guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,630
|
Post by guru on Feb 12, 2018 14:58:06 GMT -5
Maybe, but I am still skeptical because of Marquette's 2016 example. Marquette was 20-13, 8-10 in conference, and 1-1 in the Big East tournament. That Marquette team won 3 of their last 5 regular season games. They had a bad OOC schedule, though not as bad as ours, and they did not make it. Marquette's RPI was 113. Our RPI is now in the 140s. If we won 4 more games, our RPI is likely at or near 100, but I still don't think that's enough. Since the NCAA bought the NIT, things like "Ewing rebuilding" as a good story really don't matter much anymore for selecting the field. I would be thrilled if we made the NIT, I just think absent going 5-0 to end the season, or 4-0 and a few BET wins, we are just too far away. Here is an NIT bracketology site: www.nycbuckets.com/current-nit-bracketology/While we are mentioned in the "others considered" field, we are still well out here. I think it's a good goal for us in the sense that if we peel off a bunch of wins, it might be possible, but right now it's a stretch. True, but most teams listed in the NIT bracket (especially those teams from power conferences) are going to lose games down the stretch against better conference comp (after all, that's why they are NIT bound). If we knock off 2 of Butler/Providence/Quette, I bet we move into the field on that list. Coupled with a nice BE Tourney win, and you're very competitive for an NIT bid. That said, my assumption might be a stretch, i.e., assuming 2 wins against those 3 teams and a tourney victory. So, it might be a stretch, as you say. Honestly, if we somehow sneak into any sort of postseason competition, it will utterly invalidate all the handwringing about the schedule. This was never an NCAA tournament team, barring a miracle. And the team is progressing very nicely - the arc of the season looks pretty expertly planned at the moment. And qualifying for a few postseason games, no matter where they are, would put a nice bow on the season.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
NIT?
Feb 12, 2018 15:16:50 GMT -5
Post by mdtd on Feb 12, 2018 15:16:50 GMT -5
The usage of RPI today still baffles me. I hate that metric as it rates team incorrectly way too often. To use some examples, Rhode Island is not the fifth best team in the country and despite me liking the way they play and who they have, does not deserve to be in any metric. In fact, they would be a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament from the bracket preview (and me placing them at the next tier). Nevada is ranked as the 16 best team and is ranked 24 in both the AP and coaches polls. They are ranked ahead of Ohio State, West Virginia and Arizona despite them not being better. Middle Tennessee(29) and Buffalo(33) are ranked ahead of West Virginia(34) and St. Mary's(35) despite the ladder two being the much better teams. Buffalo and Middle Tennessee combine for 26 points in the AP poll (all from MTU) and 32 in the coaches poll (again, all from MTU). West Virginia has 339 AP points and 184 coaches poll points while, ST. Mary's has 683 AP poll points and 341 coaches poll points. This metric is out of date and should not be used in any case to evaluate teams. And, I'm not trying to be rude to any one of you as the NCAA selection committee uses this frequently and should be pointed out as if it's what they use, then we should use it to evaluate what they would say. Even on the ESPN page for RPI it states, "The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is one of the tools used by the NCAA Selection Committee to evaluate teams. It is updated daily." I like their BPI numbers much better as they are usually more accurate in rating teams. However, each metric will have their flaws and the BPI isn't perfect. If there are any other metrics out there that rate teams that I haven't seen and are better I'd like to know. But the RPI seems very out of date to me and should not be used to evaluate a team. It really hurts that the selection committee still uses the RPI to evaluate teams.
|
|
|
Post by augustusfinknottle on Feb 12, 2018 15:46:49 GMT -5
Can't ever recall hoping for an NIT berth...but it's not impossible the way we've been playing. We are in most every game down to the final minute. 1970. We were happy to get the bid. Jack Magee volunteered to play LSU and Maravich in the first round (All games were in the Garden). We lost a close one. Marquette and Dean Meminger won it. Al McGuire had said "Thanks but no thanks" to the NCAA because he did not like their region/seeding. Only Al.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 12, 2018 16:07:20 GMT -5
The usage of RPI today still baffles me. I hate that metric as it rates team incorrectly way too often. To use some examples, Rhode Island is not the fifth best team in the country and despite me liking the way they play and who they have, does not deserve to be in any metric. In fact, they would be a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament from the bracket preview (and me placing them at the next tier). Nevada is ranked as the 16 best team and is ranked 24 in both the AP and coaches polls. They are ranked ahead of Ohio State, West Virginia and Arizona despite them not being better. Middle Tennessee(29) and Buffalo(33) are ranked ahead of West Virginia(34) and St. Mary's(35) despite the ladder two being the much better teams. Buffalo and Middle Tennessee combine for 26 points in the AP poll (all from MTU) and 32 in the coaches poll (again, all from MTU). West Virginia has 339 AP points and 184 coaches poll points while, ST. Mary's has 683 AP poll points and 341 coaches poll points. This metric is out of date and should not be used in any case to evaluate teams. And, I'm not trying to be rude to any one of you as the NCAA selection committee uses this frequently and should be pointed out as if it's what they use, then we should use it to evaluate what they would say. Even on the ESPN page for RPI it states, "The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is one of the tools used by the NCAA Selection Committee to evaluate teams. It is updated daily." I like their BPI numbers much better as they are usually more accurate in rating teams. However, each metric will have their flaws and the BPI isn't perfect. If there are any other metrics out there that rate teams that I haven't seen and are better I'd like to know. But the RPI seems very out of date to me and should not be used to evaluate a team. It really hurts that the selection committee still uses the RPI to evaluate teams. I agree that RPI on its own is limited. The other big problem with RPI is that it can change fairly significantly in a relatively short number of games, so until you're at or near Selection Sunday, it can also be misleading. Georgetown is a good example of this. Right now, our RPI is 143. If we were to go 5-0 the rest of the season, we would end with an RPI of 80 (and I would agree if this semi-miraculous run happens that we would be in NIT consideration). So we'd move up 63 slots in only 5 games. Granted, this is largely because it would (1) require us to beat some good Big East teams and (2) generally we've had a tough season, so the wins would make a pretty big difference. This is why I like tools like KenPom better than RPI, because they rate teams based on quality and team attributes (like quality of offense and defense). Rhode Island is a good example - they are 5 in RPI, but 30th on KenPom,and 34th on Sagarin. I think RPI does an okay job of comparing teams to one another by the end of the season (it's basically worthless at the beginning of the season), but if you want to know how teams compare to one another in quality, I think things like KenPom and Sagarin are much better.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Feb 12, 2018 16:08:41 GMT -5
If you don't like other ratings systems, check out this: www.barttorvik.com/ It's similar to Kenpom (and other mathematical rating systems) but free.
|
|
beenaround
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,476
|
NIT?
Feb 12, 2018 17:00:21 GMT -5
Post by beenaround on Feb 12, 2018 17:00:21 GMT -5
Can't ever recall hoping for an NIT berth...but it's not impossible the way we've been playing. We are in most every game down to the final minute. 1970. We were happy to get the bid. Jack Magee volunteered to play LSU and Maravich in the first round (All games were in the Garden). We lost a close one. Marquette and Dean Meminger won it. Al McGuire had said "Thanks but no thanks" to the NCAA because he did not like their region/seeding. Only Al. Love it! Thanks august!
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Feb 12, 2018 17:01:06 GMT -5
As reference, here are the last 10 "at large" bids to the NIT last year (by RPI): The numbers below are RPI, Record, Strength of Schedule Richmond: 72 (22-13), 85 Fresno State: 77 (20-13), 96 Valparaiso: 78 (24-9), 189 Georgia Tech: 79 (21-16), 58 Indiana: 81 (18-16), 42 Alabama: 82 (19-15), 72 Iowa: 83 (19-15), 60 Syracuse: 86 (19-15), 57 Utah: 96 (20-12), 99 Colorado: 101 (19-15), 84 Last year there were 10 automatic bids, leaving 22 at large bids. Well, now that you actually put some data behind your analysis, you are making me look a little foolish...! Yes, I can see now why you might be skeptical of the Hoyas NIT birth, even with 3 more wins. Nice work.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,895
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 12, 2018 17:03:10 GMT -5
The usage of RPI today still baffles me. I hate that metric as it rates team incorrectly way too often. To use some examples, Rhode Island is not the fifth best team in the country and despite me liking the way they play and who they have, does not deserve to be in any metric. In fact, they would be a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament from the bracket preview (and me placing them at the next tier). Nevada is ranked as the 16 best team and is ranked 24 in both the AP and coaches polls. They are ranked ahead of Ohio State, West Virginia and Arizona despite them not being better. Middle Tennessee(29) and Buffalo(33) are ranked ahead of West Virginia(34) and St. Mary's(35) despite the ladder two being the much better teams. Buffalo and Middle Tennessee combine for 26 points in the AP poll (all from MTU) and 32 in the coaches poll (again, all from MTU). West Virginia has 339 AP points and 184 coaches poll points while, ST. Mary's has 683 AP poll points and 341 coaches poll points. This metric is out of date and should not be used in any case to evaluate teams. And, I'm not trying to be rude to any one of you as the NCAA selection committee uses this frequently and should be pointed out as if it's what they use, then we should use it to evaluate what they would say. Even on the ESPN page for RPI it states, "The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is one of the tools used by the NCAA Selection Committee to evaluate teams. It is updated daily." I like their BPI numbers much better as they are usually more accurate in rating teams. However, each metric will have their flaws and the BPI isn't perfect. If there are any other metrics out there that rate teams that I haven't seen and are better I'd like to know. But the RPI seems very out of date to me and should not be used to evaluate a team. It really hurts that the selection committee still uses the RPI to evaluate teams. I agree that RPI on its own is limited. The other big problem with RPI is that it can change fairly significantly in a relatively short number of games, so until you're at or near Selection Sunday, it can also be misleading. Georgetown is a good example of this. Right now, our RPI is 143. If we were to go 5-0 the rest of the season, we would end with an RPI of 80 (and I would agree if this semi-miraculous run happens that we would be in NIT consideration). So we'd move up 63 slots in only 5 games. Granted, this is largely because it would (1) require us to beat some good Big East teams and (2) generally we've had a tough season, so the wins would make a pretty big difference. This is why I like tools like KenPom better than RPI, because they rate teams based on quality and team attributes (like quality of offense and defense). Rhode Island is a good example - they are 5 in RPI, but 30th on KenPom,and 34th on Sagarin. I think RPI does an okay job of comparing teams to one another by the end of the season (it's basically worthless at the beginning of the season), but if you want to know how teams compare to one another in quality, I think things like KenPom and Sagarin are much better. This is one thing that really bugs me about the RPI, or more accurately, about the reporting of it. I don't understand why, with all of the computer tools available, media outlets insist on computing the SOS portion of the RPI based on games played to date, rather than the complete schedule. Everyone knows that the RPI is a terrible metric for evaluating teams, and we only talk about it to try to predict what the selection committee will do. In other words, we all know that the only RPI ranking that matters is the final one. Why not use the number that is going to be the closest to the final one? That way we'd avoid silly comments like "Team X actually improved its RPI by losing to Team Y." No it didn't. Team X was always going to play Team Y. The SOS boost was always going to be there. I know this is a minor pet peeve compared to the bigger problem of the NCAA using the RPI in the first place, but it still really bothers me.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,645
|
NIT?
Feb 12, 2018 17:43:26 GMT -5
mdtd likes this
Post by SSHoya on Feb 12, 2018 17:43:26 GMT -5
The usage of RPI today still baffles me. I hate that metric as it rates team incorrectly way too often. To use some examples, Rhode Island is not the fifth best team in the country and despite me liking the way they play and who they have, does not deserve to be in any metric. In fact, they would be a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament from the bracket preview (and me placing them at the next tier). Nevada is ranked as the 16 best team and is ranked 24 in both the AP and coaches polls. They are ranked ahead of Ohio State, West Virginia and Arizona despite them not being better. Middle Tennessee(29) and Buffalo(33) are ranked ahead of West Virginia(34) and St. Mary's(35) despite the ladder two being the much better teams. Buffalo and Middle Tennessee combine for 26 points in the AP poll (all from MTU) and 32 in the coaches poll (again, all from MTU). West Virginia has 339 AP points and 184 coaches poll points while, ST. Mary's has 683 AP poll points and 341 coaches poll points. This metric is out of date and should not be used in any case to evaluate teams. And, I'm not trying to be rude to any one of you as the NCAA selection committee uses this frequently and should be pointed out as if it's what they use, then we should use it to evaluate what they would say. Even on the ESPN page for RPI it states, "The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is one of the tools used by the NCAA Selection Committee to evaluate teams. It is updated daily." I like their BPI numbers much better as they are usually more accurate in rating teams. However, each metric will have their flaws and the BPI isn't perfect. If there are any other metrics out there that rate teams that I haven't seen and are better I'd like to know. But the RPI seems very out of date to me and should not be used to evaluate a team. It really hurts that the selection committee still uses the RPI to evaluate teams. I'm not a stats guy but this was in today's WaPo: www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2018/02/12/rpi-appears-to-have-too-much-influence-in-the-ncaa-tournament-seeding-process/?utm_term=.dc893457497b
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
NIT?
Feb 12, 2018 17:57:54 GMT -5
Post by mdtd on Feb 12, 2018 17:57:54 GMT -5
The usage of RPI today still baffles me. I hate that metric as it rates team incorrectly way too often. To use some examples, Rhode Island is not the fifth best team in the country and despite me liking the way they play and who they have, does not deserve to be in any metric. In fact, they would be a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament from the bracket preview (and me placing them at the next tier). Nevada is ranked as the 16 best team and is ranked 24 in both the AP and coaches polls. They are ranked ahead of Ohio State, West Virginia and Arizona despite them not being better. Middle Tennessee(29) and Buffalo(33) are ranked ahead of West Virginia(34) and St. Mary's(35) despite the ladder two being the much better teams. Buffalo and Middle Tennessee combine for 26 points in the AP poll (all from MTU) and 32 in the coaches poll (again, all from MTU). West Virginia has 339 AP points and 184 coaches poll points while, ST. Mary's has 683 AP poll points and 341 coaches poll points. This metric is out of date and should not be used in any case to evaluate teams. And, I'm not trying to be rude to any one of you as the NCAA selection committee uses this frequently and should be pointed out as if it's what they use, then we should use it to evaluate what they would say. Even on the ESPN page for RPI it states, "The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is one of the tools used by the NCAA Selection Committee to evaluate teams. It is updated daily." I like their BPI numbers much better as they are usually more accurate in rating teams. However, each metric will have their flaws and the BPI isn't perfect. If there are any other metrics out there that rate teams that I haven't seen and are better I'd like to know. But the RPI seems very out of date to me and should not be used to evaluate a team. It really hurts that the selection committee still uses the RPI to evaluate teams. I'm not a stats guy but this was in today's WaPo: www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2018/02/12/rpi-appears-to-have-too-much-influence-in-the-ncaa-tournament-seeding-process/?utm_term=.dc893457497bThanks for the post! I didn't see this until now. I mean they used some similar arguments to mine so I guess I should write for the Washington Post hahaha
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 12, 2018 18:00:26 GMT -5
As reference, here are the last 10 "at large" bids to the NIT last year (by RPI): The numbers below are RPI, Record, Strength of Schedule Richmond: 72 (22-13), 85 Fresno State: 77 (20-13), 96 Valparaiso: 78 (24-9), 189 Georgia Tech: 79 (21-16), 58 Indiana: 81 (18-16), 42 Alabama: 82 (19-15), 72 Iowa: 83 (19-15), 60 Syracuse: 86 (19-15), 57 Utah: 96 (20-12), 99 Colorado: 101 (19-15), 84 Last year there were 10 automatic bids, leaving 22 at large bids. Well, now that you actually put some data behind your analysis, you are making me look a little foolish...! Yes, I can see now why you might be skeptical of the Hoyas NIT birth, even with 3 more wins. Nice work. Actually I believe those are final RPI numbers, not as of selection. So for example, GA Tech was 106, got in, and ran to the title game and ended up at 79. So it's not foolish.
|
|
|
NIT?
Feb 12, 2018 18:20:43 GMT -5
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 12, 2018 18:20:43 GMT -5
Well, now that you actually put some data behind your analysis, you are making me look a little foolish...! Yes, I can see now why you might be skeptical of the Hoyas NIT birth, even with 3 more wins. Nice work. Actually I believe those are final RPI numbers, not as of selection. So for example, GA Tech was 106, got in, and ran to the title game and ended up at 79. So it's not foolish. That's correct, and I should have added that caveat. The only reason I used final RPI numbers is because I couldn't find reliable ones at selection time. That said, this website (see link) might have the RPI numbers at selection. Overall, it's still a similar concept though. Teams move around but the overall distribution remains similar: Fresno State: 76 Ole Miss: 77 Alabama: 78 Indiana: 79 Richmond: 80 Iowa: 81 Utah: 83 Syracuse: 84 Colorado: 99 Georgia Tech: 106 For what it's worth there were some teams higher than Georgia Tech that did not make the NIT, and instead were in the other tournaments. The CBI hosted San Francisco (94), George Washington (102), George Mason (103), and the CIT hosted UNC Asheville (73), Furman (96), and Georgia State (104). It would actually be very realistic that Georgetown could play in the CBI or CIT, but generally high-majors do not play in those tournaments because of the (largely true) conception that these are third-tier tournaments that nobody cares about.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 12, 2018 18:39:03 GMT -5
Actually I believe those are final RPI numbers, not as of selection. So for example, GA Tech was 106, got in, and ran to the title game and ended up at 79. So it's not foolish. That's correct, and I should have added that caveat. The only reason I used final RPI numbers is because I couldn't find reliable ones at selection time. That said, this website (see link) might have the RPI numbers at selection. Overall, it's still a similar concept though. Teams move around but the overall distribution remains similar: Fresno State: 76 Ole Miss: 77 Alabama: 78 Indiana: 79 Richmond: 80 Iowa: 81 Utah: 83 Syracuse: 84 Colorado: 99 Georgia Tech: 106 For what it's worth there were some teams higher than Georgia Tech that did not make the NIT, and instead were in the other tournaments. The CBI hosted San Francisco (94), George Washington (102), George Mason (103), and the CIT hosted UNC Asheville (73), Furman (96), and Georgia State (104). It would actually be very realistic that Georgetown could play in the CBI or CIT, but generally high-majors do not play in those tournaments because of the (largely true) conception that these are third-tier tournaments that nobody cares about. Of note though, the bottom 2 teams (Colorado and GA Tech) just so happen to be major conference teams. The lowest RPI team to make it under the new selection process is Iowa at 125. So it seems you do get a boost from being in one of the majors. Yes Marquette missed but if we creep up near 100, we have a shot.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,098
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 12, 2018 19:26:12 GMT -5
True, but most teams listed in the NIT bracket (especially those teams from power conferences) are going to lose games down the stretch against better conference comp (after all, that's why they are NIT bound). If we knock off 2 of Butler/Providence/Quette, I bet we move into the field on that list. Coupled with a nice BE Tourney win, and you're very competitive for an NIT bid. That said, my assumption might be a stretch, i.e., assuming 2 wins against those 3 teams and a tourney victory. So, it might be a stretch, as you say. Honestly, if we somehow sneak into any sort of postseason competition, it will utterly invalidate all the handwringing about the schedule. This was never an NCAA tournament team, barring a miracle. And the team is progressing very nicely - the arc of the season looks pretty expertly planned at the moment. And qualifying for a few postseason games, no matter where they are, would put a nice bow on the season. Did this team really need a miracle to beat Butler the 1st time? Did they need a miracle to beat DePaul in the 2nd game or Xavier or PC recently? Imho, the answer is no.. If they get 3 of the games that were blown above they'd sitting at 7-6 in conference right now.. Which means if they went 2-3 in their final 5 games, Gtown would end with a 9-9 in conference record.. Imo you can't sell the "postseason would've been a miracle" narrative after we've seen the team play the way they have in conference games..
|
|
bamahoya11
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,831
|
NIT?
Feb 12, 2018 20:38:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bamahoya11 on Feb 12, 2018 20:38:27 GMT -5
We had a major anchor around our necks in terms of making the post season once we scheduled the way we did. The truth is, I think even a 9-9 record in the league would have us on the bubble, at best. I'm not beating the horse of the schedule here-- I get why Ewing did it. The team needed confidence, and we weren't really looking at a tournament run this year. But the fact is, it's really hard to make the NCAAs with a schedule that weak, even if you win the games. Now to be fair we have a lot of other weaknesses that would've kept us from the tourney. Just saying that you have to schedule harder games to make it now.
I also think it's best to avoid looking at what would happen "if all the lucky bounces went our way." That's not how any season goes. We have had some tough losses, but we've had some luck too. Miss a couple more shots against SJU in each game and against Seton Hall and we have just one league win. The second guessing just doesn't go so far.
Bottom line-- making the NIT would be a great accomplishment for this team. The folks thumbing their noses at the NIT are just missing the advantages of extra practices and games in a tournament setting. Unlike the lesser tournaments the NIT still offers a chance to play for a trophy in a meaningful environment. I'm trying not to look too far ahead, though. To make it, I think we need three more wins (Providence, Marquette, and another upset), and a win or two in New York to go along with it. The team is showing progress; I'll just be hoping they keep doing that in each game.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,630
|
Post by guru on Feb 12, 2018 20:56:11 GMT -5
Honestly, if we somehow sneak into any sort of postseason competition, it will utterly invalidate all the handwringing about the schedule. This was never an NCAA tournament team, barring a miracle. And the team is progressing very nicely - the arc of the season looks pretty expertly planned at the moment. And qualifying for a few postseason games, no matter where they are, would put a nice bow on the season. Did this team really need a miracle to beat Butler the 1st time? Did they need a miracle to beat DePaul in the 2nd game or Xavier or PC recently? Imho, the answer is no.. If they get 3 of the games that were blown above they'd sitting at 7-6 in conference right now.. Which means if they went 2-3 in their final 5 games, Gtown would end with a 9-9 in conference record.. Imo you can't sell the "postseason would've been a miracle" narrative after we've seen the team play the way they have in conference games.. It’s not a tournament team, barring extremely good fortune (better?). There’s a reason they blew all those games
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Feb 12, 2018 21:04:50 GMT -5
We had a major anchor around our necks in terms of making the post season once we scheduled the way we did. The truth is, I think even a 9-9 record in the league would have us on the bubble, at best. I'm not beating the horse of the schedule here-- I get why Ewing did it. The team needed confidence, and we weren't really looking at a tournament run this year. But the fact is, it's really hard to make the NCAAs with a schedule that weak, even if you win the games. Now to be fair we have a lot of other weaknesses that would've kept us from the tourney. Just saying that you have to schedule harder games to make it now. I also think it's best to avoid looking at what would happen "if all the lucky bounces went our way." That's not how any season goes. We have had some tough losses, but we've had some luck too. Miss a couple more shots against SJU in each game and against Seton Hall and we have just one league win. The second guessing just doesn't go so far. Bottom line-- making the NIT would be a great accomplishment for this team. The folks thumbing their noses at the NIT are just missing the advantages of extra practices and games in a tournament setting. Unlike the lesser tournaments the NIT still offers a chance to play for a trophy in a meaningful environment. I'm trying not to look too far ahead, though. To make it, I think we need three more wins (Providence, Marquette, and another upset), and a win or two in New York to go along with it. The team is showing progress; I'll just be hoping they keep doing that in each game. Who is thumbing their nose at the NIT? Pretty sure most people here would be ecstatic with an NIT berth this season.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
NIT?
Feb 12, 2018 21:09:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sleepy on Feb 12, 2018 21:09:00 GMT -5
Honestly, if we somehow sneak into any sort of postseason competition, it will utterly invalidate all the handwringing about the schedule. This was never an NCAA tournament team, barring a miracle. And the team is progressing very nicely - the arc of the season looks pretty expertly planned at the moment. And qualifying for a few postseason games, no matter where they are, would put a nice bow on the season. Did this team really need a miracle to beat Butler the 1st time? Did they need a miracle to beat DePaul in the 2nd game or Xavier or PC recently? Imho, the answer is no.. If they get 3 of the games that were blown above they'd sitting at 7-6 in conference right now.. Which means if they went 2-3 in their final 5 games, Gtown would end with a 9-9 in conference record.. Imo you can't sell the "postseason would've been a miracle" narrative after we've seen the team play the way they have in conference games.. So if we were a better team the post season wouldn't be a miracle? Agreed. The truth of the matter is we have played, imo as well as we could have this season, and we are 4-9 in conference play. We were never NCAA tournament bound.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Feb 12, 2018 21:15:45 GMT -5
For the first time in 5 years it seems we are better in February than in December or January!. Could we be even better in March? Could we turn it all the way on in the Big East tournament?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,098
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 12, 2018 21:26:01 GMT -5
Did this team really need a miracle to beat Butler the 1st time? Did they need a miracle to beat DePaul in the 2nd game or Xavier or PC recently? Imho, the answer is no.. If they get 3 of the games that were blown above they'd sitting at 7-6 in conference right now.. Which means if they went 2-3 in their final 5 games, Gtown would end with a 9-9 in conference record.. Imo you can't sell the "postseason would've been a miracle" narrative after we've seen the team play the way they have in conference games.. It’s not a tournament team, barring extremely good fortune (better?). There’s a reason they blew all those games Now it's better.. I agree that the team wasn't a lock to make the NCAA's but you still can't schedule the way the program did because you think making the tourney is a long shot.. Good fortune can shine on any program at any time, ask PC fans last season.. This team is a lot better than a lot of fans & others thought they'd be, that much I do know..
|
|