It's amazing how much the Board has changed...
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
that if win the games that we lost in the preseason, we are in. If we were 14-1 in preseason instead of 12-3, we would have been in. But if we are going to lose to crappy teams, which seems to be a Stansbury staple, we might as well play some good teams and be 12-3 with "good" losses than 12-3 with bad losses.
our lack of preparation when the season begins, we don't have any margin for error. to expect 14-1 every season in the OOC is a bit of a stretch even with the level of talent we get on the court. take into account rebuilding years, years where we lose multiple players to other teams (delks, hans, etc.) and you have plenty of reason for us to schedule better teams for OOC every single year. in theory you are right that we should have won those games and would likely be in the tournament but in reality we have shown a tendency to lose multiple games we shouldn't.
the problem arises though that we could still lose a few of the games to the Riders of the world and then lose to the teams that we have added to the schedule to increase SOS and then we are not even close to being a bubble team. but at that point we don't deserve to be in the tournament.
the problem arises though that we could still lose a few of the games to the Riders of the world and then lose to the teams that we have added to the schedule to increase SOS and then we are not even close to being a bubble team. but at that point we don't deserve to be in the tournament.
I'm not srue I've ever sen an argument be so soundly refuted with actual real life evidence. The people whose theory was that we should be happy and concentrating on winning the west have no argument now. It's pretty clear. So, at least we shouldn't have to have the same argument next year.
the more I believe the 24-0 record of the top 4 East teams against the West in the regular season was a death nail for us. It was predetermined those teams were getting in and with only having a 9-7 record (AND playing in the West) gave us no choice but to win the tourney.
Can someone take our schedule from this year, take the worst 3 non-conference RPI opponents that we lost to, replace them with three Top 50s, assume we lost to those teams instead, and then give us our new tourney resume after yesterday.
Then, take our schedule from this year, keep the 3 losses to bad teams we had this year, and replace the 3 worst non-conf RPI opponents that we beat with Top 50 RPI oponents, and make new tournament resumes assuming we a) won all three of those new games and b) lost all three of those new games.
Basically we would have 3 new resumes - Scenario 1 would have a 23-11 overall record, Scenario 2 would have a 23-11 overall record, and Scenario 3 would have a 20-14 overall record.
I'm curious to see how tinkering with just 3 opponents would have had an affect on our SOS this year. I don't understand RPI and SOS for me to tackle this right now. It's likely not possible to be entirely accurate, but certainly somebody out there can get us a rough estimate at the different effects.
HINT HINT - I BET FISH CAN DO THIS. <span style="text-decoration:underline"></span>
Then, take our schedule from this year, keep the 3 losses to bad teams we had this year, and replace the 3 worst non-conf RPI opponents that we beat with Top 50 RPI oponents, and make new tournament resumes assuming we a) won all three of those new games and b) lost all three of those new games.
Basically we would have 3 new resumes - Scenario 1 would have a 23-11 overall record, Scenario 2 would have a 23-11 overall record, and Scenario 3 would have a 20-14 overall record.
I'm curious to see how tinkering with just 3 opponents would have had an affect on our SOS this year. I don't understand RPI and SOS for me to tackle this right now. It's likely not possible to be entirely accurate, but certainly somebody out there can get us a rough estimate at the different effects.
HINT HINT - I BET FISH CAN DO THIS. <span style="text-decoration:underline"></span>
played AND GOTTEN BEATEN BY 2 more top 50 teams OOC this year, we would have made it in..
Thats <17>ing retarded, but thats what the evidence suggest to me.
Thats <17>ing retarded, but thats what the evidence suggest to me.
those losses were horrible b/c we didn't beat anyone else and they made it easier to keep us out. But even if we had won, we still fail the "who did you play, who did you beat" test that seemed to be a theme.
Beat Richmond and we are probably in regardless of those losses.
In the end, all of these games prove that Nov/Dec matters a LOT and we have to start scheduling and playing better at that time.
Beat Richmond and we are probably in regardless of those losses.
In the end, all of these games prove that Nov/Dec matters a LOT and we have to start scheduling and playing better at that time.
"We know there are going to be a lot of teams that are elated after
this process and a lot of teams that are very disappointed," said NCAA
Tournament <span style="text-decoration: underline;">selection committee chairman</span> Dan Guerrero. "I feel for them,
there's no question about that. As we evaluated, we looked for a lot of
things. Non-conference strength of schedule comes into play. In some
cases, it's playing an unbalanced schedule within your conference.<span class="aa"></span><span class="pp"></span> In
some cases, it's how you finished, it's how you did during the course
of the year against the Top 100 or whatever the case may be. So in
every one of those situations, there may have been one element, one
criteria that was a tipping point that kept them out."
----------------------
so the question comes down to what was our "tipping point" when comparing us with the other bubble teams? and that is what we have been arguing over for the last 24 or so hours of course.
this process and a lot of teams that are very disappointed," said NCAA
Tournament <span style="text-decoration: underline;">selection committee chairman</span> Dan Guerrero. "I feel for them,
there's no question about that. As we evaluated, we looked for a lot of
things. Non-conference strength of schedule comes into play. In some
cases, it's playing an unbalanced schedule within your conference.<span class="aa"></span><span class="pp"></span> In
some cases, it's how you finished, it's how you did during the course
of the year against the Top 100 or whatever the case may be. So in
every one of those situations, there may have been one element, one
criteria that was a tipping point that kept them out."
----------------------
so the question comes down to what was our "tipping point" when comparing us with the other bubble teams? and that is what we have been arguing over for the last 24 or so hours of course.
I am not against upgrading our schedule to middle of the pack teams from top conferences but there is no way if we were 25-9 and not been in.
Did you see VA Tech's SOS? 168.
Did you see VA Tech's SOS? 168.
...and then you also lose 2-3 bad teams? It means your team is not very good and obviously doesn't deserve a bid. If you beat some good teams and lose to some bad ones, you are on the bubble, but at least you've done something. If you beat some good teams and win the ones you are supposed to, you get a good seed.
and still had more top 50 wins than us. All of those teams did.
The talk was "who'd you play and who'd you beat?" We still completely fail that analysis with wins over WKU and Rider.
Ole Miss was on the verge of getting in b/c a win over TN would have given them 3 top 50 wins.
The talk was "who'd you play and who'd you beat?" We still completely fail that analysis with wins over WKU and Rider.
Ole Miss was on the verge of getting in b/c a win over TN would have given them 3 top 50 wins.
and that is why i said " but at that point we don't deserve to be in the tournament."
i also like the idea of increasing the SOS so that Stans has an increased sense of urgency to win all of the games we are supposed to win. coming out flat would be totally unacceptable when you have 3 or 4 less crappy teams to play and 3 or 4 more good ones to play in the OOC schedule. and we have all seen that when we have a fire under as, SEC tournament, we play much better.
i also like the idea of increasing the SOS so that Stans has an increased sense of urgency to win all of the games we are supposed to win. coming out flat would be totally unacceptable when you have 3 or 4 less crappy teams to play and 3 or 4 more good ones to play in the OOC schedule. and we have all seen that when we have a fire under as, SEC tournament, we play much better.
To me, the best reason to improve the pre-conference SOS is to make us a better team. Then we beat Kentucky at home, we beat Arkansas and Auburn on the road, and we don't have to win the tourney. And, as a bonus, we have another win or two against the top 50 along the way.
Our current scheduling philosophy allows us to 'ease in' to the season, and we invariably lose to teams we should beat. If our first non-conference game is with Purdue or Oklahoma State or Memphis, we know we have to get ready.
Our current scheduling philosophy allows us to 'ease in' to the season, and we invariably lose to teams we should beat. If our first non-conference game is with Purdue or Oklahoma State or Memphis, we know we have to get ready.
against lesser teams in Rider, WKU, Alabama, and whoever the hell else beat us at the end of the SEC schedule after I stopped caring, we'd be in, and be a decent seed.