Zags/Sha tweets

[The Crows Nest]

So this is another hot button topic that is coming out of all of this.

Did we really have a challenging OOC schedule?

We had 6 home quad 4 games. Only two we didn’t win by more than 20. And remember the starters needed to be benched during the Monmouth game to prove a point. Everyone points to the Rutgers game as a the turning point. I say it was this game. This board was calling for all the minutes to go to Brown, Coleman, and Sanders after this 9 point win.

We had a tough (road) game for the B12/BE challenge against Baylor - fairly standard.

We had our normal game vs Rutgers (home)
preason Big 10 prediction of 10th

We had our MTE
USC (Pac 12 - 2nd prediction)
Iowa (B10 - 9th prediction)
Oklahoma (B12 - 11th prediction)

Neutral Site Missouri (SEC - 9th prediction)

Our OOC SOS finished at 226. But were we really expecting it to be that much higher?

This is a very realistic type schedule to potential win a few decent games and gel as a team in the NIL era.

You just can’t go 7-4 against it.

you can't, but remember....these games are scheduled well in advance...so you are "projecting" how good a team will be, likely a year or more ahead (and with free agency...even more of a crapshoot)...and then if they underperform, you are sunk.

I dont know what the answer is, but seemingly having Quad 2/3 games...not awful, but decent looking on the resume...that you win, even at home, might serve better than a bounty of Quad 4 games.

And again....you dont know what Quad a team will end up in...but here is where some additional Admin staff would help (someone say GM?), you can run analytics as to where school A, B, C, etc., have ended up the last 5 years, where they are trending, etc. So it is not a totally blind, or "reputation" call...an informed decision, with these precise metrics in mind.

Perhaps something our Conference Admins can do as it benefits the conference as a whole to get more bids, and to max out the metrics.

You have to play the game....

 

[Jerry1992]

My opinion is we win game on Thursday we would have made it. Could not give committee reason to leave us out. It was a bad performance. Still wonder if a close loss would have mattered. Probably not but I will never know I guess. We deserve bid but committee either did not think so or had other motives to leave us out. Tough way to be left out.

 

[SOpirate]

My opinion is we win game on Thursday we would have made it. Could not give committee reason to leave us out. It was a bad performance. Still wonder if a close loss would have mattered. Probably not but I will never know I guess. We deserve bid but committee either did not think so or had other motives to leave us out. Tough way to be left out.

Agreed. Fair or not, that game was our “eye test” with the committee and we failed it miserably. I still believe we should’ve been in, but it’s hard to complain when we had a chance to put any doubt to rest and gave such an uninspiring performance.

 

[Section112]

We didn't pass the eye test on Thursday night. Based on some of the stuff they said though I wonder if we were gonna get left out anyway.

 

[TheHall87]

All fair points, but you left out one glaring issue...the Big East got 3 bids. If there are upsets in a conference tournament, then perhaps that conference should take the hit, see Colorado. Also, MWC with 6 teams, and Big East (2nd best conference re: metrics) gets half as many? These things just don't add up. Virginia, look at their record, beat no one in a lousy ACC.

If your leage produces a bid stealer that league should be who loses the AT large bid. Not the second rated conference in NCAA. FAU losing to temple is the equivilent to losing to DePaul. It should be an auto DISQUALIFIER this late in the season.

As bad as this board is now...

I don't even want to think about what it would look like if Xavier had won the Big East Tournament and the Selection Committee left us out, solely because they had pre-determined the Big East could only have X number of teams.

It's probably likelier than not that you're eliminating a more deserving team rather than pushing teams down in the pecking order. That makes no sense.

Debate that we deserve to be in the field but don't come up with solutions that you will be the first to complain about if the situation was reversed.

 

[ivyhillparkk1963]

Dayton has 0 wins against the current tournament field

Ridiculous saw them as last 4 byes in one of the last brackets. Anothet who layed down to get another team in from their crap conference. What a fraud
Easy first round exit

 

[TheHall87]

Not true. It determines Quad wins which goes into selection. We neat Nova and it was a Q1 win. The next day, their NET dropped and it became a Quad 2.

Nothing really matters if UVA can have such a poor Quad 1 - 2 record and get in over us.
Michigan St, Dayton and FAU seed lines are a joke.

UConn top seed and has 4 conference champions in its region.

Virginia's Q1/2 record was 10-10. Seton Hall's was 9-11.

See now that’s misleading of the numbers just like the committee

Why are we combining Q1/Q2 because it makes Virginia look equal to SHU? Why aren’t you separating the numbers?

Because it makes the argument look good !

My response was to the top post which discusses Virginia's "poor" Q1-2 record. I simply posted the facts based on that post.

There are plenty of reasons for and against both schools. Seton Hall had a better Q1 record. Virginia in Q2. They had a Q1 and Q2 non-conference win. Our best OOC was a Q3.

We have better wins in UConn, Marquette and St. John's -- as opposed to Florida, Clemson, Wake Forest and Texas A&M.

They were 9-2 in the OOC against a SOS of 161. We were 7-4 in the OOC against a SOS of 227.

They were not overly impressive in the conference even with a 13-7 record. They played and lost to UNC and Duke once each. Their best league win is Clemson and they split with Wake.

In the end, my guess is our OOC was the deciding factor.

 

[catholicman]

It’s not beyond a doubt as they’re not in the tournament. Be upset all you want, but don’t result to calling me a troll just because you disagree.

I apologize for calling you a troll. I had not seen you post here before. But I am mistaken.

 

[Joe045]

This isn't the reason Seton Hall was left out. NET doesn't determine selection, only seeding. Try not losing to USC, Iowa, Rutgers, and Providence (two of those at home) next time, Sha.

shu09 is one of my favorite posters of all time. He doesn't look at everything through blue colored glasses. Adding to his point, you can't lose by 18 or more points in six of your eight losses to conference opponents and, as a 4 seed, how about winning at least one conference tournament game!

 

[SHU90s]

..there is no such thing as the committee need to allow X number of teams per conference based on anything.

LeftCoast, I agree that there is no such thing as the committee “needs to put in X number of teams per conference….” That said, I also believe that when the committee was considering UVA, they were VERY sensitive to/aware of the fact that UVA finished third in the ACC, and that fact most certainly played into their decision to put UVA in the field.

 

[radecicco]

Based on w hat the committee chair and others have said, I’m think Danny hit it on the head. It’s a shell game. Pick whatever metric you want to justify whatever decision you want to make.

 

[King of S]

We got jobbed but there was also plenty of opportunities that we didn’t take advantage of.

I’m curious to see how this, if at all, impacts future scheduling. I’m a fan of having a challenging non-con but the committee seems to be sending mixed signals on whether that philosophy is rewarded/makes sense anymore.

We’re getting a good amount of publicity over being the first team or two out. I wonder if that publicity is actually more than we would have gotten sneaking into the tournament and losing a game.

The first four out are getting a good amount of publicity due to the very questionable selections. Seton Hall has been mentioned as much as the #1 seeds the past two days.