Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

10 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

Very good to read. Really makes the metrics only guys on here take a second look. Non con SOS is not really a factor, they look at each game individually, No bad losses is a big factor, etc. 3 more wins, just get them somehow.

 

I thought 12 conference wins would make us a no-brainer. Shouldn't that mean only one more win?

[HuskerActuary]

Bracket Matrix was just updated. He only included brackets that have been updated in the last 3 days, so there are only 74 of them. We are in 9 of them, good enough for fourth team out, our highest standing yet on Bracket Matrix.

 

Last Four In

Texas

UCLA

Baylor

USC

 

First Four Out

Washington

Syracuse

St. Bonaventure (playing tonight)

Nebraska

[Art Vandalay]

1 hour ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

I thought 12 conference wins would make us a no-brainer. Shouldn't that mean only one more win?

 

It very well could but I want to be safe and these things are fluid, not just black and white numbers. Tell us again how our non con SOS will kill us? or how quadrant win/losses all count the same, or how we did in conference does not matter. Your the one who has been talking in absolutes. My point along there is that there is more to it than numbers which the head of the committee seemed to confirm, odd.

[Agsker]

Boatwright done for the year. That's gonna hurt USCs tournament chances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuskerActuary]

7 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

It very well could but I want to be safe and these things are fluid, not just black and white numbers. Tell us again how our non con SOS will kill us? or how quadrant win/losses all count the same, or how we did in conference does not matter. Your the one who has been talking in absolutes. My point along there is that there is more to it than numbers which the head of the committee seemed to confirm, odd.

Uhh sorry. Not to get into a pissing match, but you said this last month:

 

"I am with you.The BIG10 is still a power conference and if we are in the top 5-6 with 20 wins we will be at worst on the bubble and I think we get in. We played some good non con teams at least so it is not like we played a embarrassing non con that they would hold against us."

 

Yeah, no. We've been saying we needed 22-23 wins to be considered all along and that is exactly where we are, and nothing Bruce said would say differently. "Really makes the metrics only guys on here take a second look", give me a break. Starting to think I liked this site better when we were non-contenders.

[49r]

1 hour ago, jdw said:

Bowen was a Creighton lean till the bidding got to $100,000.

 

Bowen had about half of Division I bidding on him it seems, and most of the bidders could say he was leaning toward their school at one point or another!  

 

But seriously, that situation in and of itself doesn't *necessarily* implicate Creighton as participating in the type of shady dealing being investigated...

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

24 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

It very well could but I want to be safe and these things are fluid, not just black and white numbers. Tell us again how our non con SOS will kill us? or how quadrant win/losses all count the same, or how we did in conference does not matter. Your the one who has been talking in absolutes. My point along there is that there is more to it than numbers which the head of the committee seemed to confirm, odd.

 

Haha. I haven’t once said any of those things.

 

I’ve been hammering home the fact that our lack of impressive wins (not a metric!) is the most damning aspect of our resume, and because of that we’d probably need 23 wins to get in. I’ve said 22 wins with an RPI in the 50s and our lack of impressive wins will have us on the bubble, but IMO probably out. Which you mocked because “there’s no way a 12 win 4th place B1G team would get snubbed.”

 

Please show me where I said that our Non-Con SOS would kill us. I did say our Non-Con performance will do us no favors.

 

Please show me where I said all Quad games count the same. I’ve said that I do think the quads will have an impact in the decisions, and that a winless Q1 will not be a good look.

 

Please show me where I said our conference performance doesn’t matter. I’ve said that specifically, conference record and conference standings are not used in the selection process, but of course your conference games matter because they help form the whole resume.

 

It seems that you’ve been twisting what I say to fit this mental image of a “metric-only guy” you have of me.

[Art Vandalay]

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

 

Haha. I haven’t once said any of those things.

 

I’ve been hammering home the fact that our lack of impressive wins (not a metric!) is the most damning aspect of our resume, and because of that we’d probably need 23 wins to get in. I’ve said 22 wins with an RPI in the 50s and our lack of impressive wins will have us on the bubble, but IMO probably out. Which you mocked because “there’s no way a 12 win 4th place B1G team would get snubbed.”

 

Please show me where I said that our Non-Con SOS would kill us. I did say our Non-Con performance will do us no favors.

 

Please show me where I said all Quad games count the same. I’ve said that I do think the quads will have an impact in the decisions, and that a winless Q1 will not be a good look.

 

Please show me where I said our conference performance doesn’t matter. I’ve said that specifically, conference record and conference standings are not used in the selection process, but of course your conference games matter because they help form the whole resume.

 

It seems that you’ve been twisting what I say to fit this mental image of a “metric-only guy” you have of me.

 

Nice try, your the one changing words. This whole thing started because you said our conference record means nothing to the committee and being in a P5 does not matter. You cited things like SOS, Quadrants, etc. I agreed those things matter but so does other things like how we did in conference will be discussed as well, which you denied. Bruce said many things are discussed that are not on the sheet, which is what I said. You now get pissy for that being pointed out. Maybe we will not make it and you can go back to hating Miles.

 

HuskerActuary,

 

"I am with you.The BIG10 is still a power conference and if we are in the top 5-6 with 20 wins we will be at worst on the bubble and I think we get in. We played some good non con teams at least so it is not like we played a embarrassing non con that they would hold against us."

 

I am still fine with that comment. With how things have shaken out we probably would not get it but would still  be a bubble team. You still do not even know that for sure either, no one does. Maybe the things Bruce talked about are more important than we think and we are solidly in right now. The eye test and looking inside the numbers apparently do matter.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Art Vandalay

[Swan88]

Wow!  My first-ever down vote.  Thanks for the honor, Cookie.

[Swan88]

I’d give you an up arrow for your down arrow, if I could.

[The Polish Rifle]

4 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

I’d give you an up arrow for your down arrow, if I could.

I just wanted a shout-out like Cookie.

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

11 hours ago, Swan88 said:

Wow!  My first-ever down vote.  Thanks for the honor, Cookie.

 

Haha. It was my way of saying I'm tired of arguing, but I still disagree. Glad you're not taking it personally.

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

13 hours ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

Nice try, your the one changing words. This whole thing started because you said our conference record means nothing to the committee and being in a P5 does not matter. You cited things like SOS, Quadrants, etc. I agreed those things matter but so does other things like how we did in conference will be discussed as well, which you denied. Bruce said many things are discussed that are not on the sheet, which is what I said. You now get pissy for that being pointed out. Maybe we will not make it and you can go back to hating Miles.

 

 

I still think conference standings and conference records are next to meaningless. I agree with you when you say they'll probably be brought up, but I don't think it's a major talking point. You're right, I got to the point where I was speaking in absolutes on that topic when I shouldn't have.

 

My gripe is that yesterday you came out and basically said, "Ha! All you metrics guys are wrong! They talk about more than metrics!" First of all, I've never claimed that they only care about metrics, and if you've interpreted me that way then you've interpreted me inaccurately. I know that much more is discussed. And secondly, the irony is that the "metrics guys" have actually shown that you were wrong when you said 12 conference wins or 20 total wins or whatever would certainly be enough. When we said, "No no, we're going to need at least 22 wins, probably 23," we got laughed at. But now that's proving to be closer to the truth than what you claimed, yet you come out and say all of these metrics guys were wrong. Do you really think 20 wins puts us on the bubble? That would mean we finish the season 0-4. I think you'll be the only one in that state on the edge of his seat on Selection Sunday if that happens.

[HuskerFever]

19 hours ago, Swan88 said:

Ha!  Jay on a Husker Board.  Many on this board don’t share your gushing.

But as long as we’re doing hypotheticals, your school was thoroughly in bed with a guy charged by the FBI with felony misbehavior and total disregard for rules.  So, we all might all keep our powder dry for awhile.

 

19 hours ago, Swan88 said:

He’s bragging to a fan base that has multiple national championships in multiple sports across multiple decades,   Against that backdrop . . . brag on!

 

We may have different definitions of "respect" and "bragging". We can certainly disagree on that. I can give credit where credit is due when teams like Wisconsin, Wichita State, and Rhode Island had built some strong programs from the bottom up and have found some great success, but it doesn't mean I have to like him.

 

What kind of world has this come to where people just throw out accusations without doing their research and take no responsibility for it? Down votes are for that reason in-and-of-itself.

 

I'll just drop a few of these right here and let the people decide where my allegiance stands: http://huskerhoopscentral.com/search/?&q=Creighton&author=HuskerFever

 

 

 

 

[hhcmatt]

23 hours ago, Swan88 said:

Ha!  Jay on a Husker Board.  Many on this board don’t share your gushing.

But as long as we’re doing hypotheticals, your school was thoroughly in bed with a guy charged by the FBI with felony misbehavior and total disregard for rules.  So, we all might all keep our powder dry for awhile.

 

What the heck are you talking about? It's ok to admit that they have a good program. They were impressively able to get out of the MVC and into the Big East. And then you're jumping all over the guy who's running the HHCC contest. This last month on here is going to put everyone on edge. Everyone try to keep their chill, ok?

[Bugeaters1]

Damn Guys IT"S JUST A GAME!!!!!!!!

[tcp]

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AuroranHusker]

lol - who cares about 'em

 

[Donkey]

Final 20 games record assuming the school wins out (e.g. best case scenario finish):

 

TCU: 11-9

Baylor: 12-8

Oklahoma: 11-9

Kentucky: 12-8

TAMU: 11-9

Airzona St: 13-7

Florida St: 13-7

Miami: 12-8

Seton Hall: 13-7

 

All of the above are projected to get into the tournament over Nebraska (best case finish 16-4, worst case finish 13-7) and all of the above have a .500 or worse conference record. None of them have an easy slate of schools remaining on their schedules. At best, I could see all of them going 2-2 to close out the season. 

 

Doublechecked BracketMatrix, all of the above schools except TCU are projected in 100% of the brackets (74 total brackets) and are projected to be an 8 seed or better. TCU is in 73/74 brackets and projected to be a 9 seed. 

 

Just keep winning. We control our own destiny. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Donkey

[HuskerFever]

 

[HuskerActuary]

Winning the next two, beating Michigan in the 4/5 game and then losing to Ohio State still gives us an RPI of 50 at the end of the season. Damn. That'd be pretty near the cut line. This is sure an uphill battle now.

[HuskerFever]

Welcome to our first Quadrant 3 loss, folks.

[Dead Dog Alley]

5 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Winning the next two, beating Michigan in the 4/5 game and then losing to Ohio State still gives us an RPI of 50 at the end of the season. Damn. That'd be pretty near the cut line. This is sure an uphill battle now.

So we have about a 1 in 8 chance of being close but not making it. Couldn't lose that one - all this discussion is a moot point now.

[HuskerFever]

I'm no committee member, but to bring this back to reality, I could see the scenario where Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska go on a run... We beat Penn State and lose to Michigan and still make it in. We'd have one Quadrant 1 win and a solid win against Penn State. I don't think we're quite at "we have to win the Big Ten tournament" status yet.

[hskr4life]

I was worried about this.

 

I feel like people were just waiting for us to lose one.  And then the minute we did, it was a "win out the season" scenario.  I hope the fans come in full force.  2-0 and then 1-1 in NY still get's us in.  23 is the magic number me thinks.