GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 10:13:16 GMT -5
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. What do you mean, come on strong? The were 9-9 in the BE. Same as us. It wasnt all that impressive. Frankly, the committee didnt think Seton Hall's 9-9 was all that impressive either, and they beat Kentucky, Maryland and won 2 games in the BET. I think the Committee send a pretty strong message that the BE needs to get better in the non-conference. Good. Like Rockaway and others said, that means scheduling better AND playing better.
|
|
HometownHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,675
Member is Online
|
Post by HometownHoya on Mar 18, 2019 10:24:00 GMT -5
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. I understand Michigan St's anger. They are seeded below Michigan who they swept this year. Additionally as the conference winner in the "toughest" conference, they are placed as the lowest 2 seed with the overall #1 seed Duke. That said, they still have a lot of games before they even see Duke, would nice to be annoyed by a potential Elite 8 matchup.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 10:26:56 GMT -5
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. I understand Michigan St's anger. They are seeded below Michigan who they swept this year. Additionally as the conference winner in the "toughest" conference, they are placed as the lowest 2 seed with the overall #1 seed Duke. That said, they still have a lot of games before they even see Duke, would nice to be annoyed by a potential Elite 8 matchup. They arent seeded below Michigan. They just got in the Region with Duke. They are in that region because it is closer to the State of Michigan. Michigan is in the west region.
|
|
HometownHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,675
Member is Online
|
Post by HometownHoya on Mar 18, 2019 10:31:21 GMT -5
I understand Michigan St's anger. They are seeded below Michigan who they swept this year. Additionally as the conference winner in the "toughest" conference, they are placed as the lowest 2 seed with the overall #1 seed Duke. That said, they still have a lot of games before they even see Duke, would nice to be annoyed by a potential Elite 8 matchup. They arent seeded below Michigan. They just got in the Region with Duke. They are in that region because it is closer to the State of Michigan. Michigan is in the west region. I'm just being the devils advocate. Also based on how NCAA goes, the #2 seed in the overall #1 seed is typically the worst #2 seed. Additionally, I don't buy into that region argument. For both of those regions the #2 seed first round is in Des Moines, Iowa. Then second weekend is either DC or Anaheim...neither that close to Michigan.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 10:34:55 GMT -5
They arent seeded below Michigan. They just got in the Region with Duke. They are in that region because it is closer to the State of Michigan. Michigan is in the west region. I'm just being the devils advocate. Also based on how NCAA goes, the #2 seed in the overall #1 seed is typically the worst #2 seed. Additionally, I don't buy into that region argument. For both of those regions the #2 seed first round is in Des Moines, Iowa. Then second weekend is either DC or Anaheim...neither that close to Michigan. Not sure what you are arguing. For one, it is the reason. Im not making it up. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) MSU is a higher seed. Two, DC is much closer to Michigan than Anaheim is.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png)
Posts: 30,884
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 18, 2019 11:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 18, 2019 11:55:03 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. It just seems like a lot of the head scratchers from a seeding perspective are miraculously in games that are being talked about or potentially setting up juicy games. It's not like this is new. That doesn't even include St. John's who few can figure out how they got in unless you consider Mullin/Ponds and them being from NYC. Why are the 2 lowest seeds playing each other in one of the First 4 and the 2 higher are playing each other. The entire idea that it's not done on a S curve gives them way too much ability to do what they want. At the end of the day I can only see this helping us down the road so keep doing it committee.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2019 12:16:21 GMT -5
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. It just seems like a lot of the head scratchers from a seeding perspective are miraculously in games that are being talked about or potentially setting up juicy games. It's not like this is new. That doesn't even include St. John's who few can figure out how they got in unless you consider Mullin/Ponds and them being from NYC. Why are the 2 lowest seeds playing each other in one of the First 4 and the 2 higher are playing each other. The entire idea that it's not done on a S curve gives them way too much ability to do what they want. At the end of the day I can only see this helping us down the road so keep doing it committee. St John's was predicted to be one of the final four or first couple out. I literally don't know anyone that can't figure out how they got in. Since soon after the field expanded to 68, they've always had the final four at large teams play each other (per the S curve) and the final four auto bids. That was done as a nod to smaller schools. The "right" way to do it from a pure tournament perspective would be to have the eight worst overall teams play. But they didn't do that. So instead it's higher profile teams (like StJ) who get stuck playing before the real event begins. I'd also add that I think you wildly inflate the amount of national interest in St John's or Mullin.
|
|
HometownHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 11,675
Member is Online
|
Post by HometownHoya on Mar 18, 2019 12:33:29 GMT -5
I'm just being the devils advocate. Also based on how NCAA goes, the #2 seed in the overall #1 seed is typically the worst #2 seed. Additionally, I don't buy into that region argument. For both of those regions the #2 seed first round is in Des Moines, Iowa. Then second weekend is either DC or Anaheim...neither that close to Michigan. Not sure what you are arguing. For one, it is the reason. Im not making it up. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) MSU is a higher seed. Two, DC is much closer to Michigan than Anaheim is. The article Dan posted lays out my argument in a much more verbose manner. I honestly don't care though, they can keep whining!
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 18, 2019 13:28:11 GMT -5
It just seems like a lot of the head scratchers from a seeding perspective are miraculously in games that are being talked about or potentially setting up juicy games. It's not like this is new. That doesn't even include St. John's who few can figure out how they got in unless you consider Mullin/Ponds and them being from NYC. Why are the 2 lowest seeds playing each other in one of the First 4 and the 2 higher are playing each other. The entire idea that it's not done on a S curve gives them way too much ability to do what they want. At the end of the day I can only see this helping us down the road so keep doing it committee. St John's was predicted to be one of the final four or first couple out. I literally don't know anyone that can't figure out how they got in. Since soon after the field expanded to 68, they've always had the final four at large teams play each other (per the S curve) and the final four auto bids. That was done as a nod to smaller schools. The "right" way to do it from a pure tournament perspective would be to have the eight worst overall teams play. But they didn't do that. So instead it's higher profile teams (like StJ) who get stuck playing before the real event begins. I'd also add that I think you wildly inflate the amount of national interest in St John's or Mullin. You haven't see people questioning St. John's resume? I didn't watch the selection show as it's a farce talking head for the NCAA but there are plenty of complaints in sports media trying to figure it out. As for the first 4 I meant why is St. John's and Az St. playing and Belmont and Temple? I get the NCAA makes up their BS geography bracket principles crap to make the matchups they want but how do they explain their own 42 vs 43 and 45 vs 47 when those games are in the same location. Shouldn't it be 42 vs 47 and 43 vs 45? I am not saying I think St. John's is popular but I think the committee thinks St. John's is popular because they are in the biggest TV market. The NCAA has shown how much importance goes into TV market size when making decisions and not just for basketball or the tourney. I would rather have a higher TV market size ranking than a NET ranking. Mid majors in small cities hardly ever get any beneift of the doubt but the ones in decent size cites get more breaks. I personally think the NCAA greatly misjudges, or just doesn't care, how good mid majors are for TV. The NCAA has to protect their money making conferences. I would stack the bottom of the field with Furman, Lipscomb, UNCG etc. and let them try and make runs. I am not convinced more people would rather see the average major conference teams of the world over the potential cinderellas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 13:46:03 GMT -5
St John's was predicted to be one of the final four or first couple out. I literally don't know anyone that can't figure out how they got in. Since soon after the field expanded to 68, they've always had the final four at large teams play each other (per the S curve) and the final four auto bids. That was done as a nod to smaller schools. The "right" way to do it from a pure tournament perspective would be to have the eight worst overall teams play. But they didn't do that. So instead it's higher profile teams (like StJ) who get stuck playing before the real event begins. I'd also add that I think you wildly inflate the amount of national interest in St John's or Mullin. You haven't see people questioning St. John's resume? I didn't watch the selection show as it's a farce talking head for the NCAA but there are plenty of complaints in sports media trying to figure it out. As for the first 4 I meant why is St. John's and Az St. playing and Belmont and Temple? I get the NCAA makes up their BS geography bracket principles crap to make the matchups they want but how do they explain their own 42 vs 43 and 45 vs 47 when those games are in the same location. Shouldn't it be 42 vs 47 and 43 vs 45? I am not saying I think St. John's is popular but I think the committee thinks St. John's is popular because they are in the biggest TV market. The NCAA has shown how much importance goes into TV market size when making decisions and not just for basketball or the tourney. I would rather have a higher TV market size ranking than a NET ranking. Mid majors in small cities hardly ever get any beneift of the doubt but the ones in decent size cites get more breaks. I personally think the NCAA greatly misjudges, or just doesn't care, how good mid majors are for TV. The NCAA has to protect their money making conferences. I would stack the bottom of the field with Furman, Lipscomb, UNCG etc. and let them try and make runs. I am not convinced more people would rather see the average major conference teams of the world over the potential cinderellas. Do you think those teams are better than St Johns?
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 14:00:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I think it would have been one thing if NC St, Indiana or Texas got in, but it seems right on point that SJU was the last team in. I dont think you can complain too much if you are Furman, UNCG, etc. SJU is better than those teams.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,395
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 18, 2019 14:39:58 GMT -5
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. What do you mean, come on strong? The were 9-9 in the BE. Same as us. It wasnt all that impressive. Frankly, the committee didnt think Seton Hall's 9-9 was all that impressive either, and they beat Kentucky, Maryland and won 2 games in the BET. I think the Committee send a pretty strong message that the BE needs to get better in the non-conference. Good. Like Rockaway and others said, that means scheduling better AND playing better. What? Xavier won 7 of their last 9 including two wins over St John's and a win over Villanova and Seton Hall. They lost a heartbreaker to Nova in the BT. I agree that the BE sucks this year and only deserve 4 slots in the tourney. But that fourth belonged to Xavier not St. Johns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 14:48:12 GMT -5
The BE lacked a premier team but overall it wasn't bad. I think the seeding reflects that. Nova had some good wins in the non conference but they lost to Furman at home. Quette got beat by a mediocre Big Ten school by 20 but had wins over Buffalo and Louisville. 5 seed is a top 20 team. 6 is top 25 and that seems about right.
The Pac 12 sucked. The BE was mediocre...
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 18, 2019 14:58:18 GMT -5
You haven't see people questioning St. John's resume? I didn't watch the selection show as it's a farce talking head for the NCAA but there are plenty of complaints in sports media trying to figure it out. As for the first 4 I meant why is St. John's and Az St. playing and Belmont and Temple? I get the NCAA makes up their BS geography bracket principles crap to make the matchups they want but how do they explain their own 42 vs 43 and 45 vs 47 when those games are in the same location. Shouldn't it be 42 vs 47 and 43 vs 45? I am not saying I think St. John's is popular but I think the committee thinks St. John's is popular because they are in the biggest TV market. The NCAA has shown how much importance goes into TV market size when making decisions and not just for basketball or the tourney. I would rather have a higher TV market size ranking than a NET ranking. Mid majors in small cities hardly ever get any beneift of the doubt but the ones in decent size cites get more breaks. I personally think the NCAA greatly misjudges, or just doesn't care, how good mid majors are for TV. The NCAA has to protect their money making conferences. I would stack the bottom of the field with Furman, Lipscomb, UNCG etc. and let them try and make runs. I am not convinced more people would rather see the average major conference teams of the world over the potential cinderellas. Do you think those teams are better than St Johns? I think they are equal to St. John's and the rest of the mediocre bubble big conference teams. I think if they played 10 times you get about 5 wins for each. Furman beat Nova at Nova, UNCG didn't lose any non Q1 games and gave LSU all they wanted at LSU, and Lipscomb won at TCU and lost at Louisville by 4. The tournament is an any given day crapshoot as it is. I like seeing those that don't get all the breaks and chances given the opportunity on the biggest stage. I would also add that these would roughly be the Vegas lines if St. John's played those teams on a neutral floor. Lipscomb favored by 4.5 Furman favored by 4 Pickem with UNCG
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,911
|
Post by Filo on Mar 18, 2019 15:09:22 GMT -5
What do you mean, come on strong? The were 9-9 in the BE. Same as us. It wasnt all that impressive. Frankly, the committee didnt think Seton Hall's 9-9 was all that impressive either, and they beat Kentucky, Maryland and won 2 games in the BET. I think the Committee send a pretty strong message that the BE needs to get better in the non-conference. Good. Like Rockaway and others said, that means scheduling better AND playing better. What? Xavier won 7 of their last 9 including two wins over St John's and a win over Villanova and Seton Hall. They lost a heartbreaker to Nova in the BT. I agree that the BE sucks this year and only deserve 4 slots in the tourney. But that fourth belonged to Xavier not St. Johns. I agree that Xavier "looked" better lately but they beat no one outside of the BE this year. Lost to Wisconsin, Auburn, SD State, Cincy, Mizzou. Pretty ugly.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 15:14:14 GMT -5
What do you mean, come on strong? The were 9-9 in the BE. Same as us. It wasnt all that impressive. Frankly, the committee didnt think Seton Hall's 9-9 was all that impressive either, and they beat Kentucky, Maryland and won 2 games in the BET. I think the Committee send a pretty strong message that the BE needs to get better in the non-conference. Good. Like Rockaway and others said, that means scheduling better AND playing better. What? Xavier won 7 of their last 9 including two wins over St John's and a win over Villanova and Seton Hall. They lost a heartbreaker to Nova in the BT. I agree that the BE sucks this year and only deserve 4 slots in the tourney. But that fourth belonged to Xavier not St. Johns. You said they came on strong during BE conference games. Im asking what you meant. If you mean they won 7 of 9, okay. But, I would still say that doesn't matter. Overall, they were 9-9 in the BE and not even close to a better bubble team than SJU. I dont even recall Xavier being in the bubble discussion, frankly. I just went to the bracketmatrix and I didnt see them on their at all. SJU was on like 120 brackets. We can quibble about SJU being in there, but like aleutian said, let's not pretend they came out of nowhere to steal a spot from other teams - particularly, Xavier. Huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:23:54 GMT -5
Do you think those teams are better than St Johns? I think they are equal to St. John's and the rest of the mediocre bubble big conference teams. I think if they played 10 times you get about 5 wins for each. Furman beat Nova at Nova, UNCG didn't lose any non Q1 games and gave LSU all they wanted at LSU, and Lipscomb won at TCU and lost at Louisville by 4. The tournament is an any given day crapshoot as it is. I like seeing those that don't get all the breaks and chances given the opportunity on the biggest stage. Those 3 teams also have a combined 2 wins against teams in the Field. UNCG's best win is on a neutral vs Furman. Furman lost a home game to Samford (200 net) and really their only quality wins were at Nova and home vs UNCG. St John's also has close losses vs quality opponents away and was 10-10 vs Quad 1-2 opponents. 3 wins vs Quette and Nova. A win vs VCU on a neutral. 5 wins against teams in the field. Obviously they have way more opportunities, but it seems like they did better with the opportunities they had. Imo the only consideration should be putting the best teams in. I do agree with your overall point about the inconsistency of the committee when picking the last few teams that get in.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 15:33:50 GMT -5
Yeah, Im happy SJU got in, in one sense, because their season is pretty close to the way we have been scheduling - not overly tough in the OOC, but make sure you win the games. As others pointed out, it seems to suggest that if we had beaten LMU and SMU we probably would have made it. That's good to know. Adding the MSG tourney and a couple of decent home and away games should be the way to go next year.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,395
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 18, 2019 15:40:06 GMT -5
What? Xavier won 7 of their last 9 including two wins over St John's and a win over Villanova and Seton Hall. They lost a heartbreaker to Nova in the BT. I agree that the BE sucks this year and only deserve 4 slots in the tourney. But that fourth belonged to Xavier not St. Johns. I agree that Xavier "looked" better lately but they beat no one outside of the BE this year. Lost to Wisconsin, Auburn, SD State, Cincy, Mizzou. Pretty ugly. And who did St Johns beat outside the BE this year that would make up for their godawful BE record? VCU? And Xavier played a much tougher OOC schedule this year than did St Johns. Look, I agree that neither team is a threat to win the national championship but St. Johns, considering their talent, was a disgrace.
|
|