I see little chance for any team other than Marquette or Villanova winning the tourney. Maybe a slight chance of a 4th team squeezing in on the bubble and getting placed in one of those unconscionable plain games. We should at least get to see Gtown in the NIT.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 31, 2019 18:37:52 GMT -5
We are way on the outside right now so this discussion, while fun, is premature. Let’s get 2-3 more wins under our belt and then see where things shake out.
Separate point - do the NET rankings seem more volatile to people than RPI? I feel like teams jump 10s of spots regularly. Why is that? Or am I wrong?
|
|