RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Selection Monday
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 662
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 9:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
CBiebel wrote:
myrtle wrote:
The thing I totally don't understand is with the #2 seeds. Texas is clearly the worst #2. Why aren't they sent to Albany, Baylor to KC, and SC to Lexington?


I guess they didn't want MSU to have what could arguably be the toughest #2 seed?


Well they're treating Louisville as the #2 #1, so why do they want to put Baylor there?


I don't know. I was just guessing at their reasons, not justifying it... Wink


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 9:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CBiebel wrote:
WNBA 09 wrote:
blaase22 wrote:
Who did oklahoma pay to get in lol


Still shocked not to hear from Howee yet . I know howee most likely is jumping for joy singing every school fight song at the moment . Im happy for howee but disappointing in the committee hands down . OU did not deserve a bid , and did not look like a tourney team none this year except for maybe the stretch towards the end of the regular season when they competed but still lost alot of games.


Doug Bruno's probably really happy about his first round match up.


Yeah, he's probably still got the scout from last time.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 9:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I have already made my rant on strength of schedule so it does not surprise me that it was used as part of the reason for selecting Oklahoma. There are actually good reasons to include the Sooners, including that they finished tied for third in a power conference, they are ranked in the top 40 in nearly every rating available, and that their play after from December 9 on was worthy of top 25 consideration. But these are not reasons that the committee generally considers.

If the Committee did, as the Chairman said, spend 7 hours deciding between the last 8 teams, then they must have rushed through the initial cut, and perhaps that is how they included Dayton. The Atlantic 10 was a bad conference this season. The entire conference had only 6 top 50 wins and none to teams seeded higher than 10. The wins included 2 over Virginia (by Dayton and Duquesne), 2 over American (by George Mason and George Washington), 1 over Central Michigan (Duquesne) and Northern Colorado (Fordham). If the Committee had done a deep dive into the Flyers they wouldn't have stood up.

The one thing the Committee didn't seem to consider as much as before was bad losses, although there were some mixed messages. USC had an interesting resume, one that I believed should have put them in the field. Put simply, USC was undefeated against all teams other than teams seeded 7 or higher (the top 28 teams). They had 2 wins over those teams, Oregon St and Arizona St. The Trojans also had a win over bubble team Purdue. 2 good wins and one more decent one is not a lot, but they had no bad losses. Against Dayton and Creighton I believe their resume is clearly better.

Finally there is Indiana (the question was about Purdue vs Indiana, not Iowa). I believe Indiana deserved strong consideration, but the Committee had to value the later part of the season more heavily than the earlier part. The overall argument is nuanced, but a side by side comparison with Purdue is rather simple; both were 9-7 in the Big 10, Purdue lost its first round game to Rutgers while Indiana beat Michigan St, and Indiana beat Purdue twice. Frankly that type of question, or any substantive answer would not make for good TV (I would enjoy a ten minute point/counterpoint) but most TVs would be clicking off.

On a separate note, the Committee is supposed to try to avoid regular season rematches, and yet in at least three cases (Georgia - Mercer, NC St - Elon, and DePaul - Oklahoma) they have them. If Mercer and Elon were swapped you could knock out two, and both teams would still be within driving distance.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14442
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 9:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:

Finally there is Indiana (the question was about Purdue vs Indiana, not Iowa). I believe Indiana deserved strong consideration, but the Committee had to value the later part of the season more heavily than the earlier part. The overall argument is nuanced, but a side by side comparison with Purdue is rather simple; both were 9-7 in the Big 10, Purdue lost its first round game to Rutgers while Indiana beat Michigan St, and Indiana beat Purdue twice. Frankly that type of question, or any substantive answer would not make for good TV (I would enjoy a ten minute point/counterpoint) but most TVs would be clicking off.


Why were they talking about Purdue v Indiana when neither team is in the bracket?


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7589
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 9:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Best reaction goes to creighton hands down genuwine suspense to happiness i love too see that !



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 10:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:

Finally there is Indiana (the question was about Purdue vs Indiana, not Iowa). I believe Indiana deserved strong consideration, but the Committee had to value the later part of the season more heavily than the earlier part. The overall argument is nuanced, but a side by side comparison with Purdue is rather simple; both were 9-7 in the Big 10, Purdue lost its first round game to Rutgers while Indiana beat Michigan St, and Indiana beat Purdue twice. Frankly that type of question, or any substantive answer would not make for good TV (I would enjoy a ten minute point/counterpoint) but most TVs would be clicking off.


Why were they talking about Purdue v Indiana when neither team is in the bracket?


I believe they were talking about why Indiana was not included in the final 8 instead of Purdue. Putting Oklahoma in suggests that they weighed the latter part of the season (at least for them) more. Also Indiana had a tougher strength of schedule than Purdue which was a basis for Oklahoma getting in. Therefore it stands to reason that Indiana may have had a better chance of getting in if they had been included in the final 8.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 10:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:

Finally there is Indiana (the question was about Purdue vs Indiana, not Iowa). I believe Indiana deserved strong consideration, but the Committee had to value the later part of the season more heavily than the earlier part. The overall argument is nuanced, but a side by side comparison with Purdue is rather simple; both were 9-7 in the Big 10, Purdue lost its first round game to Rutgers while Indiana beat Michigan St, and Indiana beat Purdue twice. Frankly that type of question, or any substantive answer would not make for good TV (I would enjoy a ten minute point/counterpoint) but most TVs would be clicking off.


Why were they talking about Purdue v Indiana when neither team is in the bracket?


I think they wanted to understand why Purdue was in the "debatable eight" and Indiana couldn't even get that consideration.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
Marquette Fan



Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2279



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 10:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I thought they avoided regular season rematches in the first round - was surprised to see DePaul playing Oklahoma in the first round.

I was hoping for a 7 for Marquette but figured they'd get an 8. The thing I'm most happy about is they play on Friday when I'm off work and my kids are in school so I can watch the game in peace Smile.

I didn't think Creighton was going to make it but was happy to see they did to make it 4 BE teams. And good luck to St. John's, Seton Hall and Georgetown in the WNIT.


RavenDog



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5837



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 11:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I thought the Committee did a good job this year. Congratulations to them on a tough job well done!


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11237
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 12:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
blaase22 wrote:
Who did oklahoma pay to get in lol


Still shocked not to hear from Howee yet . I know howee most likely is jumping for joy singing every school fight song at the moment . Im happy for howee but disappointing in the committee hands down . OU did not deserve a bid , and did not look like a tourney team none this year except for maybe the stretch towards the end of the regular season when they competed but still lost alot of games.


Thanks for thinking of me! My house is being torn apart for renovations and my Wi-Fi is all scrambled so I don't get to operate on my desktop. Bad timing for me, obviously but I would catch up here sooner or later, I figured. and yes you are right I was sort of dancing around with joy when I saw the headline that Oklahoma was the last team in. My life has new meaning.

In simple gratitude, I offer up a big old can of "SHOCK BE GONE" for you, LOL🤗. Hey! Remember a few years back when Kansas somehow squeaked into the field, and made it to the sweet 16? This is all a part of marches Madness.

I wasn't exactly shocked, but I was surprised because I really knew the chances for their bid were slim to none....yet I also heard enough people talking about their upside, like Brenda Vanlengen and Ron Thulin who had been dissecting their chances at a bid. We all know every year one or three teams seem like an odd or undeserving inclusion. I hope the Sooners can make a statement to warrant the committee's trust. Playing DePaul should be most interesting. Bruno and Coale are buddies, and their teams easily play with scores in the hundreds, and they play closely. Could be interesting.

HOPEFULLY, I might get to College Station this weekend to see it happen. I had dreams of getting to the Final Four but cannot make that at this point. Best of luck to all of us as we root our favorite teams on!



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!


Last edited by Howee on 03/13/18 11:18 am; edited 1 time in total
patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2068
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 8:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RavenDog wrote:
I thought the Committee did a good job this year. Congratulations to them on a tough job well done!


I'm with you. I don't have any major complaints, just marginal/iffy ones. All in all, I think they did pretty okay.


bballgrl



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 3378



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 7:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ucbart wrote:
Dawn just went IN on the committee. WOW


Cause they say they place teams where the attendance will be higher. Dawns team has the highest attendance but like she said maybe it is only for the regular season. She is pissed because they are always placed somewhere where their fans can't get to.


Hoops9092



Joined: 04 Nov 2008
Posts: 1398



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 7:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I like both UCLA's and Oregon's potential "road to the final four". I think this is the most ideal route for any of the 2 or 3 seeds.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 23318



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 8:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

bballgrl wrote:
ucbart wrote:
Dawn just went IN on the committee. WOW


Cause they say they place teams where the attendance will be higher. Dawns team has the highest attendance but like she said maybe it is only for the regular season. She is pissed because they are always placed somewhere where their fans can't get to.


I think she has a good point. As I said elsewhere, they should be in Lexington and Texas should have been shipped to Albany. Had SoCaro lost their last game, I think the committee might have had some justification, but since they won...



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
SO ...I lost a bet with Rock about how many wins Chicago would get this year. My punishment - T. Young as my avatar. Well it could be worse!
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57581
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 2:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The strength of schedule thing is another way to give majors an advantage. Teams in some conferences aren't going to have a good SOS no matter what they do in the non-con. For example, Quinnipiac ended up with a SOS rank of 114 while Minnesota had an SOS rank of 99. However, if you look at non-conference games only Quinnipiac's SOS rank is 5 while Minnesota's is 306. Quinnipiac isn't getting an at-large bid no matter who they schedule in the non-con because the MAAC will always make their SOS too low. Minnesota, OTOH, can schedule as many non-con cupcakes as they want (and they did) with the secure knowledge that if they're competitive in conference play their final SOS won't be embarrassment enough to keep them home.



_________________
Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 23318



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 3:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The strength of schedule thing is another way to give majors an advantage. Teams in some conferences aren't going to have a good SOS no matter what they do in the non-con. For example, Quinnipiac ended up with a SOS rank of 114 while Minnesota had an SOS rank of 99. However, if you look at non-conference games only Quinnipiac's SOS rank is 5 while Minnesota's is 306. Quinnipiac isn't getting an at-large bid no matter who they schedule in the non-con because the MAAC will always make their SOS too low. Minnesota, OTOH, can schedule as many non-con cupcakes as they want (and they did) with the secure knowledge that if they're competitive in conference play their final SOS won't be embarrassment enough to keep them home.


If they schedule multiple top 15 teams...and beat them, they would get in regardless of SOS. The trick is that they have to beat them if they're not going to get the automatic. Of course you can also look at Dayton, whose SOS is in the 90s and who beat none of the good teams they played...and still got in.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
SO ...I lost a bet with Rock about how many wins Chicago would get this year. My punishment - T. Young as my avatar. Well it could be worse!
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3640



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 6:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
pilight wrote:
The strength of schedule thing is another way to give majors an advantage. Teams in some conferences aren't going to have a good SOS no matter what they do in the non-con. For example, Quinnipiac ended up with a SOS rank of 114 while Minnesota had an SOS rank of 99. However, if you look at non-conference games only Quinnipiac's SOS rank is 5 while Minnesota's is 306. Quinnipiac isn't getting an at-large bid no matter who they schedule in the non-con because the MAAC will always make their SOS too low. Minnesota, OTOH, can schedule as many non-con cupcakes as they want (and they did) with the secure knowledge that if they're competitive in conference play their final SOS won't be embarrassment enough to keep them home.


If they schedule multiple top 15 teams...and beat them, they would get in regardless of SOS. The trick is that they have to beat them if they're not going to get the automatic. Of course you can also look at Dayton, whose SOS is in the 90s and who beat none of the good teams they played...and still got in.


You say that as if all a mid-major team has to do is call a bunch of top 15 teams and set dates. The fact is that P-5 teams for the most part refuse to play teams like Quinnipiac or Green Bay or even Gonzaga, only facing them in holiday tournaments or occasionally in their own house. And as we see in the case of Okl, you only have to schedule them to have a very respectable SOS.


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3535
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 8:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
pilight wrote:
The strength of schedule thing is another way to give majors an advantage. Teams in some conferences aren't going to have a good SOS no matter what they do in the non-con. For example, Quinnipiac ended up with a SOS rank of 114 while Minnesota had an SOS rank of 99. However, if you look at non-conference games only Quinnipiac's SOS rank is 5 while Minnesota's is 306. Quinnipiac isn't getting an at-large bid no matter who they schedule in the non-con because the MAAC will always make their SOS too low. Minnesota, OTOH, can schedule as many non-con cupcakes as they want (and they did) with the secure knowledge that if they're competitive in conference play their final SOS won't be embarrassment enough to keep them home.


If they schedule multiple top 15 teams...and beat them, they would get in regardless of SOS. The trick is that they have to beat them if they're not going to get the automatic. Of course you can also look at Dayton, whose SOS is in the 90s and who beat none of the good teams they played...and still got in.


I do not agree with the example of Minnesota, as they (as they also do) lost two of their cupcake non-conference games, so them finishing tied for 3rd in the Big Ten, and beating Maryland and Michigan and Iowa twice didn't have them higher than (probably) 4th to last team in so I'm assuming if they hadn't beaten Iowa in the Big Ten Tournament, they might have been the last team in (or first team out at least if Rutgers and/or Purdue didn't shoot themselves in the foot at the end of their seasons). That horrible non-conference scheduling is also why the Gophers missed the NCAA Tournament two years ago. I have no idea why the Gophers went from playing Cupcake St, and Creampuff U one year, to playing South Carolina and Belmont last year, back to playing Cupcake U and Five Random Kids from the YMCA this year again.

Quinnipiac was seeded higher than at least one at-large team (I can't tell if Quinnipiac was a #10 seed bumped up to #9 or a #9, but since they beat the great juggernaut Dayton team, maybe they were a #9), so in theory they probably could've been an at-large team, at least if they had won one more of their non-conference games.




Last edited by SpaceJunkie on 03/14/18 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 23318



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 8:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
myrtle wrote:
pilight wrote:
The strength of schedule thing is another way to give majors an advantage. Teams in some conferences aren't going to have a good SOS no matter what they do in the non-con. For example, Quinnipiac ended up with a SOS rank of 114 while Minnesota had an SOS rank of 99. However, if you look at non-conference games only Quinnipiac's SOS rank is 5 while Minnesota's is 306. Quinnipiac isn't getting an at-large bid no matter who they schedule in the non-con because the MAAC will always make their SOS too low. Minnesota, OTOH, can schedule as many non-con cupcakes as they want (and they did) with the secure knowledge that if they're competitive in conference play their final SOS won't be embarrassment enough to keep them home.


If they schedule multiple top 15 teams...and beat them, they would get in regardless of SOS. The trick is that they have to beat them if they're not going to get the automatic. Of course you can also look at Dayton, whose SOS is in the 90s and who beat none of the good teams they played...and still got in.


You say that as if all a mid-major team has to do is call a bunch of top 15 teams and set dates. The fact is that P-5 teams for the most part refuse to play teams like Quinnipiac or Green Bay or even Gonzaga, only facing them in holiday tournaments or occasionally in their own house. And as we see in the case of Okl, you only have to schedule them to have a very respectable SOS.


I've heard this complaint before. It used to be that Geno complained about it too. While some of the others won't play these better 'mids', I'm sure there are teams that will. They should call Tara. She'll play anybody. And I'm sure there are other P5 teams that will as well. Yeah there are those that won't. Just make more calls.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
SO ...I lost a bet with Rock about how many wins Chicago would get this year. My punishment - T. Young as my avatar. Well it could be worse!
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 9:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I actually believe that Quinnipiac would have gotten an at-large bid if they had lost to Marist in the MAAC final. They are an interesting case and clearly had a better case than Dayton, including that they beat Dayton. They actually had 3 top 50 wins and the #5 non-conference strength of schedule. (I heard more than once that these were the games the teams could control) Those wins were over Dayton, a 9 seed, Northern Colorado. a 10 seed, and Central Michigan, an 11 seed. They lost to Ohio St, Iowa, Missouri, Princeton and Michigan, so they challenged themselves non-conference and reasonably well. Their 9 seed is understandable (that was what I had them seeded).

The Northern Colorado seed is the one that stands out to me. While they had two good wins they had several bad losses, which in previous years hurt seeding more. I felt they had no shot, but a 10 seed says they would have gotten consideration. There is no way Northern Colorado deserved a higher seed than either Buffalo or Central Michigan.


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3535
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 10:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
I actually believe that Quinnipiac would have gotten an at-large bid if they had lost to Marist in the MAAC final. They are an interesting case and clearly had a better case than Dayton, including that they beat Dayton. They actually had 3 top 50 wins and the #5 non-conference strength of schedule. (I heard more than once that these were the games the teams could control) Those wins were over Dayton, a 9 seed, Northern Colorado. a 10 seed, and Central Michigan, an 11 seed. They lost to Ohio St, Iowa, Missouri, Princeton and Michigan, so they challenged themselves non-conference and reasonably well. Their 9 seed is understandable (that was what I had them seeded).

The Northern Colorado seed is the one that stands out to me. While they had two good wins they had several bad losses, which in previous years hurt seeding more. I felt they had no shot, but a 10 seed says they would have gotten consideration. There is no way Northern Colorado deserved a higher seed than either Buffalo or Central Michigan.


Lower seeded teams seem to get swapped for geographic reasons (not just the obvious #15 and #16 seed swaps).
For example, last year, #11-seed South Florida had to have been actually a #10-seed, but given an #11 seed to put them in Tallahasee (probably swapped with Toledo), while Purdue was bumped up to #9 seed to put them in South Bend.

This year isn't so obvious to me, but my guess is Central Michigan was a #10, and Northern Colorado an #11, and a swap was made to put Central Michigan in relatively close Ohio St.

Other guesses:
Oklahoma was a #11 and Western Kentucky a #12, and a swap was made to put Western Kentucky in relatively close Tennessee (along with Oklahoma being in closer Texas A&M and the committee doesn't care if it ends up setting a regular season rematch! Very Happy).
Virginia and Oklahoma St were swapped to put those teams places closer as well.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 11:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
I actually believe that Quinnipiac would have gotten an at-large bid if they had lost to Marist in the MAAC final. They are an interesting case and clearly had a better case than Dayton, including that they beat Dayton. They actually had 3 top 50 wins and the #5 non-conference strength of schedule. (I heard more than once that these were the games the teams could control) Those wins were over Dayton, a 9 seed, Northern Colorado. a 10 seed, and Central Michigan, an 11 seed. They lost to Ohio St, Iowa, Missouri, Princeton and Michigan, so they challenged themselves non-conference and reasonably well. Their 9 seed is understandable (that was what I had them seeded).

The Northern Colorado seed is the one that stands out to me. While they had two good wins they had several bad losses, which in previous years hurt seeding more. I felt they had no shot, but a 10 seed says they would have gotten consideration. There is no way Northern Colorado deserved a higher seed than either Buffalo or Central Michigan.


Lower seeded teams seem to get swapped for geographic reasons (not just the obvious #15 and #16 seed swaps).
For example, last year, #11-seed South Florida had to have been actually a #10-seed, but given an #11 seed to put them in Tallahasee (probably swapped with Toledo), while Purdue was bumped up to #9 seed to put them in South Bend.

This year isn't so obvious to me, but my guess is Central Michigan was a #10, and Northern Colorado an #11, and a swap was made to put Central Michigan in relatively close Ohio St.

Other guesses:
Oklahoma was a #11 and Western Kentucky a #12, and a swap was made to put Western Kentucky in relatively close Tennessee (along with Oklahoma being in closer Texas A&M and the committee doesn't care if it ends up setting a regular season rematch! Very Happy).
Virginia and Oklahoma St were swapped to put those teams places closer as well.


I agree with everything you say ... but, Northern Colorado lost three games in a conference where all of the teams in the conference combined won just 2 games against top 100 teams (Montana St over 75 Wyoming and North Dakota over 97 Lamar.) I didn't see them near even an 11.


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3535
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 11:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
I agree with everything you say ... but, Northern Colorado lost three games in a conference where all of the teams in the conference combined won just 2 games against top 100 teams (Montana St over 75 Wyoming and North Dakota over 97 Lamar.) I didn't see them near even an 11.


I guess if you have an (inflated?) RPI/SOS like Northern Colorado, your early non-conference wins over DePaul and LSU give you cushion against multiple bad/terrible losses.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57581
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/18 11:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
I do not agree with the example of Minnesota


I picked Minnesota because they were the most extreme example, with a non-con SOS outside the top 300.

Of course the whole SOS system is kinda screwy. South Carolina, despite playing UConn, Notre Dame, Maryland, and Duke, had a non-con SOS rank of 181. That's because the dreck they played was dreckier than most, including four teams outside the top 300 of RPI. Realistically, you'd be hard pressed to say their non-con schedule was easier than Quinnipiac's 5th ranked one, there's no way you could claim there was difference enough to account for being ranked 176 slots apart.



_________________
Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 23318



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/18 11:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
Northern Colorado lost three games in a conference where all of the teams in the conference combined won just 2 games against top 100 teams (Montana St over 75 Wyoming and North Dakota over 97 Lamar.) I didn't see them near even an 11.


Plus what most people don't seem to know is that their center, who was a pretty important piece of their team, quit sometime in January. I agree they shouldn't be as high as an 11.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
SO ...I lost a bet with Rock about how many wins Chicago would get this year. My punishment - T. Young as my avatar. Well it could be worse!
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin