Jump to content

Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

hhctony

By hhctony
in The Haymarket Hardwood

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hhcmatt
hhcmatt

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 w

Ron Mexico
Ron Mexico

I want to kick Stewart Mandel in the nuts.

HuskerFever
HuskerFever

We didn't get in. Fine. But I will never forget how unsupportive the Big Ten and BTN were this season. Unforgettable.

Posted Images

Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, huskercwg said:

One are that used to be emphasized (or at least considered) was how a team was playing at seasons end.  Why?  Oftentimes (like Nebraska this year) the team takes a bit of time getting used to playing with each other.  When the team character is built and players understand strengths and roles, they tend to jell.  Are you (collectively) saying that trait is not being looked at this year? 

 

I believe I've read that they no longer consider your "Last Ten" record. That doesn't mean that a late season run won't subconsciously influence the voters decisions, though. Playing well at the end of the year creates a buzz and gives everyone reason to pay attention to your team. So I think it at least helps us in an indirect way. I agree with you that it definitely should influence their decisions. The way your team grows throughout the season should be seen as a positive.

Dead Dog Alley

Dead Dog Alley

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

Because the selection committee doesn't care about your conference. They care about your resume. RPI isn't everything, but it's a pretty good indicator for whether or not you get in. Here's the teams that are in contention for the tournament with their current RPIs.

 

Big East - if the tournament were selected today, they'd have 6 locks and 1 on the bubble:

1. Xavier (3)

2. Villanova (2)

3. Creighton (27)

4. Seton Hall (18)

5. Butler (25)

6. Providence (34)

7. Marquette (53)

 

Big Ten - currently would have 4 locks and 2 on the bubble:

1. Purdue (8)

2. Ohio State (22)

3. Michigan State (23)

4. Nebraska (59)

5. Michigan (32)

...

9. Maryland (58)

 

There's been some discussion on here about how the Big Ten is at a disadvantage for RPI this year because as a whole, the conference started the year so poorly. When you start poorly in the non-con, it's pretty much impossible for your entire conference to improve its RPI because they are only playing against each other. So any time a team within the Big Ten improves its RPI, it comes at the expense of another Big Ten team. This is a flaw in the RPI system, because when a conference has a lot of inexperienced teams that drastically improve as the year goes on (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State) it doesn't get reflected properly in the rankings.

 

The other thing that hurt the conference was the compressed nonconference schedule - it probably cost the conference a few wins here and there.  Everybody was playing 3 extra games before the end of the semester just so Jim Delaney could harpoon his white whale of the conference tournament in MSG.

 

royalfan

royalfan

Posted
Posted

Yes, this conference tourney a week early is not a good thing in general.  Teams had to prep for conference games in December, instead of tuning in more on other games, like normal.  Expended more energy on huge conference games in general, where that energy would have been focused elsewhere.  And it probably affected some of the coaches scheduling out of conference as well, and the when lose a few more games than we would hope, we are buried in RPI with no way to save it as a league.  We are the Big Ten.  We don't need to shift our shit around for a building, especially one that doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to play this thing at in the first place.  

Nebrasketball1979

Nebrasketball1979

Posted
Posted

I was scouring twitter and saw that Jerry Palm again made another reference about Nebraska's chances of getting in the dance.  He brought up the much maligned quadrants that we frequently discuss.  He quoted that three bubble teams have zero quadrant 1 wins.  Boise St. and Syracuse are 0-3 while Nebraska is 0-5.  Michigan is currently #32 in RPI.  I agree with royalfan sentiment that there is zero difference between a team with an RPI of #30 (which would qualify Michigan as a Tier 1 Home win) and #32; however I believe the optics of not having a goose-egg under Tier 1 wins is important.  So, I have waffled on this for a few weeks, but I do believe it is important that Michigan moves up a few more spots in RPI to get rid of that zero we have under quadrant 1 wins.  And, if we continue to take care of business and go 5-1 or better to finish, I can't fathom Michigan running the table themselves to overtake us for the 4th seed.

Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, royalfan said:

Yes, this conference tourney a week early is not a good thing in general.  Teams had to prep for conference games in December, instead of tuning in more on other games, like normal.  Expended more energy on huge conference games in general, where that energy would have been focused elsewhere.  And it probably affected some of the coaches scheduling out of conference as well, and the when lose a few more games than we would hope, we are buried in RPI with no way to save it as a league.  We are the Big Ten.  We don't need to shift our shit around for a building, especially one that doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to play this thing at in the first place.  

 

I thought playing it at MSG was a dumb idea when it was announced. Turns out it was even dumber than I thought.

Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

I was scouring twitter and saw that Jerry Palm again made another reference about Nebraska's chances of getting in the dance.  He brought up the much maligned quadrants that we frequently discuss.  He quoted that three bubble teams have zero quadrant 1 wins.  Boise St. and Syracuse are 0-3 while Nebraska is 0-5.  Michigan is currently #32 in RPI.  I agree with royalfan sentiment that there is zero difference between a team with an RPI of #30 (which would qualify Michigan as a Tier 1 Home win) and #32; however I believe the optics of not having a goose-egg under Tier 1 wins is important.  So, I have waffled on this for a few weeks, but I do believe it is important that Michigan moves up a few more spots in RPI to get rid of that zero we have under quadrant 1 wins.  And, if we continue to take care of business and go 5-1 or better to finish, I can't fathom Michigan running the table themselves to overtake us for the 4th seed.

 

Unfortunately I don’t think it’s likely that Michigan stays in the top 30. According to the RPI forecast website they’d have to finish 6-1. Or if they finished 5-2 then beat us in the 4/5 game they’d probably stay in there. So yeah, I think it’s best for us to root for them to go 6-1. As long as we go 5-1 we’d still get the 4 seed.

 

Another thing we need to do is pull for our Quad 2 opponents other than Michigan to stay there.

Edited by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty
AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

I was scouring twitter and saw that Jerry Palm again made another reference about Nebraska's chances of getting in the dance.  He brought up the much maligned quadrants that we frequently discuss.  He quoted that three bubble teams have zero quadrant 1 wins.  Boise St. and Syracuse are 0-3 while Nebraska is 0-5.  Michigan is currently #32 in RPI.  I agree with royalfan sentiment that there is zero difference between a team with an RPI of #30 (which would qualify Michigan as a Tier 1 Home win) and #32; however I believe the optics of not having a goose-egg under Tier 1 wins is important.  So, I have waffled on this for a few weeks, but I do believe it is important that Michigan moves up a few more spots in RPI to get rid of that zero we have under quadrant 1 wins.  And, if we continue to take care of business and go 5-1 or better to finish, I can't fathom Michigan running the table themselves to overtake us for the 4th seed.

 

Definitely need Nebrasketball to keep putting up dubs, as well as Michigan. GBR

hskr4life

hskr4life

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

Unfortunately I don’t think it’s likely that Michigan stays in the top 30. According to the RPI forecast website they’d have to finish 6-1. Or if they finished 5-2 then beat us in the 4/5 game they’d probably stay in there. So yeah, I think it’s best for us to root for them to go 6-1. As long as we go 5-1 we’d still get the 4 seed.

 

Another thing we need to do is pull for our Quad 2 opponents other than Michigan to stay there.

 

Wouldn't hurt if any of our Quad 3's bumped up to a 2 either.

HuskerFever

HuskerFever

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, royalfan said:

I just cannot imagine the selection people being so shortsided that Michigan being 35 or something versus 30 is that big of a deal.  If it is, then they need a system that doesn't require the services of a committee.  

 

The separation of tiers on that piece of paper paints a very clear picture to the selection committee. Initial shock will definitely be there if we're stuck with an empty column. Right, wrong, or indifferent. What's worse is if Nebraska/Michigan end up #3/#4 and Michigan still isn't a Top 25 RPI team, we'd have to win on Saturday in order to even have a chance to put a win in that column.

Nebrasketball1979

Nebrasketball1979

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

The separation of tiers on that piece of paper paints a very clear picture to the selection committee. Initial shock will definitely be there if we're stuck with an empty column. Right, wrong, or indifferent. What's worse is if Nebraska/Michigan end up #3/#4 and Michigan still isn't a Top 25 RPI team, we'd have to win on Saturday in order to even have a chance to put a win in that column.

Well, the good news here is that a neutral site tier 1 win is anyone with an RPI between 1-50 so Michigan would count in the tourney as Tier 1.  

hhcmatt

hhcmatt

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

 

Northwestern moving into Q1 isn’t out of the question, either. Just need them in the top 75. They’re at 104 and could jump 10-15 spots with a road win tonight at Wisconsin. Already up 10 points.

They have to win 7 of their next 8

royalfan

royalfan

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

Well, the good news here is that a neutral site tier 1 win is anyone with an RPI between 1-50 so Michigan would count in the tourney as Tier 1.  

This tier nonsense gets dumber the more I learn.  Now 50th equals one sometimes?  Wow.  What a ludicrous tool to have on a sheet.  

hskr4life

hskr4life

Posted
Posted
Just now, royalfan said:

This tier nonsense gets dumber the more I learn.  Now 50th equals one sometimes?  Wow.  What a ludicrous tool to have on a sheet.  

 

I think it's split

 

Home, Neutral, Away though I don't know the levels.

ajb5856

ajb5856

Posted
Posted

I think it makes sense. The thought is to give more value to road/neutral wins. They used to just say what teams' records were against top 50, top 100, etc. but this way you're giving more value for beating Michigan on the road or neutral site vs at home. Let's be honest if we beat Michigan at home it's not the same as another team going to Michigan and winning. In the past those two wins would simply be tabbed top 50 wins on the sheet. 


Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.

royalfan

royalfan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Tiers way too wide to be of much use.    It is a very lazy tool.  It is simply rehashing the RPI column and is redundant, especially when the RPI is flawed in the first place.  You have to look at who they actually played, not this tier garbage.  

Edited by royalfan
SkersHoops

SkersHoops

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, royalfan said:

Tiers way too wide to be of much use.    It is a very lazy tool.  It is simply rehashing the RPI column and is redundant, especially when the RPI is flawed in the first place.  You have to look at who they actually played, not this tier garbage.  

This is the extreme..... but

Beating Duke @ Cameron Indoor vs. Beating Temple in (insert random city) = Tier 1

 

Wide enough for some teams to get lucky and make their tiers look much stronger vs. another team who could just be on the other side of the #. 

ajb5856

ajb5856

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, royalfan said:

Tiers way too wide to be of much use.    It is a very lazy tool.  It is simply rehashing the RPI column and is redundant, especially when the RPI is flawed in the first place.  You have to look at who they actually played, not this tier garbage.  

I dont disagree. RPI isn't the best tool there is. What I don't know is if these quadrants are being used formally or just kind of to sort teams and glance at wins in a different manner. In the past, when throwing out comparisons between teams during games/bracketology shows/etc they would put up random records and top wins sometimes using top 25, top 50, top 75, or top 100. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...