Bracketology

[ScottyIce]

I surrender

[KingBlank]

19 minutes ago, Red Five said:

You can argue 2014 was better.  But what other team since 98 could you say was better?

 

Since 98, we have had 8 seasons with winning records, and 2 seasons with winning conference records.

The team that beat both Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley, was better then this team 2006-07.   That team should have gone to the tournament, had a higher rpi.  They got half courted by A&M in the final game.  

[HuskerNBigD]

12 minutes ago, MileHighHusker said:

 

Hypothetical. Kansas misses late three, or Gill makes late three... We make the tournament? seems kinda crazy that one shot determines whether or not we are better than 16+ teams. 

 

I know it seems silly, but that’s just the way it is. 

[Mavric]

 

[Mavric]

 

[Mavric]

 

[Mavric]

 

[TimmyBoy]

Will be nice to see how the Big 10 fairs against the rest of the country to get a better measure on the true conference strength. Oklahoma making it and us getting a 5 seed in the NIT does seem a bit cheesy. Not to mention a dude throwing a ball into a basket one more time than we did (the Kansas game) probably determining a dramatic change in tournament positions. Not saying we should have totally made the dance, but a freaking 5 seed in the NIT? lol.

 

Wonder how much emphasis the committee puts in those dam* computer models. Sounds like it's a lot. Computer models are good for predicting things with direct measurements, such as weather (well getting their at least), but often terrible when humans are in the equation (ex. politics, economics, etc.). I know there is some direct measurements in sports, but like how in the hell do you even begin with all of that psychology stuff, not to mention all of the environmental factors involved in the game. 

[Atbone95]

2 hours ago, HuskerNBigD said:

If you want to be one of the big boys, you can't go 1-6 vs the RPI Top 50. Ultimately, the committee is going to live and die by the quadrant analysis and it just wasn't there for us.

 

You also need to beat the likes of UCF and St. Johns.

No, you don't!! You watched the same selection show we all did!! 

 

We could have lost those two. Dropped UTSA maybe? Boston College? Dropped another conference game too? 

 

And if we had beat Kansas, and maybe held on to Ohio State, we're in? 

 

 

Sam NAILS this whole thing with this tweet. Screw all outstanding agreements with non-conferences. Cancel them all, schedule UNC, Duke, Kansas, Zaga, Nova, Xavier, and hope you win a couple. Losing Q1 10 times is better than winning anything else 10 times, and the committee chose to die by that. 

[Mavric]

3 hours ago, seaofred92 said:

 

 

Haven't listened yet. 

 

Does he say "I was obviously full of s#!^ all week when I was saying we were in"?

[Mavric]

 

[seaofred92]

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by seaofred92

[Mavric]

 

[Red Five]

10 hours ago, KingBlank said:

The team that beat both Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley, was better then this team 2006-07.   That team should have gone to the tournament, had a higher rpi.  They got half courted by A&M in the final game.  

 

Not a sentence is correct in your post.  Durant and Beasley didn't play in the same season.  And neither season we played A&M in the final game.

 

In 2007 we lost to Durant in Lincoln.  We went 17-14 (6-10) and 2-8 on the road.  We finished 105th in RPI.

 

In 2008 split with Beasley, each team winning at home.  We went 20-13 (7-9) and 2-9 on the road.  We finished 95th in RPI.

[BIG ERN]

PAC 12 Standings:

2nd USC -  lost in the championship of the PAC 12 tournament (23 wins, highest RPI to never make the tournament) 

9th Arizona State - lost first round of the PAC 12 tournament

 

This just shows the committee could care less about conference play which is complete BS