I think UL, ND, and UConn loses will look favorable even though they were losses. I think we played very well and were in positions to beat very good teams. Even though we won last night, I think the committee would see this win as a negative. We were honestly giving that game away at the end. If we had struggled, scrapped back in, and taken control at the end, I think the early struggles in the game could be brushed off. The way we handed the game to SF at the end would leave a bad taste in an analyst's mouth IMO.
So what do you guys think? If someone is truly objectively watching every game, did that win have an overall negative effect on the viewer?
one of the math guys, sugar or blackhart, have formulas that do this. Louisville was our 2nd best effort behind ND last they were posted.
No win on the road in the Big East has a negative effect.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 10, 2011, 02:10:47 PM
No win on the road in the Big East has a negative effect.
You took the words out of my mouth.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 10, 2011, 02:10:47 PM
No win on the road in the Big East has a negative effect.
No one can disagree with that. But man... 0-6 from FT in that situation of the game is more to do with poor performance than road environment.
Impossible for the committee members to have seen each game of every team to go about it that way. They see wins and losses, catch bits and pieces of games throughout the year, and then use all of the formulas (RPI, SOS, Scurve) to figure out the rest. So no, I don't think last nights game was a negative. I mean, other than MU or USF fans, who in their right minds would have watched that trainwreck?
Quote from: ErickJD08 on February 10, 2011, 02:13:16 PM
No one can disagree with that. But man... 0-6 from FT in that situation of the game is more to do with poor performance than road environment.
Every team has ugly wins like this. The committee isn't going to isolate this game in detail, or a stretch where they miss six straight free throws, and use that as a determinant either way.
Quote from: OhioGoldenEagle on February 10, 2011, 02:15:28 PM
I mean, other than MU or USF fans, who in their right minds would have watched that trainwreck?
John Smoltz.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on February 10, 2011, 02:05:54 PM
I think UL, ND, and UConn loses will look favorable even though they were losses. I think we played very well and were in positions to beat very good teams. Even though we won last night, I think the committee would see this win as a negative. We were honestly giving that game away at the end. If we had struggled, scrapped back in, and taken control at the end, I think the early struggles in the game could be brushed off. The way we handed the game to SF at the end would leave a bad taste in an analyst's mouth IMO.
So what do you guys think? If someone is truly objectively watching every game, did that win have an overall negative effect on the viewer?
If they do the per-game evaluation you suggest, there is no way the UL game will look favorable.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 10, 2011, 02:44:05 PM
If they do the per-game evaluation you suggest, there is no way the UL game will look favorable.
It will if they only look at the first 34 minutes ;D
I think all our games this year would be favorable to the selection commitee. As a commitee member I would jump at the chance to take a bubble team that lets teams back in when they are winning and refuses to lose by double digits. Regardless if that team wins or loses it will be an entertaining game and draw ratings.
I wouldn't worry about it. With Syracuse-G'town, ND-UofL, and UNC-Duke all going on, nobody saw the MU game.
Still if you believe that MU played about as bad as they can play, and won a conference game on the road, I don't know that you can conclude that it paints them as anything other than a good team. Obviously, if they pull that against a good team, they get smoked and none of it matters, but last night, one of the top offensive teams in the nation, shot 39% from the floor, 37% from the line and got out with a win. Fact is, had it been, Pitt, Villanova, or ND, the same people who are bitching and moaning today, would be talking about how stealng that win is what good teams do, or what a great coaching job Dixon, Wright, etc. had done.
#1a - Nobody watches college basketball objectively.
#1b - Nobody watches every college basketball game.
#1c - Nobody objectively watches every college basketball game.
#2 - When the committee says they "evaluate every game," I highly doubt they dissect the entire game, or even the last two minutes. They'll look at the score, the location, the injury report, etc... macro-type stuff. They're not going to look at stat-sheets, shooting percentages, bad officiating, etc... ticky-tack stuff that can go either way on any given night.
Let's put it this way.... if MU is left out of the dance because they missed 7 straight free-throws at the end of a game but still won, then no one on the committee must be taking their job seriously.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 10, 2011, 03:13:11 PM
I wouldn't worry about it. With Syracuse-G'town, ND-UofL, and UNC-Duke all going on, nobody saw the MU game.
Still if you believe that MU played about as bad as they can play, and won a conference game on the road, I don't know that you can conclude that it paints them as anything other than a good team. Obviously, if they pull that against a good team, they get smoked and none of it matters, but last night, one of the top offensive teams in the nation, shot 39% from the floor, 37% from the line and got out with a win. Fact is, had it been, Pitt, Villanova, or ND, the same people who are bitching and moaning today, would be talking about how stealng that win is what good teams do, or what a great coaching job Dixon, Wright, etc. had done.
I agree. But if a nonbiased person watched the first 38:00 minutes of the game, they would probably conclude that we were a better team that struggled the first half. And the last two minutes, it would leave someone with the thought that USF was just really bad and we weren't that much better.
Quote from: Benny B on February 10, 2011, 03:27:14 PM
#1a - Nobody watches college basketball objectively.
#1b - Nobody watches every college basketball game.
#1c - Nobody objectively watches every college basketball game.
#2 - When the committee says they "evaluate every game," I highly doubt they dissect the entire game, or even the last two minutes. They'll look at the score, the location, the injury report, etc... macro-type stuff. They're not going to look at stat-sheets, shooting percentages, bad officiating, etc... ticky-tack stuff that can go either way on any given night.
Let's put it this way.... if MU is left out of the dance because they missed 7 straight free-throws at the end of a game but still won, then no one on the committee must be taking their job seriously.
If you have nothing to add to a thread... why are you posting? The thread asks a hypothetical. Discounting that the hypothetical is not plausible adds nothing.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on February 10, 2011, 03:32:32 PM
If you have nothing to add to a thread... why are you posting? The thread asks a hypothetical. Discounting that the hypothetical is not plausible adds nothing.
Whoa - somebody takes their topics too seriously. I don't know if I should laugh, or be in shock.
I know this guy that knows how to swear in several languages - maybe I should have you talk to him. He knows how to chill.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on February 10, 2011, 03:32:32 PM
If you have nothing to add to a thread... why are you posting? The thread asks a hypothetical. Discounting that the hypothetical is not plausible adds nothing.
I was going to ask, "if you're going to post a thread that poses a hypothetical that has no basis in reality...why are you posting the thread?" but I decided that would be rude. You can post whatever you like.
<Here's where the little winking guy would be if I didn't refuse to use little winking guys.>
It's not a hypothetical. All they have to do, to compare every team's performance, in every game, is to look at the sagarin rankings.
There is a cracked sidewalks thing on it right now.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on February 10, 2011, 03:32:32 PM
If you have nothing to add to a thread... why are you posting? The thread asks a hypothetical. Discounting that the hypothetical is not plausible adds nothing.
My bad - I've been deposed enough times in my life to know that I should always answer 'yes' or 'no' when counsel asks a question.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on February 10, 2011, 03:32:32 PMSo what do you guys think? If someone is truly objectively watching every game, did that win have an overall negative effect on the viewer?
No.
Quote from: Benny B on February 11, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
My bad - I've been deposed enough times in my life to know that I should always answer 'yes' or 'no' when counsel asks a question.
No.
Well done...
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 10, 2011, 04:13:45 PM<Here's where the little winking guy would be if I didn't refuse to use little winking guys.>
;)
I got your back, Still. Winking guy accomplished, your devotion to not using smilies intact :D