Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NebrasketballJake

Non Con Slate is Out

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hskr4life said:

 

I got a good laugh out of some of them.  Hey... at least we’re relevant enough to get our non-con tweeted by national media!

 

I was mixing it up on Twitter yesterday with a guy who played soccer for Cincinnati busting on your non-con schedule. It was pretty funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I see an Incarnate Word, Samford, or Gardner Webb on this schedule, no. I’m a firm believer those days are behind us. Other than MAYBE G Tech or one of those games in the Caymans, this has hot knife/butter written all over it. I’m putting the early over/under for Ws at 20....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Handy Johnson said:

Do I see an Incarnate Word, Samford, or Gardner Webb on this schedule, no. I’m a firm believer those days are behind us. Other than MAYBE G Tech or one of those games in the Caymans, this has hot knife/butter written all over it. I’m putting the early over/under for Ws at 20....

 

Put me down for 11 gazillian on the unders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Put me down for 11 gazillian on the unders

 

This discussion happened in another thread somewhere and I think I suggested an over/under around 18. I was thinking 9 wins in the non-con and another 9 in the conference.  But 9 conference wins is probably ambitious. That's why there's an over/under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Searching 4 Chester Surles said:

It would be one thing if there was a set formula (a team needs to do x, y, and z) that could be relied upon every year, but there isn't. There are way too many variables (including many the team can't control). With the fluctuating strength of the bubble from year-to-year, and the ever-changing metrics that each selection committee finds important for that particular season, there's just really no way to say that "X wins will get us on the bubble". Fun way to pass the time in June, but fairly meaningless otherwise.

 

Yeah a definitive answer for win totals is pointless but we can do better than just shrug and say who knows.  Given the years of data we have from fields since 1985 we generally know the bounds for Power 5/6 teams in terms of Wins-Losses for making the tournament as an at-large.  2006 Alabama made the tourney with a 17-14 record.  Virginia Tech in 2010 and their 23-8 record did not make the tournament.  It's almost a certainty that the Power 5/6 teams that make up the 10-12 seeds in this year's tournament will have between 17 and 23 wins. It's my contention that given what should be a poor non-conference schedule we will need to be in the range of 21-23 wins that as always depends on which of the teams on your schedule you beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Yeah a definitive answer for win totals is pointless but we can do better than just shrug and say who knows.  Given the years of data we have from fields since 1985 we generally know the bounds for Power 5/6 teams in terms of Wins-Losses for making the tournament as an at-large.  2006 Alabama made the tourney with a 17-14 record.  Virginia Tech in 2010 and their 23-8 record did not make the tournament.  It's almost a certainty that the Power 5/6 teams that make up the 10-12 seeds in this year's tournament will have between 17 and 23 wins. It's my contention that given what should be a poor non-conference schedule we will need to be in the range of 21-23 wins that as always depends on which of the teams on your schedule you beat.

I think only 3 teams that won 5+ quad 1 games didn't get in. Indiana and Texas, who were basically .500, and another team that is escaping me. Get quality wins and be a few games above .500. Now, last year felt like a weak bubble, even though they say the bubble is weak every year. But a starting point. How many Q1 opportunities will we have and how many will we capitalize on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, avfan2121 said:

I think only 3 teams that won 5+ quad 1 games didn't get in. Indiana and Texas, who were basically .500, and another team that is escaping me. Get quality wins and be a few games above .500. Now, last year felt like a weak bubble, even though they say the bubble is weak every year. But a starting point. How many Q1 opportunities will we have and how many will we capitalize on?

 

We probably have 1-3 Quad 1 games in the non-conf.  If we're good enough to win 5+ of these Quad 1 games, it seems probable that we would get to 20+ wins unless we're just madly inconsistent the entire year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a 13-5 B1G record  got us a road NIT game two years ago, and 17 wins sent us dancing in ‘86. Obviously once we see these guys in the gym, up & down in some REAL games our opinions could/will change dramatically either way. Those fluffy non-con wins won’t help much, but I don’t think the Conference will be overly daunting either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 10:40 AM, hhcmatt said:

Yeah a definitive answer for win totals is pointless but we can do better than just shrug and say who knows.

 

Still seems like trying to put together a puzzle with 5% of the pieces.

 

 

On 6/14/2019 at 10:40 AM, hhcmatt said:

Given the years of data we have from fields since 1985 we generally know the bounds for Power 5/6 teams in terms of Wins-Losses for making the tournament as an at-large.

 

Georgia made the 2001 tourney with a 16-14 record (AS AN 8 SEED!). The 2013 selection committee was wild. 23-12 Virginia was left out, and dual 26-8s Oregon and Ole Miss were TWELVE SEEDS. Both won their conference tournaments. Ole Miss probably wouldn't have made the field at 25-9 (had they lost in the auto-bid title game). Which would have been a damn shame... not to watch Marshall Henderson knock 5-seed Wisconsin from the tourney.

 

Even with an upper and lower limit (which is still a pretty large gap), it doesn't really account for all the other factors that play into why a team with x, y, z qualifications in 2014 doesn't make the tournament with the same exact resume in 2018.

 

I guess we'll just have to win them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...