USC Coach nails it

[Ron Mexico]

1 hour ago, HuskerActuary said:

I'm fairly sure we would have been in if we would have beat Penn State and Illinois. Our RPI would have been in the mid-30s. Quad 1 wins still wouldn't have been there, but that's just one aspect. It just became important to Nebraska because most of our other metrics were in the 50s.

It was also the most important aspect and all things being relatively equal it was the deciding factor.

I'll have to look it up but I don't think a single at large team that got into the NCAA tournament had fewer than 4 Q1 wins.

[Ron Mexico]

58 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Yeah, and USC being left out may have been the worst choice made by the committee. They should have been in. And I believe that if Nebraska won those two games, at 24-8, we would have been in.

No we wouldn't have be in. We still would have only had 1 Q1 win.

[hhcmatt]

6 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

It was also the most important aspect and all things being relatively equal it was the deciding factor.

I'll have to look it up but I don't think a single at large team that got into the NCAA tournament had fewer than 4 Q1 wins.

 

You don't have to look more than 60 miles away to debunk this

[Blindcheck]

The more I think about it....I hate when committees choose who goes to a tournament.

 

If there isn't a pre-determined way to qualify for post season, it is just an invitiational tournament....At least the NIT embraces that with its name.

 

If you truly want a national champion, you have to have a tournament where spots are earned by win/loss record in conferences/regions etc.

 

[aksarben]

The word "metrics" and "quadrants" are being over used when it comes to this entire process and honestly has already taken quite a bit of the enjoyment of this tournament out of it for me. This tournament (in general) has become a joke, that started with that clown show on TBS last night where the audio was out of sync, the lights went out in the New York City studios when they were interviewing Bruce Rasmussen etc. It's too bad that you have to have a degree in Actuarial Science to make predictions on who will or will not make the tournament. I understand that 20 wins is not the magic number but USC and Oklahoma State (who beat Kansas twice this season) were both screwed as well as Nebraska by the NIT selection committee.

[RexxRacerX]

I don't think it has to be just one thing, or a black and white situation to explain how we got here.  I think several factors played into Nebraska being on the NIT bubble in the minds to outsiders. 

 

First - scheduling was not the greatest to begin with, and everything just went the wrong way on top of that. 

• I don't think a knee-jerk reaction is warranted here, but Delaney needs to reevaluate the 20 game conf schedule idea, we go through another year like this year with 2 more games, it starts pulling down the league. 
• Never, ever, and I mean ever do what you did this year to get to MSG.  That hurt teams by playing on short rest, and really hurt at the end where all eyes were off of the league for 8 days.  
• Look at the tournaments you're playing in in the early going, and don't play in them if they've invited 250+ RPI teams such as Marist.
• Might need to shuffle future schedules and get rid of any Stetson, Delaware St. type teams that will do nothing but pull you down.

    

Second - play the beauty contest game. 

 

Until the NCAA changes things, this is what it's always been...  It's just a beauty contest based on some metric being weighted more than another.  They keep trying to tweak that metric that's being looked at because of course everyone is going to game the system as much as they can.  Unfortunately, we're not the most attractive, and we literally never have been other than a few years under Danny Nee's leadership. 

 

They're using (this year, next year it might be completely different) the stupid Quadrants, and weighing your resume based on that, and then all other metrics secondary.  The way the season unfolded, NU played/won only 3 games that should have been Q1 (Boston College,  Minnesota, Michigan) and lost every other one.  NU was competitive in all but the St. Johns, Michigan rematch, and MSU games, and that was encouraging, at least.  When you go into games and you know this metric is soft, you've got to find ways to win the games at UCF (I know it was neutral in Orlando), Creighton, tOSU, Purdue, and shut down KU at home, etc. 

 

Third - This league needs to do a better job representing their members.

 

BTN is great, but it's not on the same dial as ESPN or traditional national networks.  I don't feel like the B1G is doing enough to get national exposure for itself and needs to reevaluate this.  The league needs to get into arrangements for more national exposure rather than their own network.  I think the P12 is in a similar boat on this, but they're a little better off getting several teams' games nationally televised.  Where I see it differently for B1G is that the same 3-4 teams are always shown on national broadcasts and I see half the conference for the P12 regularly. NU had 0 nationally televised conference games.  Heck, there were a couple that were only available via BTN plus, this needs fixed. 

 

When you've got people going to a city for a tournament that you're hell bent on having there, and they can't watch any of the other games or the women's side, etc. because it's not in your footprint, it's your fault.  The MSG fiasco this year was pure idiocy.  The B1G screwed up everyone's schedule and cadence this year to have a pretty abysmal tournament that they pumped up NYC during the broadcasts more than they pumped up the member teams.  Practice times were atrocious during the tournament, and I'm probably forgetting several other factors around that week. 

 

Fourth - Take care of business.

 

This team over achieved most expectations this year.  That's wonderful, and shouldn't be lost in all of this.  I'm thrilled that we're talking about post season play at all.  But they didn't really get a statement win, let alone several besides Michigan at home.  If they could have stolen any two from the following list, we're super excited to be making our 7th NCAA appearance rather than being the second to last at large team in the NIT:

• UCF (Neut, but Orlando)
• St. Johns (Away)
• Creighton (Away, but Omaha)
• Kansas (Home)
• Michigan State (Away)
• Purdue (Away)
• Ohio State (Away)
• Penn State (Away OT loss)

[hhcmatt]

12 hours ago, KZRider said:

How on earth do they justify AZ St over USC?

 

Arizona St can't be connected back to Christian Dawkins

[throwback]

Lots of good points - on #4 though, wins at PSU, UCF or St Johns would've done us no good. (Heck throw Illinois in there.) We could've won all those games, but they weren't Q1 wins, so they don't help us. With the way the committee handled it, Q1 wins and total Q1 games are what matters and little else.

 

So you have to game the system - look for teams that should be in the RPI 55-70 range, and agree to go play them on the road. Figuring out which teams those will be probably is next to impossible, but that's one way. And instead of a home and home with Kansas, which is at the top of Q1, look for a team that's closer to the bottom of Q1 - since beating the #1 RPI team at home is treated the same as beating the #30 team, there's no point in beating your head against the wall vs the #1 team.

 

Much easier said than done. Perhaps the best option is to find a mid-major who's good at gaming the RPI and schedule home and home with them.

 

And agree completely on avoiding tournaments that have any high RPI one-bid league teams in them. Not sure how easy that is to do either though - not sure if the coaches get that kind of info. And it's probably easier for a school like Purdue to say no to that type of tournament than it is for NU, because they have other options.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by throwback

[big red22]

42 minutes ago, aksarben said:

The word "metrics" and "quadrants" are being over used when it comes to this entire process and honestly has already taken quite a bit of the enjoyment of this tournament out of it for me. This tournament (in general) has become a joke, that started with that clown show on TBS last night where the audio was out of sync, the lights went out in the New York City studios when they were interviewing Bruce Rasmussen etc. It's too bad that you have to have a degree in Actuarial Science to make predictions on who will or will not make the tournament. I understand that 20 wins is not the magic number but USC and Oklahoma State (who beat Kansas twice this season) were both screwed as well as Nebraska by the NIT selection committee.

I'm in the group that feels all four 8-10 Big 12 teams should of been left out.  As well as Alabama and Syracuse! I will hold true to this statement till the day I die.  No way should a team that is 8-10 be selected over a team that is 13-5 in a fellow Power 6 conference. 

 

I don't care that the metrics changed and the conference records did not matter to the committee.  You know why I don't care?  It's because it should matter.  The "worst" team in our league was capable of beating Indiana and Seton Hall.  So in my opinion that is when records of the teams you beat should matter a hell of a lot less than overall record and conference record.

 

I will state this one last time, because it is who should of been in.  I am sick of the "Nebraska looks like a tournament team" comments.  If they look like a tournament team and have a 22-10/13-5 record to back it up.  Then that ****ing team needs to be in the tournament, and these asinine metrics need to be tossed out the window.

 

Arizona State:  8-10 Conference Record

Oklahoma:  8-10 Conference Record

Texas:  8-10 Conference Recoord

Alabama:  8-10 Conference Record

 

Should of been replaced with...

 

USC: 12-6 Conference Record (Same conference as 8-10 Arizona State)

St Mary's: 16-2 Conference Record (Split regular season with the Zags)

Nebraska: 13-5 Conference Record (We all know the Big 10 is not bad)

Middle Tennessee: 16-2 Conference Record (I'd pick these guys over St. Bonaventure)

 

You know why, because winning should matter!

 

 

[RexxRacerX]

19 minutes ago, throwback said:

Lots of good points - on #4 though, wins at PSU, UCF or St Johns would've done us no good. (Heck throw Illinois in there.) We could've won all those games, but they weren't Q1 wins, so they don't help us. With the way the committee handled it, Q1 wins and total Q1 games are what matters and little else.

 

 

My bad, I knew after I hit submit that I should have qualified a few things a bit more. 

 

• St John's had a guy get injured and arguably should have had a better record.  When we played them, I seem to remember them floating around the 50-60 range in RPI, but I could be mis-remembering.
• UCF - had Tacko Fall stayed healthy, would have had a MUCH better record, and they we're right there in that sweet spot of 55-70 when we played them.
• Penn St. was all about perception more than RPI, the beauty test... if we beat them (in OT or not) at their home, it's another road win against a team that knocked off tOSU three times this season. Hitting the 3 to tie the game makes highlight reels and gets eyes on NU if you win, but since we didn't there wasn't the exposure. 

Further, here's why I had BC and MN on the good list, too:

• Boston College - had injury that hampered them after we played, and they lost a couple games they shouldn't have as a result, if memory serves.
• Minnesota - had a suspension and injury.  The team was markedly better the second time around, but they underachieved this year as a result.

[nustudent]

28 minutes ago, throwback said:

Lots of good points - on #4 though, wins at PSU, UCF or St Johns would've done us no good. (Heck throw Illinois in there.) We could've won all those games, but they weren't Q1 wins, so they don't help us. With the way the committee handled it, Q1 wins and total Q1 games are what matters and little else.

 

So you have to game the system - look for teams that should be in the RPI 55-70 range, and agree to go play them on the road. Figuring out which teams those will be probably is next to impossible, but that's one way. And instead of a home and home with Kansas, which is at the top of Q1, look for a team that's closer to the bottom of Q1 - since beating the #1 RPI team at home is treated the same as beating the #30 team, there's no point in beating your head against the wall vs the #1 team.

 

Much easier said than done. Perhaps the best option is to find a mid-major who's good at gaming the RPI and schedule home and home with them.

 

And agree completely on avoiding tournaments that have any high RPI one-bid league teams in them. Not sure how easy that is to do either though - not sure if the coaches get that kind of info. And it's probably easier for a school like Purdue to say no to that type of tournament than it is for NU, because they have other options.

 

 

It is tough and the element of unpredictability makes it harder.   Before the season and at the time we played them, both UCF and St Johns were expected to be Top 75 RPI teams.   How could we know that Lovett would go out for the year when St Johns is 10-2 and in the top 50 and Tacko Fall would go out at UCF.   Those injuries don't occur and both those games were Quad 1 games, at the very least, the St Johns one would have been.

 

AFAIC, the non-con scheduling was just fine this year.   It was on par with the other bubble teams.   The difference with us and the others:   1.   We didn't win our games.   2.   Had some bad luck with injuries to our opponents which diluted their value.   3.   The biggest factor of all, the Big 10 was a mess.

 

[big red22]

27 minutes ago, RexxRacerX said:

I don't think it has to be just one thing, or a black and white situation to explain how we got here.  I think several factors played into Nebraska being on the NIT bubble in the minds to outsiders. 

 

First - scheduling was not the greatest to begin with, and everything just went the wrong way on top of that. 

• I don't think a knee-jerk reaction is warranted here, but Delaney needs to reevaluate the 20 game conf schedule idea, we go through another year like this year with 2 more games, it starts pulling down the league. 
• Never, ever, and I mean ever do what you did this year to get to MSG.  That hurt teams by playing on short rest, and really hurt at the end where all eyes were off of the league for 8 days.  
• Look at the tournaments you're playing in in the early going, and don't play in them if they've invited 250+ RPI teams such as Marist.
• Might need to shuffle future schedules and get rid of any Stetson, Delaware St. type teams that will do nothing but pull you down.

    

Second - play the beauty contest game. 

 

Until the NCAA changes things, this is what it's always been...  It's just a beauty contest based on some metric being weighted more than another.  They keep trying to tweak that metric that's being looked at because of course everyone is going to game the system as much as they can.  Unfortunately, we're not the most attractive, and we literally never have been other than a few years under Danny Nee's leadership. 

 

They're using (this year, next year it might be completely different) the stupid Quadrants, and weighing your resume based on that, and then all other metrics secondary.  The way the season unfolded, NU played/won only 3 games that should have been Q1 (Boston College,  Minnesota, Michigan) and lost every other one.  NU was competitive in all but the St. Johns, Michigan rematch, and MSU games, and that was encouraging, at least.  When you go into games and you know this metric is soft, you've got to find ways to win the games at UCF (I know it was neutral in Orlando), Creighton, tOSU, Purdue, and shut down KU at home, etc. 

 

Third - This league needs to do a better job representing their members.

 

BTN is great, but it's not on the same dial as ESPN or traditional national networks.  I don't feel like the B1G is doing enough to get national exposure for itself and needs to reevaluate this.  The league needs to get into arrangements for more national exposure rather than their own network.  I think the P12 is in a similar boat on this, but they're a little better off getting several teams' games nationally televised.  Where I see it differently for B1G is that the same 3-4 teams are always shown on national broadcasts and I see half the conference for the P12 regularly. NU had 0 nationally televised conference games.  Heck, there were a couple that were only available via BTN plus, this needs fixed. 

 

When you've got people going to a city for a tournament that you're hell bent on having there, and they can't watch any of the other games or the women's side, etc. because it's not in your footprint, it's your fault.  The MSG fiasco this year was pure idiocy.  The B1G screwed up everyone's schedule and cadence this year to have a pretty abysmal tournament that they pumped up NYC during the broadcasts more than they pumped up the member teams.  Practice times were atrocious during the tournament, and I'm probably forgetting several other factors around that week. 

 

Fourth - Take care of business.

 

This team over achieved most expectations this year.  That's wonderful, and shouldn't be lost in all of this.  I'm thrilled that we're talking about post season play at all.  But they didn't really get a statement win, let alone several besides Michigan at home.  If they could have stolen any two from the following list, we're super excited to be making our 7th NCAA appearance rather than being the second to last at large team in the NIT:

• UCF (Neut, but Orlando)
• St. Johns (Away)
• Creighton (Away, but Omaha)
• Kansas (Home)
• Michigan State (Away)
• Purdue (Away)
• Ohio State (Away)
• Penn State (Away OT loss)

I love the detail you put in to this post, but I disagree with 1 and 4.

 

Reason I disagree with 1...

 

We scheduled Kansas, Creighton, ACC/B10 Challenge, Gavett Games and Advocare Invitational.  Before the year started that looked like a pretty decent OOC schedule.  You like the Committee and ESPN forget that teams we lost to were different teams in the later parts of the year

 

St. Johns: LeVitt

Creighton: Krampelj

UCF: Tacko Fall

Minnesota: Lynch and Coffey

 

Everyone of those players were key parts of their teams, so our scheduling was more bad luck than anything else

 

Reason I disagree with 4...

 

We did take care of business, and it is ridiculous to think we "Had" to be at a minimum 24-8 to get into the tournament.  At no point should a Power 6 team be left out of the tournament with a 12-6 or better record.  Especially when in the same year

 

Five 8-10 teams got in

 

Syracuse

Alabama

Oklahoma

Texas

Arizona State - In a conference that is notable worse than the Big 10 according to Kenpom.  There is no win they have that could sway my opinion on this stupid a$$ team. 

 

GIVE ME A BREAK!  Only if we went 24-8, I mean we only went 13-5 in a conference with 4 teams in the Top 20.... I call BS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ladyhusker]

The more I think about this, the real losers in the whole deal isn't us, and it isn't USC. It's:

1. Low- and mid-majors - both the players and the athletic departments

2. The pay-players crowd

 

The field this year gives teams no reason to try to schedule low- or mid-majors, unless it's the ones who are super good at gaming the RPI system, but that's a gamble. I see the value in not scheduling several weeks of cupcakes, but if games against power opponents are all that matters and you don't know if your conference will be able to deliver those, you need to take your own initiative and schedule as many power opponents in non-conference as possible. That probably comes at the expense of at least a couple buy games against low- and mid-major teams, who rely on those games to fund their athletic department. If they're going to have to compete that much harder for those games, you've basically solidified an entire under-class of teams who now have to be willing to take less money or play on shorter rest or criss-cross the country more, so they can make themselves more attractive to their power conference funding sources. I can't imagine that'll be better for the student-athletes themselves -- which feeds even more into the narrative the pay-players crowd have been talking about (schools/NCAA using the players for money).

 

But the real kicker is that the NCAA can't, on one hand, institute any sort of move to pay players, while on the other, reducing the ability for low- and mid-majors to do that. (Full disclosure: I don't think players should be paid, but can understand the argument, and if I did agree with it, I would be even more livid at the results of this bracket and its implications.) If they had trouble competing with P6 schools before because of money troubles, those are amplified now. If there is to remain one Division 1 "class" of NCAA basketball, the committee has now made it practically impossible to pay players because they just cut the budgets of a good 2/3 of their member institutions. If they go to a system like football, with FCS and FBS, they destroy a lot of what made March Madness so magical. But what they just created is unsustainable for the system as it stands, and makes the the argument for players to be compensated financially a much more uphill battle.

[RexxRacerX]

8 minutes ago, big red22 said:

I love the detail you put in to this post, but I disagree with 1 and 4.

 

Reason I disagree with 1...

 

We scheduled Kansas, Creighton, ACC/B10 Challenge, Gavett Games and Advocare Invitational.  Before the year started that looked like a pretty decent OOC schedule.  You like the Committee and ESPN forget that teams we lost to were different teams in the later parts of the year

 

St. Johns: LeVitt

Creighton: Krampelj

UCF: Tacko Fall

Minnesota: Lynch and Coffey

 

Everyone of those players were key parts of their teams, so our scheduling was more bad luck than anything else

 

Reason I disagree with 4...

 

We did take care of business, and it is ridiculous to think we "Had" to be at a minimum 24-8 to get into the tournament.  At no point should a Power 6 team be left out of the tournament with a 12-6 or better record.  Especially when in the same year

 

Five 8-10 teams got in

 

Syracuse

Alabama

Oklahoma

Texas

Arizona State - In a conference that is notable worse than the Big 10 according to Kenpom.  There is no win they have that could sway my opinion on this stupid a$$ team. 

 

GIVE ME A BREAK!  Only if we went 24-8, I mean we only went 13-5 in a conference with 4 teams in the Top 20.... I call BS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure we have a disagreement on #1, it seems like you're saying the exact same thing as I said in my post.  My point here is that the N Texas, Stetson, Delaware State, UTSA type games need to be looked at going forward to provide a safety net of more opportunities for those Q1 wins, because that's all it seems the committee cares about.  Lose all but 3 of them and you're fine is the message they sent with this year's field.

 

#4, we didn't take care of business, every opportunity for a Q1 win was squandered with the sole exception being Michigan at home.  Again, I understand that we should have had more opportunities, and beat most of those teams, but they were not quality opponents this year, and it hurt that each opportunity was not a good result.  I really think that if they win any 2 out of that list I provided, NU is dancing.

 

NU had 1 Q1 win, and that's what doomed them.  The overall record is looked at like a mid-major this year because of how things shook out and where those wins were gotten.  Michigan is the lone exception.

 

The committees cared about who you beat, not how many times or who you lost to.

 

USC has a valid beef with getting left out because they did have several Q1 wins, NU had one at home to Michigan.  Everyone on the list that we have problems with getting in ahead of us did have several of those Q1 wins, (despite losing a lot of head scratchers) and that is the missing ingredient to NU's resume even tho NU didn't really have any head scratching losses.

 

Like I said, NU did a great job this year, and we should be happy for that.  But the perception is (whether we agree or not) that the record was built from much inferior competition. 

 

I'm not saying I agree with how this is being done, and I said that things need evaluated not knee jerk overreacting in my original post, but evaluation and potential changes to adapt to this new quadrant system are warranted.

[throwback]

Agree with multiple posts above - the intent of our schedule was fine. Caught a lot of bad breaks, plus the middle of the B1G collapsing.

 

All I'm saying is - as it turned out - we could've won 25 games and 15 league games, but unless those extra wins were Q1 games, it would've made no difference in the end. Just blows my mind - have to keep repeating it to make sure it sinks in that a 25-7/15-3 Big Ten team would've had essentially zero chance of making the NCAA Tournament as an at large.

 

Our at large hopes were basically over - barring multiple double-digit 'dog road wins in league play - once the Big Ten got smoked in the B1G-ACC challenge.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by throwback

[hhcscott]

2 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Arizona St can't be connected back to Christian Dawkins

I just assumed it was reflex...putting Bobby Hurley in the NCAA tournament is the default setting for the NCAA. Contract with the (Sun/Blue) Devil.

 

[HuskerBB]

2 hours ago, big red22 said:

I'm in the group that feels all four 8-10 Big 12 teams should of been left out.  As well as Alabama and Syracuse! I will hold true to this statement till the day I die.  No way should a team that is 8-10 be selected over a team that is 13-5 in a fellow Power 6 conference. 

 

I don't care that the metrics changed and the conference records did not matter to the committee.  You know why I don't care?  It's because it should matter.  The "worst" team in our league was capable of beating Indiana and Seton Hall.  So in my opinion that is when records of the teams you beat should matter a hell of a lot less than overall record and conference record.

 

I will state this one last time, because it is who should of been in.  I am sick of the "Nebraska looks like a tournament team" comments.  If they look like a tournament team and have a 22-10/13-5 record to back it up.  Then that ****ing team needs to be in the tournament, and these asinine metrics need to be tossed out the window.

 

Arizona State:  8-10 Conference Record

Oklahoma:  8-10 Conference Record

Texas:  8-10 Conference Recoord

Alabama:  8-10 Conference Record

 

Should of been replaced with...

 

USC: 12-6 Conference Record (Same conference as 8-10 Arizona State)

St Mary's: 16-2 Conference Record (Split regular season with the Zags)

Nebraska: 13-5 Conference Record (We all know the Big 10 is not bad)

Middle Tennessee: 16-2 Conference Record (I'd pick these guys over St. Bonaventure)

 

You know why, because winning should matter!

 

 

 

This nails it.  There was a time - not long ago - when you sort of assumed that you had to have at least a .500 conference record to get in.  Don't think it was ever a "rule" but it generally was applied like one.   That was when the ACC had 9 teams.  When the ACC expanded are brought in more good BB teams they made exceptions to that rule.  Now they have disregarded it completely and I think that is BS.  Not saying an above .500 conference record should get you in - but if you can't finish even .500 in your conference (maybe including conference tournament games) then you do NOT belong in the NCAA tournament (absent extraordinary circumstances i.e. a very key player missing a month during the conference season and being back by the end).   Conference records should mean something  - this year they decided to ignore them completely.   That produced ridiculous results.  Leaving us out and taking Oklahoma is bad.  Leaving USC out and taking Arizona State is completely asinine - there is no possible way to justify that decision.

 

The other thing I object to is Rasmussen saying that wins in November mean the same as wins in February/March.  I am not saying wins in November should be meaningless - but this is supposed to be a tournament with the best teams at the end of the year - which is when the tournament happens. A team that might have played a couple good games early - but is then horsesh*t at the end of the year (i.e. Oklahoma) should not be allowed to compete in a tournament at the end of the year.   Also the goal should be for a team to improve during the year and peak at the end.   Maybe those early wins by teams like OU are further overrated by the fact that the teams they played went the right direction - improved during the year but were not that good when OU beat them in November or December.   Record in the last 10 games used to be an important metric.  I am not saying it should be the most important one - but it still should mean something if you are trying to put the teams that are the best into the tournament - at the time the tournament is played.

 

 

[hskr4life]

8 minutes ago, HuskerBB said:

 

This nails it.  There was a time - not long ago - when you sort of assumed that you had to have at least a .500 conference record to get in.  Don't think it was ever a "rule" but it generally was applied like one.   That was when the ACC had 9 teams.  When the ACC expanded are brought in more good BB teams they made exceptions to that rule.  Now they have disregarded it completely and I think that is BS.  Not saying an above .500 conference record should get you in - but if you can't finish even .500 in your conference (maybe including conference tournament games) then you do NOT belong in the NCAA tournament (absent extraordinary circumstances i.e. a very key player missing a month during the conference season and being back by the end).   Conference records should mean something  - this year they decided to ignore them completely.   That produced ridiculous results.  Leaving us out and taking Oklahoma is bad.  Leaving USC out and taking Arizona State is completely asinine - there is no possible way to justify that decision.

 

The other thing I object to is Rasmussen saying that wins in November mean the same as wins in February/March.  I am not saying wins in November should be meaningless - but this is supposed to be a tournament with the best teams at the end of the year - which is when the tournament happens. A team that might have played a couple good games early - but is then horsesh*t at the end of the year (i.e. Oklahoma) should not be allowed to compete in a tournament at the end of the year.   Also the goal should be for a team to improve during the year and peak at the end.   Maybe those early wins by teams like OU are further overrated by the fact that the teams they played went the right direction - improved during the year but were not that good when OU beat them in November or December.   Record in the last 10 games used to be an important metric.  I am not saying it should be the most important one - but it still should mean something if you are trying to put the teams that are the best into the tournament - at the time the tournament is played.

 

 

 

I know it isn't apples to apples, but could you imagine a 4 team football playoff consisting of....

 

Alabama (8-4), Georgia (9-3), Clemson (10-2), tOSU (9-3)

 

instead of.....

 

Minnesota (11-1), Cal (11-1), Houston (12-0), Kansas State (11-1)

 

All because the teams above played a "Harder schedule," beat "Better teams," and had more "Upper Tier wins?"  There would be uproar.

[big red22]

Here is something that is sticking out like a sore thumb, and no one seems to bring it up

 

Stanford is a PAC 12 team that went 6-7 out of conference.  Lost to Long Beach State as one of those 7 losses.  They have an overall record of 18-15, and a conference record of  11-7.

 

***If someone could throw in the Kenpom Conference Rankings that'd be great!***

 

According to ESPN/Kenpom

 

Stanford (3 Seed in the NIT)

 

• Overall Record = 18-15
• Conference Record = 11-7
• Kenpom: 84
• BPI: 98
• SOS: 70
• SOR: 95
• RPI: 81

 

Nebraska(5 Seed in the NIT)

 

• Overall Record = 22-10
• Conference Record = 13-5
• Kenpom: 57
• BPI: 63
• SOS: 58
• SOR: 31
• RPI: 56

 

Someone want to explain to me how Stanford gets a 3 seed, and we get a 5 seed?  Better yet can you explain to me why all criteria for us is thrown out the window when it comes them in this scenario?  I really want a response to this one, because it makes no sense what so ever.  

 

Not only did we beat Stanford in every metric, we beat them in all the things that worked against us. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by big red22

[hskr4life]

Just now, big red22 said:

Here is something that is sticking out like a soar thumb, and no one seems

 

Stanford is a PAC 12 team that went 6-7 out of conference.  Lost to Long Beach State as one of those 7 losses.  They have an overall record of 18-15, and a conference record of  11-7.

 

***If someone could throw in the Kenpom Conference Rankings that'd be great!***

 

According to ESPN/Kenpom

 

Stanford (3 Seed in the NIT)

 

• Overall Record = 18-15
• Conference Record = 11-7
• Kenpom: 84
• BPI: 98
• SOS: 70
• SOR: 95
• RPI: 81

 

Nebraska(5 Seed in the NIT)

 

• Overall Record = 22-10
• Conference Record = 13-5
• Kenpom: 57
• BPI: 63
• SOS: 58
• SOR: 31
• RPI: 56

 

Someone want to explain to me how Stanford gets a 3 seed, and we get a 5 seed?  Better yet can you explain to me why all criteria for us is thrown out the window when it comes them in this scenario?  I really want a response to this one, because it makes no sense what so ever.  

 

Not only did we beat Stanford in every metric, we beat them in all the things that worked against us. 

 

We also beat a common opponent... LBSU.

[big red22]

Just now, hskr4life said:

 

We also beat a common opponent... LBSU.

Do you have a good explanation as to how they are a 3 seed and we are a 5 seed?

[jayschool]

2 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Here is something that is sticking out like a sore thumb, and no one seems to bring it up

 

Stanford is a PAC 12 team that went 6-7 out of conference.  Lost to Long Beach State as one of those 7 losses.  They have an overall record of 18-15, and a conference record of  11-7.

 

***If someone could throw in the Kenpom Conference Rankings that'd be great!***

 

According to ESPN/Kenpom

 

Stanford (3 Seed in the NIT)

 

• Overall Record = 18-15
• Conference Record = 11-7
• Kenpom: 84
• BPI: 98
• SOS: 70
• SOR: 95
• RPI: 81

 

Nebraska(5 Seed in the NIT)

 

• Overall Record = 22-10
• Conference Record = 13-5
• Kenpom: 57
• BPI: 63
• SOS: 58
• SOR: 31
• RPI: 56

 

Someone want to explain to me how Stanford gets a 3 seed, and we get a 5 seed?  Better yet can you explain to me why all criteria for us is thrown out the window when it comes them in this scenario?  I really want a response to this one, because it makes no sense what so ever.  

 

Not only did we beat Stanford in every metric, we beat them in all the things that worked against us. 

Quadrants.

Oh, and SAT scores.

[throwback]

Stanford

2-10 Q1

6-1 Q2

 

Nebraska

1-6 Q1

2-3 Q2

 

These are the primary criteria they appeared to use throughout the NIT seedings.

[big red22]

1 minute ago, throwback said:

Stanford

2-10 Q1

6-1 Q2

 

Nebraska

1-6 Q1

2-3 Q2

 

These are the primary criteria they appeared to use throughout the NIT seedings.

What do you think of this criteria?

[throwback]

I think if Q1 and Q2 are all that matter, they need more tiers in that area to make it easier to compare teams. I broke down NU & Texas's Q1 wins in another thread somewhere. No idea where anymore. 

 

NU was 1-5 vs the upper half of Q1, Texas was 0-9

NU was 0-1 vs the bottom half of Q1, Texas was 6-2

 

It's a heck of a lot easier to beat a #70 RPI team on the road than a #10 RPI team, but they're both Q1 games, which makes the current quad breakdown very flawed and easier to game.

 

I understand wanting to use quads to make it easier to compare teams. But it needs to be a combo of metrics, not just RPI, and we need more tiers at the top.

 

EDIT: And I should add, I caught a couple of Stanford games this season. They're awful. Had no idea they would even be under consideration for the NIT. Them getting a #3 is a joke. But the eye test is not a part of any criteria anymore.

Edited March 12, 2018 by throwback