Dayton has 0 wins against the current tournament field
Zags/Sha tweets
- Thread starter hbkmyr
- Start date
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.
While I think SHU deserved to be in over Virginia (and believe they got in simply on name recognition) they did themselves no favors down the stretch by losing 3 games by 25+ points. And then allowed St. John’s to take their lunch money in a game everyone knew the committee was watching.
At the end of the day, there’s no excuse for such a veteran laden team to be consistently blown out, and they allowed their fate to be put in the committees hands rather than seizing the moment. It sucks and hopefully the returning players will remember this feeling and make sure they finish the job next season.
At the end of the day, there’s no excuse for such a veteran laden team to be consistently blown out, and they allowed their fate to be put in the committees hands rather than seizing the moment. It sucks and hopefully the returning players will remember this feeling and make sure they finish the job next season.
I get all teams have warts, but don’t understand the huge gap between teams like MSU and St John’s. If they wanted to say Michigan State was better in a couple of areas which is why they were selected fine, but they had them seeded as if the two resumes weren’t even comparable.
Virginia got blown out a lot down the stretch too.
I love how I say agree that Seton Hall should have been in specifically over UVA / MSU, but make a general comment about how one should not leave it up to something subjective if you can maybe get one or two more wins by handling your own business. This would have clearly had the Hall much further up in the tournament projections.
And immediately the responses say, but please defend the committee’s decision for UVA / MSU…. 🤦♂️
I get it. It sucks. We didn’t get in. The committee / the metrics / the P5 bias / whatever you want to blame, essentially kept us out of qualifying for the PLAY IN GAME in Dayton.
Is there a prevailing opinion out there that The Big East just isn't what it used to be? Is the Mt. West being set up to replace The Pac already? Are football schools in charge and screwing the Big East just because they can? I'm not sure which of the three BE schools that are out should be in but only getting three teams in while The Mt. West getting six is really wrong. Does Val Ackerman go postal or sit on her hands?
Last edited:
Insane thought...so hypothetically in a future year 5 big east schools are ranked and will be single digit seeds...the 6th seed at msg runs the table so one of those other schools should then miss the tournament?
This is about individual schools who rep certain conf affiliations the pool of at large should be credential based by each schools output not conf affiliation bias
I wasn't asking you to defend the committee. It was a comment about the seemingly significant gap between MSU and SJU.
shu09 is not-so-secretly a troll. Has been forever, people just starting to realize it.
No shu09 is just very passionate about his pov
Not a troll but consistently negative and not willing to see the other side of the argument. But that’s what makes this place so great. Many people with different views. shu09 just happens to always find himself on an island, lol.
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 !
Like I said, we should be in over UVA. But unfortunately SHU and the other Big East schools will always be fighting an uphill battle vs the football conference schools. It’s not fair, but every year we see that’s how this works.
No, he's not a troll. He's been posting here since he was a kid and loves Seton Hall. There is plenty about which I don't agree about with him (more of the LoTS variety, where I never go anyway), but he is honest and argues in good faith (even when he's wrong
). And on this matter, he's got some fair points, even though I believe the committee's slavish devotion to select metrics made things unnecessarily hard on Seton Hall.
Last edited:
Re: MWC, see my previous comment about PAC12...then Colorado State or Utah State or Nevada should have been left out, again, the conference should take the hit, not another conference to make room for their "extra" team.
My problem is the inconsistency. You want to leave out SJU because of lack of Quad 1 wins, eschewing how their Quad 2-4 performance compares to other teams that made it, their overall metrics and how they’ve played the last month and “eye test”. Fine.
But then how do you explain leaving us out?
Conversely, you want to take others over the Hall because of the overall resume and metrics, giving less weight to the Quad 1 wins, then how do you not take SJU over some of those teams?
We should have made it. But when you start splicing this all together the general theme that confers me more is the 3 BE bubble teams and conference as a whole getting screwed.
But then how do you explain leaving us out?
Conversely, you want to take others over the Hall because of the overall resume and metrics, giving less weight to the Quad 1 wins, then how do you not take SJU over some of those teams?
We should have made it. But when you start splicing this all together the general theme that confers me more is the 3 BE bubble teams and conference as a whole getting screwed.
Frustrating not to be in, Seton Hall's entire body of work should have gotten them in although it was always going to be close.
Frustrating to see a few teams get in that go against what the committee said they valued.
Frustrating to see the Big East only get 3 teams in even with bid stealers.
Frustrating to see a few teams get in that go against what the committee said they valued.
Frustrating to see the Big East only get 3 teams in even with bid stealers.
they simply choose what works for the teams they like. no matter if another team is better at it.
they unearthed every reason SHU shouldnt be in. despite other teams being worse for the same reason. for those teams they like , UVA and Mich st, they were unearthing every reason why they should be in. 100% bias.
SHU deserved to be in over these teams objectively and the random 12 guys that make untransparent decisions have to run in circles for a few days to justify it. then you never hear about it again.
they unearthed every reason SHU shouldnt be in. despite other teams being worse for the same reason. for those teams they like , UVA and Mich st, they were unearthing every reason why they should be in. 100% bias.
SHU deserved to be in over these teams objectively and the random 12 guys that make untransparent decisions have to run in circles for a few days to justify it. then you never hear about it again.
Mountain West getting that many bids while Big East not is such a slap in the face
because its a load of horseshit from day one despite what some posters like LCP laboriously tried to deny. we literally arent valuing Q1 wins. what is the point.
even if they stuck to criteria they have ruined the game. the point is to lose any number of games by a little and beat patsies by 40. but they dont stick to it. they just make it all up. its the WWE.
im choosing to spend my time caring about other things moving forward.
Thanks. I would have loved to see Seton Hall in the tournament. But given the situation this year, it was clear SH was going to get knocked out. If there weren't so many bid stealers, SH would be in, even with the poor non-conference results.
I find it somewhat funny that many of the very same posters whining about this were on here over the weekend saying the conference tournament results probably knocked SH out. They were right - now they have selective amnesia it seems. But I guess throwing a hissy fit and making a scene is the trendy thing to do these days so they have to get in on that.
Many here just don't seem to understand. The bid thieves artificially raised the cut line. When you get to the cut line, you then have to make some very difficult decisions in order to separate teams.
Nobody is throwing a hissy fit; I've asked you directly now two times to comment on St. Johns vs Michigan State resume since you said that Michigan St. was a worthy team and St. Johns was not. Care to answer based on the cold hard data?
No. SH wasn't selected because of bid thieves and poor non-conference performance. There's more to a season than your conference. Seton Hall sucked in the non-conference and that's why they're out.
UNLV finished a game behind NCAA teams Nevada and Boise State, and a game ahead of SDSU. Two games ahead of NCAA teams New Mexico and Colorado State. Why aren't they in?? Must be an agenda against UNLV, right?
You can't be serious...UNLV had 3 losses to quadrant 4 teams.....
Did you even look at resumes or just blindly follow the company line?
Twice is a lot? Virginia had two blowout losses in February and March. Seton Hall had four.
This is what still drives me nuts a day later. Its not just that we didn’t get in. The rationale for which teams were chosen doesn’t make sense. St. John is a very strong metrics team, Seton Hall is the opposite; very good wins and poor metrics. Both don’t make it. That indicates bias to me.
It was clear, now painfully so, the committee doesn’t want transparency so they can hit & run.
its a complete joke they don’t have an organized punch list of what they look for, publicly available.
The other truth here is they love the theatrics and it how it drives up ratings.
We were also that close to being 10-0 at home in conference play. Creighton game and Providence. I feel like last night changed the bar for accumulated wins in conference play. I used to believe one game over five hundred along with some strong OOC results playing top tier schools. We constantly debated 12 or 13 in conference over the last few months. Having 13 should have sealed the deal.
I never said Michigan State was tournament worthy. You just make stuff up. I said on the Trove that the only reason they got in was because they scheduled tough (in response to people who are saying we should schedule soft).
Neither SJU or MSU would be in if I was selecting the field.
You said SJU didn't have a tournament worthy resume. I showed you their resume vs Michigan St.
I'm glad you acknowledge that Michigan State is a mistake now. Yet they got a 9 seed.
I don't feel that at all. Don't always agree, but many times we do. Shu09 is a realist.
Yeah I don't agree with 09s take re metrics in some regards. But he's not a troll. Maybe at points a contrarian? 😂
But him and I align a lot more often than not on a lot of issues discussed on this board.
But him and I align a lot more often than not on a lot of issues discussed on this board.
Same here. I agree with him more than most. He isn’t a troll at all. Period. He’s just more objective and believes “water is wet” even when it comes to our program.
One of them was to Virginia Tech. And you’ll say “one of ours was to Villanova.” And then we’ll just keep going in circles.
My thoughts exactly. I'm sure that our getting destroyed on multiple ocasions in the past two weeks of the season played a big part in the Committee not selecting us. Did they want to include a team in the tournament that may not show up and get blown out? I still think SHU and the Big East got screwed, but we played a major role in our own demise.
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.
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.
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.
it has become the minor leagues for the NBA and Europe.
Soon, the players will be in a labor union....there will be work/play stoppages...and maybe a full fledged draft, with contract guarantees, to end the free agency madness.
See...that fixes it...
ruined....that is what it has become...in a word...ruined.
Yes this is similar to when you review many different questions such as, should we add an FTE to Dept X? Dept Y? Dept Z? and so on.
On their own merits, they could all warrant a "yes" response. But in the aggregate you are now adding say 100 FTEs and economically, that just wont fly.
Similarly, taken individually, did those teams (VA, etc.) perhaps have merit to be in the Dance? Maybe. But at the end when you take a step back, does it also make sense that the 2nd best league in the country only has 3 teams in? Probably not...so that is when you re-review your choices, with the aggregate metrics in mind.
Doesn't mean you HAVE to change your selections...but it does mean you review them thru a different lens, just to see if they still make sense.
