exactly. and the same logic wasnt applied to the teams they put in. then the good wins were ok and they didnt look at the losses.
it was a crock of $hit
Accountability for Bryan Felt
- Thread starter Gohall129
- Start date
it was a crock of $hit
i think the point is that the advance metric is more important than the result.
No he said wins and losses. Advanced metric would be a NET or RPI or even Kenpom rating which most people don't understand. He didn't like that.
I'm not interested in the ACC this year. Last year, the Big East was very good and rather deep, and produced the runaway national champion (who we beat once by 15), so going 13-7 in that conference in that season is what I mean by deserving a bid, regardless of the nonconference.
It was not very good. It was 3 elite teams and mediocrity after that. We had a lot of teams ranked between 60-90, so if that's deep, I'll agree with that. When the league was very good it had 6 teams in the tournament.
Making up shit that I never said. YIKES!
Yes, I would like to see a system that qualifies teams by winning games rather than metrics and rankings. No, I didn't say I want to simply rank all 352 teams by win-loss record. You came up with that yourself.
How would you do it by wins and losses other than that. I'm sure the system you come up with will be Seton Hall centric. LOL
That was the RPI but they did away with it.
Seton Hall's RPI was 53 last season vs. a NET of 67.
I'm actually interested but I think it's wild you want to base things on wins and losses then when I use strictly wins and losses you don’t want to rank teams based strictly on wins and losses. You’re system is going to be something similar to NET or RPI and there’s no way we get in based either of those as long as there are auto bids. There's about 20 auto bids so we would need to be ranked 48th or better and we weren't. But I'm sure strictly wins and losses, doesn't work. I'm sure RPI or NET doesn't work for you because we weren't top 48 so let's find a Seton Hall centric system. The committee, NET, and RPI all say Seton Hall out but Piratecrew says in so they all must be wrong. I think it's fair to admit Iowa, USC, Rutgers and the number of 15+ point losses kept us out.
Last edited:
Win one of those 3 or We could’ve not tanked the PC home game or SJ in the BET and none of this would be discussed.
You see, trying to engage with this guy and his running mate is never a good idea. They always have all the answers.
Ah, let me clarify. I'm not interested in simply re-ranking teams at the end of the year, nor do i care if last year's SHU team would have been in or out in any given system - I didn't engage in that conversation because I find it irrelevant. I suppose this isn't much more relevant because we all know it won't happen, but I would l prefer to overhaul the entire system in a way that eliminates at-large teams entirely and ties all 68 entries to automatic bids in some way, shape or form. Maybe leave a handful at most for teams that somehow manage great seasons without winning an auto bid.
Curious would it be Big East gets 5 teams a year, ACC get 5, SEC gets 8? I mean because this year it doesn't look like the big east or acc is worth that amount of bids at this point.
One of the methodologies I had in mind would apply to conferences like that, though it would vary year to year based on non-conference play. Say all games through the end of December (OOC only) are considered in calculating a coefficient for each conference that determines its number of bids. So yes, it moves up the whining about which conference got too many bids and which got too few to that point, but at least every team goes into their last ~20 games knowing exactly what they need to do to get in. If the Big East has 3 bids and Seton Hall comes in 4th, there's no room to complain because the goalposts were clear and didn't move. Ultimately I'd say leave it up to the conferences to determine how they want to allocate their bids, but I expect for the most part it would be tournament champion then go to regular season standings.
So a bad DePaul and Georgetown team with bad metrics could hurt a middle of the pack big east team while an elite UConn team could help as opposed to your own merit. Interesting. A lot of bad A-10 teams could hurt a top notch A10 team who schedules the big boys, beats the big boys has a quality resume but loses in conference finals. Imagine if Gonzaga gets left out as a one bid league who loses the championship
Last edited:
If poorly done I suppose, but a well designed model can reduce the impact of outlier teams. Reality is there's no way to perfectly evaluate 352 teams against each other when playing wildly different schedules. That's why I like the idea of laying out the stakes early and letting the bids ultimately be won on the floor rather than chosen in a conference room.
The teams most in line to be hurt by it would be the ones that dominate a 1 bid league but lose in the conference finals. I'd also be fine with a few at-large bids for scenarios like that rather than half the field.
A few more pages in this insane thread and you guys are going to be talking about where would SHU basketball if there was no foul called in 89 and Michigan missed the last shot.
Um…did you live in the 70’s? Gas lines, ultra high inflation, interest rates in the upper teens…you think times are tough now? Lol. These are the good old days comparatively.
Similar threads
