Jump to content

How do we make the NCAA tourney


Indykev

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Arizona State and St. John’s  in before IU proves that the committee did a very poor job this year.  I would’ve thought UNC Greensboro would make it in with the love for mid-majors this year before those two.

And what good is the NET when you don’t even use it?  Us being at 54 should have put us over teams with NET ratings of 63 (AZ State) and 73 (St. Johns)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rogue3542 said:

I think the lesson to be learned here is that the Big Ten has somewhat hurt itself moving to 20 conference games.  2 more OOC cupcakes and IU would have been in.

That’s an interesting statement, can’t argue with it.  The goal to increase competition actually backfired for a bubble team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sucks to be wrong about how this would end . I was wrong .Time to move on and talk NIT. Team needs to do the same thing. As in hoping they play hellbent on actually proving they should have been in the field instead of reinforcing why they aren't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First thoughts. The NET isn't used. Overall wins matter vs type of wins....which means more cupcakes coming on the schedule. Big 10 moving to 20 game conference schedule appears to have backfired. Doesn't help our SOS or seeding.

Other things. Purdue as a 3 seed but playing in CT vs Villanova? Cincy a 7 seed but playing UT a 2 seed in Ohio? Sparty getting overall #1 as a 2 seed....while Michigan has much easier path as 2 seed. Kansas if they get past first 2 get to play in Kansas City as 4 seed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iuthruandthru said:

That’s an interesting statement, can’t argue with it.  The goal to increase competition actually backfired for a bubble team.

Short term in the here and now maybe. They just need to bring it more often next season if they want to make it . If playing tougher teams benefits them down the road, I don;t see anything but a temporary setback. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seeking6 said:

First thoughts. The NET isn't used. Overall wins matter vs type of wins....which means more cupcakes coming on the schedule. Big 10 moving to 20 game conference schedule appears to have backfired. Doesn't help our SOS or seeding.

Other things. Purdue as a 3 seed but playing in CT vs Villanova? Cincy a 7 seed but playing UT a 2 seed in Ohio? Sparty getting overall #1 as a 2 seed....while Michigan has much easier path as 2 seed. Kansas if they get past first 2 get to play in Kansas City as 4 seed?

Yeah the only thing worse would be to put UK in Virginia’s bracket as the #2 in the south so they could play in Louisville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jblaz13 said:

Short term in the here and now maybe. They just need to bring it more often next season if they want to make it . If playing tougher teams benefits them down the road, I don;t see anything but a temporary setback. 

They literally just said they looked at total losses more than NET so there you have it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't get it; the committee obviously has no idea what it's doing, and the chair is utterly clueless.  Belmont racked up quad one wins? 2, and against whom?  UCLA is the best team they beat all year.

Honestly, the committee just looked at records and ignored everything else.  It looks like 19 is the new magic number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...