Obvious wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:41 pm
We have multiple threads with the same people debating the same thing lol
Multiple people debating one person who keeps on saying we didn't deserve to be there.
No, I said that it isn't that surprising that we weren't included. I think we deserved to be there, but by the stated criteria of the committee, we did not qualify. I don't disagree with many of the points being made about our qualifications, but the committee doesn't, and it isn't like they just made it up on the fly. Their criteria may be flawed, but it isn't something that was biased against us, since it has been stated for a while that the entire body of work is what they are looking at.
We weren't screwed, we simply disagree with the selection critera. But we also could have easily met that criteria by beating bad to average teams at home.
vu2003rpl wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:46 pm
The net rating sucks… In theory, you could play the top 25 teams… All on the road and lose by single digits every time… And still be ranked in the top 30. While posting a 0-25 record.
That’s absurd.
That is possible, but extremely unlikely. But you could likewise have a team that played the top team in each of the worst 5 conferences 6 times at home, beat them all by a point and finish with an RPI in the top 10. Which system do you think would be identifying the better team? Which team do you suppose would win head to head on a neutral court?
You can game any system however you want, but in your scenario, the team was just crazy unfortunate to play a bunch of really good teams on the road and lose closely to all of them. But to do that it is very likely that this team had to be pretty darn good, they just didn't benefit from any home games and didnt have any of the games go their way (which mathematically tremendously unlikely). OTOH, a reasonably average team could figure out how to beat the likes of Grambling State by a point or two on their own home court 25+ times. Lots of teams do that anyway. What doesn't happen a lot is that a team can go on the road and play a team like UT or UK really close. If they could then our win wouldn't have meant that much.
What ever happened to a win is a win is a win.
So you think that Southern Miss deserved an at-large? They had more wins than us. So did Grambling State. And Fordham, Umass Lowell, Bradley, Santa Clara, Utah Valley and a dozen or so others who also didn't get into the tournament.
buffy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:35 pm
I disagree with the whole body of work thing. An at large team should be able to earn their way in late. You still need enough wins (19 or 20), but good or bad basketball at the end should trump whatever you did in December. The SEC deserved 5 teams, and we were one of them. Auburn and Arkansas were trash down the stretch. They'll be trash in the tournament also.
I agree, and maybe we can lobby the committee to change their criteria. But it isn't like they changed it last minute. We knew going in that they were going to look at the entire resume, so therefore it isn't surprising that they omitted us. It is frustrating, but also easily corrected, as we did the hard part. We just have to take care of business against teams we should beat next season.
That is possible, but extremely unlikely. But you could likewise have a team that played the top team in each of the worst 5 conferences 6 times at home, beat them all by a point and finish with an RPI in the top 10. Which system do you think would be identifying the better team? Which team do you suppose would win head to head on a neutral court?
You can game any system however you want, but in your scenario, the team was just crazy unfortunate to play a bunch of really good teams on the road and lose closely to all of them. But to do that it is very likely that this team had to be pretty darn good, they just didn't benefit from any home games and didnt have any of the games go their way (which mathematically tremendously unlikely). OTOH, a reasonably average team could figure out how to beat the likes of Grambling State by a point or two on their own home court 25+ times. Lots of teams do that anyway. What doesn't happen a lot is that a team can go on the road and play a team like UT or UK really close. If they could then our win wouldn't have meant that much.
What ever happened to a win is a win is a win.
So you think that Southern Miss deserved an at-large? They had more wins than us. So did Grambling State. And Fordham, Umass Lowell, Bradley, Santa Clara, Utah Valley and a dozen or so others who also didn't get into the tournament.
No, I just wish you didn't act like you knew more than every one else and if someone disagrees with you then they must be an idiot.
To be fair, all the bracketologists that we don’t like were saying we were the first 4 or next 4 out. And they had been saying it for weeks. So they were using the same criteria the committee uses. I still don’t like the committee, the bracketologists, or the decision, but they all believe the same thing. It’s over and done with. We’re not in but I expect to be in next year. And we have a game coming on now.