nustudent

It shows the importance of non-con success. They didn't play any more games than the Big 10 did. They just won them.

We're no different than most teams. We'll get a handful. As I posted yesterday...we played as many Top 100 non-con games as Texas, OU, Syracuse and Arizona State. They just won theirs. The big difference came in conference this year. The Big 10 had 7 +100 RPI teams this year. The 4 prior years....had 17 total. Nearly double the average this year. In all likelihood, our chances for Q1/Q2 games goes up dramatically next year

They also owned the non-con.

This to me is the real issue. Every year or two the committee will have a new flavor of the week in what they use for criteria. I can live with being left out if we don't fit the criteria. But the issue is...there's no rhyme or reason for it. This year it was 'good wins'. Next year, they'll probably catch enough flack to focus on fewer losses and they will change their basis. This to me is what is most bothersome.

It is tough and the element of unpredictability makes it harder. Before the season and at the time we played them, both UCF and St Johns were expected to be Top 75 RPI teams. How could we know that Lovett would go out for the year when St Johns is 10-2 and in the top 50 and Tacko Fall would go out at UCF. Those injuries don't occur and both those games were Quad 1 games, at the very least, the St Johns one would have been. AFAIC, the non-con scheduling was just fine this year. It was on par with the other bubble teams. The difference with us and the others: 1. We didn't win our games. 2. Had some bad luck with injuries to our opponents which diluted their value. 3. The biggest factor of all, the Big 10 was a mess.

This is my issue. Stop with the hub bub about evaluation. There were certain teams (Nebraska being one) that were never truly under evaluation, because they based it on one or two measures. I am fine with that, but just come out and say it. Don't paint a picture that you are evaluating when you really only look at two columns and completely disregard things like the eyeball test. This is where the true frustration lies.

They basically seeded off the KPI metric.

Exactly. No one could have foreseen the Big 10 being as weak in the middle as it was. And its highly highly unlikely that it will be that way again anytime soon

While he struggled with that early...the alternative that was playing was even more foul prone than Roby was

Barry Collier....the gift that keeps giving

Our non con is very comparable to that. There are two tourney teams there. We had 2 in ours. THey had 5 Top 100 teams. So did we. And it would have been more had we beat UCF.

We had the same amount as Texas, OU, Syracuse, Arizona State and it would have been more had we beat UCF

I wont disagree with trying to get away from MEAC and SWAC schools. But it was the Big 10 conference schedule (which we have no control over) that hurt us more than the non con

The Big 10 was strong up top as usual....but the middle was weakened with injuries and suspensions and due to the conference's non con performance it took a beating statistically and perception wise.

Bingo

A normal year in the Big 10 and we have 4-5 more opportunities. Beat UCF and you have 3 legit OOC games, instead of taking on two patsies.

Scheduling was fine. We lost one game to UCF that greatly changed the perception of our non con and the Big 10 middle of the pack fell apart.

It will be

Of course it is. But outside of lots of bad luck, I have no issue with anything we did with our scheduling this year.

Again overreaction. Had we beat UCF and Tacko Fall not got hurt...thats a quad 1 win and we dont play Marist or Long BEach State. Had Wisconsin and MInnesota not been hurt/suspended and live up to preseason expectations that 4 games against Top 50 teams rather than top 150 teams. This year was bad luck as much as anything

Thats one year and it was a fluke. Worst thing we can do is overreact

You know we have 2 in the tourney, Creighton, ACC and Gavitt. Set up a home and home with ISU, K-State or Mizzou and stay away from MEAC and SWAC schools the rest of the way

This year was a fluke with how weak the middle of the Big 10 was. Thats not going to happen again. I hope we don't try to overcorrect.

Not saying it directly applies to us...but it's not uncommon to see teams with NCAA expectations get left out to not have a vested interest in the NIT

Considering the reason we missed the dance this year....I would argue that we do stand to gain something.