Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

53 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Not to mention when we played Minnesota they were 8-1.  They were a top 10 team and at full strength with wins over Providence and Alabama. 

 

There is way to much computers can't do, and people add that into account... the selection committee will do just that.  They will also take note that St. Johns lost Lovett after playing us.  He was a huge part in their victory against us. 

 

I know you are not hating, but please take the charts, math ect... out of this.  They will give us the benefit of the doubt if we do go 12-6 in the league, because they will see those two game in a different light.  That Minnesota win in my opinion was a bigger win than Michigan

 

I think you're making a big assumption that the committee knows about the best player for St. John's. I actually don't think they go into that much detail. Maybe for Minnesota since it's been a more prominent national storyline, but I highly highly doubt the committee is going to have any clue who Lovett is, let alone know that he played against us.

 

I'm not going to take the math out of this because the committee will not be doing the same. Yes, there are other factors that go into it (namely the eye test during late season play), but the RPI or KenPom or w/e they decide to refer to is a huge deal.

[Nebrasketball1979]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before but I found it very interesting that you can go to the website below and get the current "team sheets" that the selection committee will see when they are in the room.  A huge issue is the fact that our average win this year comes against teams with an RPI of 192.  I also find it very telling that this metric is shown in larger font in the upper right hand corner.  This is going to stick out like a sore thumb.  The losses are all acceptable but when presented this way, I can see why we still have a lot of work to do and why we aren't sniffing the next 15 out on a lot of brackets.  Just keep winning baby!

 

Website - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx

 

Nebraska Current Team Sheet

 

[Norm Peterson]

We had the misfortune of scheduling the team that turned out to be the very worst team in D1 this year.

[Art Vandalay]

20 hours ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

Can you provide some examples where a Power Conference team gets in over a mid-major, when the PC team has a notably worse RPI and worse record against quality opponents, and where seemingly a big reason they got in is because they had a good conference record? If that were the case, shouldn't Washington in 2012 have gotten a bid? They finished 1st in the Pac-12 with a 21-10 (14-4) record. But since their resume didn't support it (lack of big wins, RPI in the 70s), they were NIT-bound.

 

Obviously the Power Conferences get more bids in general, but that's also when the metrics support it. You say the PC teams play tougher teams day-in day-out, which is true, but that's also reflected in the metrics. I would argue that any time a mid-major seemingly gets snubbed, it's because the committee truly felt the PC team had the better overall resume.

 

Even if it's true that the committee considers conference standings, that still won't work in our favor this year. Currently, the Big Ten is sixth in conference RPI. The last two years, the sixth conference received four (2017 Pac-12) and three (2016 SEC) bids. We just aren't used to the Big Ten being so down like it is this year, so it's hard to wrap our minds around the 4 seed missing the dance.

 

Really, that is pretty easy. How about Illinois St just last year vs Providence and Wake Forest who got in ahead of them.

 

I get the stats matter but a lot of people on here treat them like they are the only criteria. If that is the case the committee would just go right down the RPI list. The RPI is used but team knowledge, records, eye tests are just as or more important and I believe we are pretty good in those areas. Obviously not a slam dunk but no where near the dire straights a lot of people are projecting.

 

Get to 22 wins, alone in 4th in the BIG10 and we have had a great season and think we have at least 50/50 shot and probably better.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Art Vandalay

[aphilso1]

Unfortunately we won't know what the committee is thinking until Selection Sunday.  Among bubble teams, most will have at least one or two Quadrant 3/4 losses.  Nebraska on the other hand has no bad losses.  How much does that help offset having no Quadrant 1 victories?  Tough to say, and honestly it seems like the relative value of bad losses vs. great wins varies year to year.  It's even harder to predict this year now that we've got the quadrant mumbo jumbo.  

 

WRT the St. John's loss, I don't think it matters at all that Lovett was in the game.  We got absolutely crushed.  Lovett being out wouldn't have flipped that game from a W to an L, so the point is moot.

[HuskerActuary]

25 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

We had the misfortune of scheduling the team that turned out to be the very worst team in D1 this year.

Eh. They were #339 in KenPom last year. I'd chalk this up as poor decision making versus misfortune.

[hskr4life]

I just hope they abide by these wonderful song lyrics...

 

I thought Huskers were only true in fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for us
NIT was out to get em
That's the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all our dreams

 

Then I saw them play, now I'm a believer
Not a trace, of doubt in my mind
They're in the field ooooo and I'm a believer
I couldn't leave em out if I tried

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

23 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

Really, that is pretty easy. How about Illinois St just last year vs Providence and Wake Forest who got in ahead of them.

 

I get the stats matter but a lot of people on here treat them like they are the only criteria. If that is the case the committee would just go right down the RPI list. The RPI is used but team knowledge, records, eye tests are just as or more important and I believe we are pretty good in those areas. Obviously not a slam dunk but no where near the dire straights a lot of people are projecting.

 

Get to 22 wins, alone in 4th in the BIG10 and we have had a great season and think we have at least 50/50 shot and probably better.

 

RPI at time of selection:

Illinois State: 33

Wake Forest: 39

Providence: 56

 

So Providence is definitely on the border with regards to RPI, but they were 4-5 against RPI top 50 teams, whereas Illinois State was 0-2. I think that's what impacted the decision, not the fact that Providence finished 5th in the Big East. So if anything, I think this point hurts Nebraska. We look more like ISU than we do Providence.

 

The post above made by @Nebrasketball1979 doesn't seem to show conference standings or conference records anywhere. The conference record could only be implied by the Non-Con record that is shown. It's not a factor in the committee's decision.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

[jdostal]

I think we need to get some of those Russia twitter bots to hype us up.

[OmahaHusker]

4 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

RPI at time of selection:

Illinois State: 33

Wake Forest: 39

Providence: 56

 

So Providence is definitely on the border with regards to RPI, but they were 4-5 against RPI top 50 teams, whereas Illinois State was 0-2. I think that's what impacted the decision, not the fact that Providence finished 5th in the Big East. So if anything, I think this point hurts Nebraska. We look more like ISU than we do Providence.

 

The post above made by @Nebrasketball1979 doesn't seem to show conference standings or conference records anywhere. The conference record could only be implied by the Non-Con record that is shown. It's not a factor in the committee's decision.

 

 

Was just going to mention this as well...if the committee is going by those sheets to make their decisions...they're not showing final conference record or final place in conference standings. If anything they're trying to mitigate those types of factors with these sheets.

[HuskerFever]

11 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

The post above made by @Nebrasketball1979 doesn't seem to show conference standings or conference records anywhere. The conference record could only be implied by the Non-Con record that is shown. It's not a factor in the committee's decision.

 

 

Although it doesn't explicitly state conference records, they're split into non-conference and overall. Just takes simple math to know the conference record. With that in mind though, sometimes it's about what's not being said on those sheets that means something. All speculation, but this could be a way of hiding any bias of conference affiliation to the public, but then conferences are discusses behind closed doors. Who knows?

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

7 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Although it doesn't explicitly state conference records, they're split into non-conference and overall. Just takes simple math to know the conference record. With that in mind though, sometimes it's about what's not being said on those sheets that means something. All speculation, but this could be a way of hiding any bias of conference affiliation to the public, but then conferences are discusses behind closed doors. Who knows?

 

If you read my whole comment that you quoted, you can see that I mentioned the conference record can be implied by the non-con record. Anyways, if it were important it would be listed on there. I don't have proof, but I know I've heard committee members state on a number of occasions they don't care about conference placement and that they simply evaluate teams on their individual merit. Just like in football.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

[HuskerFever]

10 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

If you read my whole comment that you quoted, you can see that I mentioned the conference record can be implied by the non-con record. Anyways, if it were important it would be listed on there. I don't have proof, but I know I've heard committee members state on a number of occasions they don't care about conference placement and that they simply evaluate teams on their individual merit. Just like in football.

 

Yeah I'm don't see any way you could pull conference rank from anywhere on those sheets unless you piece all 14 of them together. Aside from that I think we're saying the same thing that more data points and decision points can be made by more than what the ink on that paper says directly.

[royalfan]

Just because they have that sheet as a reference to lean on, doesn't mean they don't have other print outs etc that could easily include things like standings.  

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

4 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Yeah I'm don't see any way you could pull conference rank from anywhere on those sheets unless you piece all 14 of them together. Aside from that I think we're saying the same thing that more data points and decision points can be made by more than what the ink on that paper says directly.

 

Oh yeah, I'm saying that the only way you can extract conference record is by subtracting the non-con from the overall. I'm saying that I don't think the committee will do that, and that if the conference record (and standing) mattered it would be put on there very clearly. There's so much to work with on that sheet as is, I don't think the committee members will be doing any extra math to find other data points.

 

I think the committee sees two primary measures for making the dance: the ranking metrics (looks like they use RPI, KenPom, and BPI) and the record against Tier 1 teams.

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

5 minutes ago, royalfan said:

Just because they have that sheet as a reference to lean on, doesn't mean they don't have other print outs etc that could easily include things like standings.  

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2387936-behind-the-scenes-how-the-ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-really-works

 

"Likewise, they said, a conference's overall RPI would never be brought up, nor would where teams finished in their conference standings. Conference record doesn't even appear on the "nitty-gritty sheets" (similarly formatted to ESPN's) that committee members use for overviews of teams. So any time you hear someone talking about a team needing to get to .500 in Big 12 play or needing 12 Big Ten wins to get in, feel free to ignore it."

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

We had the misfortune of scheduling the team that turned out to be the very worst team in D1 this year.

 

Should have played Mary again

[HuskerFever]

30 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

Oh yeah, I'm saying that the only way you can extract conference record is by subtracting the non-con from the overall. I'm saying that I don't think the committee will do that, and that if the conference record (and standing) mattered it would be put on there very clearly. There's so much to work with on that sheet as is, I don't think the committee members will be doing any extra math to find other data points.

 

I think the committee sees two primary measures for making the dance: the ranking metrics (looks like they use RPI, KenPom, and BPI) and the record against Tier 1 teams.

 

If this is the case then we need to win at least 2 in the Big Ten tournament to get any hope to improve on the resume. The remaining conference schedule won't drastically help in any of those areas for us.

[Swan88]

10 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2387936-behind-the-scenes-how-the-ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-really-works

 

This article is based on a highly-realistic, mock selection committee exercise.  And thanks, Cookie, for posting!!

 

What it shows is one thing:  decisions are highly-subjective and based on Committee votes.  There is no such thing as a formula that directs the process.  Instead, it's like any other decision-making committee:  (i) standard information and instructions are provided to everyone, (ii) everyone does whatever independent research he/she wants to do (they all have access to the internet throughout the entire season), and (iii) subjective decisions are made by voting.  This is far-and-away removed from a fixed-system or a math-based formula.

 

Here are a couple illustrations from the article:

          --"Committee members [will have] preconceived notions" because "throughout the season, a plethora of ratings lists (RPI, BPI, Sagarin, KenPom, etc.) are sent out to the committee members."

          --"In addition . . . one coach from each conference submits a "Coaches Advisory Poll" on the first of each month, ranking the teams in his conference."

 

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

1 minute ago, HuskerFever said:

 

If this is the case then we need to win at least 2 in the Big Ten tournament to get any hope to improve on the resume. The remaining conference schedule won't drastically help in any of those areas for us.

 

Yeah. I won't go as far to say that we need two in the Big Ten tourney just yet. But I do think we need 23 total wins to have a chance.

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

10 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

This article is based on a highly-realistic, mock selection committee exercise.  And thanks, Cookie, for posting!!

 

What it shows is one thing:  decisions are highly-subjective and based on Committee votes.  There is no such thing as a formula that directs the process.  Instead, it's like any other decision-making committee:  (i) standard information and instructions are provided to everyone, (ii) everyone does whatever independent research he/she wants to do (they all have access to the internet throughout the entire season), and (iii) subjective decisions are made by voting.  This is far-and-away removed from a fixed-system or a math-based formula.

 

Here are a couple illustrations from the article:

          --"Committee members [will have] preconceived notions" because "throughout the season, a plethora of ratings lists (RPI, BPI, Sagarin, KenPom, etc.) are sent out to the committee members."

          --"In addition . . . one coach from each conference submits a "Coaches Advisory Poll" on the first of each month, ranking the teams in his conference."

 

 

Absolutely. I hope no one is interpreting me to be saying that it's purely metric-based. I know it's not. If it were, they'd just take the top XX teams in the RPI and be done with it. The main point I've been making is that our conference standing is not a factor in their decision. I've been seeing and hearing a lot of Husker fans say things like, "There's no way they'd keep out the 4th place B1G team who went 13-5 in conference!" My opinion is that they can and very well might this year.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

[cipsucks]

1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

I just hope they abide by these wonderful song lyrics...

 

I thought Huskers were only true in fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for us
NIT was out to get em
That's the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all our dreams

 

Then I saw them play, now I'm a believer
Not a trace, of doubt in my mind
They're in the field ooooo and I'm a believer
I couldn't leave em out if I tried

Neil Diamond is one of my favorites!

This song will be sung across Nebraska on Selection Sunday!

 

Let us rejoice and be glad!!!

[hskr4life]

Just now, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

Absolutely. I hope no one is interpreting me to be saying that it's purely metric-based. I know it's not. If it were, they'd just take the top XX teams in the RPI and be done with it. The main point I've been making is that our conference standing is not a factor in their decision. I've been seeing and hearing a lot of Husker fans say things like, "There's no way they'd keep out the 4th place B1G team who went 13-5 in conference!" Fact is, they can and very well might this year.

 

From what I read, neither is conference RPI... which many are saying will hinder our ability to get in.  

 

"Likewise, they said, a conference's overall RPI would never be brought up"

 

So in a way, the 4th place finishers and the conference RPI will only let 4 to maybe 5 Big 10 teams in are kind of in the same boat.

[hskr4life]

Serious question...

 

Does anyone else not like that a single one of our Big 10 games wasn't picked up by someone other than BTN after Jan 1?  Does anyone think that this doesn't help us with "the eye test?"

 

The only eyes we are getting on our games is Big 10 eyes.  That sucks to me.  Just a random thought I guess.

[OmahaHusker]

4 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

Serious question...

 

Does anyone else not like that a single one of our Big 10 games wasn't picked up by someone other than BTN after Jan 1?  Does anyone think that this doesn't help us with "the eye test?"

 

The only eyes we are getting on our games is Big 10 eyes.  That sucks to me.  Just a random thought I guess.

 

I actually was talking about this with a couple buddies this weekend while we watched Michigan State-Maryland on CBS and Villanova-Marquette on Fox. Would be nice to get a nationally televised game on a channel other than BTN.