Kolek planning to go pro
I'm biased because I'm a Marquette fan, so I obviously wouldn't love it. But I'm quite sure I wouldn't be "apoplectic." I'd be upset that Shaka and the AD put together a cupcake non-con schedule, and I'd be ticked off that we had an 8-game losing streak that included home losses to bad teams.Each college basketball program has control over two things -- their non-con schedule and their results on the court. Take care of those two things and stop whining about the stuff that's out of your control.
If you're going to make this point, then it's probably fair to point out that the two highest ranked players of that class - and the two best performers so far - were signed by the last guy. And yes, I know that Shaka had to re-recruit them, but obviously they already had been sold on Marquette by then.
I don’t buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I’m sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what’s more you’d have a good argument.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
I couldn’t care less about A+M or Rutgers. My point was that the better the teams in the tournament the better the tournament. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the #43 team in the final Pomeroy rankings is better than the #74 team. And that if MU (as #43) was passed over in favor of #74 that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you and most other Scoopers would be apoplectic.
TAMU was a unique case. They had two Q1 and 2 Q2 wins before their run in the SEC tourney. They were also 58th in Kenpom. They were on the NIT bubble at the end of the regular season, not the NCAAT bubble. They had a historic run through the SEC tourney but the committee has consistently said that they don't weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season. I've always questioned that logic but TAMU shows that they believe it.If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more. You can poke fun at Rutgers but they had 7 Q1 wins...and all of them before their conference tourney. They beat people. TAMU didn't until it was too late
Do they not weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season, or just each game as another datapoint like any other? So for instance if Marquette plays Creighton in the BET, they would treat it as if they were playing an extra game with no additional weight because it’s a conference tournament game.
They have basically said that by the time tournaments of major conferences are being played Saturday the team field is set except for bubble teams that could be affected by bid thieves in tournaments with auto bids.
If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more.
Well despite the weak Non-Con schedule Ken Pom (which I believe the committee does use as a component - Brew?) A&M was ranked 43 and Rutgers 74 after their last games of their respective conference tournaments.
The bolded makes it obvious you didn't watch enough games involving these two teams.Rutgers was, without an ounce of doubt, the better team.
What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.
I think the NCAA has more problem seeding the teams than picking the actual teams in the tournament.At most they leave out one team that should have been in the play in game. The last three Marquette matchups were mis-seeded.
Not losing 8 straight games is in your control. Scheduling a tougher schedule than the worst in P6 conferences is in your control. A bad whistle is not in your control.
Overcoming a couple bad calls is most certainly within your control.
Especially since in most games there are several missed calls going both ways.