daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 17, 2019 18:32:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't expect that we would. We were somewhere in the 8-12th team out category after losing to Seton Hall. Indiana, TCU, UNCG, Alabama, Texas, NC State, Clemson, Furman, Creighton, Xavier, etc. all were probably higher in the committee's ranking. Thus I expect us to be probably a 3 seed in the NIT.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on Mar 17, 2019 18:32:16 GMT -5
Of course not, we weren’t snubbed.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 17, 2019 18:35:52 GMT -5
A first four berth may save Chris Mullin’s job ... for now. When I look at St John's resume, they basically have our resume without the losses to LMU and SMU in the OOC schedule. If we were 21-11 without those losses we'd prob have had a better NET than them and be in their spot after finishing higher in the conference. They got a lot of mileage out of their 12-0 start.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Mar 17, 2019 18:51:27 GMT -5
The big winner was FAMILY with many entries!!!
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Mar 17, 2019 18:58:01 GMT -5
Washington making the tournament is the biggest mistake the committee made. They have ONE win (Oregon who had to steal a bid by winning the Pac 12 tournament) over a team in the field of 68. For context, Georgetown who wasn't even in consideration after the Seton Hall debacle had 5.
Washington's overall record is the equivalent of French Fries...Nothing but EMPTY CALORIES!
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,837
|
Post by hoyazeke on Mar 17, 2019 19:25:19 GMT -5
A first four berth may save Chris Mullin’s job ... for now. When I look at St John's resume, they basically have our resume without the losses to LMU and SMU in the OOC schedule. If we were 21-11 without those losses we'd prob have had a better NET than them and be in their spot after finishing higher in the conference. They got a lot of mileage out of their 12-0 start. LMU, SMU, Cuse and 1st Creighton......all winnable games that we gave away....I don't include 1st StJs and 1st Quette because the outcome could easily change the 2nd outcome....also the DePaul debacle was a killer.....smh
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 17, 2019 19:45:13 GMT -5
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Mar 17, 2019 20:01:56 GMT -5
With wins against LMU and SMU I think we make it. NET would be like 50's-60's and no bad losses with some good wins.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 17, 2019 21:03:27 GMT -5
Don't have any issues with the selection committee this year. Glad to see teams that just didn't win enough games like Indiana, Texas, Alabama, etc. weren't rewarded for it. It would have been interesting had a number of teams not stolen bids in the final few days (St. Louis, Oregon, etc.).
Think we could have definitely made it close with 2 wins in NYC, but also have no issues with where we got seeded in the NIT. We were probably somewhere in the 2 seed range heading into MSG but when you get totally wiped off the court like we did on Thursday, we deserved to drop.
A little surprised by Hall getting only a 10. Would have thought they were in play for an 8, maybe at worst a 9. Tough draw for them as well.
If we're comparing our resume with St John's, the difference is they had 2 more total wins and 4 of their 5 Q1 wins were against NCAA teams, while only 3 of ours were. A 21 win BE team should make the Dance; it's a problem if that's not the case. Also, if it keeps Mullin in NYC one more year and gets us some NCAA $$$, I'm OK with it.
Completely agree with the level of difficulty re: scheduling that Ewing had for this year. If we had blown cupcakes out left and right and taken care of SMU and LMU like we should have, then the argument could have been made that we needed to step up the competition. We didn't. Think the OOC schedule did prepare the team to be competitive in conference this year; we clearly weren't fazed on the road in hostile environments. If anything, we need to do better at home moving forward.
I think the biggest takeaway from seeing today's selection results is that efficiency matters. You can no longer let up at the end of games regardless of score. You also can't spend an abnormally long time at the beginning of a season tinkering with lineups to see what works at the expense of margin of victory and loose possessions. It's not to say the committee won't penalize a team for really trying to game the system (NC State), but when there isn't a lot separating the last 4 in vs the first 8-10 out, you need to build every advantage you can get from Day 1.
Clearly, NET is basically used the same way as RPI was; it's only a tool to create discussion and comparison between teams. Totally fine with that, but we do need to be smarter about manipulating it in the future to our benefit.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 17, 2019 21:35:23 GMT -5
Don't have any issues with the selection committee this year. Glad to see teams that just didn't win enough games like Indiana, Texas, Alabama, etc. weren't rewarded for it. It would have been interesting had a number of teams not stolen bids in the final few days (St. Louis, Oregon, etc.). Think we could have definitely made it close with 2 wins in NYC, but also have no issues with where we got seeded in the NIT. We were probably somewhere in the 2 seed range heading into MSG but when you get totally wiped off the court like we did on Thursday, we deserved to drop. A little surprised by Hall getting only a 10. Would have thought they were in play for an 8, maybe at worst a 9. Tough draw for them as well. If we're comparing our resume with St John's, the difference is they had 2 more total wins and 4 of their 5 Q1 wins were against NCAA teams, while only 3 of ours were. A 21 win BE team should make the Dance; it's a problem if that's not the case. Also, if it keeps Mullin in NYC one more year and gets us some NCAA $$$, I'm OK with it. Completely agree with the level of difficulty re: scheduling that Ewing had for this year. If we had blown cupcakes out left and right and taken care of SMU and LMU like we should have, then the argument could have been made that we needed to step up the competition. We didn't. Think the OOC schedule did prepare the team to be competitive in conference this year; we clearly weren't fazed on the road in hostile environments. If anything, we need to do better at home moving forward. I think the biggest takeaway from seeing today's selection results is that efficiency matters. You can no longer let up at the end of games regardless of score. You also can't spend an abnormally long time at the beginning of a season tinkering with lineups to see what works at the expense of margin of victory and loose possessions. It's not to say the committee won't penalize a team for really trying to game the system (NC State), but when there isn't a lot separating the last 4 in vs the first 8-10 out, you need to build every advantage you can get from Day 1. Clearly, NET is basically used the same way as RPI was; it's only a tool to create discussion and comparison between teams. Totally fine with that, but we do need to be smarter about manipulating it in the future to our benefit. I really hope Ewing gets this. My fear is his NBA pedigree and lineage, coupled with his assistants not being new school analytics guys, has us lacking in this regard. Say what you want about JTIII but he mastered scheduling and his teams consistently ranked well in terms of efficiency metrics. I know Ewing isn’t going to shake up his staff on his own, but I think it if Orr decided he wanted to retire and we were able to bring in a young hungry assistant who might be more adept at understanding these new realities of college basketball, we might be better served.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 17, 2019 21:43:34 GMT -5
Don't have any issues with the selection committee this year. Glad to see teams that just didn't win enough games like Indiana, Texas, Alabama, etc. weren't rewarded for it. It would have been interesting had a number of teams not stolen bids in the final few days (St. Louis, Oregon, etc.). Think we could have definitely made it close with 2 wins in NYC, but also have no issues with where we got seeded in the NIT. We were probably somewhere in the 2 seed range heading into MSG but when you get totally wiped off the court like we did on Thursday, we deserved to drop. A little surprised by Hall getting only a 10. Would have thought they were in play for an 8, maybe at worst a 9. Tough draw for them as well. If we're comparing our resume with St John's, the difference is they had 2 more total wins and 4 of their 5 Q1 wins were against NCAA teams, while only 3 of ours were. A 21 win BE team should make the Dance; it's a problem if that's not the case. Also, if it keeps Mullin in NYC one more year and gets us some NCAA $$$, I'm OK with it. Completely agree with the level of difficulty re: scheduling that Ewing had for this year. If we had blown cupcakes out left and right and taken care of SMU and LMU like we should have, then the argument could have been made that we needed to step up the competition. We didn't. Think the OOC schedule did prepare the team to be competitive in conference this year; we clearly weren't fazed on the road in hostile environments. If anything, we need to do better at home moving forward. I think the biggest takeaway from seeing today's selection results is that efficiency matters. You can no longer let up at the end of games regardless of score. You also can't spend an abnormally long time at the beginning of a season tinkering with lineups to see what works at the expense of margin of victory and loose possessions. It's not to say the committee won't penalize a team for really trying to game the system (NC State), but when there isn't a lot separating the last 4 in vs the first 8-10 out, you need to build every advantage you can get from Day 1. Clearly, NET is basically used the same way as RPI was; it's only a tool to create discussion and comparison between teams. Totally fine with that, but we do need to be smarter about manipulating it in the future to our benefit. I really hope Ewing gets this. My fear is his NBA pedigree and lineage, coupled with his assistants not being new school analytics guys, has us lacking in this regard. Say what you want about JTIII but he mastered scheduling and his teams consistently ranked well in terms of efficiency metrics. I know Ewing isn’t going to shake up his staff on his own, but I think it if Orr decided he wanted to retire and we were able to bring in a young hungry assistant who might be more adept at understanding these new realities of college basketball, we might be better served. III was a master at scheduling and efficiency. In fact, it almost hurt us because inevitably we were probably overseeded a few times which made our early exits look a lot worse. Totally agree about trying to get some new blood in to try and at least make sure we aren't at a disadvantage as far as analytics and metrics go. However, if we're looking to replace assistants (and I hope we are), I hope the primary focus is making sure we have some guys who can help us show some different looks on the court defensively and help with some in-game adjustments when they're needed. Probably the biggest reasons why we're not dancing today as far as staff considerations go.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 17, 2019 22:13:20 GMT -5
Forget about us, how do you think Xavier feels. THEY BEAT ST. JOHNS TWICE AND FINISHED AHEAD OF THEM IN THE BIG EAST STANDINGS! I really think the whole NET/RPI etc sucks. Granted we didn't deserve an invitation but neither did the Johnnies. Just because you had "quality wins" against OOC opponents should not overshadow how completely you sucked within your conference. As much as I will be pulling for all our BE teams I won't be sad if St. John's loses early. I really think you have to have shown some ability to win key conference games and be competitive in your conference and your conference tourney to be eligible for a bid.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 17, 2019 22:27:48 GMT -5
Forget about us, how do you think Xavier feels. THEY BEAT ST. JOHNS TWICE AND FINISHED AHEAD OF THEM IN THE BIG EAST STANDINGS! I really think the whole NET/RPI etc sucks. Granted we didn't deserve an invitation but neither did the Johnnies. Just because you had "quality wins" against OOC opponents should not overshadow how completely you sucked within your conference. As much as I will be pulling for all our BE teams I won't be sad if St. John's loses early. I really think you have to have shown some ability to win key conference games and be competitive in your conference and your conference tourney to be eligible for a bid. Xavier finished 18-15. They easily fell into the same "did not win enough games" group that also included Indiana, Texas and Bama. Metrics aside, you still need to win games. Only 1 team in the last 25 years has made it to the NCAAs as an at-large being less than 4 games over .500. Xavier wasn't nearly good enough this year to test that benchmark. Additionally, conference record doesn't matter to the selection committee. It's not even listed on the NET team sheets. Oklahoma, Minnesota and Ohio St. all had sub .500 conference records and made it. Xavier's 9-9 BE record is meaningless as far as selection goes.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 18, 2019 9:04:35 GMT -5
Forget about us, how do you think Xavier feels. THEY BEAT ST. JOHNS TWICE AND FINISHED AHEAD OF THEM IN THE BIG EAST STANDINGS! I really think the whole NET/RPI etc sucks. Granted we didn't deserve an invitation but neither did the Johnnies. Just because you had "quality wins" against OOC opponents should not overshadow how completely you sucked within your conference. As much as I will be pulling for all our BE teams I won't be sad if St. John's loses early. I really think you have to have shown some ability to win key conference games and be competitive in your conference and your conference tourney to be eligible for a bid. Xavier finished 18-15. They easily fell into the same "did not win enough games" group that also included Indiana, Texas and Bama. Metrics aside, you still need to win games. Only 1 team in the last 25 years has made it to the NCAAs as an at-large being less than 4 games over .500. Xavier wasn't nearly good enough this year to test that benchmark. Additionally, conference record doesn't matter to the selection committee. It's not even listed on the NET team sheets. Oklahoma, Minnesota and Ohio St. all had sub .500 conference records and made it. Xavier's 9-9 BE record is meaningless as far as selection goes. Xavier played a pretty tough OOC schedule early in the year and didn't do well. But they came on very strong during BE conference games and beat all the BE teams who had better OOC records. I agree that you gotta win to get in but if a team like St Johns can be humiliated by its BE opponents and still get in then it really makes the entire conference concept meaningless - other than for bragging rights. I hear where you're coming from but it still rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 18, 2019 9:17:25 GMT -5
The tourney has become a made for TV event. They get paid way too much money to make it not. The committee doesn't care about getting the best at large teams in or making sure they are seeded correctly. They matchup games for the best storylines and make sure to get the best players and biggest teams/markets in. If we need it in the future we will benefit from it like St. John's did this year so that is reassuring. I gave way too much credit to the NCAA, man what was I thinking, for trying to do the right thing with the NET. It was just a huge smokescreen to try make them seem fair which they have never been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 9:46:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 9:57:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2019 9:59:27 GMT -5
The tourney has become a made for TV event. They get paid way too much money to make it not. The committee doesn't care about getting the best at large teams in or making sure they are seeded correctly. They matchup games for the best storylines and make sure to get the best players and biggest teams/markets in. If we need it in the future we will benefit from it like St. John's did this year so that is reassuring. I gave way too much credit to the NCAA, man what was I thinking, for trying to do the right thing with the NET. It was just a huge smokescreen to try make them seem fair which they have never been. I don't even know what this all means. There's "storylines" everywhere. The Committee can't help but create them. If all they cared about were ratings (in lieu of selecting and seeding the best teams), wouldn't they have let Indiana, Texas, and NC State in? I mean those are three enormous fan bases. The NET wasn't perfect, far from it. But I do believe they sincerely tried to find a metric that measured what they wanted to measure. For better or worse, Belmont doesn't get in without the NET. It gave them two Q1 wins over a Lipscomb team that wouldn't have been Q1 under the RPI.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2019 10:01:12 GMT -5
The tourney has become a made for TV event. They get paid way too much money to make it not. The committee doesn't care about getting the best at large teams in or making sure they are seeded correctly. They matchup games for the best storylines and make sure to get the best players and biggest teams/markets in. If we need it in the future we will benefit from it like St. John's did this year so that is reassuring. I gave way too much credit to the NCAA, man what was I thinking, for trying to do the right thing with the NET. It was just a huge smokescreen to try make them seem fair which they have never been. I don't even know what this all means. There's "storylines" everywhere. The Committee can't help but create them. If all they cared about were ratings (in lieu of selecting and seeding the best teams), wouldn't they have let Indiana, Texas, and NC State in? I mean those are three enormous fan bases. The NET wasn't perfect, far from it. But I do believe they sincerely tried to find a metric that measured what they wanted to measure. And they used it exactly as they said they would....not as a straight ranking of teams but as a way to sort quality wins and losses. For better or worse, Belmont doesn't get in without the NET. It gave them two Q1 wins over a Lipscomb team that wouldn't have been Q1 under the RPI.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 10:06:28 GMT -5
The tourney has become a made for TV event. They get paid way too much money to make it not. The committee doesn't care about getting the best at large teams in or making sure they are seeded correctly. They matchup games for the best storylines and make sure to get the best players and biggest teams/markets in. If we need it in the future we will benefit from it like St. John's did this year so that is reassuring. I gave way too much credit to the NCAA, man what was I thinking, for trying to do the right thing with the NET. It was just a huge smokescreen to try make them seem fair which they have never been. I don't even know what this all means. There's "storylines" everywhere. The Committee can't help but create them. If all they cared about were ratings (in lieu of selecting and seeding the best teams), wouldn't they have let Indiana, Texas, and NC State in? I mean those are three enormous fan bases. The NET wasn't perfect, far from it. But I do believe they sincerely tried to find a metric that measured what they wanted to measure. For better or worse, Belmont doesn't get in without the NET. It gave them two Q1 wins over a Lipscomb team that wouldn't have been Q1 under the RPI. Yeah, I actually thought the Committee did a really good job, and you can tell since the biggest complaints I've heard are stuff like this or the fact that the seeding placements were somewhat unfair. Meh. I think Michigan St is mad because they are in the region with Duke. Cry me a river.
|
|