Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:34 pm to djsdawg
Head to head is a tough road to go down. I get that. For example Western Illinois beat Wisconsin this year. You don't put western Illinois ahead of wisky
But Carolina and vandy and Tulsa were so damn close it looks like. It looks bad when one team beat the other and also beat the other teams they lost too. At some point common sense should matter
Syracuse, vandy and Tulsa man. That's some bad decisions. Vandy probably not as bad
But Carolina and vandy and Tulsa were so damn close it looks like. It looks bad when one team beat the other and also beat the other teams they lost too. At some point common sense should matter
Syracuse, vandy and Tulsa man. That's some bad decisions. Vandy probably not as bad
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:36 pm to MeatPants
quote:
But Carolina and vandy and Tulsa were so damn close it looks like. It looks bad when one team beat the other and also beat the other teams they lost too. At some point common sense should matter
Syracuse, vandy and Tulsa man. That's some bad decisions. Vandy probably not as bad
Compare How each did vs the top 50.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:37 pm to MeatPants
Hawkeye just picked a different criteria than just "top 50 is cut and dried". So you are admitting their is more to debate then just like we said
I respect the opinion that Carolina sucks. I'm in that boat. I'm just telling you Tulsa sucks too and I don't really buy them being better than Carolina based on all kinds of criteria
But it isn't so cut and dried
I respect the opinion that Carolina sucks. I'm in that boat. I'm just telling you Tulsa sucks too and I don't really buy them being better than Carolina based on all kinds of criteria
But it isn't so cut and dried
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:39 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
B easily based on that data. You may want to give a little more.
What more could anyone want to see? Team B is Tulsa. The cock fans are upset and have no argument on why Tulsa got in over them.
It is a pretty cut and dry argument. Its easy to see why Tulsa is in and they're not.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:39 pm to MeatPants
Vandy was like 2-7. And for god sakes why is everyone living and dying by a computer arbitrary top 50. What about top 62 then or whatever
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:41 pm to CidCock
I agree with you, OP. Schedule strength is nothing more than a tool that can help evaluate how good a team is. It shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. And I agree that an undefeated record against a weak OOC schedule should be viewed at least neutrally, as should a terrible record against a good OOC schedule. You don't prove anything, good or bad, when you either lose to a great team or beat a bad one, but for some reason the committee thinks the former is a good thing and the latter is a bad one.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:42 pm to MeatPants
quote:
why is everyone living and dying by a computer arbitrary top 50.
Exactly. Such BS. How about top 100? Is it better to be 8-4 or 8-8 against top 100 teams?
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:42 pm to MeatPants
Because they value playing and beating top 50 teams. It's a nice round number that essentially tells you who the top 20% are.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:42 pm to MeatPants
quote:
Vandy was like 2-7. And for god sakes why is everyone living and dying by a computer arbitrary top 50.
Because Top 50 is where most of your tourney teams come from. That is why top 50 wins matter so much.
Have you ever kept up with college basketball? 3/4(or more) of your top 50 is what makes up the tourney field. It is very important to have some wins against those teams.
Top 50-100 matters, but just not as much as top 50.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:43 pm to MeatPants
To me it's simple. Carolina didn't get in because their schedule sucked. And it's reasonable to believe that if they played a tougher schedule their record would have sucked
Top 50 is a decent indicator but it ain't that great. Beating Davidson or Princeton. doesn't mean that much to me as a top 50 win when beating Michigan or Syracuse is not a top 50 win. Or temple etc. at some point there has to be common sense
Top 50 is a decent indicator but it ain't that great. Beating Davidson or Princeton. doesn't mean that much to me as a top 50 win when beating Michigan or Syracuse is not a top 50 win. Or temple etc. at some point there has to be common sense
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:43 pm to MeatPants
quote:
based on all kinds of criteria
Irrelevant data
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:46 pm to MeatPants
By the way Ken Pom is a better indicator and they have Wichita state 12th in the country. People who live and die by top whatever rpi are missing the boat. It's a good reference but shouldn't be used to exclusively rate teams which you are saying it should
That's just wrong on many levels. But it is a decent tool and indicator
That's just wrong on many levels. But it is a decent tool and indicator
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:48 pm to MeatPants
Which one is irrelevant dj? The committee has said they use all of those
Just because you think it's irrelevant doesn't mean it is. And it shouldn't be
Just because you think it's irrelevant doesn't mean it is. And it shouldn't be
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:48 pm to MeatPants
From espn days ago:
South Carolina [24-8 (11-7), RPI: 56, SOS: 157] The SEC finishes with two teams still very much on the bubble. Wait, huh? Vanderbilt, sure. That's nothing new. But South Carolina? Weren't they on the "should be in" list on Saturday morning? And for most of the past month before that? Indeed. Yet the more we look at this resume, the more we worry. As we've noted in the past, South Carolina's nonconference schedule -- part of a 15-0 start that was the program's best since 1933-34 -- is the worst of any at-large team in the field. Time and again in recent seasons the committee has punished teams for soft nonleague slates. Sometimes, that punishment is a matter of seeding. Other times it's cost a team its bid
South Carolina [24-8 (11-7), RPI: 56, SOS: 157] The SEC finishes with two teams still very much on the bubble. Wait, huh? Vanderbilt, sure. That's nothing new. But South Carolina? Weren't they on the "should be in" list on Saturday morning? And for most of the past month before that? Indeed. Yet the more we look at this resume, the more we worry. As we've noted in the past, South Carolina's nonconference schedule -- part of a 15-0 start that was the program's best since 1933-34 -- is the worst of any at-large team in the field. Time and again in recent seasons the committee has punished teams for soft nonleague slates. Sometimes, that punishment is a matter of seeding. Other times it's cost a team its bid
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:50 pm to MeatPants
quote:
NCAA Tournament Selection - SEC by MeatPants
Which one is irrelevant dj? The committee has said they use all of those
Just because you think it's irrelevant doesn't mean it is. And it shouldn't be
Head to head and common opponents matter? No, they have not said that, so what else are you talking about?
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:51 pm to MeatPants
quote:
To me it's simple. Carolina didn't get in because their schedule sucked
Agree, at least, OOC schedule really sucked. SOS rating of 300. There are only like 20 spots or so it could have been worse.
quote:
And it's reasonable to believe that if they played a tougher schedule their record would have sucked
See, now you're thinking like someone on the committee.
So the problem now is, because the SEC was portrayed as so bad, we do not know how good Scar actually is against tougher OOC competition. We don't have a sample to view. We did see Vanderbilt go OOC and compete against higher end competition in Maui, they also played Baylor and had an OOC SOS of 42.
quote:
Top 50 is a decent indicator but it ain't that great
It is the best indicator. Most all of your top 50 teams are tourney teams. So that is a good indicator of how much a team deserves to be playing those teams. Does a team deserve inclusion with the other top 50 teams by how it performed this seasons against other top 50 teams?
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:51 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Time and again in recent seasons the committee has punished teams for soft nonleague slates
This doesn't even get into the fact that SC only played 1 OOC road game. Most teams play 3-4 true OOC road games
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:53 pm to Hawgeye
quote:
Have you ever kept up with college basketball
Great question to ask
Posted on 3/14/16 at 1:54 pm to djsdawg
Yep. That's why I agree with most people on here on why Carolina doesn't belong. But don't tell me how great Tulsa is. I could list ten schools at least and give valid arguments. Carolina does have a valid argument over Tulsa.
And a lot of people who do this crap for a living and follow it better than you or I would agree.
Look at bracket matrix. Out of 59 experts who do this all year long, not one. NOT ONE had Tulsa in. Carolina was at least in on about a third of them.
There is a legit debate at least. You can give the cock fans that at least
And a lot of people who do this crap for a living and follow it better than you or I would agree.
Look at bracket matrix. Out of 59 experts who do this all year long, not one. NOT ONE had Tulsa in. Carolina was at least in on about a third of them.
There is a legit debate at least. You can give the cock fans that at least
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News