|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 27, 2024 17:41:51 GMT -8
Of course some ignore their own hindsight issues and facts that the Buffs were the significantly better team at the end of the season when, ya know, picks are made! No one is arguing about Colorado. Argue about how great the Big East or WCC was that year. That is the conversation. Oregon State got screwed. That'd be hindsight. Right? Didn't know they were undeserving until you saw the results. But, of course you'll argue that too since you know more than a selection committee. Go Beavs |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 27, 2024 19:12:50 GMT -8
No one is arguing about Colorado. Argue about how great the Big East or WCC was that year. That is the conversation. Oregon State got screwed. That'd be hindsight. Right? Didn't know they were undeserving until you saw the results. But, of course you'll argue that too since you know more than a selection committee. Go Beavs The difference between you and me is that your hindsight is actually hindsight, my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 27, 2024 19:18:42 GMT -8
That'd be hindsight. Right? Didn't know they were undeserving until you saw the results. But, of course you'll argue that too since you know more than a selection committee. Go Beavs The difference between you and me is that your hindsight is actually hindsight, my friend. 🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jan 28, 2024 8:38:25 GMT -8
Wilky —
I literally had to look back in this thread to figure out why the hell you brought up the 2019
NIT. I’m not going to put in a bunch of time researching the 2018-19 seasons for all the teams you mention mainly because I don’t care (more on that later). But the reason you brought up the NIT was in regards to weak noncon schedule, so I’ll concentrate mainly on that.
School — NET — Overall SOS — Noncon SOS
(numbers taken from Warrennolan.com)
OSU — 87 — 105’— 236
U of CO — 66 — 114 — 213
San Diego — 97 — 76 —81
Wichita St — 83 — 54 — 37
Villanova — 26 — 22 — 32
Marquette — 28 — 53 —62
Seton Hall — 57 — 26 — 73
Creighton — 53 — 28 — 36
G’Town — 82 — 84 — 241
Xavier — 67 — 51 —126
SJI — 73 — 74 — 207
Providence — 70 — 58 — 149
Butler — 64 — 48 — 78
So in each category, the Beavers finished second to last — and did not beat any team in more than one category. So those numbers don’t show Beavers getting “hosed.” Now there are other things selection committee uses, but add in the fact that PAC 12 was 6th ranked conference that year by NET — 2 behind Big East and just in front of WCC — and Beavers were outside looking in.
Now there are other metrics the selection committee uses that might help the Beavers case somewhat, but you know what they don’t use to pick the teams? The results of the tournament games — because they haven’t happened yet. Using those results to say Beavers should have gotten in is hindsight. It’s hindsight now and it was hindsight when you did it in your 3rd post in the thread you linked.
I’ve never subscribed to the idea that how a team performs when chosen has any bearing on whether they deserved to get chosen in the first place. It pre-supposes that the team that didn’t get in would have done better. No way of knowing that. Now there are times that a team pretty clearly shouldn’t have gotten in, but that wasn’t the case here as Beavers’ numbers didn’t dwarf anyone’s. And in those cases, even if that team does well, it doesn’t change my opinion that it shouldn’t have gotten in. It just means the team took advantage of its opportunity
Every game has a winner and loser. How teams matchup especially in tournament games like these when both teams are at least relatively good is huge. And one hot player can carry a team. That is what the tournament is all about. And that’s why you really lost me at the beginning of your tirade against the Big East when you labeled Villanova ridiculous. I remember the Purdue game quite well
Chucker-supreme Carson Edwards got hot and went off for about 40, and the shorter Villanova had no answer for Purdue’s 7-footer Haarms. Bad matchup and hot player led to a bad loss for Villanova. Might also add Purdue went to E8 and lost to eventual champs UVA in OT. So that loss makes it ridiculous that top 25 Villanova with a 26 NET and 30 KenPom got in tournament? Bonus points for knowing who was 31 in KenPom. Yep, that’s right, St Mary’s, the team Villanova edged in first round.
OK, if you’ve made it this far, I did say I’d tell you why I don’t care about this. First, of course, because it happened 5 years ago. But more so because I — and a hell of a lot of other college basketball fans — don’t care about the NIT. I mean there is a reason the NIT is often referred to as standing for Not In [NCAA] Tournament. Sure it’s a nice chance for the kids to run it back for a game or a few, but that’s it. And other than that, it really doesn’t matter to team/coaches. Ever hear a coach list making the NIT as one of their season goals? I think it is exceedingly rare for a coach to even say making postseason. It’s NCAA tournament and conference championship that are the goals.
For me, in order from top to bottom the benchmarks for a successful OSU season are:
NCAA tournament
Regular season conference champs
Plus .500 conference record
20 win season
Those are slightly different for my Illini, but that is because they’ve had more recent success. No where is NIT. I have no idea who won NIT last year. All I know is Utah Valley did pretty well, but I only know that cuz Illinois has a transfer from there on this year’s team. Sure I’d root for Beavers if they got into NIT and it’s a nice reward for team, but not going to get bent out of shape if they don’t. And certainly not going to get worked up to the point that 5 years later I’m using using words like ridiculous, outrageous and galling to describe a perceived snub.
The other reason I don’t care is that as mentioned above, I think a plus .500 record marks a level of success for the team and Tinkle. Making NIT would not have made it more successful in my mind and the NIT is not a resume builder for a P6 HC. The exception to that is a P6 coach taking over a bad program and getting there in first 3 years. So if all that was to make Tinkle look better, I already count that as a successful season for WT.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jan 28, 2024 9:23:26 GMT -8
It is, was, and still is BS. I really wanted to see the Beavs in the NIT. And 2019-20 was an even better team before COVID-19 wiped everything out. But the teams get crapped on, because no postseason. It really is unfortunate for the 19-20 team that the season was cut short like that. Beavs were on a 3 or 4 game win streak and about to play oregon in the Pac-12 tournament. I still believe with how we were playing at the end of that season we win that game and were NIT at worst, and had a really good shot at NCAAs. We'll never know though, and again just gets chalked up as a "no postseason" year even though it was probably WT's 3rd best year (unless you argue year 1 was better given the circumstances, in which case I could see that argument). I don’t think Beavs would have gotten into NCAA. Their NET was better than the previous year, but KenPom was slightly lower and their SOS as usual was not good. Overall it wasn’t terrible at 105, but noncon was 327 (warrennolan.com). As long as Tinkle continues to schedule like that, team won’t get benefit of doubt because their signature noncon win will not be very “signature.” That year it was Iowa St, and their NET was 96. Add in an under .500 conf record, and I just don’t see NCAA. One would think they had a good chance for NIT, but their selection process is often wacky so who knows. Seems like they give preference to schools from smaller conferences, and to be honest I’m kind of fine with that. Bigger conferences typically get 4, 5 or more NCAA bids. All things being relatively close give the NIT nod to school from 1 or 2 bid conference. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 28, 2024 10:06:31 GMT -8
Wilky — I literally had to look back in this thread to figure out why the hell you brought up the 2019 NIT. I’m not going to put in a bunch of time researching the 2018-19 seasons for all the teams you mention mainly because I don’t care (more on that later). But the reason you brought up the NIT was in regards to weak noncon schedule, so I’ll concentrate mainly on that. School — NET — Overall SOS — Noncon SOS (numbers taken from Warrennolan.com) OSU — 87 — 105’— 236 U of CO — 66 — 114 — 213 San Diego — 97 — 76 —81 Wichita St — 83 — 54 — 37 Villanova — 26 — 22 — 32 Marquette — 28 — 53 —62 Seton Hall — 57 — 26 — 73 Creighton — 53 — 28 — 36 G’Town — 82 — 84 — 241 Xavier — 67 — 51 —126 SJI — 73 — 74 — 207 Providence — 70 — 58 — 149 Butler — 64 — 48 — 78 So in each category, the Beavers finished second to last — and did not beat any team in more than one category. So those numbers don’t show Beavers getting “hosed.” Now there are other things selection committee uses, but add in the fact that PAC 12 was 6th ranked conference that year by NET — 2 behind Big East and just in front of WCC — and Beavers were outside looking in. Now there are other metrics the selection committee uses that might help the Beavers case somewhat, but you know what they don’t use to pick the teams? The results of the tournament games — because they haven’t happened yet. Using those results to say Beavers should have gotten in is hindsight. It’s hindsight now and it was hindsight when you did it in your 3rd post in the thread you linked. I’ve never subscribed to the idea that how a team performs when chosen has any bearing on whether they deserved to get chosen in the first place. It pre-supposes that the team that didn’t get in would have done better. No way of knowing that. Now there are times that a team pretty clearly shouldn’t have gotten in, but that wasn’t the case here as Beavers’ numbers didn’t dwarf anyone’s. And in those cases, even if that team does well, it doesn’t change my opinion that it shouldn’t have gotten in. It just means the team took advantage of its opportunity Every game has a winner and loser. How teams matchup especially in tournament games like these when both teams are at least relatively good is huge. And one hot player can carry a team. That is what the tournament is all about. And that’s why you really lost me at the beginning of your tirade against the Big East when you labeled Villanova ridiculous. I remember the Purdue game quite well Chucker-supreme Carson Edwards got hot and went off for about 40, and the shorter Villanova had no answer for Purdue’s 7-footer Haarms. Bad matchup and hot player led to a bad loss for Villanova. Might also add Purdue went to E8 and lost to eventual champs UVA in OT. So that loss makes it ridiculous that top 25 Villanova with a 26 NET and 30 KenPom got in tournament? Bonus points for knowing who was 31 in KenPom. Yep, that’s right, St Mary’s, the team Villanova edged in first round. OK, if you’ve made it this far, I did say I’d tell you why I don’t care about this. First, of course, because it happened 5 years ago. But more so because I — and a hell of a lot of other college basketball fans — don’t care about the NIT. I mean there is a reason the NIT is often referred to as standing for Not In [NCAA] Tournament. Sure it’s a nice chance for the kids to run it back for a game or a few, but that’s it. And other than that, it really doesn’t matter to team/coaches. Ever hear a coach list making the NIT as one of their season goals? I think it is exceedingly rare for a coach to even say making postseason. It’s NCAA tournament and conference championship that are the goals. For me, in order from top to bottom the benchmarks for a successful OSU season are: NCAA tournament Regular season conference champs Plus .500 conference record 20 win season Those are slightly different for my Illini, but that is because they’ve had more recent success. No where is NIT. I have no idea who won NIT last year. All I know is Utah Valley did pretty well, but I only know that cuz Illinois has a transfer from there on this year’s team. Sure I’d root for Beavers if they got into NIT and it’s a nice reward for team, but not going to get bent out of shape if they don’t. And certainly not going to get worked up to the point that 5 years later I’m using using words like ridiculous, outrageous and galling to describe a perceived snub. The other reason I don’t care is that as mentioned above, I think a plus .500 record marks a level of success for the team and Tinkle. Making NIT would not have made it more successful in my mind and the NIT is not a resume builder for a P6 HC. The exception to that is a P6 coach taking over a bad program and getting there in first 3 years. So if all that was to make Tinkle look better, I already count that as a successful season for WT. Well said and researched. But, for some actual facts don't outweigh cherry picked data, personalized definitions, and confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 28, 2024 10:12:03 GMT -8
It really is unfortunate for the 19-20 team that the season was cut short like that. Beavs were on a 3 or 4 game win streak and about to play oregon in the Pac-12 tournament. I still believe with how we were playing at the end of that season we win that game and were NIT at worst, and had a really good shot at NCAAs. We'll never know though, and again just gets chalked up as a "no postseason" year even though it was probably WT's 3rd best year (unless you argue year 1 was better given the circumstances, in which case I could see that argument). I don’t think Beavs would have gotten into NCAA. Their NET was better the previous year, but KenPom was slightly lower and their SOS as usual was not good. Overall it wasn’t terrible at 105, but noncon was 327 (warrennolan.com). As long as Tinkle continues to schedule like that, team won’t get benefit of doubt because their signature noncon win will not be very “signature.” That year it was Iowa St, and their NET was 96. Add in an under .500 conf record, and I just don’t see NCAA. One would think they had a good chance for NIT, but their selection process is often wacky so who knows. Seems like they give preference to schools from smaller conferences, and to be honest I’m kind of fine with that. Bigger conferences typically get 4, 5 or more NCAA bids. All things being relatively close give the NIT nod to school from 1 or 2 bid conference. Ditto... again well said. And, it's enough. As it's a given you're sure to get some baseless retorts. Go Beavs |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 28, 2024 11:50:53 GMT -8
Wilky — I literally had to look back in this thread to figure out why the hell you brought up the 2019 NIT. I’m not going to put in a bunch of time researching the 2018-19 seasons for all the teams you mention mainly because I don’t care (more on that later). But the reason you brought up the NIT was in regards to weak noncon schedule, so I’ll concentrate mainly on that. School — NET — Overall SOS — Noncon SOS (numbers taken from Warrennolan.com) OSU — 87 — 105’— 236 U of CO — 66 — 114 — 213 San Diego — 97 — 76 —81 Wichita St — 83 — 54 — 37 Villanova — 26 — 22 — 32 Marquette — 28 — 53 —62 Seton Hall — 57 — 26 — 73 Creighton — 53 — 28 — 36 G’Town — 82 — 84 — 241 Xavier — 67 — 51 —126 SJI — 73 — 74 — 207 Providence — 70 — 58 — 149 Butler — 64 — 48 — 78 So in each category, the Beavers finished second to last — and did not beat any team in more than one category. So those numbers don’t show Beavers getting “hosed.” Now there are other things selection committee uses, but add in the fact that PAC 12 was 6th ranked conference that year by NET — 2 behind Big East and just in front of WCC — and Beavers were outside looking in. Now there are other metrics the selection committee uses that might help the Beavers case somewhat, but you know what they don’t use to pick the teams? The results of the tournament games — because they haven’t happened yet. Using those results to say Beavers should have gotten in is hindsight. It’s hindsight now and it was hindsight when you did it in your 3rd post in the thread you linked. I’ve never subscribed to the idea that how a team performs when chosen has any bearing on whether they deserved to get chosen in the first place. It pre-supposes that the team that didn’t get in would have done better. No way of knowing that. Now there are times that a team pretty clearly shouldn’t have gotten in, but that wasn’t the case here as Beavers’ numbers didn’t dwarf anyone’s. And in those cases, even if that team does well, it doesn’t change my opinion that it shouldn’t have gotten in. It just means the team took advantage of its opportunity Every game has a winner and loser. How teams matchup especially in tournament games like these when both teams are at least relatively good is huge. And one hot player can carry a team. That is what the tournament is all about. And that’s why you really lost me at the beginning of your tirade against the Big East when you labeled Villanova ridiculous. I remember the Purdue game quite well Chucker-supreme Carson Edwards got hot and went off for about 40, and the shorter Villanova had no answer for Purdue’s 7-footer Haarms. Bad matchup and hot player led to a bad loss for Villanova. Might also add Purdue went to E8 and lost to eventual champs UVA in OT. So that loss makes it ridiculous that top 25 Villanova with a 26 NET and 30 KenPom got in tournament? Bonus points for knowing who was 31 in KenPom. Yep, that’s right, St Mary’s, the team Villanova edged in first round. OK, if you’ve made it this far, I did say I’d tell you why I don’t care about this. First, of course, because it happened 5 years ago. But more so because I — and a hell of a lot of other college basketball fans — don’t care about the NIT. I mean there is a reason the NIT is often referred to as standing for Not In [NCAA] Tournament. Sure it’s a nice chance for the kids to run it back for a game or a few, but that’s it. And other than that, it really doesn’t matter to team/coaches. Ever hear a coach list making the NIT as one of their season goals? I think it is exceedingly rare for a coach to even say making postseason. It’s NCAA tournament and conference championship that are the goals. For me, in order from top to bottom the benchmarks for a successful OSU season are: NCAA tournament Regular season conference champs Plus .500 conference record 20 win season Those are slightly different for my Illini, but that is because they’ve had more recent success. No where is NIT. I have no idea who won NIT last year. All I know is Utah Valley did pretty well, but I only know that cuz Illinois has a transfer from there on this year’s team. Sure I’d root for Beavers if they got into NIT and it’s a nice reward for team, but not going to get bent out of shape if they don’t. And certainly not going to get worked up to the point that 5 years later I’m using using words like ridiculous, outrageous and galling to describe a perceived snub. The other reason I don’t care is that as mentioned above, I think a plus .500 record marks a level of success for the team and Tinkle. Making NIT would not have made it more successful in my mind and the NIT is not a resume builder for a P6 HC. The exception to that is a P6 coach taking over a bad program and getting there in first 3 years. So if all that was to make Tinkle look better, I already count that as a successful season for WT. Garbage in, garbage out. The tournaments are the ultimate proof and the Big East was awful. Seems like every year the Big Ten gets 8-9 teams in the NCAAs because it is supposedly so strong according to the computers, and seems like every single year the Big Ten falls flat on its face. All-powerful Purdue losing to St. Peter's and FDU, what a joke. Where was the Pac-12 ranked in 2021, when it absolutely dominated the NCAA tournament? "cherry picked data, personalized definitions, and confirmation bias."
I prefer the actual results of the games. The Big East sucked in 2019 once they quit playing someone other than the Big East. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 28, 2024 12:26:30 GMT -8
Unfortunately selections don't get the privilege of knowing how teams will fare when picking the bracket. It's called hindsight by any definition.
Pretty ridiculous to use tourney results to then go back and judge selections. Especially when selections are made on numerous factors and none are based on how a team will fare. Lol... unless you think that a committee picks the 12 seed because they think it'll lose to the 5?
Teams and conferences fall on their face all the time. Teams win games they prob wouldn’t have 7,8,9 out of 10. That's the attraction and what happens in a "one and done" scenario.
You have to love the use of known results to go backward to challenge such stuff.
As far as "dominating"... what particular reference point would have suggested that. Because (3) teams happened to make the E8? Except everyone knows that's the exception. The Pac12 has fallen flat on its face since its last title in '97. The ACC has (8) titles since then... Big East (8)... SEC (5)... B12 (3)... B10 (1)... AAC (1). Of the (15) titles assigned to the Pac12, (11) are to UCLA.
The Pac12 has (5) F4 appearances the last 20 years and (4) are UCLA. And, UCLA is how the Pac12 is judged, fair or not.
So you're right. Tournaments are the ultimate proof. And, like it or not, fair or not, past performances sway selections. Just look how far down the list of F4 teams by conference (pretty easy to find) the Pac12 is... tells you all you needs to know. If you're a lower seeded team in a lower ranked conference there is no leeway.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jan 28, 2024 13:42:44 GMT -8
Wilky — I literally had to look back in this thread to figure out why the hell you brought up the 2019 NIT. I’m not going to put in a bunch of time researching the 2018-19 seasons for all the teams you mention mainly because I don’t care (more on that later). But the reason you brought up the NIT was in regards to weak noncon schedule, so I’ll concentrate mainly on that. School — NET — Overall SOS — Noncon SOS (numbers taken from Warrennolan.com) OSU — 87 — 105’— 236 U of CO — 66 — 114 — 213 San Diego — 97 — 76 —81 Wichita St — 83 — 54 — 37 Villanova — 26 — 22 — 32 Marquette — 28 — 53 —62 Seton Hall — 57 — 26 — 73 Creighton — 53 — 28 — 36 G’Town — 82 — 84 — 241 Xavier — 67 — 51 —126 SJI — 73 — 74 — 207 Providence — 70 — 58 — 149 Butler — 64 — 48 — 78 So in each category, the Beavers finished second to last — and did not beat any team in more than one category. So those numbers don’t show Beavers getting “hosed.” Now there are other things selection committee uses, but add in the fact that PAC 12 was 6th ranked conference that year by NET — 2 behind Big East and just in front of WCC — and Beavers were outside looking in. Now there are other metrics the selection committee uses that might help the Beavers case somewhat, but you know what they don’t use to pick the teams? The results of the tournament games — because they haven’t happened yet. Using those results to say Beavers should have gotten in is hindsight. It’s hindsight now and it was hindsight when you did it in your 3rd post in the thread you linked. I’ve never subscribed to the idea that how a team performs when chosen has any bearing on whether they deserved to get chosen in the first place. It pre-supposes that the team that didn’t get in would have done better. No way of knowing that. Now there are times that a team pretty clearly shouldn’t have gotten in, but that wasn’t the case here as Beavers’ numbers didn’t dwarf anyone’s. And in those cases, even if that team does well, it doesn’t change my opinion that it shouldn’t have gotten in. It just means the team took advantage of its opportunity Every game has a winner and loser. How teams matchup especially in tournament games like these when both teams are at least relatively good is huge. And one hot player can carry a team. That is what the tournament is all about. And that’s why you really lost me at the beginning of your tirade against the Big East when you labeled Villanova ridiculous. I remember the Purdue game quite well Chucker-supreme Carson Edwards got hot and went off for about 40, and the shorter Villanova had no answer for Purdue’s 7-footer Haarms. Bad matchup and hot player led to a bad loss for Villanova. Might also add Purdue went to E8 and lost to eventual champs UVA in OT. So that loss makes it ridiculous that top 25 Villanova with a 26 NET and 30 KenPom got in tournament? Bonus points for knowing who was 31 in KenPom. Yep, that’s right, St Mary’s, the team Villanova edged in first round. OK, if you’ve made it this far, I did say I’d tell you why I don’t care about this. First, of course, because it happened 5 years ago. But more so because I — and a hell of a lot of other college basketball fans — don’t care about the NIT. I mean there is a reason the NIT is often referred to as standing for Not In [NCAA] Tournament. Sure it’s a nice chance for the kids to run it back for a game or a few, but that’s it. And other than that, it really doesn’t matter to team/coaches. Ever hear a coach list making the NIT as one of their season goals? I think it is exceedingly rare for a coach to even say making postseason. It’s NCAA tournament and conference championship that are the goals. For me, in order from top to bottom the benchmarks for a successful OSU season are: NCAA tournament Regular season conference champs Plus .500 conference record 20 win season Those are slightly different for my Illini, but that is because they’ve had more recent success. No where is NIT. I have no idea who won NIT last year. All I know is Utah Valley did pretty well, but I only know that cuz Illinois has a transfer from there on this year’s team. Sure I’d root for Beavers if they got into NIT and it’s a nice reward for team, but not going to get bent out of shape if they don’t. And certainly not going to get worked up to the point that 5 years later I’m using using words like ridiculous, outrageous and galling to describe a perceived snub. The other reason I don’t care is that as mentioned above, I think a plus .500 record marks a level of success for the team and Tinkle. Making NIT would not have made it more successful in my mind and the NIT is not a resume builder for a P6 HC. The exception to that is a P6 coach taking over a bad program and getting there in first 3 years. So if all that was to make Tinkle look better, I already count that as a successful season for WT. Garbage in, garbage out. The tournaments are the ultimate proof and the Big East was awful. Seems like every year the Big Ten gets 8-9 teams in the NCAAs because it is supposedly so strong according to the computers, and seems like every single year the Big Ten falls flat on its face. All-powerful Purdue losing to St. Peter's and FDU, what a joke. Where was the Pac-12 ranked in 2021, when it absolutely dominated the NCAA tournament? "cherry picked data, personalized definitions, and confirmation bias."
I prefer the actual results of the games. The Big East sucked in 2019 once they quit playing someone other than the Big East. Henry You’re arguing two or maybe even three different things. I’m not arguing that the Big East wasn’t overrated that year. As you say, in hindsight the tournament results show that. But in the thread Wilky linked, he wasn’t arguing that either initially. He didn’t use the word overrated in his initial post or the second one. He was saying Georgetown and a couple others weren’t as deserving as the Beavers — prior to the start of the tournaments. Why did he pick Georgetown rather than Butler that finished lower than the Hoyas to highlight in that thread? Because G’Town’s “computer numbers” were closer to the Beavers. All the Big East teams were deserving of their bids based on the numbers prior to the tournaments starting. So does the selection criteria need to be changed? Maybe so. What to? I can tell you they won’t be changed to include using first round results and then taking those teams that lost “out” and putting new ones in. Even though the two teams I root for are (were) in P6 conferences, I’d be all for changes that help get more small and mid-major teams in. Teams need to have at least a .500 record in conference? Yes please. Limiting the number of teams from a conference to no more than half of the members? Again, yes please. But there will always have to be some type of computer numbers used. As to Purdue, no doubt they’ve underperformed in tourney. But in the two instances you mention, they were 1 and 3 seeds, so they were getting in no matter what. I’ll also point out that the St Peter’s loss was in Sweet 16 game. So should there be a “relegation” system so that if you lose to a lower seed you can’t play in tournament the next year? That would make Arizona, which lost to a 15 seed last year, ineligible for tournament this year. Guess now is the time to also mention that Beavers lost to a lower seed in 2016. Maybe that’s why their next season was so bad; they thought there was a relegation system in place so figured why bother if can’t make tourney. Or maybe give each of the 32 conferences one automatic and one at large bid, and then have 8 at large bids from any conference in first four games? What makes NCAA tournament great for me and a large portion of fans are the upsets and upstart teams making some noise. For those to happen, higher ranked/seeded teams lose. The selection process isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 28, 2024 13:56:18 GMT -8
We have 2 very good wins and the best we can do is hijack the thread to talk about the 2019 NIT. Really?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jan 28, 2024 15:08:57 GMT -8
We have 2 very good wins and the best we can do is hijack the thread to talk about the 2019 NIT. Really? This isn’t a game thread so I don’t see any issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 28, 2024 15:47:25 GMT -8
We have 2 very good wins and the best we can do is hijack the thread to talk about the 2019 NIT. Really? This isn’t a game thread so I don’t see any issue. No, but who gives a s%#t about a missed NIT berth 4 years ago? NIT = not in tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 28, 2024 18:23:34 GMT -8
This isn’t a game thread so I don’t see any issue. No, but who gives a s%#t about a missed NIT berth 4 years ago? NIT = not in tournament. You know who! The real issue is to stop replying (guilty here) to those using multiple instances of such logical fallacies. Those that rely on selecting data that leads to results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality just ignore all data that reveals their fallacy. So, why present the complete story? It'll never matter... |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 30, 2024 17:47:21 GMT -8
Wilky — I literally had to look back in this thread to figure out why the hell you brought up the 2019 NIT. I’m not going to put in a bunch of time researching the 2018-19 seasons for all the teams you mention mainly because I don’t care (more on that later). But the reason you brought up the NIT was in regards to weak noncon schedule, so I’ll concentrate mainly on that. School — NET — Overall SOS — Noncon SOS (numbers taken from Warrennolan.com) OSU — 87 — 105’— 236 U of CO — 66 — 114 — 213 San Diego — 97 — 76 —81 Wichita St — 83 — 54 — 37 Villanova — 26 — 22 — 32 Marquette — 28 — 53 —62 Seton Hall — 57 — 26 — 73 Creighton — 53 — 28 — 36 G’Town — 82 — 84 — 241 Xavier — 67 — 51 —126 SJI — 73 — 74 — 207 Providence — 70 — 58 — 149 Butler — 64 — 48 — 78 So in each category, the Beavers finished second to last — and did not beat any team in more than one category. So those numbers don’t show Beavers getting “hosed.” Now there are other things selection committee uses, but add in the fact that PAC 12 was 6th ranked conference that year by NET — 2 behind Big East and just in front of WCC — and Beavers were outside looking in. Now there are other metrics the selection committee uses that might help the Beavers case somewhat, but you know what they don’t use to pick the teams? The results of the tournament games — because they haven’t happened yet. Using those results to say Beavers should have gotten in is hindsight. It’s hindsight now and it was hindsight when you did it in your 3rd post in the thread you linked. I’ve never subscribed to the idea that how a team performs when chosen has any bearing on whether they deserved to get chosen in the first place. It pre-supposes that the team that didn’t get in would have done better. No way of knowing that. Now there are times that a team pretty clearly shouldn’t have gotten in, but that wasn’t the case here as Beavers’ numbers didn’t dwarf anyone’s. And in those cases, even if that team does well, it doesn’t change my opinion that it shouldn’t have gotten in. It just means the team took advantage of its opportunity Every game has a winner and loser. How teams matchup especially in tournament games like these when both teams are at least relatively good is huge. And one hot player can carry a team. That is what the tournament is all about. And that’s why you really lost me at the beginning of your tirade against the Big East when you labeled Villanova ridiculous. I remember the Purdue game quite well Chucker-supreme Carson Edwards got hot and went off for about 40, and the shorter Villanova had no answer for Purdue’s 7-footer Haarms. Bad matchup and hot player led to a bad loss for Villanova. Might also add Purdue went to E8 and lost to eventual champs UVA in OT. So that loss makes it ridiculous that top 25 Villanova with a 26 NET and 30 KenPom got in tournament? Bonus points for knowing who was 31 in KenPom. Yep, that’s right, St Mary’s, the team Villanova edged in first round. OK, if you’ve made it this far, I did say I’d tell you why I don’t care about this. First, of course, because it happened 5 years ago. But more so because I — and a hell of a lot of other college basketball fans — don’t care about the NIT. I mean there is a reason the NIT is often referred to as standing for Not In [NCAA] Tournament. Sure it’s a nice chance for the kids to run it back for a game or a few, but that’s it. And other than that, it really doesn’t matter to team/coaches. Ever hear a coach list making the NIT as one of their season goals? I think it is exceedingly rare for a coach to even say making postseason. It’s NCAA tournament and conference championship that are the goals. For me, in order from top to bottom the benchmarks for a successful OSU season are: NCAA tournament Regular season conference champs Plus .500 conference record 20 win season Those are slightly different for my Illini, but that is because they’ve had more recent success. No where is NIT. I have no idea who won NIT last year. All I know is Utah Valley did pretty well, but I only know that cuz Illinois has a transfer from there on this year’s team. Sure I’d root for Beavers if they got into NIT and it’s a nice reward for team, but not going to get bent out of shape if they don’t. And certainly not going to get worked up to the point that 5 years later I’m using using words like ridiculous, outrageous and galling to describe a perceived snub. The other reason I don’t care is that as mentioned above, I think a plus .500 record marks a level of success for the team and Tinkle. Making NIT would not have made it more successful in my mind and the NIT is not a resume builder for a P6 HC. The exception to that is a P6 coach taking over a bad program and getting there in first 3 years. So if all that was to make Tinkle look better, I already count that as a successful season for WT. School — NET — Overall SOS — Noncon SOS (numbers taken from Warrennolan.com) OSU — 87 — 104— 217 U of CO — 66 — 123— 255 San Diego — 97 — 72—70 Wichita St — 83 — 59 — 58 Villanova — 26 — 14— 35 Marquette — 28 — 35—73 Seton Hall — 57 — 23— 104 Creighton — 53 — 16— 28 G’Town — 82 — 82 — 248 Xavier — 67 — 46—155 SJI — 73 — 74 — 219 Providence — 70 — 54— 149 Butler — 64 — 30— 61 I have updated your numbers to make them true as of selection day. The NET undervalued the Pac-12 and overvalued the Big East. That is evident by both Georgetown and St. John's playing a weaker nonconference slate than Oregon State but having a "stronger" overall SOS. That is garbage. The Committee appeared to fail to account for something that is fundamentally wrong and unfair on its face. And no one seriously valued the whole of the Big East as much as the Committee did. Bad Committee. You personally are one of the more intelligent posters on here, specifically about basketball. I do not always agree, but I can usually see what you are saying. The problem that I have with several people on this board is that they compare basketball to football. In football, getting to a bowl game is usually viewed as a "successful" season. In basketball, getting into the Tournament is more or less akin to making one of the best 20 bowls, like a Holiday or a Las Vegas Bowl. And an NIT berth would be akin to playing in the next six- or seven-best bowls, like a Sun Bowl berth. The 2021 LA Bowl season was deemed a successful season, and there is just no real analog for that in basketball. That would be akin to the 2018-19 season and perhaps the 2014-15 season, as well. They were both successful seasons, considering Oregon State's funding level. But people disparage and discount the seasons, despite the reality of the funding disparity between Oregon State and most of the rest of the Pac-12. The other reason that I keep bringing up 2018-19 is that Oregon State, specifically, and the Pac-12, in general, just flat out got hosed by the Committee, especially in comparison to the Big East in 2019. Somebody should keep bringing up how awful the 2019 Committee was in seeding Big East and Pac-12 teams, and how teams like Oregon State got hosed. |
|
