Jump to content
arliepro

NIT bracket announcement

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, swoof said:

This is interesting. I'll have to listen to the interview later to hear exactly what Rasmussen said. 

 

 

then Miles' concern is well placed. The program really deserves a good answer on this, considering some schools might be making some serious changes to the way they approach schedules and such. this stuff has to be totally above board right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swoof said:

This is interesting. I'll have to listen to the interview later to hear exactly what Rasmussen said. 

 

Don't think it is too surprising.   Not sure why you even needed an NIT committee...they basically just pulled it over from the KPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, swoof said:

This is interesting. I'll have to listen to the interview later to hear exactly what Rasmussen said. 

 

 

Bruce R- Nebraska was in the last 18 teams on Saturday night.  "Nebraska was one of the last teams that we eliminated."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hskr4life said:

 

Bruce R- Nebraska was in the last 18 teams on Saturday night.  "Nebraska was one of the last teams that we eliminated."

He may be telling the truth - he also may be playing to the local audience.

 

There's nothing in the the metrics that the committee emphasized that would indicate NU was even on the bubble. NU's metrics looked nothing like Arizona St, Syracuse, Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, teams that were all close or made it. 

  • We played strong down the stretch; that obviously didn't matter when you consider how ASU, OU and even CU finished the season.
  • We only had one Q1 win; every other P5 at-large team, other than CU, had at least 3.

To be in contention, we needed the committee to value eye test, value playing well late, value winning games you should, avoiding bad losses, etc. None of that was important, based on who made it.

 

USC had similar but better metrics than we did and they were in the last 4 out. So it's hard to imagine "we were one of the last teams eliminated."

 

So I'm not sure how much to take what he's saying at face value at this point. The actual results would indicate otherwise.

 

And that's not a slam on him, CU, etc, it's just the way the committee chose to do things this year, based on the results. I'd say the above no matter who the chairperson was - it's just that we wouldn't have the chairperson giving local interviews if he wasn't from Omaha, so we wouldn't normally hear things like this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throwback said:

He may be telling the truth - he also may be playing to the local audience.

 

I'd put more value into what he's saying than I would the NIT seedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something I got to thinking of.  Oklahoma and Nebraska played 4 games against common opponents.  Here are the results :

 

Oklahoma (+ 51)

 

North Texas + 10

UTSA  + 10

Northwestern + 26

Kansas + 5

 

Nebraska (+ 43)

 

North Texas + 19

UTSA + 10

@ Northwestern + 15

Kansas - 1

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, throwback said:

He may be telling the truth - he also may be playing to the local audience.

 

There's nothing in the the metrics that the committee emphasized that would indicate NU was even on the bubble. NU's metrics looked nothing like Arizona St, Syracuse, Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, teams that were all close or made it. 

  • We played strong down the stretch; that obviously didn't matter when you consider how ASU, OU and even CU finished the season.
  • We only had one Q1 win; every other P5 at-large team, other than CU, had at least 3.

To be in contention, we needed the committee to value eye test, value playing well late, value winning games you should, avoiding bad losses, etc. None of that was important, based on who made it.

 

USC had similar but better metrics than we did and they were in the last 4 out. So it's hard to imagine "we were one of the last teams eliminated."

 

So I'm not sure how much to take what he's saying at face value at this point. The actual results would indicate otherwise.

 

And that's not a slam on him, CU, etc, it's just the way the committee chose to do things this year, based on the results. I'd say the above no matter who the chairperson was - it's just that we wouldn't have the chairperson giving local interviews if he wasn't from Omaha, so we wouldn't normally hear things like this.

 

I just listened to the Rasmussen interview and suggest everyone do so:

https://soundcloud.com/game-time-with-nick-bahe/march-13-seg-5-bruce-rasmussen

Agree or not, he explains the process well. He says the committee does not consider how a team finished (says research shows those teams don't necessarily perform any better in the tournament) and conference standings,  our strong suits. He agrees that NU's schedule was a matter of bad luck, and (I think) makes clear that we were one of the last teams out, not the 17th as the NIT decided.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that still leaves the issue of why we drew a 5 seed in the NIT, which I think was the primary question. If Ras is right, it's kinda hard to justify, but someone apparently did it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chuck Taylor said:

I just listened to the Rasmussen interview and suggest everyone do so:

https://soundcloud.com/game-time-with-nick-bahe/march-13-seg-5-bruce-rasmussen

Agree or not, he explains the process well. He says the committee does not consider how a team finished (says research shows those teams don't necessarily perform any better in the tournament) and conference standings,  our strong suits. He agrees that NU's schedule was a matter of bad luck, and (I think) makes clear that we were one of the last teams out, not the 17th as the NIT decided.

 

 

Yep... to me it sounded like we had a few committee members on our side, but in the end there was no way they could put us in with the metrics they were using.  Their metrics just didn't support us and it would have been tough to explain how we got in.  We were all saying many times that the only way we were going to get in is if they used the eye test and how a team finished the season.  It sounds like they opted for the metrics.... which in the end killed us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIT Attendance last night according to ESPN

 

Oklahoma st.  (5,305) 39%

Baylor  (1,988) 19%

St Mary's (1,249) 36%

Louisville (9,974) 45%

Western Kentucky (6,176) 76%

Middle Tennessee St. (5,010) 43%

Notre Dame (2,101) 23%

Oregon (2,327) 19%

USC (1,614) 16%

 

Those are all pretty poor.  Only 1 school over half full.  

Edited by ConkintheCorner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ConkintheCorner said:

NIT Attendance last night according to ESPN

 

Oklahoma st.  (5,305) 39%

Baylor  (1,988) 19%

St Mary's (1,249) 36%

Louisville (9,974) 45%

Western Kentucky (6,176) 76%

Middle Tennessee St. (5,010) 43%

Notre Dame (2,101) 23%

Oregon (2,327) 19%

USC (1,614) 16%

 

Those are all pretty poor.  Only 1 school over half full.  

What else you gonna do in Bowling Green, Kentucky on a Tuesday in mid-March? Oh, and 4,000 of those OSU fans wore this costume:

 

Screen Shot 2018-03-14 at 10.20.30 AM.png

Edited by jayschool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tcp said:

that still leaves the issue of why we drew a 5 seed in the NIT, which I think was the primary question. If Ras is right, it's kinda hard to justify, but someone apparently did it. 

 

The NCAA committee and the NIT committee had 0 communication.  Thus their criteria nor their efforts would be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

The NCAA committee and the NIT committee had 0 communication.  Thus their criteria nor their efforts would be the same.

 

I give up with this medieval process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×