First NET Rankings-#22

[SpiderTrap]

I realize this a NET discussion first but it certainly correlates to scheduling. Sman you are talking about winning 25 games. In that scenario above highly likely we finish 2nd in A10. And we're still not a lock! If you win 25 games and finish 2nd A10 you should really always be in. And I think we should and better be. But I'd wouldn't feel completely comfortable. Why because our OOC. Win the last 4 and 1 in tourney, 25 wins and still don't make - with the A10 commissioner on the committee? Quite easy to figure out the problem. So yeah it's a complaint, we f'd up there but I've said it since schedule was being developed so I'm sure you're quite shocked by my take.

There are two ways to look at scheduling when people start complaining about it.
1) Play anyone anywhere - this is the scheduling tactic of play anyone anywhere and you come out with a very difficult schedule. The thought being here - a good win outweighs good losses. So yes - you might lose a few more games, but as long as they are to good teams - no harm done. The main caveat - you got to win some of those big games. I think back to Wainwright and the 2004 NCAA team cause JW was notorious for scheduling hard and didn't care when and where they played teams. In that year UR had the following games

South Carolina - neutral site tourney game - Loss
@UAB - Loss
@Wake - Loss
@South Florida - Win
Manhattan (neutral) - Loss
Providence - Home - Loss
@ - Colorado - Win
@ Kansas - Win

You can see the 3 wins outweighed the 5 losses. Of course - we also did well in the conference (10-6).

2) Rack up wins - another method, is try to schedule easy or "strategically". Don't play as many tough games, but play teams that you should be favored and win, and hope they have good seasons to help your profile. Look at 2010 NCAA team under Mooney. Believe the highest seed UR ever received in tourney. Big games that year

Miss. St (neutral) - Win
Missouri (neurtal) - Win
@South Carolina - L
@Florida - Win
@ Wake - Loss

3 Wins were big, and finished A10 strong that year (making finals of tourney) - but you can see the difference. less BIG Games - but if you can win them and don't lose any bad games (only loss that year was William and Mary). This method is not bad - just puts pressure on a handful of games assuming you take care of business.

other method - gives you more opportunities, but your likely going to lose more. And you need to win a few big games. Does you no good to schedule hard and go 0-10.

 

[spiderman]

I realize this a NET discussion first but it certainly correlates to scheduling. Sman you are talking about winning 25 games. In that scenario above highly likely we finish 2nd in A10. And we're still not a lock! If you win 25 games and finish 2nd A10 you should really always be in. And I think we should and better be. But I'd wouldn't feel completely comfortable. Why because our OOC. Win the last 4 and 1 in tourney, 25 wins and still don't make - with the A10 commissioner on the committee? Quite easy to figure out the problem. So yeah it's a complaint, we f'd up there but I've said it since schedule was being developed so I'm sure you're quite shocked by my take.

25 wins and a tougher schedule and yes we'd be in. but no guarantee we'd have 25 wins. the schedule hasn't hurt us. we're in the conversation and we're 21-7 with this schedule and it's really all in our hands right now. do what we need to do and we dance. this is what we've said we want. to have a real at-large change in March. I'd take this every year.

 

[fatherspider]

It's an interesting read; Kerry kind of buried the lede, though. His conclusion: He does the same thing within each of his examples, for instance: Oh really? Four Quad 3 losses are not good? No wonder Cincy wants to go back to RPI.

Look, I get why some of you think the NET "sucks," but it seems like you're incorrectly assuming the NCAA/Committee is using the NET to select teams for the tournament. That is not the purpose of the NET - they use it to sort the teams into the quadrants on each team sheet. They are not just going down the NET list and plugging teams into the tournament.

I highly recommend you listen to the Ken Pomeroy segment on the March Madness podcast where he explains this. He's surprisingly not nerdy and it's a reasonably short segment.

Again, while the NET may seem "punitive" to mid-majors in their rankings, it is not "rigged" to keep them out of the tournament.

We only have one year of "history" to go on, but this is what happened last year, which bears this out:

• 7 Mid-Majors got at-large bids under the first year of NET. 5 Mid-Majors got at-large bids under the last year of RPI.
• #33 NC State, #34 VCU, #35 Clemson. VCU was a lock to get in the tournament, NC State and Clemson went to the NIT.
• #47 Belmont and #56 Temple got at-large bids over better-ranked P6 teams, including the 2 ACC teams listed above.
• Houston would have been a 1 seed if they just selected by NET; they were given a more appropriate 3.

Our resume is the same, regardless of the ranking system you look at: a 21-7 team with a mildly soft schedule that's a little too skewed to the right side of the team sheet for comfort. Only one bad loss. Those of you agitating for them to scrap or "fix" the NET so that the Big 10 isn't ranked so well, are basically asking them to take the very best thing on our resume (our win over Wisconsin) and make it less impressive!

Its not so much punitive to mid-majors as it is very rewarding to the P6 teams but the argument I am making is that there is some serious flaw in the system that puts a 19-8 (now 19-9 and 11) AZ team with only one real decent OOC win and 6 losses in a very mediocre PAC12 as the 7th ranked team. You did not address that point at all and kind of just asserted that my point was something else. Can you explain how a 19-9 AZ team is ranked 11th (wow they dropped 4 spots with the loss to USC) while a 24-4 Auburn team is ranked 27?

Seeing such an obvious error in ranking puts the entire system to question and throws off the whole ranking. Every PAC12 team now gets two chances at a great win per the NET when it is very obvious that the Wildcats are not a great team and never have been. The real point of my post was to point out this flaw and then try to understand why such an egregious ranking exists.

And yes the Wisconsin win is great for us and good to see them winning which I have said but that shouldn't make every Spider fan now rejoice in a very weird, flawed system that seems to not have any known justification or reason why it ranks teams a certain way.

The idea that AZ is ranked so high changes so much for every opponent they have played and the entire PAC12. You say that the committee will only use the NET to determine which teams are Quad 1,2,3 or 4 but that is HUGE. Any PAC12 team that now beats AZ has their ranking jump up significantly since they are so highly ranked. That means that their ranking also becomes inflated and now every team who beat, or crazy to think, even comes close to beating AZ in the PAC12, has an inflated NET ranking. So what should be a Quad 2 win is a Quad 1 win or what should be a Quad 3 in now a Quad 2. And this goes for bad losses too. Washington at 13-15 is a Quad 1 opportunity.

That scenario is playing out in the other leagues too. St. John's and Depaul are still Quad 1 wins, lol and not considered a bad loss. WTF???
The Big10 is inflated for the same reasons. Minnesota at 13-14, a team that lost to 4 unranked teams in the OOC, and 2 of their 7 wins B10 wins are against Northwestern, is ranked 45 and a Quad 1 win and more importantly, cant be a bad loss.

As it stands currently, this system absolutely is against mid majors and favors P6 because of the reason I have stated. Somehow some teams with only decent resumes are ranked very high in the NET in P6 and this inflates the entire league. This makes every game a chance at a big win and worse, there are no real chances of bad losses. Ex. UNC at 11-17 is still ranked 94 and not considered a "bad loss" per this crazy, illegitimate system.

The whole thing is total crap. No other way to look at it.

 

[fatherspider]

Not going to try to justify it - AZ was too high. Again, it's not that big of a deal. I highly doubt they were in line for a 2 seed. Most brackets have them as a 6. Saying their OOC was "total cupcake city except [oh, 2 #1 seeds]" might be a bit much.

Auburn's ranking is suffering because of two things:
Five overtime wins (mentioned in the article). They flipped a coin five times and came up heads every time.
Talk about OOC cupcake city. They played nobody. ZERO Quad 1 games. We're their best win.

Despite the wide disparity in their NET rankings, Auburn has a better seed than Arizona in almost every bracket projection.

Its a big deal because their very high ranking inflates the entire leagues ranking and when every team in the entire leagues ranking is inflated than it means ever game they play has the possibility of being a higher Quad game than it should be. Not to be a jerk but, DUH.

 

[fatherspider]

Wow. Look hard enough for UFOs and black helicopters, you'll eventually see them.
How did the teams surrounding those two do in their last games? That has more to do with their NET....never mind, why would anyone give a **** about the NET of two crappy Summit League teams anyway. You should probably lodge a complaint at 1-800-NET-NCAA.

Because the same formula applies to every other team and game within the whole system of course. That is why he gives a ****. And if you don't care about this discussion regarding possible flaws in the NET, don't read it.

 

[fatherspider]

We're #32 in the RPI! I hope the committee still looks at that, just for kicks if nothing else.

In looking through the top-100 RPI teams, I actually think this year it seems to be a very fair representation of things. Oh, irony.

I see far more really odd rankings in this years NET then I ever remember in the RPI. At least with RPI you knew what gave a team a ranking though you could say it was unfair. With this mish-mosh garbage, nothing is known and there are many obvious glitches that throw everything out of whack.

 

[kneepadmckinney]

Its not so much punitive to mid-majors as it is very rewarding to the P6 teams but the argument I am making is that there is some serious flaw in the system that puts a 19-8 (now 19-9 and 11) AZ team with only one real decent OOC win and 6 losses in a very mediocre PAC12 as the 7th ranked team. You did not address that point at all and kind of just asserted that my point was something else. Can you explain how a 19-9 AZ team is ranked 11th (wow they dropped 4 spots with the loss to USC) while a 24-4 Auburn team is ranked 27?

Seeing such an obvious error in ranking puts the entire system to question and throws off the whole ranking. Every PAC12 team now gets two chances at a great win per the NET when it is very obvious that the Wildcats are not a great team and never have been. The real point of my post was to point out this flaw and then try to understand why such an egregious ranking exists.

And yes the Wisconsin win is great for us and good to see them winning which I have said but that shouldn't make every Spider fan now rejoice in a very weird, flawed system that seems to not have any known justification or reason why it ranks teams a certain way.

The idea that AZ is ranked so high changes so much for every opponent they have played and the entire PAC12. You say that the committee will only use the NET to determine which teams are Quad 1,2,3 or 4 but that is HUGE. Any PAC12 team that now beats AZ has their ranking jump up significantly since they are so highly ranked. That means that their ranking also becomes inflated and now every team who beat, or crazy to think, even comes close to beating AZ in the PAC12, has an inflated NET ranking. So what should be a Quad 2 win is a Quad 1 win or what should be a Quad 3 in now a Quad 2. And this goes for bad losses too. Washington at 13-15 is a Quad 1 opportunity.

That scenario is playing out in the other leagues too. St. John's and Depaul are still Quad 1 wins, lol and not considered a bad loss. WTF???
The Big10 is inflated for the same reasons. Minnesota at 13-14, a team that lost to 4 unranked teams in the OOC, and 2 of their 7 wins B10 wins are against Northwestern, is ranked 45 and a Quad 1 win and more importantly, cant be a bad loss.

As it stands currently, this system absolutely is against mid majors and favors P6 because of the reason I have stated. Somehow some teams with only decent resumes are ranked very high in the NET in P6 and this inflates the entire league. This makes every game a chance at a big win and worse, there are no real chances of bad losses. Ex. UNC at 11-17 is still ranked 94 and not considered a "bad loss" per this crazy, illegitimate system.

The whole thing is total crap. No other way to look at it.

Father--we rarely see eye to eye, but on this one, preach, brother.

 

[Eight Legger]

The problem with every rating system, I think, is the same issue I have with the way the selections usually go: Both seem to reward the NUMBER of high-level wins you have, rather than the PERCENTAGE of high level wins you get based on how many opportunities you have. And the NET/RPI/other rankings seem to reward you for simply playing good teams, win or lose, much moreso than beating average teams.

So maybe we should just schedule every Big Ten team OOC next year. If we go 3-9 against them, hey! We got three top-50 wins! Get a couple more in the A10 season and we are looking good.

 

[urmite]

Its not so much punitive to mid-majors as it is very rewarding to the P6 teams but the argument I am making is that there is some serious flaw in the system that puts a 19-8 (now 19-9 and 11) AZ team with only one real decent OOC win and 6 losses in a very mediocre PAC12 as the 7th ranked team. You did not address that point at all and kind of just asserted that my point was something else. Can you explain how a 19-9 AZ team is ranked 11th (wow they dropped 4 spots with the loss to USC) while a 24-4 Auburn team is ranked 27?

Seeing such an obvious error in ranking puts the entire system to question and throws off the whole ranking. Every PAC12 team now gets two chances at a great win per the NET when it is very obvious that the Wildcats are not a great team and never have been. The real point of my post was to point out this flaw and then try to understand why such an egregious ranking exists.

And yes the Wisconsin win is great for us and good to see them winning which I have said but that shouldn't make every Spider fan now rejoice in a very weird, flawed system that seems to not have any known justification or reason why it ranks teams a certain way.

The idea that AZ is ranked so high changes so much for every opponent they have played and the entire PAC12. You say that the committee will only use the NET to determine which teams are Quad 1,2,3 or 4 but that is HUGE. Any PAC12 team that now beats AZ has their ranking jump up significantly since they are so highly ranked. That means that their ranking also becomes inflated and now every team who beat, or crazy to think, even comes close to beating AZ in the PAC12, has an inflated NET ranking. So what should be a Quad 2 win is a Quad 1 win or what should be a Quad 3 in now a Quad 2. And this goes for bad losses too. Washington at 13-15 is a Quad 1 opportunity.

That scenario is playing out in the other leagues too. St. John's and Depaul are still Quad 1 wins, lol and not considered a bad loss. WTF???
The Big10 is inflated for the same reasons. Minnesota at 13-14, a team that lost to 4 unranked teams in the OOC, and 2 of their 7 wins B10 wins are against Northwestern, is ranked 45 and a Quad 1 win and more importantly, cant be a bad loss.

As it stands currently, this system absolutely is against mid majors and favors P6 because of the reason I have stated. Somehow some teams with only decent resumes are ranked very high in the NET in P6 and this inflates the entire league. This makes every game a chance at a big win and worse, there are no real chances of bad losses. Ex. UNC at 11-17 is still ranked 94 and not considered a "bad loss" per this crazy, illegitimate system.

The whole thing is total crap. No other way to look at it.

I'm not saying any of this is right. Or that I know how any of it is calculated, but the NET doesn't seem to be alone.
Look at the left column for items like KenPom & BPI. And OOC SOS of 12...
https://bracketologists.com/team/arizona-wildcats

 

[spiderman]

NET has AZ 11 and RPI has them 19. both seem high. maybe the AP and Coaches Poll do a better job ranking teams than we thought.

 

[SpiderTrap]

Lets not forget as well - the NET or RPI do not make the NCAA selections, these are done by a Committee of human beings. So there will be some biased involved as well. I think who you are and what you have done lately are the main human bias that come into play. Prime example this year I heard a lot on the radio the past few weeks and I agree with it - UVA. I think UVA should be pretty comfortable now, but if they were a bubble team there would be pressure/bias to put them in the tourney because they won it last year. I don't think the human committee members can forget that. RPI and NET can - but not those members. Same goes for a mid-major the year after they make a run. If you had a mid-major team make the sweet 16 last year and on the bubble this year, I think their is a push to get them in the tourney because it makes for good storylines. And good storylines, good TV - make for good ratings - which results in the 8.8 BILLION dollar contract the NCAA currently has to televise the games through 2032.

 

[GKiller]

don't disagree Trap. Our human element this year is the A10 Commissioner being on committee. If we're close that "should" help.

 

[fatherspider]

Father--we rarely see eye to eye, but on this one, preach, brother.

When I see an injustice I can't let it slide. Its a character flaw of mine, lol. The system has a real bad stench to it and it isn't even difficult to see it.

Even looking at Wisconsin, and again, I'm happy they are ranked so high, but it shows the flaw. Wisconsin is a good team, not great.

We beat them, New Mexico beat them, St. Mary's beat them, and then two mid tier P6 teams beat them in OOC... NC State and Rutgers. With an OOC resume like that for an A10 team, they would have absolutely no chance of an at large even if they went 14-4. And if they went 14-4 the entire BBall world would say it shows that the A10 is weak and it would hurt the whole leagues chances.

But since they are in the Big10 and 10-6 in conference it is OMG, Wisconsin is very good because we all KNOW how great the B10 teams are. No one even considers that, hey, if a team like Wisconsin, which lost 5 games in OOC can have the second best record in the BIG10, does that mean that maybe the Big10 teams aren't really that good? Of course they don't because they all have great NET rankings.

Once in conference, the teams beat up on each other but the bball world looks at mid majors a different way. If a mid-major has a bad OOC and then has a great conference record its viewed as the conference being bad, but in a P6 conference its viewed as the team improving and getting better, without any consideration that the league may be down.

 

[Eight Legger]

Once in conference the teams beat up on each other but the bball world looks at mid majors a different way. If a mid-major has a bad OOC and then has a great conference record its viewed as the conference being bad, but in a P6 conference its viewed as the team improving and getting better, without any consideration that the league may be down.

This is it in a nutshell. It's maddening. If we lose one game to someone in the A10 who's below the 100 line, it's a bad loss. But look how many ACC teams have lost to Boston College -- and we killed them by 20. They are a mid-pack team in their league and would be in ours, too. The way you described it with Wisconsin is accurate too. It's almost like the formula is preset to elevate the P6 no matter what happens OOC.

 

[I-M-UR]

I’d also like to see the tv ratings on conference tourney games with a mid major against a P6 team vs ratings with two P6 teams.. I think a lot of viewers are looking for a Cinderella story. I know I do

 

[VT4700]

There probably is some tweaking that needs to be done to NET. That does seem to be an extraordinarily odd jump with VT4700's example. However this is one of the reasons some were concerned about letting off the gas earlier in year at Davidson for example. We could have beat them by 15+ but won by 6. But the game was definitely closer to the former than the latter. Others said what's the big deal we won stop complaining. Well it kinda is a big deal when you're dealing in slim margins.

Hard to disagree here. Kind of makes you never want to play any reserves and walk ons when they make every possession important to the NET.

 

[fatherspider]

Hard to disagree here. Kind of makes you never want to play any reserves and walk ons when they make every possession important to the NET.

Yep. Really really dumb policy that MOV is considered so important. Its not even worth giving the reasons why, there are so many.

 

[fatherspider]

This is it in a nutshell. It's maddening. If we lose one game to someone in the A10 who's below the 100 line, it's a bad loss. But look how many ACC teams have lost to Boston College -- and we killed them by 20. They are a mid-pack team in their league and would be in ours, too. The way you described it with Wisconsin is accurate too. It's almost like the formula is preset to elevate the P6 no matter what happens OOC.

Yes and so much more glaring this year and with this NET BS system. If Wisconsin were even 15-3 this year in A-10 after that OOC resume with their two losses to Dayton, they wouldnt even be considered a bubble team.

 

[VT4700]

I realize this a NET discussion first but it certainly correlates to scheduling. Sman you are talking about winning 25 games. In that scenario above highly likely we finish 2nd in A10. And we're still not a lock! If you win 25 games and finish 2nd A10 you should really always be in. And I think we should and better be. But I'd wouldn't feel completely comfortable. Why because our OOC. Win the last 4 and 1 in tourney, 25 wins and still don't make - with the A10 commissioner on the committee? Quite easy to figure out the problem. So yeah it's a complaint, we f'd up there but I've said it since schedule was being developed so I'm sure you're quite shocked by my take.

But, it's not like we went 13-0 and are being penalized. What if we would have beaten Bama and Radford, two late additions to our schedule? We would be in crazy good shape right now at 23-5. No one seemed to be complaining too much about the schedule when we were 10-1. I think it was only after we lost to Bama and Radford that we heard any schedule complaints on here. Seems strange to blame the schedule, and not the fact that we lost to Bama and Radford. Would you really be complaining about the schedule if we were 23-5 and looking at a 10 seed right now? It's also strange that we lost to Alabama and Radford, and you think the best way to an at-large bid is to play harder teams in out of conference.

 

[VT4700]

I see far more really odd rankings in this years NET then I ever remember in the RPI. At least with RPI you knew what gave a team a ranking though you could say it was unfair. With this mish-mosh garbage, nothing is known and there are many obvious glitches that throw everything out of whack.

Good point. I hated the RPI. Could not stand it. But, you did know what the formula was. So, at least there was that. With the net, we have no clue how much weight is put on what they look at.

 

[GKiller]

But, it's not like we went 13-0 and are being penalized. What if we would have beaten Bama and Radford, two late additions to our schedule? We would be in crazy good shape right now at 23-5. No one seemed to be complaining too much about the schedule when we were 10-1. I think it was only after we lost to Bama and Radford that we heard any schedule complaints on here. Seems strange to blame the schedule, and not the fact that we lost to Bama and Radford. Would you really be complaining about the schedule if we were 23-5 and looking at a 10 seed right now? It's also strange that we lost to Alabama and Radford, and you think the best way to an at-large bid is to play harder teams in out of conference.

VT and if we were undefeated we'd be a 2 seed or better. But that's not realistic. You are going to drop some games. When have we been 23-5 in UR history? I believe absolutely we would have had an identical record with a stronger schedule. I'm not talking hardest in country but harder. Then we have more margin. We overlooked Radford - heck we publicly described it as a getaway game for the kids at Xmas break. I mean that was stupid to say who gives the other team more motivation. Again an experienced adult problem. Also remember that was guaranteed to be a NCAA team per Bob Black. If it had been I bet we're way up for it. And that could easily be the difference.

Nobody was complaining? I've been on the schedule issue since the spring. LOL nobody cared when we were 10-1. I pointed out numerous times we can't afford to drop a bad one due to the weakness of OOC schedule that it would catch up to us.

Lastly I'm not sure why u guys get upset when I hit on the schedule. You blame the kids. I'm for the players, I've had their back. You u just blamed the players. Its weird that guys like you and UR80sfan knock on the players and I'm criticized for knocking on two of the highest paid employees at UR - Hardt and Mooney. Adults, well compensated who should be expected to make sound decisions based on all the rope they get and experience. Standards. 9 years without making NCAA as UR's highest paid employee is unacceptable. Making the Lunardi hire because we can't do our own jobs well enough or understand the hugely important role of scheduling is unacceptable. Anyone should have seen that would backfire. Yet you guys back those guys more than the team. I'm the opposite but I feel good I got it right.

NCAA or bust

 

[SFspidur]

The core of the issue is the same with the NET as it is for RPI, the strength of your conference weighs heavily on your ability to garner an at-large, and that's all determined in the OOC schedule. So the P6 teams go out there, schedule to win ~75% of their OOC games, and then beat up on each other with everybody having good ratings.

That game doesn't quite work with the A-10 because it's overall a step behind the P6's and you can't count on the in-conference opportunities, so you have to put more emphasis on the non-conference. Our schedule was pretty good, but it needed to be better.

It doesn't matter how good you are...you're going to lose some games, including a few that you shouldn't. Pretty much everybody in the conversation has a Radford-type loss somewhere.

So yes, if we had beaten Radford and Alabama, we'd be looking great right now. But we shouldn't have relied on needing to basically run the table in the OOC. Schedule a little tougher and increase the opportunities for big-time wins.

Dump a couple of the South Alabama/Hampton/Radford type games and replace them with mid-tier P6 teams. Yes, you might lose those games, but if you're a legit at-large team, you should at least go 1-1. I'd have taken 9-4 against a tougher schedule any day.

Edit: I see GK stole some of my thunder while I was typing.

 

[GKiller]

Edit: I see GK stole some of my thunder while I was typing.

Payback for beating me by a few seconds on the Umass thread. Ha. Anyway bravo, you nailed it too. No surprise you've long been one of the smartest posters on here. And unlike our own UR athletic department no bait and switch on that statement coming later by me.

 

[VT4700]

VT and if we were undefeated we'd be a 2 seed or better. But that's not realistic. You are going to drop some games. When have we been 23-5 in UR history? I believe absolutely we would have had an identical record with a stronger schedule. I'm not talking hardest in country but harder. Then we have more margin. We overlooked Radford - heck we publicly described it as a getaway game for the kids at Xmas break. I mean that was stupid to say who gives the other team more motivation. Again an experienced adult problem. Also remember that was guaranteed to be a NCAA team per Bob Black. If it had been I bet we're way up for it. And that could easily be the difference.

Nobody was complaining? I've been on the schedule issue since the spring. LOL nobody cared when we were 10-1. I pointed out numerous times we can't afford to drop a bad one due to the weakness of OOC schedule that it would catch up to us.

Lastly I'm not sure why u guys get upset when I hit on the schedule. You blame the kids. I'm for the players, I've had their back. You u just blamed the players. Its weird that guys like you and UR80sfan knock on the players and I'm criticized for knocking on two of the highest paid employees at UR - Hardt and Mooney. Adults, well compensated who should be expected to make sound decisions based on all the rope they get and experience. Standards. 9 years without making NCAA as UR's highest paid employee is unacceptable. Making the Lunardi hire because we can't do our own jobs well enough or understand the hugely important role of scheduling is unacceptable. Anyone should have seen that would backfire. Yet you guys back those guys more than the team. I'm the opposite but I feel good I got it right.

NCAA or bust

I'm not blaming the players. Far from it. I am giving them credit because I was thrilled to go 10-3 out of conference. Looking at pretty much all the predictions on here, everyone on here should have been thrilled with 10-3 because I don't remember anyone saying we would win that many. I predicted 9-4 and 12-6. Hopefully, I'm off by 3 games.

Bottom line is our OOC schedule and 10-3 record put us in a great position to get a bid if we did well in conference. We have been able to survive four in conference losses, only have one real good conference win, and still have a chance for a bid. I am thrilled to be 21-7, and I think our OOC schedule was great, and was exactly what we needed this year.

 

[urmite]

I'm not blaming the players. Far from it. I am giving them credit because I was thrilled to go 10-3 out of conference. Looking at pretty much all the predictions on here, everyone on here should have been thrilled with 10-3 because I don't remember anyone saying we would win that many. I predicted 9-4 and 12-6. Hopefully, I'm off by 3 games.

Bottom line is our OOC schedule and 10-3 record put us in a great position to get a bid if we did well in conference. We have been able to survive four in conference losses, only have one real good conference win, and still have a chance for a bid. I am thrilled to be 21-7, and I think our OOC schedule was great, and was exactly what we needed this year.

I'm not sure why we are debating the OOC schedule now, but I did see it as adequate, just not something to be celebrated.

Now what if we did trade 2 Quad 3 home games for 2 Quad 2 home games...
Some seem to assume we would go 2-0 some 0-2. But I do wonder where we would be if we did go 1-1? what effect would 1 more quad 2 win & loss have on our resume?

 

[VT4700]

Good point about wondering why we are debating this. G and I have disagreed all year on this, so nothing will change now. I'm ready to move on and focus on the next three games.

 

[SFspidur]

What it comes down to is, if you're a 24–25 win A-10 team that's nervous on Selection Sunday, then you didn't schedule hard enough in the OOC (or the A-10 is terrible, which isn't really the case this year...it's not 6-bid stellar, but it's not terrible).

That kind of schedule leaves almost no room for error, and some error is inevitable.

 

[GKiller]

Good point about wondering why we are debating this. G and I have disagreed all year on this, so nothing will change now. I'm ready to move on and focus on the next three games.

Oh come on VT. You'll debate anything.

 

[GKiller]

What it comes down to is, if you're a 24–25 win A-10 team that's nervous on Selection Sunday, then you didn't schedule hard enough in the OOC (or the A-10 is terrible, which isn't really the case this year...it's not 6-bid stellar, but it's not terrible).

That kind of schedule leaves almost no room for error, and some error is inevitable.

Exactly. We're saying get to 25 wins, get 2nd in the A10 (the 8th strongest league in country) and we'll be in the NCAA conversation? And we want to credit the OOC schedule for that? Nonsense.

 

[GKiller]

I'm not blaming the players. Far from it. I am giving them credit because I was thrilled to go 10-3 out of conference. Looking at pretty much all the predictions on here, everyone on here should have been thrilled with 10-3 because I don't remember anyone saying we would win that many. I predicted 9-4 and 12-6. Hopefully, I'm off by 3 games.

Bottom line is our OOC schedule and 10-3 record put us in a great position to get a bid if we did well in conference. We have been able to survive four in conference losses, only have one real good conference win, and still have a chance for a bid. I am thrilled to be 21-7, and I think our OOC schedule was great, and was exactly what we needed this year.

Yes I realize a lot of people were negative so I didn't put stock in those predictions nor your own. To me even yours were negative on the team, not enough belief. I had plenty of belief. I was not thrilled to go 10-3 I thought that was the absolute bare minimum. I'm admittedly not an individual micro prediction guy but a big picture one. But I did say that re: OOC. Maybe you are eliminating me from the awful predictions including your own.

Anyway see SFSpidur posts to help explain things you're not getting.

But we're all for the Spiders sweeping through the next 4 games, and possibly requiring the next 5, just to get a bid. That we can all get behind and I know u are fired up to get that elusive NCAA bid too so I respect that.

But gotta finish. NCAA or bust. Mooney had NCAA expectations for this team. I think we get it done one way or another but it's a failure if we don't. Not of college kids, but of the adults.

 

[fatherspider]

This is it in a nutshell. It's maddening. If we lose one game to someone in the A10 who's below the 100 line, it's a bad loss. But look how many ACC teams have lost to Boston College -- and we killed them by 20. They are a mid-pack team in their league and would be in ours, too. The way you described it with Wisconsin is accurate too. It's almost like the formula is preset to elevate the P6 no matter what happens OOC.

And really the most maddening part is that a large part of the reason most of our teams are in that over 100 ranking is because we are in the A10. and a larger part of why almost all of the Big10 teams are above 50 is because they are in the BIG10.

 

[fatherspider]

I'm not saying any of this is right. Or that I know how any of it is calculated, but the NET doesn't seem to be alone.
Look at the left column for items like KenPom & BPI. And OOC SOS of 12...
https://bracketologists.com/team/arizona-wildcats

Yea they are all F'ed up and it likely shows that the "new' NET took a big part of their formula from these other systems.

 

[VT4700]

What it comes down to is, if you're a 24–25 win A-10 team that's nervous on Selection Sunday, then you didn't schedule hard enough in the OOC (or the A-10 is terrible, which isn't really the case this year...it's not 6-bid stellar, but it's not terrible).

That kind of schedule leaves almost no room for error, and some error is inevitable.

We have heard no margin for error ever since we lost to Alabama. No margin for error? Radford? St Louis at home? St. Bona? No, we can't and won't win every game, but we have had some hiccups. And have survived them. The deck is stacked against mid majors. If you are a 20-plus win mid-major and in our position with three games left, you have done something right with your schedule and season, not wrong.

 

[VT4700]

Yes I realize a lot of people were negative so I didn't put stock in those predictions nor your own. To me even yours were negative on the team, not enough belief. I had plenty of belief. I was not thrilled to go 10-3 I thought that was the absolute bare minimum. I'm admittedly not an individual micro prediction guy but a big picture one. But I did say that re: OOC. Maybe you are eliminating me from the awful predictions including your own.

Anyway see SFSpidur posts to help explain things you're not getting.

But we're all for the Spiders sweeping through the next 4 games, and possibly requiring the next 5, just to get a bid. That we can all get behind and I know u are fired up to get that elusive NCAA bid too so I respect that.

But gotta finish. NCAA or bust. Mooney had NCAA expectations for this team. I think we get it done one way or another but it's a failure if we don't. Not of college kids, but of the adults.

G, I am very fired up. I would take this position every year. I love talking at-large bid. I love it. I love being interested in all these other games, hoping other bubble hopefuls will lose. I love having not just a chance, but a good chance to get in the dance this late in the season.

 

[fatherspider]

But, it's not like we went 13-0 and are being penalized. What if we would have beaten Bama and Radford, two late additions to our schedule? We would be in crazy good shape right now at 23-5. No one seemed to be complaining too much about the schedule when we were 10-1. I think it was only after we lost to Bama and Radford that we heard any schedule complaints on here. Seems strange to blame the schedule, and not the fact that we lost to Bama and Radford. Would you really be complaining about the schedule if we were 23-5 and looking at a 10 seed right now? It's also strange that we lost to Alabama and Radford, and you think the best way to an at-large bid is to play harder teams in out of conference.

I personally am not discussing this because I think UR has an unjust NET ranking. I think ours is about where it should be and not because we scheduled bad but because, as you say here, we lost to two very beatable teams, especially Radford. Our problem now is that because most of the A10 teams have bad NET rankings, we can only get bad losses and no good wins, whereas most teams in P6 leagues can only get good wins and no bad losses. And its hard to see that as being justified by looking at the resumes of a lot of the P6 teams.

 

[SFspidur]

We have heard no margin for error ever since we lost to Alabama. No margin for error? Radford? St Louis at home? St. Bona? No, we can't and won't win every game, but we have had some hiccups. And have survived them. The deck is stacked against mid majors. If you are a 20-plus win mid-major and in our position with three games left, you have done something right with your schedule and season, not wrong.

I didn’t say no margin, I said almost no margin, and we’ve pretty much used up all of it with games still to play.

Your memory of the A-10 must be pretty short if you don’t think a good A-10 team with 20 wins in hand and likely a full handful of games still to play shouldn’t be gliding toward a bid assuming they don’t collapse. Instead we’re having to run the rest of the table to have a shot.

 

[VT4700]

I didn’t say no margin, I said almost no margin, and we’ve pretty much used up all of it with games still to play.

Your memory of the A-10 must be pretty short if you don’t think a good A-10 team with 20 wins in hand and likely a full handful of games still to play shouldn’t be gliding toward a bid assuming they don’t collapse. Instead we’re having to run the rest of the table to have a shot.

22 win, 14-4 tied for first A-10 St. Bonaventure says hi.

 

[fatherspider]

22 win, 14-4 tied for first A-10 St. Bonaventure says hi.

It was crazy They were left out that year but upstate NY small town team plays a part. Bonnies might be the most disrespected team in D1

 

[whampas]

It was crazy They were left out that year but upstate NY small town team plays a part. Bonnies might be the most disrespected team in D1

With a crazy good coach that's not getting enough credit.

 

[fatherspider]

We have heard no margin for error ever since we lost to Alabama. No margin for error? Radford? St Louis at home? St. Bona? No, we can't and won't win every game, but we have had some hiccups. And have survived them. The deck is stacked against mid majors. If you are a 20-plus win mid-major and in our position with three games left, you have done something right with your schedule and season, not wrong.

I agree for the most part except to say that at this point we DO have no margin for error. Knowing that some bubble teams from P6 can win one game and lose two while still gaining ground makes that clear.

But when it comes down to it, the 2011 Spider team would win these last 3 in convincing form and make a statement in Brooklyn and there wouldnt be a question.

I really do believe that we are out now because we hardly have won convincingly, even against weak opponents. We dont show the dominance that the committee wants to see. Even as a fan it makes me feel that we dont belong and we arent that good despite the record. We dont seem to have the killer Tiger Woods kind of instinct.

Blow UMass out dammit!!