Bracketology and Team Resumes

[vemmeistars]

Wouldn't it be best for Loyola to just win the MVC straight up? I know IU's probably going to fail to win the 1 game they need and should've won already to make the tournament, but no one else from the MVC has an opportunity to be an at large bid outside of Loyola.

[IU_FanClub]

Just now, vemmeistars said:

Wouldn't it be best for Loyola to just win the MVC straight up? I know IU's probably going to fail to win the 1 game they need and should've won already to make the tournament, but no one else from the MVC has an opportunity to be an at large bid outside of Loyola.

With them right on the cut line I doubt they would survive a loss to Bradley in the first round. However, if they win a game or 2 in the conference tournament then it's best for them to just win it. In my own uneducated opinion of course haha

 

[RaceToTheTop]

6 minutes ago, IU_FanClub said:

With them right on the cut line I doubt they would survive a loss to Bradley in the first round. However, if they win a game or 2 in the conference tournament then it's best for them to just win it. In my own uneducated opinion of course haha

 

That is correct.  IMO, they aren't going to be an at large team so it's either win the tourney or stay home.  However, the committee may see it differently if they they make the MVC finals and don't win it.

USPS has mentioned North Texas as well from Conference USA.  They are an interesting case.  If they don't win their conference tournament, they certainly are going to get a look.

[RaceToTheTop]

Interesting -- IU listed as the last team in at bracketville.  They were listed as the first team out yesterday but he moved Michigan and Oregon to out after their poor performances yesterday.   Oregon dropped all the way to next four out and are likely done unless they win the Pac 12 tournament.

Really bad loss for Michigan -- not because it was to a bad team, but a win put them 5 over .500 at 17-12 but the loss puts them 3 over at 16-13.  Their last game is at Ohio State and if they do not win that one, they are 16-14 entering the Big Ten tournament.  Unless they would reach the Big Ten finals, they would beat Indiana and then Wisconsin, they would be guaranteed to finish no better than 2 over .500 if they lose their season finale to Ohio State.

Could actually be that the IU/Michigan game is an elimination game.

[IU_FanClub]

1 minute ago, brumdog45 said:

Interesting -- IU listed as the last team in at bracketville.  They were listed as the first team out yesterday but he moved Michigan and Oregon to out after their poor performances yesterday.   Oregon dropped all the way to next four out and are likely done unless they win the Pac 12 tournament.

Really bad loss for Michigan -- not because it was to a bad team, but a win put them 5 over .500 at 17-12 but the loss puts them 3 over at 16-13.  Their last game is at Ohio State and if they do not win that one, they are 16-14 entering the Big Ten tournament.  Unless they would reach the Big Ten finals, they would beat Indiana and then Wisconsin, they would be guaranteed to finish no better than 2 over .500 if they lose their season finale to Ohio State.

Could actually be that the IU/Michigan game is an elimination game.

I still really feel like 1 more win puts us in Dayton. Would love to do it tomorrow lol because I don't know how I can possibly sit at my desk and watch an IU elimination game at 10:30 am on a Thursday

[vemmeistars]

It's deja vu of the 2018-2019 BTT IU-OSU elimination game

[Hoosierfanyuh]

From my understanding we literally just need one more win. Alot of the bubble teams arent doing so well right now. 

[Hoosierfanyuh]

Just now, vemmeistars said:

It's deja vu of the 2018-2019 BTT IU-OSU elimination game

Exact same situation. That game hurt 

[RaceToTheTop]

1 hour ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Because a team like Rutgers that'd 10-10 can lose in the first round just like Iowa State. So what's it matter?

If it doesn't matter, then why do you care if it's Rutgers or Iowa State?  I'm not the one calling one 'an embarrassment'.

The simple truth is Iowa State is better than Rutgers by every metric, won more games than Rutgers and played a tougher schedule.  And when you look at what they did to Creighton (won at Creighton), Iowa (beat by 20), Memphis (neutral court 19 point win), and Xavier (12 point neutral court win) I can think of a single reason to believe that Rutgers is better.

[Hovadipo]

The Athletic

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

1 hour ago, brumdog45 said:

If it doesn't matter, then why do you care if it's Rutgers or Iowa State?  I'm not the one calling one 'an embarrassment'.

The simple truth is Iowa State is better than Rutgers by every metric, won more games than Rutgers and played a tougher schedule.  And when you look at what they did to Creighton (won at Creighton), Iowa (beat by 20), Memphis (neutral court 19 point win), and Xavier (12 point neutral court win) I can think of a single reason to believe that Rutgers is better.

Well Iowa State is likely to be 7-11 in conference soon. 4 games under .500 in conference. Oh they won some games in November? Cool. It isn't November and teams never return to what they were in November in March. It just adds to the point that losing doesn't mean anything anymore. Because now it's "well you have 8 Q1 wins so being 16-14 ain't bad" and "well they are good losses." It's a joke. The NCAA, committee, conference realignments continue making it all a joke. Sorry but the NCAA needs some damn standards for once in their existence. 

[Hoosier Guy]

1 hour ago, vemmeistars said:

It's deja vu of the 2018-2019 BTT IU-OSU elimination game

 

1 hour ago, Hoosierfanyuh said:

Exact same situation. That game hurt 

That game really sucked. Even with losing 12 of 13 games, all they had to do was win that game. Didn’t come to play until the last eight minutes

[NashvilleHoosier]

15 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Well Iowa State is likely to be 7-11 in conference soon. 4 games under .500 in conference. Oh they won some games in November? Cool. It isn't November and teams never return to what they were in November in March. It just adds to the point that losing doesn't mean anything anymore. Because now it's "well you have 8 Q1 wins so being 16-14 ain't bad" and "well they are good losses." It's a joke. The NCAA, committee, conference realignments continue making it all a joke. Sorry but the NCAA needs some damn standards for once in their existence. 

So if you're going to lose, make sure you lose non-conference games? Losing doesn't matter you say, but you're also dismissing Iowa St.'s wins, so winning also doesn't matter? Unless it happens at the end of the season, so only certain kinds of winning matters? I mean that does match the logic of only certain losing matters. What should matter? Just conference records? What if Iowa St. had lost their first 11 conference games, then won the last 7. Does that make their conference record more worthy b/c they won those games at the end of the season? Seems like your argument boils down to....nothing matters, except for the things that kind of do, except when they shouldn't. Which quite frankly, tracks. 

[Uspshoosier]

12 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Well Iowa State is likely to be 7-11 in conference soon. 4 games under .500 in conference. Oh they won some games in November? Cool. It isn't November and teams never return to what they were in November in March. It just adds to the point that losing doesn't mean anything anymore. Because now it's "well you have 8 Q1 wins so being 16-14 ain't bad" and "well they are good losses." It's a joke. The NCAA, committee, conference realignments continue making it all a joke. Sorry but the NCAA needs some damn standards for once in their existence. 

Teams get left out with multiple Q1 wins.   IU got left out when they had 6 Q1 wins.  Losing 12 of 13 cost them a bid.   They had the Q1 wins that year just lost too many games.   Total body of work 

 

oklahoma St got left out  a couple years ago with 9 Q1 wins and a sweep of Kansas.  Losing too much meant they didn’t get an at-large bid.   

[RaceToTheTop]

39 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Teams get left out with multiple Q1 wins.   IU got left out when they had 6 Q1 wins.  Losing 12 of 13 cost them a bid.   They had the Q1 wins that year just lost too many games.   Total body of work 

 

oklahoma St got left out  a couple years ago with 9 Q1 wins and a sweep of Kansas.  Losing too much meant they didn’t get an at-large bid.   

Yeah, LCS's 'losses don't matter'' makes no sense.  Iowa State is 20-10.  Rutgers is 17-12.  He's the one that wants to ignore losses because they happened at a time he doesn't consider important.  Every game matters, conference and non-conference.  Funny how MLB, NBA, and the NFL seem to count every game during a season and not just the ones at the end.

[RaceToTheTop]

50 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Teams get left out with multiple Q1 wins.   IU got left out when they had 6 Q1 wins.  Losing 12 of 13 cost them a bid.   They had the Q1 wins that year just lost too many games.   Total body of work 

 

oklahoma St got left out  a couple years ago with 9 Q1 wins and a sweep of Kansas.  Losing too much meant they didn’t get an at-large bid.   

And Rutgers, with their 6 quad 1 wins this year, may very well get left out.....because of too many overall losses.  Same with Michigan.

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

1 hour ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

So if you're going to lose, make sure you lose non-conference games? Losing doesn't matter you say, but you're also dismissing Iowa St.'s wins, so winning also doesn't matter? Unless it happens at the end of the season, so only certain kinds of winning matters? I mean that does match the logic of only certain losing matters. What should matter? Just conference records? What if Iowa St. had lost their first 11 conference games, then won the last 7. Does that make their conference record more worthy b/c they won those games at the end of the season? Seems like your argument boils down to....nothing matters, except for the things that kind of do, except when they shouldn't. Which quite frankly, tracks. 

You don't want to lose at all. Losing is bad. Problem is there now "good losses" which makes no sense. They are all bad. And some losses are worse than others. It's the biggest problem with the NET. Your ranking is so connected to the other team you play and sometimes more than how you actually play. 

[RaceToTheTop]

19 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

You don't want to lose at all. Losing is bad. Problem is there now "good losses" which makes no sense. They are all bad. And some losses are worse than others. It's the biggest problem with the NET. Your ranking is so connected to the other team you play and sometimes more than how you actually play. 

I have criticized the efficiency built into NET, but there is no metric where a team is better off losing than winning.  Secondly, there are five+ metrics on team sheets PLUS win loss record.  No one looking at those sheets are impressed with an accumulation of losses.

The funny thing is that YOU have indicated that there are some losses that are preferable to you than others -- that losses in November somehow aren't as significant as conference losses.  Hypocrite much?

[NashvilleHoosier]

58 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

You don't want to lose at all. Losing is bad. Problem is there now "good losses" which makes no sense. They are all bad. And some losses are worse than others. It's the biggest problem with the NET. Your ranking is so connected to the other team you play and sometimes more than how you actually play. 

NET isn't the only thing the committee looks at. Not sure what to say, but after many rounds on this argument, you sure make a heck of a case for looking at the entire body of work. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

41 minutes ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

NET isn't the only thing the committee looks at. Not sure what to say, but after many rounds on this argument, you sure make a heck of a case for looking at the entire body of work. 

You should look at the entire body of work... Sometimes.