Three Games Against Final 4 Teams

[Dead Dog Alley]

Here's Loyola's roster and stats (stats based on a per 37 games basis): 

 

Player	Ht	Wt	Yr	MIN	PPG	RPG	APG
Donte Ingram	6-6	215	Sr.	30.6	11.3	6.3	1.5
Clayton Custer	6-1	185	Jr.	28.3	11.4	1.9	3.6
Marques Townes	6-4	210	Jr.	28.0	11.2	3.9	2.5
Cameron Krutwig	6-9	260	Fr.	23.6	10.3	6.1	1.8
Ben Richardson	6-3	185	Sr.	22.5	5.1	2.2	2.8
Lucas Williamson	6-4	190	Fr.	20.1	4.9	2.2	1.0
Aundre Jackson	6-5	230	Sr.	19.1	11.0	3.3	0.9
Bruno Skokna	6-4	175	So.	11.7	3.2	0.9	0.6
Cameron Satterwhite	6-4	175	So.	9.7	1.7	1.6	0.8
Adarius Avery	6-5	190	Jr.	2.5	1.0	0.6	0.1
Christian Negron	6-7	215	Fr.	1.9	0.5	0.3	0.0
Carson Shanks	7-0	245	Sr.	0.8	0.3	0.1	0.0
Jake Baughman	6-3	180	So.	0.5	0.1	0.0	0.0
Nick Dinardi	6-7	225	Sr.	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.0
Dylan Boehm	6-5	205	Sr.	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.1

 

Let's say they play Nebraska's schedule.  Do they win at St. John's?  Toss-up.  At UCF?  Toss-up.  At Creighton?  A chance, but probably not.  Do they beat Kansas at home?  Not unless Kansas lays an egg.  Do they beat Boston College at home?  Probably.  Do they win at Michigan State?  No.  Do they win at Purdue?  No.  Do they win at Ohio State?  Probably not.  Do they win at Penn State?  Probably not.  Do they beat Michigan at home?  Probably not (but we get to see on Saturday).  Do they win at Illinois?  Most likely.  Do they beat Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Minnesota all on the road?  They probably lose one or two of those.  Do they beat Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Penn State, and Indiana at home?  They probably lose one or two of those.  And then they are in the NIT.  My point being, building a roster that can win in the tournament is not the same as building a roster that can hold up in the Big Ten.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Dead Dog Alley

[hskr4life]

9 minutes ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

Here's Loyola's roster and stats (stats based on a per 37 games basis): 

 

Player	Ht	Wt	Yr	MIN	PPG	RPG	APG
Donte Ingram	6-6	215	Sr.	30.6	11.3	6.3	1.5
Clayton Custer	6-1	185	Jr.	28.3	11.4	1.9	3.6
Marques Townes	6-4	210	Jr.	28.0	11.2	3.9	2.5
Cameron Krutwig	6-9	260	Fr.	23.6	10.3	6.1	1.8
Ben Richardson	6-3	185	Sr.	22.5	5.1	2.2	2.8
Lucas Williamson	6-4	190	Fr.	20.1	4.9	2.2	1.0
Aundre Jackson	6-5	230	Sr.	19.1	11.0	3.3	0.9
Bruno Skokna	6-4	175	So.	11.7	3.2	0.9	0.6
Cameron Satterwhite	6-4	175	So.	9.7	1.7	1.6	0.8
Adarius Avery	6-5	190	Jr.	2.5	1.0	0.6	0.1
Christian Negron	6-7	215	Fr.	1.9	0.5	0.3	0.0
Carson Shanks	7-0	245	Sr.	0.8	0.3	0.1	0.0
Jake Baughman	6-3	180	So.	0.5	0.1	0.0	0.0
Nick Dinardi	6-7	225	Sr.	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.0
Dylan Boehm	6-5	205	Sr.	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.1

 

Let's say they play Nebraska's schedule.  Do they win at St. John's?  Toss-up.  At UCF?  Toss-up.  At Creighton?  A chance, but probably not.  Do they beat Kansas at home?  Not unless Kansas lays an egg.  Do they beat Boston College at home?  Probably.  Do they win at Michigan State?  No.  Do they win at Purdue?  No.  Do they win at Ohio State?  Probably not.  Do they win at Penn State?  Probably not.  Do they beat Michigan at home?  Probably not (but we get to see on Saturday).  Do they win at Illinois?  Most likely.  Do they beat Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Minnesota all on the road?  They probably lose one or two of those.  Do they beat Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Penn State, and Indiana at home?  They probably lose one or two of those.  And then they are in the NIT.  My point being, building a roster that can win in the tournament is not the same as building a roster that can hold up in the Big Ten.

 

 

 

Getting hot at the right time also helps.  I am taking Nebraska over them to go 13-5 in the Big 10 this year every day of the week.  Like I said, it's easy to say that they are the better team since they are in the Final 4, but throughout the course of the season, they don't finish with 22 wins and 13 wins in the Big 10 with our schedule.

[royalfan]

At the start of the tournament we and Loyola would have been close to a pick.  Loyola maybe by 1.5

[royalfan]

Bottom line is they are showing why we needed to be in the thing.  It is a very fine line between winning and losing this day and age.  With the right combination of upsets etc. like Kansas St. had go in their favor you just never know.  No question in my mind we handle Creighton, and certainly UMBC, to get in sweet 16.  Don't think we would have beat Kentucky, but would not have been overwhelming dogs either.  

[cipsucks]

8 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Cip:  "Yeah, but your best friend slept with your wife and it knocked you out of the Round Table, so ..."

 

Jose Ramos.  The gift that keeps on giving.

[Ron Mexico]

21 hours ago, cipsucks said:

Damn those scores against St John's and UCF:

 

Nebraska  115

Opponent 147

 

I get your point, Norm.  It's really frustrating how NU can lay eggs at the worst times...

It wasn't our losses that hurt us. We beat those 2 teams and we still might not have made it.

The whole focus for the committee was Q1 wins. 

We needed to beat at least one of Purdue, MSU, and/or OSU on the road. Those were the games that did us in.

[AuroranHusker]

5 hours ago, Ron Mexico said:

It wasn't our losses that hurt us. We beat those 2 teams and we still might not have made it.

The whole focus for the committee was Q1 wins. 

We needed to beat at least one of Purdue, MSU, and/or OSU on the road. Those were the games that did us in.

 

And, yet, K-State was 0-7 against the teams ahead of them in the Big 12....... and, of course, the Wildcats were 10-1 against the lower realms of the 10-team league. Meanwhile, Nebraska was 0-3 against the top 3 B1G teams & 13-2 against the rest, which includes Mich.

[HuskerFever]

15 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

And, yet, K-State was 0-7 against the teams ahead of them in the Big 12....... and, of course, the Wildcats were 10-1 against the lower realms of the 10-team league. Meanwhile, Nebraska was 0-3 against the top 3 B1G teams & 13-2 against the rest, which includes Mich.

 

Kansas State went 4-9 in Quadrant 1 going into the tournament with an RPI of 53. Nebraska: 1-6 with an RPI of 56.

 

Sadly, the committee put all their value in categories we didn't excel in. That, and a little bad luck with the Big Ten/RPI logic not providing us with 13 Quad 1 opportunities and instead we ended up with 7.

Edited March 27, 2018 by HuskerFever

[AuroranHusker]

2 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Kansas State went 4-9 in Quadrant 1 going into the tournament with an RPI of 53. Nebraska: 1-6 with an RPI of 56.

 

Sadly, the committee put all their value in categories we didn't excel in. That, and a little bad luck with the Big Ten/RPI logic not providing us with 15 Quad 1 opportunities and instead we ended up with 7.

 

Yeah, I realize that. The quadrants "system" to select teams is rather idiotic.

 

Personally I think Nebrasketball & K-State are relatively similar.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by AuroranHusker

[HuskerFever]

4 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Yeah, I realize that. The quadrants "system" to select teams is rather idiotic.

 

Personally I think Nebrasketball & K-State are relatively similar.

 

 

 

Agreed. I still think that had we been under last year's system, we may have been selected into the field. Since the committee didn't place more value on late season performance, road wins meant more than just beating good opponents, and conference performance still had a small part in a decision, we just didn't have a fighting chance this year.

[Chuck Taylor]

The "system" didn't change. The committee has valued road wins and wins against top teams for years. It has discounted conference ties and how you finished for years. 

 

The quadrant system was simply part of the sorting process, a quick look at a resume. We didn't get screwed by a new system, we were a victim of the same standards they have been using. It just didn't work for us this year because of the nature of our schedule, who we played and who we beat. 

[Swan88]

The Committee screwed the Huskers this year.  It rejected 61 years of precedent and focused, for this one season, on a value that overcame late-season collapses.  There is no sugar coating what they did to Nebrasketball.

Next year's Committee, on the other hand, will have a majority of members from the low- and mid-majors.  So, they will be focusing back on the old way that values number-of-wins, not the quadrant system, because that's what low- and mid-majors will have.

So . . . the reality is that Nebrasketball gets squeezed out, this year, by an aberration.  And next year, there will be a greater number of low- and mid-majors getting in.  So it will be harder for high-majors, like Nebrasketball, to get in--even with high-quality wins.

But that's Nebraska's luck, I guess.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Swan88

[Chuck Taylor]

Here's Rasmussen's interview with CBS:

Quote

The perception is that if it's in the Quadrant 1 they're all looked at the same. They're not. It's just a sorting tool. The reality is we aren't doing anything this year than we have in the last few years

 

[nustudent]

20 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

The Committee screwed the Huskers this year.  It rejected 61 years of precedent and focused, for this one season, on a value that overcame late-season collapses.  There is no sugar coating what they did to Nebrasketball.

Next year's Committee, on the other hand, will have a majority of members from the low- and mid-majors.  So, they will be focusing back on the old way that values number-of-wins, not the quadrant system, because that's what low- and mid-majors will have.

So . . . the reality is that Nebrasketball gets squeezed out, this year, by an aberration.  And next year, there will be a greater number of low- and mid-majors getting in.  So it will be harder for high-majors, like Nebrasketball, to get in--even with high-quality wins.

But that's Nebraska's luck, I guess.

Ironic because we essentially had a mid major resume this year.

[hskr4life]

9 hours ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Yeah, I realize that. The quadrants "system" to select teams is rather idiotic.

 

Personally I think Nebrasketball & K-State are relatively similar.

 

 

 

Yeah, I don’t think we can say without a doubt that the system didn’t change.  It was said to have been the same, but when push game to shove, and the teams were announced, it changed.  Teams with a lot of quadrant 1 wins were allowed in with poor records.  Bubble teams that got in had a lot of quadrant 1 wins.  If they truly did things the way they had in previous years, we wouldn’t have had certain teams in there... including the 9th place PAC-12 team and the 9th place Big 12 team.  Sorry, but when you look at the metrics, Quad 1 was absolutely favored over all other metrics.

[nustudent]

27 minutes ago, Chuck Taylor said:

The "system" didn't change. The committee has valued road wins and wins against top teams for years. It has discounted conference ties and how you finished for years. 

 

The quadrant system was simply part of the sorting process, a quick look at a resume. We didn't get screwed by a new system, we were a victim of the same standards they have been using. It just didn't work for us this year because of the nature of our schedule, who we played and who we beat. 

 

Correct.

 

We weren't screwed.   Our criteria just didn't fit.   Some of it was bad luck.   Some of it was not taking care of business.   It just didn't work out, for a variety of reasons

[nustudent]

26 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

Yeah, I don’t think we can say without a doubt that the system didn’t change.  It was said to have been the same, but when push game to shove, and the teams were announced, it changed.  Teams with a lot of quadrant 1 wins were allowed in with poor records.  Bubble teams that got in had a lot of quadrant 1 wins.  If they truly did things the way they had in previous years, we wouldn’t have had certain teams in there... including the 9th place PAC-12 team and the 9th place Big 12 team.  Sorry, but when you look at the metrics, Quad 1 was absolutely favored over all other metrics.

 

Everybody is hung up on Quad 1 wins, etc...but no one seems to focus on record vs. tourney teams, road/neutral site records vs. good teams.    Those were factors/variables too and we were horrible in those categories as well..   Quad 1 was just a way to sort that stuff.

[Handy Johnson]

20 hours ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Well that wasn't the question, the question was would we be favored over Loyola-Chi? and the answer is no. Also seems silly to say they couldn't handle the grind of the B1G when they just beat 3 top 25 teams over the course of 7 days. Do people on here really think we are a better team than Loyola-Chicago this year?

I think we are. Just saying they're a "Final Four"  team doesn't make them better. As Norm points out to start this thread, we played 3 games against Final Four teams and it was a virtual wash. K-St would beat them 7 out of 10 times they played, just not last Saturday . That's BASKETBALL

[hskr4life]

1 hour ago, nustudent said:

 

Everybody is hung up on Quad 1 wins, etc...but no one seems to focus on record vs. tourney teams, road/neutral site records vs. good teams.    Those were factors/variables too and we were horrible in those categories as well..   Quad 1 was just a way to sort that stuff.

 

I wasn't even including the Huskers in this.  I am saying that there were other bubble teams more worthy than a few that got in.  Specifically because of Quad 1 wins.  You say to focus on record vs. tourney teams.... but reality is that the more quad 1 teams a conference had, the more quad 1 wins they would get.... therefore, it does round all the way back to quad 1 wins.  I am not advocating for the Huskers in this example, I am saying that the committee changed the way they did things this year.  Yes, it did hurt the Huskers, but there were more deserving teams than some that got into the Dance.

[jason2486]

23 hours ago, The Polish Rifle said:

I always assume its a neutral court game. And me saying I think LC is better than us, is not to take away from our season, but they're a freaking final 4 team, who just got done dominating a physical KSU team. I don't really see LC as a typical Cinderella team. 32-5, won both their conf regular season and tournament, 5-0 against tournament teams (including going to gainesville and beating Florida in the non-con).

 

I forgot about the Florida game. I watched the 2nd half of that one, and I remember thinking that Loyola had some ballers who could do some damage this season. But I wasn't thinking Final Four good!

[big red22]

6 hours ago, nustudent said:

 

Everybody is hung up on Quad 1 wins, etc...but no one seems to focus on record vs. tourney teams, road/neutral site records vs. good teams.    Those were factors/variables too and we were horrible in those categories as well..   Quad 1 was just a way to sort that stuff.

Why should I focus on that?  One it is not as relavent as many of you realists claim it to be.  Two, I don't agree with the way teams are selected in general.  Lastly I think there is a range between a power 6 team ranked 35-125 that is like comparing Apples and Oranges.  For example winning @Wisconsin should be similar to winning @Oklahoma or @Alabama, but is was definitely not!

 

I would like you to just for one time stop being a realist and stop focusing on the "reasons" why Nebraska failed to get into the tournament.  Now that being a realist is out of your brain (Right?), I want you to look at Arizona State, Alabama, St. Bonaventure, Texas and Oklahoma and give them our schedule.  Do they have a better record then us?  Go game by game, and see if they come out of the regular season with less then 9 losses? 

 

Do all 3 of them win at Wisconsin? 

Do all of them beat Penn State at Home? 

Do all of them beat Minnesota at full strength? 

Do all of them beat Michigan at home? 

Do all of them beat St. John's with LeVitt @St. John's?

Do all of them beat UCF with Tacko Fall on a neutral court? (Just so you know Alabama couldn't!)

 

Now again I have heard multiple times, by multiple people that the Mid tier SEC and Big 12 teams are head and shoulders better than the middle of the pack teams of the Big 10 like Wisconsin and Maryland.  Can we focus on one team... Alabama.  Let me ask you this did Alabama with 15 losses deserve to be in the tournament? The answer is no, but for you I am assuming the answer is yes!  

 

Thing is I can give you way more reasons why Alabama should of been left out of the tournament than I can for Nebraska and USC.  So why exactly should I focus on the few negative things against Nebraska?  When people like you can't look at the negative things of the teams that got in ahead of Nebraska.

 

I could pick multiple reasons why Alabama had no business being in that tournament but let's focus on this one...

 

What was Alabama's road record?  2-8

 

Yep 2-8 against teams on the road!

 

So if you realists want to make an argument that the committee didn't take us because of lack of road wins, what is your reasoning for Alabama getting in?  For a 15 loss team you would think the answer to this question would be different right?  Like you said "Everybody is hung up on Quad 1 wins" so if they weren't "Caught up in Quad 1 wins" Alabama shouldn't have been sniffing the tournament.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by big red22

[nustudent]

10 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Why should I focus on that?  One it is not as relavent as many of you realists claim it to be.  Two, I don't agree with the way teams are selected in general.  Lastly I think there is a range between a power 6 team ranked 35-125 that is like comparing Apples and Oranges.  For example winning @Wisconsin should be similar to winning @Oklahoma or @Alabama, but is was definitely not!

 

I would like you to just for one time stop being a realist and stop focusing on the "reasons" why Nebraska failed to get into the tournament.  Now that being a realist is out of your brain (Right?), I want you to look at Arizona State, Alabama, St. Bonaventure, Texas and Oklahoma and give them our schedule.  Do they have a better record then us.  Go game by game, and see if they come out of the regular season with less then 9 losses? 

 

Do all 3 of them win at Wisconsin? 

Do all of them beat Penn State at Home? 

Do all of them beat Minnesota at full strength? 

Do all of them beat Michigan at home? 

Do all of them beat St. John's with LeVitt @St. John's?

Do all of them beat UCF with Tacko Fall on a neutral court? (Just so you know Alabama couldn't!)

 

Now again I have heard multiple times, by multiple people that the Mid tier SEC and Big 12 teams are head and shoulders better than the middle of the pack teams of the Big 10 like Wisconsin and Maryland.  Can we focus on one team... Alabama.  Let me ask you this did Alabama with 15 losses deserve to be in the tournament? The answer is no, but for you I am assuming the answer is yes!  

 

Thing is I can give you way more reasons why Alabama should of been left out of the tournament than I can for Nebraska and USC.  So why exactly should I focus on the few negative things against Nebraska?  When people like you can focus on the negative things of the teams that got in ahead of Nebraska.

 

I could pick multiple reasons why Alabama had no business being in that tournament but let's focus on this one...

 

What was Alabama's road record?  2-8

 

Yep 2-8 against teams on the road!

 

So if you realists want to make an argument that the committee didn't take us because of lack of road wins, what is your reasoning for Alabama getting in?  For a 15 loss team you would think the answer to this question would be different right?  Like you said "Everybody is hung up on Quad 1 wins" so if they weren't "Caught up in Quad 1 wins" Alabama shouldn't have been sniffing the tournament.

 

 

Arizona State-No.   I have more of an issue with them getting in than any of the others.   The other schools, yes, I think they match what we did.   Maybe, not in the manner that we did.   For example, Alabama had some real nice wins, but also some real questionable losses.   I think they probably would have been around 22-9 with our schedule.   But they probably have an extra impressive win and an extra WTF type of loss.

 

Do I think Alabama deserved to be in?   Good question.   Under the criteria that was being used....yeah, I had no problem with them being in.   As I mentioned right after Selection Sunday....my issues are more the criteria that is used, the non-existence  of the eyeball test despite saying there is, and the constant moving of goal posts, moreso than  the application of the criteria.   Quality wins was the single biggest factor.....and they (Bama) had that.   

 

Now do I think the criteria that was used this year should be the end all be all and weighted like it was this year?   Now my answer to the question is, no.   I think there has to be more than that.   I think the eyeball test has to exist.   While, I agree it is an entire season resume, I do think finish does deserve some consideration.   But that hasn't been the case for 6 years.   It's certainly wasn't a recent development that it wasn't a factor.

 

It wasn't just quad 1 wins.  It was wins over other tourney teams.   Bama for example had 9 compared to our 1.   We went 0-7 against teams with winning records at road/neutral sites.

Bama went 5-9.   So using the criteria that the committee had previously decided on, they had more than just quad 1 wins on a team like us.   This criteria wasn't just pulled up on selection sunday out of nowhere.  It's what they (and the bracketologists that everyone said was wrong until they weren't) were using all year.   Now...again...this opens up another argument, should this have been the criteria?   Probably not, but it was.  

 

As for winning @ Wisconsin being equivalent to winning at some of the others you mentioned?   Winning in Madison isn't easy.   But when Wisconsin goes 0-6 against other Power 6 teams in the non-con and struggles through most of its Big 10 schedule, that game just isn't going to carry a lot of weight to non-biased observers.  If the shoe was on the other foot...and we went on the road and beat Kansas State and MIss State and an ACC fan was telling you that winning at Wake Forest is just as impressive....I'm guessing you (we) wouldn't be buying that argument.   

 

As for Nebraska getting in....I would have loved to watch us play.  Am I bent out of shape about it?   Without being biased...I can't say that I am.   We are probably a borderline top 25 team at home.   But we didn't win one game away from home against a team that finished above .500.   Not even good teams...just above .500.   Not one win.   And considering the NCAA would have involved a game away from home against a good team, I can understand the hesitancy to put us in that position based on our resume, because we quite simply were not good in those situations. 

 

Do I think we got screwed?   Absolutely not.   Do I think the pre-determined criteria that was used this year to make the decision is the best form of criteria that can be used?   That's also a no.

 

 

[Dead Dog Alley]

4 minutes ago, nustudent said:

 

Do I think we got screwed?   Absolutely not.   Do I think the pre-determined criteria that was used this year to make the decision is the best form of criteria that can be used?   That's also a no.

 

 

 

If, say, Wisconsin, coming off of 19 straight NCAA Tournament appearances, had our schedule and record, would they have been left out?

 

Hell.  No.  So there's that.

[nustudent]

3 minutes ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

 

If, say, Wisconsin, coming off of 19 straight NCAA Tournament appearances, had our schedule and record, would they have been left out?

 

Hell.  No.  So there's that.

 

I dont believe this for a second 

[AuroranHusker]

Nebraska is the reason that Wisconsin had a losing record. UW went 15-17, yet Nebraska defeated the Badgers twice. I really think UW was a good win for NU (particularly on the road....) but the "metrics" say it was so-so.