I see good things in a loss.
- Thread starter BigDaddyHokie
- Start date
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Things will change next season. BC, Miami, Clemson, UVA or someone else will occupy cellar.
Things will change next season. BC, Miami, Clemson, UVA or someone else will occupy cellar.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
How did scheduling the OOC likes of Kstate, UNLV, Temple, Iowa,UGA, Setan Hall, Purdue etc...under Seth help you get to the tourney? Even with wins, It didnt. It dont do any good to look at strength of schedule and early OOC games when you close out the end of the season with a bunch of losses followed up by a early exit in your conference tournament. Thats what they look at first. No committee is going to look at a team that loses its last 6-7 games and gets beat in round 1 of their tourney and say ...but but but...they beat Richmond and Bill and Mary 4 months ago so...
Re: I see good things in a lose.
You are wrong. They look at the whole season. They have stated numerous times that they do not place more emphasis on the final 10 ten games like they used to, they have also said that conference tourney games count the same as regular season games, and they have said many, many times they look at OOC SOS, and will penalize you if you play a weak one.
You mentioned some our past OOC opponents, but the committee said the main reason we did not get into the dance in 2010 was because our OOC SOS was above 300. So, I stand by saying we should play a few more top 100 RPI teams like Richmond instead of 300+ RPI teams. That being said, at 23-8 and 10-6 in the ACC, I still think we should have made the dance. A bad OOC SOS number should cost you if you go 21-10 and 8-8 in the ACC, but not if you go 23-8 and 10-6.
Where are you getting the "lost in the 1st round of the ACC tourney" and "early exit in your conference tourney" stuff? 2010, yes, but not 2011. The year (2010-2011) we scheduled K. St., Okla. St. (won), Purdue, UNLV, Penn St. (won), and Miss. St. (won) OOC, we also won 2 ACC tourney games, including beating an 11-5 ACC FSU team in the quarters.
Also, that same year we did not close the season with a "bunch of losses" either. Why would you say "loses its last 6-7 games"? After we beat #1 Duke, we lost to 9-7 ACC BC and 9-7 ACC Clemson, but, as I said earlier, we won 2 ACC tourney games, including beating 11-5 ACC FSU, before losing in the semis to Duke.
The bottom line is we got robbed that year and belonged in the tourney, and if we play an OOC schedule in the future like we did that year, go above .500 in the ACC, and win 2 ACC tourney games, we get into the big dance 99 times out of 100.
This post was edited on 3/4 12:54 AM by pckank1
You are wrong. They look at the whole season. They have stated numerous times that they do not place more emphasis on the final 10 ten games like they used to, they have also said that conference tourney games count the same as regular season games, and they have said many, many times they look at OOC SOS, and will penalize you if you play a weak one.
You mentioned some our past OOC opponents, but the committee said the main reason we did not get into the dance in 2010 was because our OOC SOS was above 300. So, I stand by saying we should play a few more top 100 RPI teams like Richmond instead of 300+ RPI teams. That being said, at 23-8 and 10-6 in the ACC, I still think we should have made the dance. A bad OOC SOS number should cost you if you go 21-10 and 8-8 in the ACC, but not if you go 23-8 and 10-6.
Where are you getting the "lost in the 1st round of the ACC tourney" and "early exit in your conference tourney" stuff? 2010, yes, but not 2011. The year (2010-2011) we scheduled K. St., Okla. St. (won), Purdue, UNLV, Penn St. (won), and Miss. St. (won) OOC, we also won 2 ACC tourney games, including beating an 11-5 ACC FSU team in the quarters.
Also, that same year we did not close the season with a "bunch of losses" either. Why would you say "loses its last 6-7 games"? After we beat #1 Duke, we lost to 9-7 ACC BC and 9-7 ACC Clemson, but, as I said earlier, we won 2 ACC tourney games, including beating 11-5 ACC FSU, before losing in the semis to Duke.
The bottom line is we got robbed that year and belonged in the tourney, and if we play an OOC schedule in the future like we did that year, go above .500 in the ACC, and win 2 ACC tourney games, we get into the big dance 99 times out of 100.
This post was edited on 3/4 12:54 AM by pckank1
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Trying to figure out Selection Committee's thinking is like trying to figure out why good football players go to UVA.
it can't be done.
Trying to figure out Selection Committee's thinking is like trying to figure out why good football players go to UVA.
it can't be done.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
kank as much as you would like this to be some magic numerical fix, its not, its common sense-handle your business in the ACC and finish strong and your going to get invited. Its as simple as that. Win in the ACC and nobody is going to give 2 shits if VT scheduled a mid range Atlantic 10 team or some damn Colonial Athletic conference team 4 months earlier.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
VT/UK,
Finishing strong has nothing to do with getting a bid, and conference standings do not either. Sorry, but you could not be more wrong here. You really need to pay more
attention to what the committee says every year when they discuss why
teams were chosen and why teams were left out. Watch a meaningful game this week involving a bubble team and you will hear the announcers talk about how the committee has stated conference standings are irrelevant, and how you finish a season is not more important than how you started one.
You will also hear the committee talk about how they do not use a team's individual RPI to say yes or no to a tourney bid (that is why teams with 30-something RPIs have missed the tourney and teams with 50 or even 60-something RPIs have made it.) Instead, they use the RPI to look at top 50 RPI wins, top 100, below 100 losses, below 200, etc. So, back to the Richmond point, playing an RPI 50 or 75 team like Richmond instead of a 300+ RPI team greatly helps your chances to make the tourney if you are a bubble team.
Every year, some teams that finished weak make the tourney over some teams that finished strong, and every year teams make the tourney over teams that finished better than them in the conference standings because EVERY game you play, IC and OOC, is looked at all as one whole sum, and conference games and how you finished are not isolated separately.
You mentioned winning the ACC, and no one will care who you play OOC. Well, yea, that is most likely correct because if you win the ACC, you will have a lot of real good wins, and an OVERALL better resume than all of the bubble teams, even without good OOC wins. But, should VT really schedule OOC like they are going to win the ACC at some point?
I think VT should schedule OOC as if they will go 10-8 IC because that is a realistic goal in a few years, and if you go 10-8 IC, no matter what you think, it will most definitely come down to what you did OOC.
Look at this year's ACC. NC St., Pitt, and Miami have 8 ACC losses, but who is in the best shape to make the tourney? NC State, even though they have 12 overall losses, and Pitt and Miami have 11. Why? Because their OOC SOS is 25th, Miami's is 189th, and Pitt's is 113.
Look at last year's ACC. Clemson went 10-8 in the ACC, beat Duke, won an ACC tourney game and finished 20-12 overall, but DID NOT make the tourney, while a 9-9 in the ACC NC St. did, even though Clemson, in addition to beating Duke, also beat NC St. and finished ahead of them in the standings. Also, Clemson won 4 of its last 6, while NC St. lost 4 of its last 7, but Clemson's OOC schedule, which included 4 above 300 RPI teams, and only 2 top 100 RPI teams, was terrible. So, maybe this will help you better understand why I am telling you how wrong you are with thinking what matters to the committee.
Obviously, when the WHOLE SEASON was looked at NC St. got the nod. They were the final team chosen last year. Here are Mark Gottfried's comments after being chosen: "You've got to choose to play a difficult nonconference schedule," Gottfried said. "Some teams didn't, and that's their choice. "That message has been said to us, loud and clear, over and over again."
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/17/3710708_how-nc-state-made-the-ncaa-tournament.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
VT/UK,
Finishing strong has nothing to do with getting a bid, and conference standings do not either. Sorry, but you could not be more wrong here. You really need to pay more
attention to what the committee says every year when they discuss why
teams were chosen and why teams were left out. Watch a meaningful game this week involving a bubble team and you will hear the announcers talk about how the committee has stated conference standings are irrelevant, and how you finish a season is not more important than how you started one.
You will also hear the committee talk about how they do not use a team's individual RPI to say yes or no to a tourney bid (that is why teams with 30-something RPIs have missed the tourney and teams with 50 or even 60-something RPIs have made it.) Instead, they use the RPI to look at top 50 RPI wins, top 100, below 100 losses, below 200, etc. So, back to the Richmond point, playing an RPI 50 or 75 team like Richmond instead of a 300+ RPI team greatly helps your chances to make the tourney if you are a bubble team.
Every year, some teams that finished weak make the tourney over some teams that finished strong, and every year teams make the tourney over teams that finished better than them in the conference standings because EVERY game you play, IC and OOC, is looked at all as one whole sum, and conference games and how you finished are not isolated separately.
You mentioned winning the ACC, and no one will care who you play OOC. Well, yea, that is most likely correct because if you win the ACC, you will have a lot of real good wins, and an OVERALL better resume than all of the bubble teams, even without good OOC wins. But, should VT really schedule OOC like they are going to win the ACC at some point?
I think VT should schedule OOC as if they will go 10-8 IC because that is a realistic goal in a few years, and if you go 10-8 IC, no matter what you think, it will most definitely come down to what you did OOC.
Look at this year's ACC. NC St., Pitt, and Miami have 8 ACC losses, but who is in the best shape to make the tourney? NC State, even though they have 12 overall losses, and Pitt and Miami have 11. Why? Because their OOC SOS is 25th, Miami's is 189th, and Pitt's is 113.
Look at last year's ACC. Clemson went 10-8 in the ACC, beat Duke, won an ACC tourney game and finished 20-12 overall, but DID NOT make the tourney, while a 9-9 in the ACC NC St. did, even though Clemson, in addition to beating Duke, also beat NC St. and finished ahead of them in the standings. Also, Clemson won 4 of its last 6, while NC St. lost 4 of its last 7, but Clemson's OOC schedule, which included 4 above 300 RPI teams, and only 2 top 100 RPI teams, was terrible. So, maybe this will help you better understand why I am telling you how wrong you are with thinking what matters to the committee.
Obviously, when the WHOLE SEASON was looked at NC St. got the nod. They were the final team chosen last year. Here are Mark Gottfried's comments after being chosen: "You've got to choose to play a difficult nonconference schedule," Gottfried said. "Some teams didn't, and that's their choice. "That message has been said to us, loud and clear, over and over again."
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/17/3710708_how-nc-state-made-the-ncaa-tournament.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Well said kank.....you are dead on with this post. Unless you are going to finish in the Top 3-4 in ACC you better have a good OOC schedule. I don't see VT winning the conference in the next few years but I do think they could battle NC St, Clemson, Pitt and others for a bid in a year or two.
Well said kank.....you are dead on with this post. Unless you are going to finish in the Top 3-4 in ACC you better have a good OOC schedule. I don't see VT winning the conference in the next few years but I do think they could battle NC St, Clemson, Pitt and others for a bid in a year or two.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
If you look at the year we got in 2006-2007 - VT had 4 RPI top 25 wins and a winning record against the RPI top 100. VT had an SOS of 22 that year as well.
The years that VT didn't make it they always had a big issue that kept them out.
In 2007-2008 - VT had 0 top 50 wins and was 5-8 vs. the RPI top 100. Zero RPI top 50 wins means NIT.
In 2008-2009 - VT had a great SOS but VT was 5-11 vs. the RPI top 100 with 3 bad losses and had wins against 4 teams with RPIs of 280 or higher. That killed VT's RPI.
In 2009-2010 - VT had an SOS of 133 which is mid major level. They only had 4 wins against teams with an RPI of 89 or better. They had 11 of 23 wins against teams with an RPI of 182 or below. VT played a terrible schedule that year and were punished for it.
In 2010-2011 - VT was 2-5 vs. RPI top 50, lost all significant non conference games (Purdue and Kansas State), had an SOS of 77 with 8 of 21 wins against crap teams.
2010/2011 - 21-11 (11-8 ACC)
RPI 62 SOS 77
2 top 50 RPI wins, 2-5 vs. RPI top 50
8-8 vs. RPI top 100
8 wins vs. sub 200 RPI teams
That is an average resume. An RPI in the 60s isn't that great and a SOS of 77 isn't great for a high major conference school.
2009/2010 - 23-8 (10-7 ACC)
RPI 59 SOS 133
3 top 50 RPI wins (which is solid)
8-7 vs. top RPI top 100 - 4 of these 'wins' against teams with RPIs between 90 and 100.
9 wins vs. sub RPI 200 teams, 2 wins against teams with RPIs of 182 and 194.
7 of VT's 15 games against top 100 RPI teams were against teams with RPIs between 90-100. Basically the overall schedule was awful, hence the 133 SOS number. That is an A-10, CAA, MVC like schedule.
That is why VT didn't get in.
2008/2009 - 18-14 (8-10 ACC)
RPI 61 SOS 25 - That is a bad RPI and good SOS
2 top 50 RPI wins (both on the road as well, which is good)
5-11 vs. the RPI top 100 - not good
3 sub RPI 100 losses
VT played 4 teams with RPIs of 280 or higher, that will KILL your RPI.
Do you think a team with that kind of resume and overall record/RPI should dance? USC danced this year but had FIVE top 50 RPI wins. That is not a good resume at all.
2007/2008 - VT 19-13 (ACC 10-8)
RPI 53 SOS 34 - Decent numbers finally, still the RPI is a little high
0 top 50 RPI wins - not good
5-8 vs. the RPI top 100 - not good
5 sub RPI 100 losses - very bad
The only thing good about this resume is the SOS, everything else is not good.
2006/2007 - 21-11 (11-7 ACC) - same type of record as always
RPI 34 SOS 22 - Excellent numbers
FIVE top 50 RPI wins - 4 of these were against top 25 RPI teams. That is pretty good.
10-9 vs. the top 100 RPI - winning record vs. top 100
2 sub 100 RPI losses - Forgiven when you win 5 games against the RPI top 50
Several of VT's sub 100 games were against opponent with RPIs above 200.
Not shocking that VT was a 5 seed in the NCAA tourney that year.
To add to this - here is a post I made on TSL years ago about VT's bubble trouble under Seth Greenberg
If you look at the year we got in 2006-2007 - VT had 4 RPI top 25 wins and a winning record against the RPI top 100. VT had an SOS of 22 that year as well.
The years that VT didn't make it they always had a big issue that kept them out.
In 2007-2008 - VT had 0 top 50 wins and was 5-8 vs. the RPI top 100. Zero RPI top 50 wins means NIT.
In 2008-2009 - VT had a great SOS but VT was 5-11 vs. the RPI top 100 with 3 bad losses and had wins against 4 teams with RPIs of 280 or higher. That killed VT's RPI.
In 2009-2010 - VT had an SOS of 133 which is mid major level. They only had 4 wins against teams with an RPI of 89 or better. They had 11 of 23 wins against teams with an RPI of 182 or below. VT played a terrible schedule that year and were punished for it.
In 2010-2011 - VT was 2-5 vs. RPI top 50, lost all significant non conference games (Purdue and Kansas State), had an SOS of 77 with 8 of 21 wins against crap teams.
2010/2011 - 21-11 (11-8 ACC)
RPI 62 SOS 77
2 top 50 RPI wins, 2-5 vs. RPI top 50
8-8 vs. RPI top 100
8 wins vs. sub 200 RPI teams
That is an average resume. An RPI in the 60s isn't that great and a SOS of 77 isn't great for a high major conference school.
2009/2010 - 23-8 (10-7 ACC)
RPI 59 SOS 133
3 top 50 RPI wins (which is solid)
8-7 vs. top RPI top 100 - 4 of these 'wins' against teams with RPIs between 90 and 100.
9 wins vs. sub RPI 200 teams, 2 wins against teams with RPIs of 182 and 194.
7 of VT's 15 games against top 100 RPI teams were against teams with RPIs between 90-100. Basically the overall schedule was awful, hence the 133 SOS number. That is an A-10, CAA, MVC like schedule.
That is why VT didn't get in.
2008/2009 - 18-14 (8-10 ACC)
RPI 61 SOS 25 - That is a bad RPI and good SOS
2 top 50 RPI wins (both on the road as well, which is good)
5-11 vs. the RPI top 100 - not good
3 sub RPI 100 losses
VT played 4 teams with RPIs of 280 or higher, that will KILL your RPI.
Do you think a team with that kind of resume and overall record/RPI should dance? USC danced this year but had FIVE top 50 RPI wins. That is not a good resume at all.
2007/2008 - VT 19-13 (ACC 10-8)
RPI 53 SOS 34 - Decent numbers finally, still the RPI is a little high
0 top 50 RPI wins - not good
5-8 vs. the RPI top 100 - not good
5 sub RPI 100 losses - very bad
The only thing good about this resume is the SOS, everything else is not good.
2006/2007 - 21-11 (11-7 ACC) - same type of record as always
RPI 34 SOS 22 - Excellent numbers
FIVE top 50 RPI wins - 4 of these were against top 25 RPI teams. That is pretty good.
10-9 vs. the top 100 RPI - winning record vs. top 100
2 sub 100 RPI losses - Forgiven when you win 5 games against the RPI top 50
Several of VT's sub 100 games were against opponent with RPIs above 200.
Not shocking that VT was a 5 seed in the NCAA tourney that year.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
vtpmt81,
Good info. I understand your points about finding things that kept us out, but my main problem about a couple of the years we got left out was that we still had better resumes than teams that made it.
UAB did not have a great SOS, had 0 top 50 wins, and had 4 bad losses in 2011. And, they certainly didn't have a big time win like we did over Duke. How do you get an at large bid without 1 win over a top 50 team? Yes, VCU made the final four, but they had a worse SOS than us, had 4 bad losses, and only went 12-6 (4th place) in the CAA.
In 2010, GT went 7-9 in the ACC, lost to us at home in what many thought was a bubble game at the end of the season, went 12-2 OOC, but with no great wins, finished 22-12, and got in over us, even though we went 10-6 and 23-8. Ouch!!!
This post was edited on 3/4 3:48 PM by pckank1
vtpmt81,
Good info. I understand your points about finding things that kept us out, but my main problem about a couple of the years we got left out was that we still had better resumes than teams that made it.
UAB did not have a great SOS, had 0 top 50 wins, and had 4 bad losses in 2011. And, they certainly didn't have a big time win like we did over Duke. How do you get an at large bid without 1 win over a top 50 team? Yes, VCU made the final four, but they had a worse SOS than us, had 4 bad losses, and only went 12-6 (4th place) in the CAA.
In 2010, GT went 7-9 in the ACC, lost to us at home in what many thought was a bubble game at the end of the season, went 12-2 OOC, but with no great wins, finished 22-12, and got in over us, even though we went 10-6 and 23-8. Ouch!!!
This post was edited on 3/4 3:48 PM by pckank1
Re: I see good things in a lose.
But keep telling yourself its all about sos....and then listing examples where obviously it wasnt.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Wow.....are you really serious? I have to believe you are smarter than believing the crap you are posting. A .500 team in the ACC needs a strong out of conference schedule. It really isn't that hard to understand.....
Wow.....are you really serious? I have to believe you are smarter than believing the crap you are posting. A .500 team in the ACC needs a strong out of conference schedule. It really isn't that hard to understand.....
Re: I see good things in a lose.
I never said it was 100% about SOS, but more often than not, SOS ends up being very important. Sure, occasionally a team with a questionable SOS might make the tourney, but for every example where a bubble team with a shaky SOS got in, there are many examples where a bubble team with a real good SOS got in.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just listen to the committee leader every year talk about why certain bubble teams got left out. Then, look again at my examples and others where a .500 or better ACC team got left out because their SOS was terrible. Then, ask yourself why you think VT, after getting snubbed with 10-6 and 9-7 ACC records in past years, would be a tourney lock if they go 10-8 in the ACC with a bad SOS in future years.
I never said it was 100% about SOS, but more often than not, SOS ends up being very important. Sure, occasionally a team with a questionable SOS might make the tourney, but for every example where a bubble team with a shaky SOS got in, there are many examples where a bubble team with a real good SOS got in.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just listen to the committee leader every year talk about why certain bubble teams got left out. Then, look again at my examples and others where a .500 or better ACC team got left out because their SOS was terrible. Then, ask yourself why you think VT, after getting snubbed with 10-6 and 9-7 ACC records in past years, would be a tourney lock if they go 10-8 in the ACC with a bad SOS in future years.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
And If you think the committee is going to be tinkle their trousers over a win over powerhouse Bill and Mary or Richmond
then your just as dumb as that other goofball.
No shit newbie. Winning HALF your conference games is not "handling your business in the ACC".
And If you think the committee is going to be tinkle their trousers over a win over powerhouse Bill and Mary or Richmond
then your just as dumb as that other goofball.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Think we've got enough history to agree that SOS is very important to us when trying to get in off of the bubble, Of course once you "win the ACC" or "take care of business in the ACC" OOC obviously won't matter then. But since most years we've done neither, I should hope that we should always try to position ourselves with a good OOC to try to improve our chances. Plus I really haven't heard a good reason why we wouldn't just want to play a good OOC anyway, even if we were planning on just winning the ACC so we don't have to worry about it.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Let's look at Miami. They are 9-8 IC and 19-11 overall. They have a top 5 win over Duke, 2 top 50 wins, and 6 top 100 wins, but their OOC SOS is 189. Now, think of how good they would be sitting if they had played and beaten Richmond, who has an RPI of 64, and W&M, who has an RPI of 99, instead of a 299 RPI and a 321 RPI. They would have 8 top 100 wins and their OOC SOS number would look much better. So, instead of 6 top 100 wins and 6 below 200 wins, they would have 8 top 100 wins, only 4 below 200 wins, and an OOC SOS about 50 spots higher. This is what the committee looks at when getting the final few teams into the tourney, and if you think otherwise, you are mistaken.
Just wondering, since we have gone 4-12, 4-14, 2-16, and now 2-15 in the ACC the past 4 years, when exactly do you think we will be "handling our business" in the ACC and winning way more than half of our conference games so often that we won't have to worry about playing a good OOC schedule?
The committee would not worry about the name Richmond or the name William and Mary, but the committee would definitely like seeing 2 more top 100 wins, and, as a result, a better OOC SOS number.
Let's look at Miami. They are 9-8 IC and 19-11 overall. They have a top 5 win over Duke, 2 top 50 wins, and 6 top 100 wins, but their OOC SOS is 189. Now, think of how good they would be sitting if they had played and beaten Richmond, who has an RPI of 64, and W&M, who has an RPI of 99, instead of a 299 RPI and a 321 RPI. They would have 8 top 100 wins and their OOC SOS number would look much better. So, instead of 6 top 100 wins and 6 below 200 wins, they would have 8 top 100 wins, only 4 below 200 wins, and an OOC SOS about 50 spots higher. This is what the committee looks at when getting the final few teams into the tourney, and if you think otherwise, you are mistaken.
Just wondering, since we have gone 4-12, 4-14, 2-16, and now 2-15 in the ACC the past 4 years, when exactly do you think we will be "handling our business" in the ACC and winning way more than half of our conference games so often that we won't have to worry about playing a good OOC schedule?
Re: I see good things in a lose.
I like how you continue to pick Richmond and William & Mary......why not VCU and ODU? Both would be strong OOC wins this year. I didn't realize you meant VT would be taking care of business and moving from last to first in the ACC, my apologies......I just assumed you meant the would improve and be battling for the middle of the conference.......guess you believe Buzz doesn't need a few years to build them up. I look forward to seeing VT battle UVA, Duke, ND, Louisville and UNC for the top next year....it will be impressive. But on my next trip to Vegas I'm betting they are around .500 next year in conference, and that would be huge improvement.
I like how you continue to pick Richmond and William & Mary......why not VCU and ODU? Both would be strong OOC wins this year. I didn't realize you meant VT would be taking care of business and moving from last to first in the ACC, my apologies......I just assumed you meant the would improve and be battling for the middle of the conference.......guess you believe Buzz doesn't need a few years to build them up. I look forward to seeing VT battle UVA, Duke, ND, Louisville and UNC for the top next year....it will be impressive. But on my next trip to Vegas I'm betting they are around .500 next year in conference, and that would be huge improvement.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
I just cannot feel comfortable saying Louisville and Notre Dame when talking about ACC. Neither belongs in the conference.
I just cannot feel comfortable saying Louisville and Notre Dame when talking about ACC. Neither belongs in the conference.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
In college sports, football is King at most schools. Syracuse adds nothing to ACC just like Louisville, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh.
Duke and UNC has carried ACC flag (with some help from NC State) for years. ACC not need the northern schools.
In college sports, football is King at most schools. Syracuse adds nothing to ACC just like Louisville, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh.
Duke and UNC has carried ACC flag (with some help from NC State) for years. ACC not need the northern schools.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Look at Xavier sitting at 18-12/8-9. RPI(43), SOS(18). They have 3 wins against top 25 and 9 wins against top 100. So with that SOS, RPI and wins against top100 why are they on the bubble? Because they didnt "handle their business" with 12 losses and had 4 BAD LOSSES to teams ranking 101-200.
Its not just about who you beat but who beats you as well...doesnt help to add 2 top 100 wins If you dont win the games your expected to win (aka handling your business)
The NCAA looks at top 100 wins, RPI and BAD LOSSES. Wins over a Richmond(64) and WM(99) or even a VCU(17) or a ODU(41) is not going to negate the BAD LOSSES that Miami had to Green Bay(62), EKU(152)-which they lost by 30 points, GT(126) which they lost by 20, FSU(118) and WF(116). Miami didnt only fail to "handle their business" OOC, they didnt "handle their business" in-conference either despite a few impressive wins along the way.
Look at Xavier sitting at 18-12/8-9. RPI(43), SOS(18). They have 3 wins against top 25 and 9 wins against top 100. So with that SOS, RPI and wins against top100 why are they on the bubble? Because they didnt "handle their business" with 12 losses and had 4 BAD LOSSES to teams ranking 101-200.
Its not just about who you beat but who beats you as well...doesnt help to add 2 top 100 wins If you dont win the games your expected to win (aka handling your business)
Re: I see good things in a lose.
VT/UK,
I agree the committee looks at top 100 wins and bad losses, but they have said they do not focus on a team's individual RPI. Instead, they use RPI so they can have top 50 wins, top 100 wins, games against below 200, etc. In addition to other factors, they also look long and hard at SOS, and have said this time and time again, even though you continue to think otherwise. I even copied a quote from Mark Gottfried. Here it is again since I guess you missed it:
"You've got to choose to play a difficult nonconference
schedule," Gottfried said. "Some teams didn't, and that's their choice.
"That message has been said to us, loud and clear, over and over again." VT/UK, what part of "that message has been said to us loud and clear" do you not understand?
It will always help to have 2 more top 100 wins. It does not guarantee a tourney bid, because the other 30 games matter as well, but there is no way having 2 extra top 100 wins could ever hurt you. Why do you think there is no difference in 2 top 100 wins and 2 below 300 type wins? 2 extra top 100 wins would help offset 2 bad losses a heck of a lot more than 2 sub 300 wins would. It amazes me that you would think otherwise. Also, why do you think Miami losing to 23-7, RPI 62 Green Bay is a bad loss?
The discussion is about bubble teams, and trying to make the tourney. It is fair to assume VT will first be a bubble type of team before they, as you say, "take care of their business" and win every game or whatever it is you are trying to say they will do. If you take a look at the bubble teams, most or all of them have "bad losses", so why single out Miami? None of these bubble teams "took care of their business". That is why they are bubble teams. The difference is some, like the Xavier team you mentioned, have a much better SOS than Miami, and as a result are in much better shape than Miami, but for some reason, you do not think that matters.
Your Miami and Xavier examples hurts your argument, and helps mine. You mentioned both Miami and Xavier have multiple bad losses, yet Xavier is well ahead of Miami right now, even though X's bad losses (105, 131, 163, 168) are worse than Miami's (110, 119, 124, 151). You mentioned X has 9 top 100 wins, but 4 of them are against OOC teams with RPIs of 33, 58, 66, and 90. Miami has 7 OOC top 100 wins and only 2 of them are OOC, but you continue to act like OOC games do not matter. So, each team has 5 top 100 conference wins, X has 4 top 100 OOC wins and Miami only has 2, but for some reason, you do not think it would benefit Miami to play 2 more top 100 teams and have 9 top 100 wins and 4 OOC top 100 wins like X does. You said a couple more top 100 wins for Miami would not negate their bad losses, but obviously, X's top 100 wins are helping negate their bad losses. So, if Miami is in the NIT and X is in the big dance, will you still be telling us that Miami did not need to play a few more top 100 teams? You probably will because it is obvious you do not understand this.
The bottom line is X, despite 4 sub 100 losses, a below .500 conference record, and 12 losses overall, is in way better shape to make the dance than Miami right now, and a big reason is X has an OOC SOS of 47, and Miami has an OOC SOS of 189. Yet, for some reason, you continue to think that SOS does not matter.
This post was edited on 3/5 3:50 PM by pckank1
VT/UK,
I agree the committee looks at top 100 wins and bad losses, but they have said they do not focus on a team's individual RPI. Instead, they use RPI so they can have top 50 wins, top 100 wins, games against below 200, etc. In addition to other factors, they also look long and hard at SOS, and have said this time and time again, even though you continue to think otherwise. I even copied a quote from Mark Gottfried. Here it is again since I guess you missed it:
"You've got to choose to play a difficult nonconference
schedule," Gottfried said. "Some teams didn't, and that's their choice.
"That message has been said to us, loud and clear, over and over again." VT/UK, what part of "that message has been said to us loud and clear" do you not understand?
It will always help to have 2 more top 100 wins. It does not guarantee a tourney bid, because the other 30 games matter as well, but there is no way having 2 extra top 100 wins could ever hurt you. Why do you think there is no difference in 2 top 100 wins and 2 below 300 type wins? 2 extra top 100 wins would help offset 2 bad losses a heck of a lot more than 2 sub 300 wins would. It amazes me that you would think otherwise. Also, why do you think Miami losing to 23-7, RPI 62 Green Bay is a bad loss?
The discussion is about bubble teams, and trying to make the tourney. It is fair to assume VT will first be a bubble type of team before they, as you say, "take care of their business" and win every game or whatever it is you are trying to say they will do. If you take a look at the bubble teams, most or all of them have "bad losses", so why single out Miami? None of these bubble teams "took care of their business". That is why they are bubble teams. The difference is some, like the Xavier team you mentioned, have a much better SOS than Miami, and as a result are in much better shape than Miami, but for some reason, you do not think that matters.
Your Miami and Xavier examples hurts your argument, and helps mine. You mentioned both Miami and Xavier have multiple bad losses, yet Xavier is well ahead of Miami right now, even though X's bad losses (105, 131, 163, 168) are worse than Miami's (110, 119, 124, 151). You mentioned X has 9 top 100 wins, but 4 of them are against OOC teams with RPIs of 33, 58, 66, and 90. Miami has 7 OOC top 100 wins and only 2 of them are OOC, but you continue to act like OOC games do not matter. So, each team has 5 top 100 conference wins, X has 4 top 100 OOC wins and Miami only has 2, but for some reason, you do not think it would benefit Miami to play 2 more top 100 teams and have 9 top 100 wins and 4 OOC top 100 wins like X does. You said a couple more top 100 wins for Miami would not negate their bad losses, but obviously, X's top 100 wins are helping negate their bad losses. So, if Miami is in the NIT and X is in the big dance, will you still be telling us that Miami did not need to play a few more top 100 teams? You probably will because it is obvious you do not understand this.
The bottom line is X, despite 4 sub 100 losses, a below .500 conference record, and 12 losses overall, is in way better shape to make the dance than Miami right now, and a big reason is X has an OOC SOS of 47, and Miami has an OOC SOS of 189. Yet, for some reason, you continue to think that SOS does not matter.
This post was edited on 3/5 3:50 PM by pckank1
Re: I see good things in a lose.
And hows that working out for Gottried now? He scheduled a tough schedule, didnt "handle his business" and finished 8-10 versus top 100 with 3 bad losses and is now sitting on the bubble possibly needing to beat Syracuse and win 2 more games to get in, despite having a great RPI and SOS. The message sent to him should be...sos means little If you lose and lose badly to teams you shouldnt. You should be like me and listen to what Joe Lanardi and Jerry Palm are saying and not desperate coaches with agendas.
And hows that working out for Gottried now? He scheduled a tough schedule, didnt "handle his business" and finished 8-10 versus top 100 with 3 bad losses and is now sitting on the bubble possibly needing to beat Syracuse and win 2 more games to get in, despite having a great RPI and SOS. The message sent to him should be...sos means little If you lose and lose badly to teams you shouldnt. You should be like me and listen to what Joe Lanardi and Jerry Palm are saying and not desperate coaches with agendas.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Another reminder that pckank had absolutely no problem with this several years ago, and argued assiduously against VT having a stronger resume than teams like Utah State and Mt. Saint Mary's while I argued the opposite and got covered in statistical vomit.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Wow....if NC St had 5 more wins against teams out of the top 100 he wouldn't even be on the bubble.....he would be out of it. SOS means everything for teams on the bubble, it will be the difference of who gets in and who doesn't . If you play a bunch of cupcakes you better finish high in your conference or you will be in jeopardy of being left out......I guess you just have to take care of your business!!!!, LOL
Wow....if NC St had 5 more wins against teams out of the top 100 he wouldn't even be on the bubble.....he would be out of it. SOS means everything for teams on the bubble, it will be the difference of who gets in and who doesn't . If you play a bunch of cupcakes you better finish high in your conference or you will be in jeopardy of being left out......I guess you just have to take care of your business!!!!, LOL
Re: I see good things in a lose.
You ask how is it working out for Gottfried? Obviously, great. This is his 4th year at NC State and he made the tourney hist first 3 years, while other ACC teams with the same or better ACC record did not, and is looking good to make it this year. They do not need to win 3 more to get in. Not even close. You have it all wrong: SOS means EVERYTHING if you lose to teams you should not lose to.
2011-2012: 9-7 ACC (12 overall losses) and made it. Miami also went 9-7 and went to the NIT.
2012-2013: 11-7 ACC (10 overall losses) and made it. UVA also went 11-7 and went to the NIT.
2013-2014: 9-9 ACC (13 overall losses) and made it. 10-8 ACC Clemson did not, 9-9 FSU did not, and 9-9 Maryland did not.
2014-2015: 9-8 ACC (12 overall losses) and clearly ahead of 9-8 ACC Miami for a bid.
Looks like you are listening to the wrong people. Obviously, Mark Gottfried knows a little bit more about this than you do because it is their OOC wins over Boise (36), Richmond (54), La. Tech (55), and Tenn. (92), along with an overall OOC SOS of 26 that has them in good shape right now, even with 12 losses. It is funny how you continue to bad mouth Richmond when a few more wins by them would give the teams who beat them not just a top 100 win, but a top 50 win.
This post was edited on 3/6 3:31 PM by pckank1
I keep trying to help you, but you simply do not understand. Every time you counter, you only help my debate and hurt yours.
You ask how is it working out for Gottfried? Obviously, great. This is his 4th year at NC State and he made the tourney hist first 3 years, while other ACC teams with the same or better ACC record did not, and is looking good to make it this year. They do not need to win 3 more to get in. Not even close. You have it all wrong: SOS means EVERYTHING if you lose to teams you should not lose to.
2011-2012: 9-7 ACC (12 overall losses) and made it. Miami also went 9-7 and went to the NIT.
2012-2013: 11-7 ACC (10 overall losses) and made it. UVA also went 11-7 and went to the NIT.
2013-2014: 9-9 ACC (13 overall losses) and made it. 10-8 ACC Clemson did not, 9-9 FSU did not, and 9-9 Maryland did not.
2014-2015: 9-8 ACC (12 overall losses) and clearly ahead of 9-8 ACC Miami for a bid.
Looks like you are listening to the wrong people. Obviously, Mark Gottfried knows a little bit more about this than you do because it is their OOC wins over Boise (36), Richmond (54), La. Tech (55), and Tenn. (92), along with an overall OOC SOS of 26 that has them in good shape right now, even with 12 losses. It is funny how you continue to bad mouth Richmond when a few more wins by them would give the teams who beat them not just a top 100 win, but a top 50 win.
This post was edited on 3/6 3:31 PM by pckank1
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Again...BAD LOSSES hurt you. While WINNING those 5 more games against teams out of the top 100 might not have helped, LOSING those 5 games against teams above 100 did. AGAIN...Its not only who you beat that is considered, but who beats you as well. You have to HANDLE YOUR BUSINESS and avoid BAD LOSSES .SOS means NOTHING If you have only moderate success and numerous BAD LOSSES. I hope I have helped you better understand the selection process a little better. Its a little confusing at first but after youve followed college basketball more than two seasons It will be easier for you to understand it all.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
...and it is their loss to Purdue (who lost to Gardner Webb,Vandy and North Florida), Wofford, Cincinnati, Miami, Clemson,Wake Forest and most recently Boston College that has people in the know questioning their body of work.
I like the old days, where if a ACC team won 20 games, they were just about sure to get in.
When you have to rely on a Selection Committee, it's not good.
When you have to rely on a Selection Committee, it's not good.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
You are good for a laugh for sure Hokie/Wildcat/etc......I'm tired of trying to teach you something when it's obvious you rode the short bus to school....good thing your teams never on the bubble since you don't have clue what it takes to get in.......just take care of your buiness bro!!!!
You are good for a laugh for sure Hokie/Wildcat/etc......I'm tired of trying to teach you something when it's obvious you rode the short bus to school....good thing your teams never on the bubble since you don't have clue what it takes to get in.......just take care of your buiness bro!!!!
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Do you not pay attention to anything? First of all, NC St. is not even on the bubble and is all but a lock right now. Secondly, Purdue has an RPI of 62 and Cincinnati has an RPI of 39. Why would anyone think they are bad losses? Purdue has 4 top 50 wins, is 19-11 and 11-6 in the Big Ten, and has a chance to make the tourney, but would be a lock if it weren't for their OOC SOS 203, something that you do not think matters. Cincinnati, with 6 top 50 wins, a 21-9 record, and an OOC SOS of 24, is in.
This post was edited on 3/7 5:32 PM by pckank1
You are getting more and more laughable, and you keep hurting your argument and making yourself look bad. I don't know which "people in the know" you are listening to, but you might want to try someone else.
Do you not pay attention to anything? First of all, NC St. is not even on the bubble and is all but a lock right now. Secondly, Purdue has an RPI of 62 and Cincinnati has an RPI of 39. Why would anyone think they are bad losses? Purdue has 4 top 50 wins, is 19-11 and 11-6 in the Big Ten, and has a chance to make the tourney, but would be a lock if it weren't for their OOC SOS 203, something that you do not think matters. Cincinnati, with 6 top 50 wins, a 21-9 record, and an OOC SOS of 24, is in.
This post was edited on 3/7 5:32 PM by pckank1
Re: I see good things in a lose.
Purdue with a 62 RPI only has a 53% chance of even getting a bid...
Cincy with a 39 RPI only has a 82% chance of a bid...
Texas has a 43 RPI/ 8 SOS and only has a 55% chance of a bid...
Miami has a 68 RPI/58 SOS and only a 34% chance of a bid...
Indiana has a 53 RPI/ 39 SOS and only has a 23% chance of a bid...
Michigan has a 85 RPI/ 7 SOS and has a 0% chance of a bid...
Mizzou has a 198 RPI/ 11 SOS and 27 OOC and has 0% chance of a bid...
Florida has a 78 RPI/ 16 SOS and a 0% chance of a bid...
Richmond has a 55 RPI/ 53 SOS yet only a 20% chance of a bid...
ODU has a 41 RPI/ 138 SOS and only a 35% chance of a bid...
William and Mary with their 99 RPI/ 153 SOS only have a 28% chance of a bid...
UCLA ...51 RPI and 34 SOS yet very bubbly...
Temple...37 RPI and 71 SOS yet very bubbly...
BYU...40 RPI and 78 SOS yet very bubbly...
Wait...how could that be? Because unlike you, who thinks RPI and SOS is "everything", the people in the know with common sense can tell the difference between a legit RPI built on quality wins and an imposter. RPI and SOS are important components but a teams whole body of work has to be considered and despite you refusing to acknowledge it, BAD LOSSES are considered.
After NCSt lost to BC they were very much on the bubble. Only after winning yesterday did they secure a spot...
Purdue with a 62 RPI only has a 53% chance of even getting a bid...
Cincy with a 39 RPI only has a 82% chance of a bid...
Texas has a 43 RPI/ 8 SOS and only has a 55% chance of a bid...
Miami has a 68 RPI/58 SOS and only a 34% chance of a bid...
Indiana has a 53 RPI/ 39 SOS and only has a 23% chance of a bid...
Michigan has a 85 RPI/ 7 SOS and has a 0% chance of a bid...
Mizzou has a 198 RPI/ 11 SOS and 27 OOC and has 0% chance of a bid...
Florida has a 78 RPI/ 16 SOS and a 0% chance of a bid...
Richmond has a 55 RPI/ 53 SOS yet only a 20% chance of a bid...
ODU has a 41 RPI/ 138 SOS and only a 35% chance of a bid...
William and Mary with their 99 RPI/ 153 SOS only have a 28% chance of a bid...
UCLA ...51 RPI and 34 SOS yet very bubbly...
Temple...37 RPI and 71 SOS yet very bubbly...
BYU...40 RPI and 78 SOS yet very bubbly...
Wait...how could that be? Because unlike you, who thinks RPI and SOS is "everything", the people in the know with common sense can tell the difference between a legit RPI built on quality wins and an imposter. RPI and SOS are important components but a teams whole body of work has to be considered and despite you refusing to acknowledge it, BAD LOSSES are considered.
Re: I see good things in a lose.
I never said RPI and SOS are everything, so sorry you wasted so much time with those stats. Actually, a team's individual RPI is meaningless, but the committee uses RPI to total up a team's top 50 wins, top 100 wins, below 200, SOS, a few more categories, and yes, even bad losses. So, we can agree that bad losses are not good (duh?), but I think what you are having a hard time with is realizing that these bubble teams are on the bubble because most or all of them have these bad losses. You keep telling teams to take care of business and not have bad losses, but if you have good wins and no bad losses, of course you will be in the tourney. That is why we have locks right now.
Our discussion was about bubble teams, and how VT needs to schedule OOC if and when they become a bubble team again. So, if bubble teams have bad losses, and similar records, with similar good wins, what has the committee continued to say is a key way to separate these teams, and a key reason why some bubble teams make it and others don't? SOS. They rarely say "bad losses" because the teams they are comparing all have them. You can keep saying otherwise, but we hear the committee talk about SOS a lot more than they talk about bad losses.
I never said RPI and SOS are everything, so sorry you wasted so much time with those stats. Actually, a team's individual RPI is meaningless, but the committee uses RPI to total up a team's top 50 wins, top 100 wins, below 200, SOS, a few more categories, and yes, even bad losses. So, we can agree that bad losses are not good (duh?), but I think what you are having a hard time with is realizing that these bubble teams are on the bubble because most or all of them have these bad losses. You keep telling teams to take care of business and not have bad losses, but if you have good wins and no bad losses, of course you will be in the tourney. That is why we have locks right now.
Our discussion was about bubble teams, and how VT needs to schedule OOC if and when they become a bubble team again. So, if bubble teams have bad losses, and similar records, with similar good wins, what has the committee continued to say is a key way to separate these teams, and a key reason why some bubble teams make it and others don't? SOS. They rarely say "bad losses" because the teams they are comparing all have them. You can keep saying otherwise, but we hear the committee talk about SOS a lot more than they talk about bad losses.
