|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 18, 2019 15:42:00 GMT -5
In addition to conference records not being on the NET team sheets, "last 10 games record" is a criteria the committee abandoned years ago, so I'm not understanding why that should all of a sudden be factored in. The committee sent a strong message that what you do in Nov./Dec. matters just as much as what you do in Feb./Mar.
Xavier's poor start but stronger finish carries no more weight than St. John's strong start but poorer finish.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 15:55:01 GMT -5
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. I think that's a fair opinion, but it's not relevant for the committee like Rockaway said. It does raise an interesting question about scheduling. Im guessing Xavier locked themselves in before Mack left, but that was a really tough schedule for a new coach and new team. They lost pretty much every game and it doomed them. SJU played a fair, meh schedule, but they went 13-0.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,331
|
Post by vv83 on Mar 18, 2019 16:27:05 GMT -5
Even though the committee did not go rigorously by NET ratings, it seems clear that efficiency data (the core of the NET) is now a lot more important than it used to be. So in the non-conference - destroying bad teams probably helps more than losing to good teams. You can't go too far with this - NC State was extreme this year with a weak OOC which they dominated; but they did not get enough good wins. Glad the committee looked at this and did not just blindly follow NET. It seems that they also put pretty heavy weight on Quad based records - getting some Q1 wins, avoiding Q3 and 4 losses
But if we schedule a JTIII style super tough OOC schedule and lose 3 or 4 games to good teams - that does not seem like a great formula either. Seems like something in the middle of the road may be the best strategic approach. Give yourself a chance for one or two good OOC wins, but also play enough teams that you can run up a big score against to boost your efficiency numbers. And avoid losing any OOC games to Q3/4 teams.
What may have hurt us as much as the SMU and LMU losses this year - all the "closer than they should have been" wins against mediocre/poor OOC teams (quads 3/4). This kept our efficiency margin down, and I think this is probably what hurt our NET rating more than anything. We need to dominate a few more bad teams in the OOC games in the future.
Of course nobody knows the exact NET formula, but based on how the field was selected/seeded, it seems that these are some of the emerging trends for consideration.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 18, 2019 16:28:06 GMT -5
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. They were all 4-6 vs Q1-2 which is 40% wins compared to SJU 50%. Small sample but advantage SJ. None had more than 1 Q3-4 loss and UNCG had none while SJ had 2. I think a lot of people believe these mediocre major conference teams would just go undefeated in these lesser conferences but that is likely not the case. These small teams basically have an entire conference schedule that is all risk and no reward. They can lose their chance at the tourney on any given night. I think we showed we were very similar to St. John's and even finished better in the BE. How many games do you think we would have lost if we played in the Southern Conference this year? It seems the committee focused on the amount of Q1 wins without taking into account opportunities. I believe if all those teams played in the BE this year they would've been in that same middle 8-9 win pack like the rest of the conference.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 18, 2019 16:35:31 GMT -5
Even though the committee did not go rigorously by NET ratings, it seems clear that efficiency data (the core of the NET) is now a lot more important than it used to be. So in the non-conference - destroying bad teams probably helps more than losing to good teams. You can't go too far with this - NC State was extreme this year with a weak OOC which they dominated; but they did not get enough good wins. Glad the committee looked at this and did not just blindly follow NET. It seems that they also put pretty heavy weight on Quad based records - getting some Q1 wins, avoiding Q3 and 4 losses But if we schedule a JTIII style super tough OOC schedule and lose 3 or 4 games to good teams - that does not seem like a great formula either. Seems like something in the middle of the road may be the best strategic approach. Give yourself a chance for one or two good OOC wins, but also play enough teams that you can run up a big score against to boost your efficiency numbers. And avoid losing any OOC games to Q3/4 teams. What may have hurt us as much as the SMU and LMU losses this year - all the "closer than they should have been" wins against mediocre/poor OOC teams (quads 3/4). This kept our efficiency margin down, and I think this is probably what hurt our NET rating more than anything. We need to dominate a few more bad teams in the OOC games in the future. Of course nobody knows the exact NET formula, but based on how the field was selected/seeded, it seems that these are some of the emerging trends for consideration. I would say the optimal schedule would be what SJU did, a lot of cupcakes and 2 good games, but NC State got screwed doing that so not sure what the answer is. One thing we cant do going forward is playing more than 1 MEAC or absolute bottom of the barrel teams.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,331
|
Post by vv83 on Mar 18, 2019 16:40:15 GMT -5
The problem with playing too weak an OOC schedule is also that it does not prep you well for tough BE games. Right now, there does not seem to be a real obvious way to "game" the scheduling process effectively, the way there was during the previous RPI-based era. Which would be a good thing - whatever your schedule is, win a lot of games if you want to have the best shot at getting into the NCAAs. Especially win a lot of your conference games. That should probably be the focus - play the OOC schedule that you think best prepares you to play well in conference. Challenging enough to toughen the team up, but not so challenging that you can't experiment with lineups/playing time a bit, or that you burn out before you get into the conference season.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,911
|
Post by Filo on Mar 18, 2019 17:09:28 GMT -5
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. I really don't have skin in the game here, so I don't really care whether it was SJU or Xavier. My only point was that Xavier beat absolutely no one of substance outside the BE. Point being, who cares if a team has a crazy tough OOC schedule if they don't win a single one of the games. This is why I wasn't too bent-out-of-shape about the Hoyas' weak OOC schedule this year. Starting three freshman and with a coach in his second year, I wouldn't have expected them to win many (any?) tough games early. So, it didn't matter if they failed to make the tournament because they had a losing overall record (by losing to some tough OOC teams) or because they had a weak OOC schedule. Result is the same -- they weren't making the tournament. However, next year is different - I believe they have a fairly decent shot at making the tournament, and Ewing will need to shore up that OOC schedule. Hopefully, the boys will win some of those tough OOC games, because almost every BE game is going to be a dogfight again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 18:16:31 GMT -5
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. They were all 4-6 vs Q1-2 which is 40% wins compared to SJU 50%. Small sample but advantage SJ. None had more than 1 Q3-4 loss and UNCG had none while SJ had 2. I think a lot of people believe these mediocre major conference teams would just go undefeated in these lesser conferences but that is likely not the case. These small teams basically have an entire conference schedule that is all risk and no reward. They can lose their chance at the tourney on any given night. I think we showed we were very similar to St. John's and even finished better in the BE. How many games do you think we would have lost if we played in the Southern Conference this year? It seems the committee focused on the amount of Q1 wins without taking into account opportunities. I believe if all those teams played in the BE this year they would've been in that same middle 8-9 win pack like the rest of the conference. 4-6 but that's heavily based on how they did against Q-2 opponents for two of them. Lipscomb's best win was @liberty. That was their only win vs a tournament team. I have to point out also UNCG didn't give LSU all it could handle. They were down 13 at half, double digits late, and made a couple baskets at the end to make it look good. I don't really see how their resume's are better than St Johns all things considered. One extra loss vs a Quad 3 opponent can't mean that much especially when one opponent is barely across the cut line. That loss being to us (#82) in the garden.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 18, 2019 18:26:57 GMT -5
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. I think that's a fair opinion, but it's not relevant for the committee like Rockaway said. It does raise an interesting question about scheduling. Im guessing Xavier locked themselves in before Mack left, but that was a really tough schedule for a new coach and new team. They lost pretty much every game and it doomed them. SJU played a fair, meh schedule, but they went 13-0. So can I assume if we had performed like Xavier over the past 3 weeks, had beaten St. Johns TWICE and had a better conference record than them we would still meekly accept the fact that they deserved the bid instead of us?
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 18, 2019 18:32:25 GMT -5
I think that's a fair opinion, but it's not relevant for the committee like Rockaway said. It does raise an interesting question about scheduling. Im guessing Xavier locked themselves in before Mack left, but that was a really tough schedule for a new coach and new team. They lost pretty much every game and it doomed them. SJU played a fair, meh schedule, but they went 13-0. So can I assume if we had performed like Xavier over the past 3 weeks, had beaten St. Johns TWICE and had a better conference record than them we would still meekly accept the fact that they deserved the bid instead of us? If despite accomplishing all of that we still finished 18-15, yes you can assume that.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2019 18:48:00 GMT -5
Yeah, definitely. Would we really have a complaint if we didn’t get in at 18–15? It doesn’t seem like there is a lot of criticism that Nc St, Indiana, Xavier and Texas didn’t get in. You gotta win more games.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 18, 2019 18:56:36 GMT -5
Yeah, definitely. Would we really have a complaint if we didn’t get in at 18–15? It doesn’t seem like there is a lot of criticism that Nc St, Indiana, Xavier and Texas didn’t get in. You gotta win more games. You're a better man than I am. I'd be going nuts if we had handled St Johns and the rest of the BE league leaders the way Xavier did and still didn't get an invite.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by hoyarooter on Mar 18, 2019 20:09:02 GMT -5
Someone has probably already commented about this, but if not, I want to mention that Bernard Muir was the head of the selection committee this year. I enjoyed seeing him on the selection show.
St. John's was very fortunate to get in. Was our loss to Seton Hall any worse than their loss to Marquette? Last team in, and we'll see how they do against ASU from the crappy Pac-12.
|
|
|
Post by tribeninerhoya on Mar 19, 2019 7:57:01 GMT -5
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. They were all 4-6 vs Q1-2 which is 40% wins compared to SJU 50%. Small sample but advantage SJ. None had more than 1 Q3-4 loss and UNCG had none while SJ had 2. I think a lot of people believe these mediocre major conference teams would just go undefeated in these lesser conferences but that is likely not the case. These small teams basically have an entire conference schedule that is all risk and no reward. They can lose their chance at the tourney on any given night. I think we showed we were very similar to St. John's and even finished better in the BE. How many games do you think we would have lost if we played in the Southern Conference this year? It seems the committee focused on the amount of Q1 wins without taking into account opportunities. I believe if all those teams played in the BE this year they would've been in that same middle 8-9 win pack like the rest of the conference. I agree. There's a helluva lot of assumption that lower budget basketball teams can't put 5 competitive guys on the court. That's just not true. There can be fantastic teams in any conference anywhere. Unlike some teams that get to trot out and play 20 Q1/Q2 games, these lower conference teams might only get to play 10. Just because they go 6-4 and the other team goes 7-13 doesn't mean they're worse (I'd argue the opposite, actually). Especially when they're likely playing a higher percentage of their total games away from home. In addition, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy if the NCAA doesn't give the conference at-large berths and then knocks them for not playing more NCAA tournament teams. Well, if they had let Furman (another bubble team in), then they would've gotten some more "wins against tournament teams." That's a pretty terrible metric. If UNCG had gotten in, then the others would've gotten "wins against a tournament team." It's not like the win got better or worse simply because they were one of the last four in vs first four out. That's why quadrant records are easier to work with, and probably a little more truthful (though we can argue that the line there is also misleading - a win against #74 on the road isn't really any better than a win against #76). At least when I'm told they had x number of top-25 wins, x number of top-50 wins, x number of top-100 wins, etc., I can evaluate those records a little more evenly.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 19, 2019 12:00:45 GMT -5
They were all 4-6 vs Q1-2 which is 40% wins compared to SJU 50%. Small sample but advantage SJ. None had more than 1 Q3-4 loss and UNCG had none while SJ had 2. I think a lot of people believe these mediocre major conference teams would just go undefeated in these lesser conferences but that is likely not the case. These small teams basically have an entire conference schedule that is all risk and no reward. They can lose their chance at the tourney on any given night. I think we showed we were very similar to St. John's and even finished better in the BE. How many games do you think we would have lost if we played in the Southern Conference this year? It seems the committee focused on the amount of Q1 wins without taking into account opportunities. I believe if all those teams played in the BE this year they would've been in that same middle 8-9 win pack like the rest of the conference. 4-6 but that's heavily based on how they did against Q-2 opponents for two of them. Lipscomb's best win was @liberty. That was their only win vs a tournament team. I have to point out also UNCG didn't give LSU all it could handle. They were down 13 at half, double digits late, and made a couple baskets at the end to make it look good. I don't really see how their resume's are better than St Johns all things considered. One extra loss vs a Quad 3 opponent can't mean that much especially when one opponent is barely across the cut line. That loss being to us (#82) in the garden. St. John's was behind Lipscomb and Furman in all the reasonable metrics and slightly ahead of UNCG on half. There is a reason they would be underdogs to them. As the previous guy said the NCAA is a self fulfilling prophecy with how they constantly keep the mid majors out. They will look to the one metric they can find then make that they key in their reasoning. While I understand the reason behind the quad system it is quite silly. Even if you look at major teams like NC State. One of the knocks was they went 1-9 vs Q1. Well 5 of those games were to #1 seeds and the lowest Q1 game was away at a 5 seed. Meanwhile St. John's gets 5 Q1 wins by beating all 5 seeds or lower. They both went 500 in conference with the ACC being significantly better than the BE and they both have those 2 bad Q3 losses. Makes no sense There has never been a bubble level major conference team that has made the final 4. There have been multiple mid majors that have done it and pretty much everyone loves those runs. Why not try and get more?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 19, 2019 12:16:03 GMT -5
4-6 but that's heavily based on how they did against Q-2 opponents for two of them. Lipscomb's best win was @liberty. That was their only win vs a tournament team. I have to point out also UNCG didn't give LSU all it could handle. They were down 13 at half, double digits late, and made a couple baskets at the end to make it look good. I don't really see how their resume's are better than St Johns all things considered. One extra loss vs a Quad 3 opponent can't mean that much especially when one opponent is barely across the cut line. That loss being to us (#82) in the garden. St. John's was behind Lipscomb and Furman in all the reasonable metrics and slightly ahead of UNCG on half. There is a reason they would be underdogs to them. As the previous guy said the NCAA is a self fulfilling prophecy with how they constantly keep the mid majors out. They will look to the one metric they can find then make that they key in their reasoning. While I understand the reason behind the quad system it is quite silly. Even if you look at major teams like NC State. One of the knocks was they went 1-9 vs Q1. Well 5 of those games were to #1 seeds and the lowest Q1 game was away at a 5 seed. Meanwhile St. John's gets 5 Q1 wins by beating all 5 seeds or lower. They both went 500 in conference with the ACC being significantly better than the BE and they both have those 2 bad Q3 losses. Makes no sense There has never been a bubble level major conference team that has made the final 4. There have been multiple mid majors that have done it and pretty much everyone loves those runs. Why not try and get more? Never? I know we'd like to forget, but a certain team from upstate NY went to the FF as a double-digit at large team just a few years ago. Sure, Mason and VCU have been mid major at large teams that have been high seeds that have been there. But the reality is there haven't been many double digit seeds (regardless of conference or way they qualified) to get to the FF. The fact that two recent mid majors to get there were at Large selections is some evidence the committee isn't out to screw them. Regardless, I personally would love to see more small schools in. ESPN had a late season event for mid-majors that was a great way to get them good games...don't think they do it anymore. Too bad. (I've long thought that part of the selection process should actually be some way for small schools to try to prove they tried to play the big guys and the big guys said no.)
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,838
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 19, 2019 12:17:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 12:41:03 GMT -5
4-6 but that's heavily based on how they did against Q-2 opponents for two of them. Lipscomb's best win was @liberty. That was their only win vs a tournament team. I have to point out also UNCG didn't give LSU all it could handle. They were down 13 at half, double digits late, and made a couple baskets at the end to make it look good. I don't really see how their resume's are better than St Johns all things considered. One extra loss vs a Quad 3 opponent can't mean that much especially when one opponent is barely across the cut line. That loss being to us (#82) in the garden. St. John's was behind Lipscomb and Furman in all the reasonable metrics and slightly ahead of UNCG on half. There is a reason they would be underdogs to them. As the previous guy said the NCAA is a self fulfilling prophecy with how they constantly keep the mid majors out. They will look to the one metric they can find then make that they key in their reasoning. While I understand the reason behind the quad system it is quite silly. Even if you look at major teams like NC State. One of the knocks was they went 1-9 vs Q1. Well 5 of those games were to #1 seeds and the lowest Q1 game was away at a 5 seed. Meanwhile St. John's gets 5 Q1 wins by beating all 5 seeds or lower. They both went 500 in conference with the ACC being significantly better than the BE and they both have those 2 bad Q3 losses. Makes no sense There has never been a bubble level major conference team that has made the final 4. There have been multiple mid majors that have done it and pretty much everyone loves those runs. Why not try and get more? That's not true though. Cuse made it to the Final Four as a 10 seed a couple years back. UNCG's 4 quad 1-2 wins are against Furman twice and East Tennessee St twice. Furman's are Nova (good) UNCG, East Tennessee St. and Loyola meh (135 NET). They are also the only team in this group with a quad 4 loss (Samford 200 Net) and their non-conference SOS was 262. Their resumes are mostly built on beating each other. Wofford dominated that league, went 19-0, and lost by double digits to every one of their Quad 1 opponents who didn't play in their conference. UNC, Miss St, Oklahoma, and Kansas by 25. Wofford beat UNCG by 30 twice. Aside from Fordham beating Nova when the top teams in that conference played against good HM schools they lost. Imo at some point you have to win some games. I think the last sentence is really what this is about and that's fine if you feel that way. A lot of people feel that way. But when you zoom in instead of zooming out it's seems like St Johns (5 wins vs tourney teams) has the stronger resume based on performance.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 19, 2019 16:03:08 GMT -5
St. John's was behind Lipscomb and Furman in all the reasonable metrics and slightly ahead of UNCG on half. There is a reason they would be underdogs to them. As the previous guy said the NCAA is a self fulfilling prophecy with how they constantly keep the mid majors out. They will look to the one metric they can find then make that they key in their reasoning. While I understand the reason behind the quad system it is quite silly. Even if you look at major teams like NC State. One of the knocks was they went 1-9 vs Q1. Well 5 of those games were to #1 seeds and the lowest Q1 game was away at a 5 seed. Meanwhile St. John's gets 5 Q1 wins by beating all 5 seeds or lower. They both went 500 in conference with the ACC being significantly better than the BE and they both have those 2 bad Q3 losses. Makes no sense There has never been a bubble level major conference team that has made the final 4. There have been multiple mid majors that have done it and pretty much everyone loves those runs. Why not try and get more? Never? I know we'd like to forget, but a certain team from upstate NY went to the FF as a double-digit at large team just a few years ago. Sure, Mason and VCU have been mid major at large teams that have been high seeds that have been there. But the reality is there haven't been many double digit seeds (regardless of conference or way they qualified) to get to the FF. The fact that two recent mid majors to get there were at Large selections is some evidence the committee isn't out to screw them. Regardless, I personally would love to see more small schools in. ESPN had a late season event for mid-majors that was a great way to get them good games...don't think they do it anymore. Too bad. (I've long thought that part of the selection process should actually be some way for small schools to try to prove they tried to play the big guys and the big guys said no.) A 10 seed isnt really bubble level in my mind. That means you were like the 7th-10th safest team in this new format. The mid majors that made it were some of the last teams in. Jay Bilas even called the VCU inclusion a joke by the committee. The ironic part is some thought going to 68 teams meant more mid majors would get in but that number has dwindled to virtually 1 a year. It's almost like they throw one in just to be like look we don't completely ignore them. If anything I would think there should be more mid vs major play in games like tonight. They could play that angle up to drum up interest. In the history of the play in there have been 6 at mids that played in the play in and they are 4-2 although one game was mid vs mid. It would be great if all the mids had a mini 8 team tourney of the best non auto qualifiers during the last weekend when the big conference tourneys are going and the 2 that make the final get auto bids to the first 4 games.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 19, 2019 16:04:28 GMT -5
St. John's was behind Lipscomb and Furman in all the reasonable metrics and slightly ahead of UNCG on half. There is a reason they would be underdogs to them. As the previous guy said the NCAA is a self fulfilling prophecy with how they constantly keep the mid majors out. They will look to the one metric they can find then make that they key in their reasoning. While I understand the reason behind the quad system it is quite silly. Even if you look at major teams like NC State. One of the knocks was they went 1-9 vs Q1. Well 5 of those games were to #1 seeds and the lowest Q1 game was away at a 5 seed. Meanwhile St. John's gets 5 Q1 wins by beating all 5 seeds or lower. They both went 500 in conference with the ACC being significantly better than the BE and they both have those 2 bad Q3 losses. Makes no sense There has never been a bubble level major conference team that has made the final 4. There have been multiple mid majors that have done it and pretty much everyone loves those runs. Why not try and get more? That's not true though. Cuse made it to the Final Four as a 10 seed a couple years back. UNCG's 4 quad 1-2 wins are against Furman twice and East Tennessee St twice. Furman's are Nova (good) UNCG, East Tennessee St. and Loyola meh (135 NET). They are also the only team in this group with a quad 4 loss (Samford 200 Net) and their non-conference SOS was 262. Their resumes are mostly built on beating each other. Wofford dominated that league, went 19-0, and lost by double digits to every one of their Quad 1 opponents who didn't play in their conference. UNC, Miss St, Oklahoma, and Kansas by 25. Wofford beat UNCG by 30 twice. Aside from Fordham beating Nova when the top teams in that conference played against good HM schools they lost. Imo at some point you have to win some games. I think the last sentence is really what this is about and that's fine if you feel that way. A lot of people feel that way. But when you zoom in instead of zooming out it's seems like St Johns (5 wins vs tourney teams) has the stronger resume based on performance. What do youthink St. John's record would have been in the Southern Conference? What do you think Furman's record would have been in the Big East? What is the reasonable argument for ST John's getting in over NC State?
|
|