uneblinstu's postgame chatter: vol 15, ed 26: vs Wisconsin

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, MichHusker said:

Shoot, i'm just hoping for a respectable, close loss rather than all the road blowouts we've had. If anybody wants a shred of hope though Rutgers is 0-2 without Mawot Mag in the starting lineup and are scoring 10 ppg under their average in his absence 

 

Rutgers is a Quad 1 game for us. As is the road game at Iowa. The only Quad 1 game at home left on our schedule is Maryland. Mich St is a Quad 2 and Minnesota is a Quad 4.

 

So, of our 5 remaining regular season games, three of them are Quad 1, one is a Quad 2, and one is a Quad 4.

 

From what I've seen, I think we have a shot at winning out at home; I do not think we have a shot at picking up a road game.

 

In order for us to get to .500, therefore, we would need to win out at home AND pick up two wins in the conference tourney. And I think that would get us to 17-17. If my math is right. Which it usually isn't.

[kldm64]

52 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Rutgers is a Quad 1 game for us. As is the road game at Iowa. The only Quad 1 game at home left on our schedule is Maryland. Mich St is a Quad 2 and Minnesota is a Quad 4.

 

So, of our 5 remaining regular season games, three of them are Quad 1, one is a Quad 2, and one is a Quad 4.

 

From what I've seen, I think we have a shot at winning out at home; I do not think we have a shot at picking up a road game.

 

In order for us to get to .500, therefore, we would need to win out at home AND pick up two wins in the conference tourney. And I think that would get us to 17-17. If my math is right. Which it usually isn't.

 

Interesting if that will be good enough for NIT with our NET ranking being around 100 at the moment

[Norm Peterson]

2 minutes ago, kldm64 said:

 

Interesting if that will be good enough for NIT with our NET ranking being around 100 at the moment

 

Last time I checked, 32 plus 68 is 100, but, again, my math isn't very good.

 

Of course, if we get to 17-17, we'll be well into the 80s, probably.

 

But don't trust my math.

[Nebrasketball1979]

14 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Last time I checked, 32 plus 68 is 100, but, again, my math isn't very good.

 

Of course, if we get to 17-17, we'll be well into the 80s, probably.

 

But don't trust my math.

 

Ha, yeah, 100 in the NET isn't going to cut it.  I know the NIT awards automatic bids to teams that win their regular season conference race but lose in the tournament.  That will probably suck up 10 or so spots in the NIT but that is purely a guess.  Plus, you have, I don't know, 16 or more teams make the NCAA tournament (thinking seeds 13-16) and would otherwise not qualify if not for winning their conference tourney and having the auto bid.  So, that's roughly 26 out of the 100 that would be well below 100 in the NET rankings.  My guess, having done no research, is that at worst you probably need to be in the 60's to low 70's to sniff NIT at large territory.

[PimpMario]

On 2/11/2023 at 6:53 PM, nuhusker7 said:

The way I see it, I want them to play the first day. If we finish 15-16, then we win two games in the tourney we can be post season eligible.

 

We could win out at home and that’s where we get. Beating Rutgers and iowa on the road are possible, but long shots IMO.

Or we just win the next 5.

 

 

I thought there was a tournament we could play in with a losing record?

[Nebrasketball1979]

5 minutes ago, PimpMario said:

 

I thought there was a tournament we could play in with a losing record?

 

Yeah, I believe the CBI and CIT (renamed The College Basketball Classic) typically allow sub .500 records.  These are pay to play tournaments and generally do not include Power 5 teams.

[hhcmatt]

30 minutes ago, PimpMario said:

 

I thought there was a tournament we could play in with a losing record?

 

B1G Tournament. I think we're a lock to make it this year.

[Swan88]

Regarding a .500 record requirement, here is information from that highly-authoritative source called Wikipedia:

 

"In an effort to maintain some quality, a rule saying that a team must have a .500 or better overall record to qualify for the NIT was imposed.

The NCAA announced a revamped selection process starting with the 2017 tournament. The main highlights are:

• Teams are no longer required to have .500 or greater overall records to receive bids.
• Similar to the automatic bids the NCAA Tournament grants for all conference tournament champions, all teams that won regular-season conference championships but failed to earn NCAA tournament bids are guaranteed places in the NIT."

[PimpMario]

3 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

Regarding a .500 record requirement, here is information from that highly-authoritative source called Wikipedia:

 

"In an effort to maintain some quality, a rule saying that a team must have a .500 or better overall record to qualify for the NIT was imposed.

The NCAA announced a revamped selection process starting with the 2017 tournament. The main highlights are:

• Teams are no longer required to have .500 or greater overall records to receive bids.
• Similar to the automatic bids the NCAA Tournament grants for all conference tournament champions, all teams that won regular-season conference championships but failed to earn NCAA tournament bids are guaranteed places in the NIT."

 

That makes sense, thank you!

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

 

Ha, yeah, 100 in the NET isn't going to cut it.  I know the NIT awards automatic bids to teams that win their regular season conference race but lose in the tournament.  That will probably suck up 10 or so spots in the NIT but that is purely a guess.  Plus, you have, I don't know, 16 or more teams make the NCAA tournament (thinking seeds 13-16) and would otherwise not qualify if not for winning their conference tourney and having the auto bid.  So, that's roughly 26 out of the 100 that would be well below 100 in the NET rankings.  My guess, having done no research, is that at worst you probably need to be in the 60's to low 70's to sniff NIT at large territory.

 

So, you think if we get to 17-17, we'll still be hovering around 100 in the NET?

[hhcmatt]

Hold on to these fuzzy feelings for when we hit the 2nd half of the Rutgers game

[Nebrasketball1979]

Just now, Norm Peterson said:

 

So, you think if we get to 17-17, we'll still be hovering around 100 in the NET?

 

As some have pointed out, margin of victory is clearly part of the formula when you look at our wins and relative losses compared to other schools with similar Quad 1-4 records that are ranked substantially higher than us.  To me it looks like we need some style points in both are wins and losses down the stretch.  But, if we do manage to go 17-17, I would be shocked if we aren't higher in the NET than we are today.  Would it be enough to jump 30-40 spots.  Who the heck knows.

[49r]

1 hour ago, hhcmatt said:

Hold on to these fuzzy feelings for when we hit the 2nd half of the Rutgers game

 

My prediction is we will almost immediately fall behind by 20-25 points in the first half, then cut the deficit back to single digits with about 3-4 minutes left and settle around 14-16 points behind by halftime.  There will be plenty of positive emotions because "hey we overcame the same obstacle against Wisco". 

 

Then they bleed us dry in the second half and blow us out by 20+ points.

[brfrad]

Looking at Bracket Matrix

 

1st 4 out (1 seeds in the NIT)

 

Texas A & M (33 NET) SEC

Wisconsin (80) Big 10

Mississippi State (41) SEC

Oregon (50) Pac 12

 

Next 3 (2 seeds in NIT)

Utah State (37) MWC

Arizona State(65) Pac 12

Seton Hall (61) Big East

 

Power 6 teams that would do not make NCAA tournament in the Bracket Matrix in the Top 100

 

SEC

Florida 53

Vanderbilt 93

 

ACC

Wake Forest 73

Syracuse 98

 

Big 12

Texas Tech 70

Oklahoma 76

 

Big East

Villanova 85

St John's 99

 

Big 10

Michigan 68

Penn St 67

Ohio St 54

Nebraska 100

 

Pac 12

Utah 52

Colorado 71

Washington State 81

 

MWC

New Mexico 48

UNLV 83

 

We assume the top 7 make it, and give us 10 auto bids.  That leaves the NIT to fill 15 spots

 

Last 4 in NCAA  tournament

N Carolina (40)

Memphis (42)

Kentucky (46)

Clemson (77)

[tcp]

we're going to have to be a whole lot higher than 100 to get into much of anything. 

 

i'm just wanting to see these guys play hard and do their best and set the table for next season. 

 

maybe they'll get lucky in the tourney. 

[hhcmatt]

Blaise receiving the game ball after the game

[Buglem]

Catching up on some threads after being away from the forum for a while. Nice call by everyone who gave us no shot at Rutgers (neither did I). 

 

Seriously, reading these comments, is Rutgers the biggest and most surprising win of the year? I would’ve said the Creighton game couldn’t be topped in that aspect but maybe this did it?