Jump to content

March Tourney Talk

HuskerFever

By HuskerFever
in The Haymarket Hardwood

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

brfrad
brfrad

I just looked at their resumes, it pisses me off about last year.  Belmont NET 47 Q1 2 - 2 Q2 3 - 1 Q4 17 - 0  Temple NET 56 Q1 2 - 6 Q2 6 - 2.  Our resume NET 48 Q1 3 - 13 Q2 6-3.  5 wins by Belmont

brfrad
brfrad

I know we shouldn't be in, but I'm still comparing it to last year.  You tell a team, "You didn't get in because you didn't beat enough Q1 and Q2 teams" one year, and the next year, you let a team in

throwback
throwback

Here are how the NET numbers ended up as seeds:     NET RANKS (*Non P5 teams) 1 SEEDS: 1, 2, 3, 7 2 SEEDS: 5, 6, 8, 9 3 SEEDS: 4*, 10, 12, 14 4 SEEDS: 11, 16, 2

throwback

throwback

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Thanks for the research, @throwback -- I thought Nebraska had 2 quad-one wins. What are the three? Did the Indiana win sneak into there...... just curious.

 

Clemson on the road is a good one.

 

{And, Maryland is obviously one, just this past week.}

 

 

Q1 wins - at Indiana, at Clemson, (N) Maryland

Q2 wins - blue team, Seton Hall, Iowa, Minnesota, Penn St, (N) Oklahoma St

 

Rutgers finished #101 in NET. Two more spots, and that would've been a Q2 to get us to 10. But there's no way we're in with that alone. Probably still needed both Wisc and MSU.

AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, throwback said:

Q1 wins - at Indiana, at Clemson, (N) Maryland

Q2 wins - blue team, Seton Hall, Iowa, Minnesota, Penn St, (N) Oklahoma St

 

Rutgers finished #101 in NET. Two more spots, and that would've been a Q2 to get us to 10. But there's no way we're in with that alone. Probably still needed both Wisc and MSU.

 

Okay, I got the three. Didn't realize Rutgers finished just out of top 100. Crazy year.

 

Agree NU needed two more... I contend it's the first time around with Wisconsin after also that same week's OSU game where Cope's injury changed the game. 

 

 

Edited by AuroranHusker
jayschool

jayschool

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Cazzie22 said:

Interesting how we receive a home game after what happened last year. 

Clearly we're better this year, right?

 

It's still a head-scratcher on its face:

  • a 22-10, 13-5, fourth-place Big Ten team is a No. 5 NIT seed in 2018.
  • an 18-16, 6-14, 13th-place Big Ten team is a No. 4 NIT seed in 2019

All because a bunch of Big Ten teams lost games in November 2017 and a bunch of Big Ten teams won a lot of games in November 2018. Thus the conference season started each year with the perception that (2018) the Big Ten is down or (2019) the Big Ten is up. Yet the 2018 post-season proved that perception wrong — Michigan the national runners-up, PSU the NIT champ.

REDZONEDAN

REDZONEDAN

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

What do the top two seeds in our portion of the bracket have in common?

 

1. TCU

2. Creighton 

3. Memphis

4. #Huskers 

5. Butler

6. San Diego

7. Loyola-Chicago

D-bag fans?

throwback

throwback

Posted
Posted

Looking a little deeper at NCAA, Ohio State is a real outlier. 55 NET, 9 Q1+Q2 wins, 4 Q1 wins. As much as I hate to say it, Tejas had better metrics, 38 NET, 9 Q1+Q2 wins, 5 Q1 wins.

 

OSU probably should've been in the First Four play-in games, yet they were safely in.

 

I wonder if OSU was given some benefit of the doubt for the 3 games where they suspended Wesson. I think they lost all 3. Not sure that should've happened, but it kind of looks like the committee did.

 

Also really weird that MSU could be looking at a path of Bradley, Minnesota, Maryland and then Duke. Why are 3 B1G teams all in the same part of the bracket like that? Weird. And there's no way MSU should be in the same region as Duke. Although that's just enough of a snub to piss Izzo off, so they'll probably go and win the whole thing now.

 

AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, jayschool said:

Clearly we're better this year, right?

 

It's still a head-scratcher on its face:

  • a 22-10, 13-5, fourth-place Big Ten team is a No. 5 NIT seed in 2018.
  • an 18-16, 6-14, 13th-place Big Ten team is a No. 4 NIT seed in 2019

All because a bunch of Big Ten teams lost games in November 2017 and a bunch of Big Ten teams won a lot of games in November 2018. Thus the conference season started each year with the perception that (2018) the Big Ten is down or (2019) the Big Ten is up. Yet the 2018 post-season proved that perception wrong — Michigan the national runners-up, PSU the NIT champ.

 

You make a lot of sense. Whoever's in the room for the selection committee seems to be overthinking some things, like understanding the basic tenets of basketball. The Defense will help to win in a close contest but it's the Offense that allows a team to come out on top.

Cazzie22

Cazzie22

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, throwback said:

Looking a little deeper at NCAA, Ohio State is a real outlier. 55 NET, 9 Q1+Q2 wins, 4 Q1 wins. As much as I hate to say it, Tejas had better metrics, 38 NET, 9 Q1+Q2 wins, 5 Q1 wins.

 

OSU probably should've been in the First Four play-in games, yet they were safely in.

 

I wonder if OSU was given some benefit of the doubt for the 3 games where they suspended Wesson. I think they lost all 3. Not sure that should've happened, but it kind of looks like the committee did.

 

Also really weird that MSU could be looking at a path of Bradley, Minnesota, Maryland and then Duke. Why are 3 B1G teams all in the same part of the bracket like that? Weird. And there's no way MSU should be in the same region as Duke. Although that's just enough of a snub to piss Izzo off, so they'll probably go and win the whole thing now.

 

The Dukies received a cushy bracket, surprise, until Michigan St.   Committee obviously does not serpentine the 2’s because Michigan should be with Duke and MSU with Gonzaga.  

HuskerFever

HuskerFever

Posted
  • Author
Posted
43 minutes ago, jayschool said:

Clearly we're better this year, right?

 

It's still a head-scratcher on its face:

  • a 22-10, 13-5, fourth-place Big Ten team is a No. 5 NIT seed in 2018.
  • an 18-16, 6-14, 13th-place Big Ten team is a No. 4 NIT seed in 2019

All because a bunch of Big Ten teams lost games in November 2017 and a bunch of Big Ten teams won a lot of games in November 2018. Thus the conference season started each year with the perception that (2018) the Big Ten is down or (2019) the Big Ten is up. Yet the 2018 post-season proved that perception wrong — Michigan the national runners-up, PSU the NIT champ.

 

Apparently not... (granted, this poll wasn't taken at the very end of the season)

 

 

AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Swan88 said:

What do the top two seeds in our portion of the bracket have in common?

 

1. TCU

2. Creighton 

3. Memphis

4. #Huskers 

5. Butler

6. San Diego

7. Loyola-Chicago

 

Kind of an interesting hierarchy of hoops........ hmmm.

 

 

jdw

jdw

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jayschool said:

If I'm figuring this correctly, we finished 4-12 against tournament teams:

  • 0-2 vs. MSU
  • 0-1 vs. Michigan
  • 0-2 vs. Purdue
  • 0-2 vs. Wisconsin
  • 1-1 vs. Maryland
  • 1-1 vs. Iowa
  • 1-1 vs. Minnesota
  • 0-1 vs. Ohio State
  • 1-0 vs. Seton Hall
  • 0-1 vs. Texas Tech

6 and 10 would have easily got us in

AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

This is what a football school who won a conference title in basketball looks like:

 

Auburn sure has taken a turn in trying to legitimize their hoops program. First tourney title since 1985.

 

 

So Nebrasketball has another 9 years to figure this out....... is that accurately reflected by a comparison to Ahh-Barn.

 

 

?

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...