College Basketball 2011-2012

[Exile on Waveland]

Plus, road wins aren't predictive at all in terms of quality of the team. Every NCAA tournament game is on a neutral site, not in an opponent's home gym.

 

This is why I think "bad losses" is a rather overrated factor. Who cares? At least for the teams not at the top of the bracket, every NCAA tournament game is against a good team (though, obviously, the tournament has been partially watered-down, but still). Showing an ability to beat good teams should be the most important factor.

 

This is far less transparent than when you said wearing red uniforms was the most important factor last season.

 

Ha ha. I knew I was going to be called out on that since my logic leads inexorably, at this point, to a favorable seeding for IU.

 

For the record, I'm in favor of making red uniforms a factor as well.

[bukie]

Plus, road wins aren't predictive at all in terms of quality of the team. Every NCAA tournament game is on a neutral site, not in an opponent's home gym.

 

This is why I think "bad losses" is a rather overrated factor. Who cares? At least for the teams not at the top of the bracket, every NCAA tournament game is against a good team (though, obviously, the tournament has been partially watered-down, but still). Showing an ability to beat good teams should be the most important factor.

I think that's largely a different issue all together. Best wins give a measure of how good a team can be at their best. Bad losses give a measure of how bad a team can be at their worst. Both are valid considerations for at-large worth.

 

Of course, how applicable a bad loss or two in Vegas six months before tournament selection is to a team's at-large worth is a separate discussion...

[UMFan83]

ANY road win is a good win, period.

 

Michigan has 0 -- losses at Virginia, Indiana and Iowa.

 

Illinois has 2 -- at Maryland and NW

 

Are you just ignoring that Michigan has a road win over Oakland this year? Not exactly the most quality of opponent (RPI in the 120s I think) but you make it seem like Michigan hasn't won on the road all season. They are 1-3 with 2 of the 3 losses coming to top 20 opponents. Also, going with your argument that home wins are [expletive] and road wins are everything, where do you put a neutral victory over a NCAA bound Memphis team?

 

No one is making the argument that they are a final 4 team or even a contender for the Big Ten, just that they are building an NCAA quality resume. Although a big road win would obviously validate them more (thought we were close when we lost by 2 in Bloomington), as others have pointed out, teams that have had success in the tournament have gone all season without a good road win in the past.

[UMFan83]

Plus, road wins aren't predictive at all in terms of quality of the team. Every NCAA tournament game is on a neutral site, not in an opponent's home gym.

 

This is why I think "bad losses" is a rather overrated factor. Who cares? At least for the teams not at the top of the bracket, every NCAA tournament game is against a good team (though, obviously, the tournament has been partially watered-down, but still). Showing an ability to beat good teams should be the most important factor.

I think that's largely a different issue all together. Best wins give a measure of how good a team can be at their best. Bad losses give a measure of how bad a team can be at their worst. Both are valid considerations for at-large worth.

 

Of course, how applicable a bad loss or two in Vegas six months before tournament selection is to a team's at-large worth is a separate discussion...

 

Yup, well its been said that the committee weighs the last 10 games more than the first ten, but I'm sure they put all of a team's 'quality wins' and especially 'bad losses' on an equal level.

[Magnetic Curses]

yeah that win at oakland was signature

[SouthSideRyan]

Plus, road wins aren't predictive at all in terms of quality of the team. Every NCAA tournament game is on a neutral site, not in an opponent's home gym.

 

This is why I think "bad losses" is a rather overrated factor. Who cares? At least for the teams not at the top of the bracket, every NCAA tournament game is against a good team (though, obviously, the tournament has been partially watered-down, but still). Showing an ability to beat good teams should be the most important factor.

I think that's largely a different issue all together. Best wins give a measure of how good a team can be at their best. Bad losses give a measure of how bad a team can be at their worst. Both are valid considerations for at-large worth.

 

Of course, how applicable a bad loss or two in Vegas six months before tournament selection is to a team's at-large worth is a separate discussion...

 

Yup, well its been said that the committee weighs the last 10 games more than the first ten, but I'm sure they put all of a team's 'quality wins' and especially 'bad losses' on an equal level.

 

Now I'm almost certain they don't consider that anymore. It's a ridiculous metric to use with such wildly different schedules within a conference, let alone across conferences.

[SouthSideRyan]

Diaz looks like how this is the first night he's ever seen a basketball

[SouthSideRyan]

Is this Eddie Johnson on color? He's brutal.

[UMFan83]

Plus, road wins aren't predictive at all in terms of quality of the team. Every NCAA tournament game is on a neutral site, not in an opponent's home gym.

 

This is why I think "bad losses" is a rather overrated factor. Who cares? At least for the teams not at the top of the bracket, every NCAA tournament game is against a good team (though, obviously, the tournament has been partially watered-down, but still). Showing an ability to beat good teams should be the most important factor.

I think that's largely a different issue all together. Best wins give a measure of how good a team can be at their best. Bad losses give a measure of how bad a team can be at their worst. Both are valid considerations for at-large worth.

 

Of course, how applicable a bad loss or two in Vegas six months before tournament selection is to a team's at-large worth is a separate discussion...

 

Yup, well its been said that the committee weighs the last 10 games more than the first ten, but I'm sure they put all of a team's 'quality wins' and especially 'bad losses' on an equal level.

 

Now I'm almost certain they don't consider that anymore. It's a ridiculous metric to use with such wildly different schedules within a conference, let alone across conferences.

 

I don't know exactly what is used, but I remember people talking about Michigan's tournament chances being better last year because they were hot at the end of the season and that's where I read that the record in the last 10 games is part of the process. But they could have been talking out of their asses. The argument was that if comparing teams on the bubble, they would favor the team that is playing really well at the end of the season, as they would hypothetically make a tougher team come tourney time.

 

I do hope that's bs because like you pointed out, there are too many differences in schedules to use it as a tool to compare teams. Otherwise, the team that gets a healthy dose of Penn State and Nebraska at the end of their season gets a boost over a team that has Duke and UNC multiple times in the last 10 games.

[SouthSideRyan]

Oladipo gets away with about 9 travels per game.

[hawkeyecub]

Yeah, all of a sudden, not going to Breslin seems like a sweet deal.

 

And shockingly enough, Carver-Hawkeye????

 

Lucky bastards.

 

That's alright. The next time you visit, the Illini will be taken down by 2 gingers and a very goofy looking 7-footer. Then you'll be pissed.

[Smack]

Murray St down 7 in the second half at Morehead St....

[SouthSideRyan]

Man, this is a bad game of basketball

[SouthSideRyan]

Prichard is much boxier than I remember

[hawkeyecub]

Man, this is a bad game of basketball

 

Nebraska is just the worst. They're like Wisconsin without any of the offensive skill or efficiency. The two Nebraska-Wisconsin games have been completely unwatchable.

[hawkeyecub]

A referee fell down at the feet of a Nebraska 3-point shooter and almost took him out.

 

Fitting for this game.

[SouthSideRyan]

A referee fell down at the feet of a Nebraska 3-point shooter and almost took him out.

 

Fitting for this game.

 

And then he just laid there like a slug.

Edited January 19, 2012 by SouthSideRyan

[hawkeyecub]

Someone needs to remind Diaz that he's bad.

[SouthSideRyan]

lol, Eddie Johnson calls Sadler, "Bo"

[SouthSideRyan]

Hahhahaa, Nebraska player blocks Nebraska player.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's like Diaz doesn't even look where he's throwing the ball when he shoots.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Man, this is a bad game of basketball

 

Nebraska is just the worst. They're like Wisconsin without any of the offensive skill or efficiency. The two Nebraska-Wisconsin games have been completely unwatchable.

 

just wait til they beat you by something [expletive] like 52-48. they're so annoying.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm pretty sure Zeller walked on that.

[hawkeyecub]

4 of the 5 Nebraska players on the floor are wearing t-shirts.

 

Verdell Jones is still terrible.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd bet money that Nebraska stupidly tries to play defense here.