Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

This is definitely a great point and I’m not arguing against it. I think you’re missing my point, though. The only point I’m making is that Nebraska’s chances of making the tournament lie solely in Nebraska’s resume. The committee does not care about our conference. They care about our RPI (or KenPom), our Quadrants, and the eye test. They do not care about our conference record or our conference standings. If we have 23 wins, our RPI is 55th, and we have zero wins in the first Quadrant, we will be sweating it out come Selection Sunday. That is the only point I’m trying to make. Unfortunately, based on the point you brought up, we haven’t had a good opportunity to boost our RPI or Q1 record in conference play because the Big Ten performed so poorly in the non-con. I agree with you that that is a flaw in the ratings systems because it judges a conference only on early season results. Hopefully that’s where the eye test comes into play, and the committee sees us as a tourney team.

Can you provide some examples where a Power Conference team gets in over a mid-major, when the PC team has a notably worse RPI and worse record against quality opponents, and where seemingly a big reason they got in is because they had a good conference record? If that were the case, shouldn't Washington in 2012 have gotten a bid? They finished 1st in the Pac-12 with a 21-10 (14-4) record. But since their resume didn't support it (lack of big wins, RPI in the 70s), they were NIT-bound. Obviously the Power Conferences get more bids in general, but that's also when the metrics support it. You say the PC teams play tougher teams day-in day-out, which is true, but that's also reflected in the metrics. I would argue that any time a mid-major seemingly gets snubbed, it's because the committee truly felt the PC team had the better overall resume. Even if it's true that the committee considers conference standings, that still won't work in our favor this year. Currently, the Big Ten is sixth in conference RPI. The last two years, the sixth conference received four (2017 Pac-12) and three (2016 SEC) bids. We just aren't used to the Big Ten being so down like it is this year, so it's hard to wrap our minds around the 4 seed missing the dance.

Really? I think the quadrants are great. It's an improvement over just analyzing 1-50, 51-100, etc.

I definitely agree with this. We can only hope that the committee is watching us because we certainly are a tournament quality team. But the fact is the analytics do matter, and they won't be in our favor. Even if we win out to finish 23-8, I think one win at MSG is important to cement us in the committee's minds as a team that's playing good ball. The main point I'm trying to make is that I think people are focusing too much on the Big Ten standings. Maybe seeing that we're the 4 seed could subconsciously inflate us in some committee members' minds, but I don't think they will use it as hard evidence for why we should get in.

I think people in this thread need to stop referencing the Big Ten. The selection committee has said in the past that they don't evaluate conferences, they evaluate teams. That means two things: they don't care about our conference record, and they don't care about our conference placement. 14-4 and 4th place are meaningless. The committee will never say, "well, we only have four Big Ten teams in right now, and we feel like they deserve a fifth." It is all about the team's resume. Here is what matters: 1. Whatever analytical metric they use to evaluate teams, whether it's RPI, KenPom, or something else. 2. Quadrant Records, specifically how did you fare in the Q1 and Q2 games? They like to see that you are capable of winning big games. Neither of these two measures will be in our favor. Our RPI and KenPom ratings are stuck in the low- to mid-60s. And when I say stuck, I mean stuck. Even if we finish 7-0, those ratings are not going to be much better than 50. Finish 6-1, and the rating gets worse. If we then got bounced in the first game at MSG, that'd put us at 23-10 with a very iffy RPI in the mid- to low-50s. If you matched that resume up with our 2014 resume when we were 19-12 with the #48 RPI and some quality wins, the 2018 team would lose that battle. People are getting too enamored with the win total and the conference standings and not focusing on the important things. Unless we really impress the committee in the Big Ten Tourney with a big win over (most likely) Michigan, then a close loss in the semis against Purdue... 22 wins will not be enough with our resume, and 23 will be very close.

Agree. Gotta just keep chugging along.

New to the board. What are everyone's thoughts on what we're going to need to do to dance? Unfortunately, I'm thinking we're going to need 23 wins. At minimum, 22. I know this is a KenPom thread, but I've been looking at RPI so that's what I'll be referencing. Our RPI isn't climbing much at all anymore. We moved up one spot after last night's win, and I don't anticipate the rest of our games will help much more than that. The next two road games as well as the Maryland game would hopefully bump us up five spots apiece if we win them, but other than that there probably won't be much movement. If we finish 6-1 with a first round exit at MSG we're going to be 22-10 with an RPI around 55 (my estimate). That would be really cutting it close. And actually, I don't know how much RPI will factor into the decision-making now that they're using the Quadrants. Sadly, the Quadrants are going to hurt us.