Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

[Swan88]

The foregoing list is ridiculous.

 

Nebraska won 15 of their last 20 games and has only one double-digit loss since early December.

 

How can the team down by the River be a "lock" (other than their guy chairing the Committee): they are below .500 over their last 15 games, and their eight losses in those games include four blowouts by 14, 20, 22 and 23 points?!  They shouldn't even be in the discussion with those results.

 

How can Oklahoma be in the discussion: they've lost 11 of their last 15 games, including blowout losses by 18, 23 and 30 points?!

 

If either of those two teams get in, with Nebraska left out, I call foul!!!

[TourneyBound]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/bracketology/

 

Palm doesn't even list Nebraska as 1 of his 20 bubble teams.. Good lord he is clueless

Edited March 9, 2018 by ConkintheCorner

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

5 minutes ago, nustudent said:

There’s just too much of a difference between leagues to enforce this and still get to 68 teams, while trying to get the best in 

 

Initially I thought the same thing you did. But here's how many teams from each major conference that were .500 or better:

 

ACC: 9 - Eight are getting in the tournament; Louisville at 9-9 is on the bubble; 2 bubble teams are below .500 (Cuse & ND)

Big XII: 5 - All five are getting in; 4 bubble teams are below .500 (OU, OSU, Texas, Baylor)

Big East: 7 - Six are getting in; Marquette at 9-9 is on the bubble

Big Ten: 7 - Four are getting in; Nebraska & PSU on the bubble; Indiana not getting in

Pac-12: 7 - Arizona is the only guarantee right now; USC & UCLA likely in; Utah, Stanford, Oregon, & Washington are likely out; ASU below .500

SEC: 8 - Seven are getting in; Miss State at 9-9 is on the bubble; Alabama is below .500 and on the bubble

 

So really, if you implemented this rule, you'd only have to eliminate Syracuse, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas, Baylor, Arizona State, and Alabama from bubble contention. You'd still have 8+5+6+4+1+7 = 31 locks. Add in the six mid-major locks: Cincy, Houston, Wichita, Nevada, Gonzaga, Rhode Island. That brings us to 37 locks, consisting of 10 conferences, which brings us down to 27 at-large locks. So you'd have to fill out the final nine spots with the following 14 teams:

 

Louisville, Marquette, Nebraska, Penn State, USC, UCLA, Utah, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Mississippi State, St. Bonaventure, Middle Tennessee, and Saint Mary's

 

To me, the tournament wouldn't be watered down at all. You're really just eliminating some bubble teams in favor of other bubble teams based on the criteria. I actually think it'd be a fair rule to implement.

[big red22]

1 hour ago, throwback said:

So always helps me to put pen to paper - maybe this will help others too.

 

I think 27 teams are locks for the 36 at larges. Maybe it's more - teams like ASU & OU are considered locks by nearly all bracketologists, but I can't lock them in the way they finished the season.

 

To me, these 27 are shoe-ins (of course, if one of them gets an auto bid, one of the teams I've assumed has an auto bid would swap places with them).

 

Assumed Auto Bid Champions

·         Virginia

·         Villanova

·         Kansas

·         Cincinnati

·         Auburn

·         Michigan

·         Arizona

 

At large locks

1.       Arkansas

2.       Butler

3.       Clemson

4.       Creighton

5.       Duke

6.       Florida

7.       Florida St

8.       Houston

9.       Kansas St

10.   Kentucky

11.   Miami

12.   Mich St

13.   Missouri

14.   N Carolina

15.   NC State

16.   Ohio St

17.   Providence

18.   Purdue

19.   Seton Hall

20.   TCU

21.   Tennessee

22.   Tex A&M

23.   Texas Tech

24.   Va Tech

25.   W Virginia

26.   Wichita

27.   Xavier

As far as potential bid stealers, Nevada and Rhode Island would take an at large spot if they lose in their conference tournaments.

1.       **Nevada (vs San Diego St – semis)

2.       **Rhode Island (vs VCU – quarters)

 

So that leaves 9 at large spots (down to 7 if Nevada or URI lose). I've got 21 teams that have a shot at those at larges. Understand that some of these 21 are long shots - I just put in everyone that still has a heartbeat or a chance of playing their way into an at large. And some of these are probably "in" - like I said earlier, ASU & OU are locks in nearly every bracket out there, but I just can't do it yet. 

 

1.       Alabama (vs Auburn)

2.       Arizona St – 20-11

3.       Baylor – 18-14

4.       Georgia (vs Kentucky)

5.       Louisville – 20-13

6.       Marquette – 19-13

7.       Middle Tenn – 24-7

8.       Mississippi St (vs Tenn)

9.       Nebraska – 22-10

10.   Notre Dame – 20-14

11.   Oklahoma – 18-13

12.   Oklahoma St – 19-14

13.   Oregon (vs USC)

14.   St Bonaventure (vs Richmond)

15.   St Mary’s – 28-5

16.   Syracuse – 20-13

17.   Temple (vs Wichita St)

18.   Texas – 19-14

19.   UCLA (vs Arizona)

20.   USC (vs Oregon)

21.   Utah – 19-11

 

Teams with records by their names are done. Today's opponents are listed in parentheses.

 

Georgia and Miss St probably need to reach the SEC final to be a serious at large threat. Losses today or tomorrow and they come off my list.

 

Temple beating Wichita today would make them an at large threat. Same for Oregon beating USC today.

 

And of course, we need URI and Nevada to win their leagues.

 

If Alabama, UCLA, and/or USC win today, they move to the lock list .... at least my lock list.

 

So that's not a lot of spots left unless games go our way today. If we get some bad results today, we could be down to 4-6 at large spots for these teams. It'd be really helpful if all of these bubble teams lost today (obviously Oregon/USC play each other).

 

----

 

You start looking at those Power 5 bubble teams, and your brain shuts down after a bit. They all look the same. 

 

That may be where NU's best chance lies - our resume doesn't look like the others. I didn't even look at them that long - the committee has to be going crazy spending several hours trying to order rank those teams.

 

Perhaps the committee gets tired of trying to split hairs between OU/OSU/ND/ASU/Texas/Baylor/Syracuse/Marq/etc and just puts in the one that looks different. 

 

-----

 

Even if everything goes perfectly in the other games, I still think it'll be a surprise if our name is announced Sunday - maybe 30-35% shot. But if we can keep it at 7-8 bubble spots up for grabs heading into Sunday, who knows? 

 

UCLA

Louisville

Nebraska

USC

Mississippi State 

 

I think you can add these 5 to the "IN" section

 

Middle Tenn

St. Bonaventure

St. Mary 

 

Not sure about these 3, but I think putting them in makes sense

 

That leaves one spot, and I give that spot to Texas.  They just seem to be playing better than the rest, and Alabama is not going to be in unless they make the championship game.  If they do that they get Texas's spot.  

 

Just too easy to look at 15 losses and say sorry you're out.   I also know that the committee is not suppose to use conference record, but too many of these teams are 8-10.  When you compare that to 13-5, it can't get overlooked IMO

 

The media acts like the Big 10 is the Pac 12 of 2012.  That conference had two teams in the 200's in the RPI and one in the 300's.  Their conference rank by metrics was 10.  Kenpom has the Big 10 at 5, so the media needs to stop acting like the Big 10 is the Mountain West, and realize it has four ****ing teams in the top 16 seeds.   

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by big red22

[TourneyBound]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we played Mississippi St. in the play in game........

[AuroranHusker]

2 minutes ago, ConkintheCorner said:

Wouldn't it be interesting if we played Mississippi St. in the play in game........

 

It's too bad that early-season contest wasn't a quad 1 win, huh?

 

[hskr4life]

 

[hskr4life]

 

• Seeded top 5 lines.  There will be scrubbing and re-seeding.  Also talked a lot about teams under consideration yesterday.
• Teams under consideration list, they lost about 2/3 just yesterday.  (Good day for us)
• A&M & Alabama-- "A&M had a good year and player issues.  Had good wins and puzzling losses.  They are still in consideration."
• "Utah is under consideration." 
• "MTSU had a good year... they don't have a great number of quality wins."  (Did not say they were under consideration.  Good for us I think.)
• "Texas has had some very good wins, but they've had a number of losses also>"  (See note on MTSU.)
• TCU- "Overcame significant injury.  They are an interesting team."
• Oklahoma State- "Good discussion about them yesterday."
• Baylor- "That loss probably hurt them."
• Louisville- "Large number of games against quad 1.  Do they have enough on their resume."
• Notre Dame- "Good conversation on ND.  They are in unique situation.  Another convo today."
• Alabama- "Has some good wins, but they have some losses."
• Nevada- "They are very good.  They've had some injury problems.

[Donkey]

14 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

 

Thanks.  Cliff notes:

 

Nebraska should be in based upon his metrics.  Penn State is in the same boat as Nebraska.  Middle Tennessee and USC should be out.

 

Oklahoma would not be in the conversation had the Committee not listed the Sooners as the #16 team in the initial bracket projections.

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, Swan88 said:

The foregoing list is ridiculous.

 

Nebraska won 15 of their last 20 games and has only one double-digit loss since early December.

 

How can the team down by the River be a "lock" (other than their guy chairing the Committee): they are below .500 over their last 15 games, and their eight losses in those games include four blowouts by 14, 20, 22 and 23 points?!  They shouldn't even be in the discussion with those results.

 

How can Oklahoma be in the discussion: they've lost 11 of their last 15 games, including blowout losses by 18, 23 and 30 points?!

 

If either of those two teams get in, with Nebraska left out, I call foul!!!

 

Simple.

 

Computers. And the people using computers who call themselves bracketologists.

 

[The Polish Rifle]

Mandel just said Nebraska isn’t even on his bubble

[uneblinstu]

K

[hskr4life]

4 minutes ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Mandel just said Nebraska isn’t even on his bubble

 

Who?  

[tjp21]

4 minutes ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Mandel just said Nebraska isn’t even on his bubble

 

I think there's no question we're a long shot, but a lot of the talk coming from these guys specifically as it relates to Nebraska is a ploy to generate clicks and interest. We aren't any further from the bubble than a handful of teams with losing conference records and fewer than 20 wins.

[hskr4life]

If we don't get in, we'll make history as the.......

 

4th Best Overall Record to not get in with playing in a major conference.  The three above us would be  VA Tech 2010, South Carolina 2016, Oregon 2011

 

3rd Best Conference Record Team not selected from a major conference.  The two above us are Washington in 2012, Alabama 2011.

[hskr4life]

One other thing is that most of these teams have had 10+ Quadrant 1 attempts at wins, some at home, and have yet to really prove themselves on the road.  We have barely had 10+ Quad 1 AND 2 games, only 2 at home.  One could argue that we just haven't had as many attempts at "proving" ourselves.

[The Polish Rifle]

10 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

One other thing is that most of these teams have had 10+ Quadrant 1 attempts at wins, some at home, and have yet to really prove themselves on the road.  We have barely had 10+ Quad 1 AND 2 games, only 2 at home.  One could argue that we just haven't had as many attempts at "proving" ourselves.

If were in the SEC and get a SEC schedule, I'm guessing we're a 6 or 7 seed, waiting on who we get in round 1. ESPN's SOR agrees with that. 

[tjp21]

5 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

One other thing is that most of these teams have had 10+ Quadrant 1 attempts at wins, some at home, and have yet to really prove themselves on the road.  We have barely had 10+ Quad 1 AND 2 games, only 2 at home.  One could argue that we just haven't had as many attempts at "proving" ourselves.

 

This is the type of thing we have to hope is discussed in the room when things are being hashed out.  I'm hoping between Rasmussen, the other Big 10 influence, and Moos doing his thing this will have been brought up as a talking point when discussing our resume.

[hskr4life]

1 minute ago, tjp21 said:

 

This is the type of thing we have to hope is discussed in the room when things are being hashed out.  I'm hoping between Rasmussen, the other Big 10 influence, and Moos doing his thing this will have been brought up as a talking point when discussing our resume.

 

Yep, and I know that's probably stretching it, but stretching is all we got right now.  I think we are firmly on the bubble.  Especially with the results of the past few days.  Don't get me wrong there.  It will all be about what the committee values from here on out.  There isn't really a ton left to root for/against today.  Alabama is the biggest one.  It's going to be a looooooonnggggg 2 days.

Edited March 9, 2018 by hskr4life

[jayschool]

I think "puzzling losses" should be a factor. If you have more than two "puzzling losses," you should be out. 

 

When I look at NU's schedule, the only real "puzzling loss" is at Illinois. The rest are perfectly understandable: one-point last-minute loss at home to a No. 1 national seed, eight losses on the road to teams with 100 RPI or lower, including four losses to teams likely seeded 1 to 3 in the tournament.

[The Polish Rifle]

4 minutes ago, The Polish Rifle said:

If were in the SEC and get a SEC schedule, I'm guessing we're a 6 or 7 seed, waiting on who we get in round 1. ESPN's SOR agrees with that. 

Shit looking at Auburn's schedule, I'd be surprised if we finished with more than 6-7 losses. They didn't play 1 power 5 team in their non-con.

[nustudent]

I get the outside view on our position.  

 

We pass the eyeball test if you compare us to an Oklahoma or Bama or St Bonaventure or TCU or K-State or Missouri.   But the metrics just don't add up, at least not the metrics that seem to matter the most.  

 

The system is flawed....but it's not a Nebraska bias.   There are good teams every year that are penalized and average teams that benefit.   It's nothing new.   It's just more relevant this year because we actually wanted to play like a big kid at times.  

 

We got deal a ridiculous run of bad luck.   Our intent in playing in Orlando was to play quality competition.   As it turns out, we lose one game we shouldn't have and we get stuck with a (approx.) 200 and 325 level opponents.   We didn't intend on Jackson from Maryland being out for the year.   Or for Reaves to miss 4 games for Penn State where they went 1-3, likely being the difference between them dancing and not.   We didn't intend on MInnesota being a top 15 team and losing 2-3 starters and falling apart.   We didn't intend on the Big 10 completely bombing it's non-con schedule.  It sucks...but those things were out of our control.  

 

Nothing we did, but we just didn't get very many opportunities, nor did we take very good advantage of them when we did.  

 

I think we are an NCAA caliber team on the court, but understand how we might not be on paper.   I hope the committee sees that.   But I also understand why/how they would want to take the human element out of it and base it as much on paper as they can.

 

We just picked a lousy year to be decent.

[HuskerFever]

15 minutes ago, jayschool said:

I think "puzzling losses" should be a factor. If you have more than two "puzzling losses," you should be out. 

 

When I look at NU's schedule, the only real "puzzling loss" is at Illinois. The rest are perfectly understandable: one-point last-minute loss at home to a No. 1 national seed, eight losses on the road to teams with 100 RPI or lower, including four losses to teams likely seeded 1 to 3 in the tournament.

 

Sadly, when you look at puzzling losses in the Big 12, there are none. This is a real thin bubble we're dealing with right now.

[hskr4life]

 

 

In reference to Minny.

[tcp]

3 hours ago, The Polish Rifle said:

I almost think you should be at or above .500 in conf to be selected as an at large, I mean if you cant win half your league games then why should you be able to compete for the title?

 

I think that was generally a tradition, if not a rule, wasn't it? I agree, tho. Tough conference or not, you still have to win some games. 

I mean, if you're losing most of your games, even to superior competition, how good are you really?