MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: wadesworld on February 28, 2019, 08:26:08 AM
-
Things this team can still achieve without any help from other teams:
1) Outright Big East regular season title
2) Big East Tournament title
3) Deep NCAA Tournament run
We knocked off Nova at home to pull within a game and thought our only chance at a Big East title was to win out and split the title with Nova. Then we got the help we needed from St. John's, Georgetown, and Xavier. Let's not return the favor to Nova and take it to the Blue Jays Sunday. Biggest game of the year. Needed a prayer to be answered at their place. Come out focused early on and take it to them.
-
Was unable to watch the game last night due to a family emergency, but looking at the box, and recap it seems like we hung in there pretty well, and just went cold down the stretch. It happens. Still a lot to love about this team and still a lot to look forward to, but we haven't won anything yet. Stay focused and rebound well (both figuratively and literally) on Sunday.
-
Everything is still in front of us, except for all the long rebounds from Nova's awful shooting. Those are behind us.
-
Expected to lose last night. Take care of business at home and no worse than a shared Big East championship. Win the next three, outright.
-
Expected to lose last night. Take care of business at home and no worse than a shared Big East championship. Win the next three, outright.
I agree but these 3 remaining games are no gimmies. I do see them losing one of creighton or @ seton hall. If Creighton gets hot from 3 they are tough to beat. Seton Hall could be playing for the tournament life against MU or Nova.
The problem is that if we tie for a big east title then we most likely lose the tire breaker because ST. Johns will be 3rd.
-
Woooah the only game that matters is Georgetown. Let's focus on that. There is no big east tournament yet
-
Woooah the only game that matters is Georgetown. Let's focus on that. There is no big east tournament yet
Huh? Uhh, no, the biggest game of the season is Sunday, against Creighton, as stated in the post...
-
Expected to lose last night. Take care of business at home and no worse than a shared Big East championship. Win the next three, outright.
I figured going in we were probably going to lose too, but Nova shot so poorly (missed a ton of open shots) we really missed a golden opportunity. Frustrating but not at all devastating.
-
Disappointing way to lose last night scoring 1 pt in the final 6 ish minutes after coming back from down 12 early
But this was always a loss in my mind so didnt change anything.
Win at home and don’t come out flat vs SHU. 15-3 is fantastic.
-
I just can't help but think they would have won that game if they had thought it was the most important game of the season at least a week in advance. It is a shame really.
-
MU and Nova both have away games against Seton Hall. Neither will be easy for the visitors.
-
Sadly, I am off to China for a couple of weeks and will be missing final regular season games. Hoping the boys deliver the goods and keep it going a bit longer. No doubt, everything is still in front of them. Avoid bad match ups in March and they can be playing for awhile.
-
I agree but these 3 remaining games are no gimmies. I do see them losing one of creighton or @ seton hall. If Creighton gets hot from 3 they are tough to beat. Seton Hall could be playing for the tournament life against MU or Nova.
The problem is that if we tie for a big east title then we most likely lose the tire breaker because ST. Johns will be 3rd.
I wouldn't be so sure about this..They are currently 8-7 with games remaining vs Xavier(tonight), at DePaul and @ Xavier. SJU is currently 8-7.
Georgetown, Xavier and the Hall are all 7-8. The race for 3rd is wide open. The way X is playing right now, I wouldn't be shocked in the least if they beat SJU tonight. Obviously, Nova has losses vs GT and Xavier, where as MU swept X and has beaten GT the one time they have played so far(as well as SH). So if X finishes third MU wins that tiebreaker, if GT finishes 3rd(ASSUMING they beat GT again), MU wins that tiebreaker. If MU beats SH again, as does nova, then it would depend on how the rest of the standings shook out. Say for instance Hall ends up 3rd, followed by GT and X, then SJU. MU would win the tiebreaker.
Basically that's a long way of saying, as long as someone passes SJU for 3rd(which is quite possible), MU Can't lose the tiebreaker if that's "X", Can't lose the tiebreaker if it's GT(again assuming they beat them at home), and quite possibly wouldn't lose that tiebreaker if it's SH either(that's assuming Nova and MU finish with same record against SH).
-
Things this team can still achieve without any help from other teams:
1) Outright Big East regular season title
2) Big East Tournament title
3) Deep NCAA Tournament run
We knocked off Nova at home to pull within a game and thought our only chance at a Big East title was to win out and split the title with Nova. Then we got the help we needed from St. John's, Georgetown, and Xavier. Let's not return the favor to Nova and take it to the Blue Jays Sunday. Biggest game of the year. Needed a prayer to be answered at their place. Come out focused early on and take it to them.
Would not say EVERYTHING is still in front of MU...the things you cite most definitely are..However the one thing I do think it closed the book on is a #2 seed in the NCAA's. I think that dream(no matter how unlikely it was), is totally over, barring some super crazy turns of events the last couple weeks of the season.
-
Would not say EVERYTHING is still in front of MU...the things you cite most definitely are..However the one thing I do think it closed the book on is a #2 seed in the NCAA's. I think that dream(no matter how unlikely it was), is totally over, barring some super crazy turns of events the last couple weeks of the season.
True. But I’ll take a 3 seed. Hell give me a 4 (I don’t want it. But I said “hey GURU! Want a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney this year?”
You would have said NO I WANT A 1 SEED LOSING IS BULLSHWA! But then you would have taken a 4 seed cause you’re a very smart man)
-
True. But I’ll take a 3 seed. Hell give me a 4 (I don’t want it. But I said “hey GURU! Want a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney this year?”
You would have said NO I WANT A 1 SEED LOSING IS BULLSHWA! But then you would have taken a 4 seed cause you’re a very smart man)
What's sad about you saying a 4...Is with as much as I don't trust the committee, That loss last night is EXACTLY the thing in my opinion the committee would use to drop MU to a 4 seed. MU is the type of team that they would punish for one loss like that, whereas the Michigan's, MSU's, Duke's of the world could lose the rest of their games and not drop a seed line. I hate it, but that's the way it is...it shouldn't be though.
-
I am thinking 4 cause I do suspect we somehow pick up another random loss.
I think after last night we are still a 3. Likely the 3rd or 4th 3 however with how Texas Tech has been playing. Sadly we coulda used a Tennessee and Texas Tech loss last night.
-
We'll end up a 4. We'll drop one more conference game and probably lose in the semis in NYC, which means we'll be 26-7 going to the dance. I think 4 is about right.
-
I am thinking 4 cause I do suspect we somehow pick up another random loss.
I think after last night we are still a 3. Likely the 3rd or 4th 3 however with how Texas Tech has been playing. Sadly we coulda used a Tennessee and Texas Tech loss last night.
You may be right...but with as little faith as I have in the committee, even if MU wins out the rest of the way(which I actually think they will do), that loss last night was all they needed to drop MU to a 4. A 4 would absolutely suck...like Big time...big difference between playing a 6 seed and a 5 seed in the 2nd round, and that's not even mentioning, should they advance to the second weekend, then you play #1, and with MU that would probably be out east vs Duke. Yeah...suck suck sucks.
-
You may be right...but with as little faith as I have in the committee, even if MU wins out the rest of the way(which I actually think they will do), that loss last night was all they needed to drop MU to a 4. A 4 would absolutely suck...like Big time...big difference between playing a 6 seed and a 5 seed in the 2nd round, and that's not even mentioning, should they advance to the second weekend, then you play #1, and with MU that would probably be out east vs Duke. Yeah...suck suck sucks.
Why do you think the committee is in on some big conspiracy against us? What year (1970 excluded) do you think that we got robbed of a seed we deserved? We've gotten some unlucky locations (2017, 2012, 2009), but I can't remember a time when I thought that we got screwed over in a seeding sense.
-
There is no anti-Marquette conspiracy. If we win out and Texas Tech wins out then maybe we drop to a 4 seed. If we win out and Texas Tech loses one more game, we are still a 3 seed. Everyone else mentioned by the committee in the top 16 reveal has lost either multiple games or had a worse loss than @Nova. 2-seed is going to be very difficult at this point but it is still possible.
-
Why do you think the committee is in on some big conspiracy against us? What year (1970 excluded) do you think that we got robbed of a seed we deserved? We've gotten some unlucky locations (2017, 2012, 2009), but I can't remember a time when I thought that we got screwed over in a seeding sense.
It's not just with MU, I just don't trust them as a whole. And yes, I have NOT at all liked where they have sent MU most years. I can't say I have necessarily had a problem with MU's seeds, but what is just as important, if not more so, is what matchup(s) do you have?? That's what I haven't liked...It hasn't seemed to matter what seed MU has been, but it always seems like they have gotten the WORST possible match up(or best team), on the corresponding seed line. That's what has irritated the crap out of me...A few years ago, as a #10 seed, playing a #7 in their back yard(essentially), As a 5 seed with Jae Crowder getting Murray State, Having to play Utah State out west as the higher seed. The year McNeal got hurt, drawing easily the toughest 8 seed in Michigan State. I would like just for once to have a 1st round game/matchup that is favorable to them so it's much more relaxing.
-
It's not just with MU, I just don't trust them as a whole. And yes, I have NOT at all liked where they have sent MU most years.
Fine. What major seeding travesty has occurred recently that would lead you to not trust the selection committee as a whole?
Or are you just upset because you don't know their exact methodology? How much did/do they value RPI/NET? How big of a difference is a Q1A vs Q1B win/loss? What makes a bigger impact an extra Q3 loss, or an extra Q1 win? Is there any validity to the 20 win "magic number"? These are all fair question, but they can't exactly come out an answer them, for obvious reasons.
-
It's also not the committee's job to look at matchups. They make an S curve and tweak it slightly to account for locations, conference balance and rematches. They don't look and say "this team struggles with long athletic teams, lets give them a favorable or non-favorable matchup because of that".
We beat Murray State, and Utah State, and we lost to South Carolina by 20. In none of those games did the location of the game effect the final outcome.
-
It's also not the committee's job to look at matchups. They make an S curve and tweak it slightly to account for locations, conference balance and rematches. They don't look and say "this team struggles with long athletic teams, lets give them a favorable or non-favorable matchup because of that".
We beat Murray State, and Utah State, and we lost to South Carolina by 20. In none of those games did the location of the game effect the final outcome.
Huh?
Columbia SC is a home game for USC. I beg to differ.
-
Huh?
Columbia SC is a home game for USC. I beg to differ.
So you think that if we played on a true neutral court instead of an essential road game, a 20 point swing occurs? That loss was because our defense was atrocious (as usual that year) and Sindarius Thornwell went crazy. Our "potent offense" only scoring 4 points the last 6 minutes didn't help much either.
-
It's not just with MU, I just don't trust them as a whole. And yes, I have NOT at all liked where they have sent MU most years. I can't say I have necessarily had a problem with MU's seeds, but what is just as important, if not more so, is what matchup(s) do you have?? That's what I haven't liked...It hasn't seemed to matter what seed MU has been, but it always seems like they have gotten the WORST possible match up(or best team), on the corresponding seed line. That's what has irritated the crap out of me...A few years ago, as a #10 seed, playing a #7 in their back yard(essentially), As a 5 seed with Jae Crowder getting Murray State, Having to play Utah State out west as the higher seed. The year McNeal got hurt, drawing easily the toughest 8 seed in Michigan State. I would like just for once to have a 1st round game/matchup that is favorable to them so it's much more relaxing.
MU Murray state was a 3-6 matchup. MU was the 3 seed.
-
MU Murray state was a 3-6 matchup. MU was the 3 seed.
That's one of those basketball things he was so excited to tell us he's forgotten
-
It's also not the committee's job to look at matchups. They make an S curve and tweak it slightly to account for locations, conference balance and rematches. They don't look and say "this team struggles with long athletic teams, lets give them a favorable or non-favorable matchup because of that".
We beat Murray State, and Utah State, and we lost to South Carolina by 20. In none of those games did the location of the game effect the final outcome.
To be fair Murray state was like an hour from them IIRC
And Washington might've been helped by location
-
To be fair Murray state was like an hour from them IIRC
My point is that location has yet to affect the outcome of one of our tourney games. We were favored to beat Murray State in Lexington, we beat them in Lexington. We were favored to beat Utah State in Boise, we beat them in Boise. We were dogs against South Carolina in South Carolina, we got blown out, and playing that somewhere more "neutral" would not have made up the 20 that we lost by.
Just looking at Lunardi's current bracket we'd be playing Vermont in Hartford. Strictly geographically speaking, its a big advantage Vermont. If that match-up were to occur and we were to get upset, would the location be an excuse? Maybe, but a pretty piss poor one IMO. If we get sent West and face a team that is geographically further west than us (UC Irvine is currently on the 14 line so it's possible), would we be able to use location as an excuse? No. Fans that have the means to travel to tourney games care a lot more than the actual teams IMO. Do teams care? Yes, but no one is going to expect any sympathy is they get a less than favorable location.
-
My point is that location has yet to affect the outcome of one of our tourney games. We were favored to beat Murray State in Lexington, we beat them in Lexington. We were favored to beat Utah State in Boise, we beat them in Boise. We were dogs against South Carolina in South Carolina, we got blown out, and playing that somewhere more "neutral" would not have made up the 20 that we lost by.
Just looking at Lunardi's current bracket we'd be playing Vermont in Hartford. Strictly geographically speaking, its a big advantage Vermont. If that match-up were to occur and we were to get upset, would the location be an excuse? Maybe, but a pretty piss poor one IMO. If we get sent West and face a team that is geographically further west than us (UC Irvine is currently on the 14 line so it's possible), would we be able to use location as an excuse? No. Fans that have the means to travel to tourney games care a lot more than the actual teams IMO. Do teams care? Yes, but no one is going to expect any sympathy is they get a less than favorable location.
But as a top 4 seed you are "protected" and you are supposed to be placed as close to home as possible. Hartford is nowhere near close to home. Even lower seeds get that advantage one in awhile. Tired of them playing so far away that MU can't travel as good as they could. There are 3 relatively decently close sites this year...Des Moines, Columbus and to a lessor extent Tulsa..Let's put MU at one of those sites this year, instead of shipping them out to one of the coasts like usually happens..If they can't somehow do that, then at the very least, give them the Midwest Regional, so if they do make it to the 2nd weekend, they get to go to Kansas City..I mean, that should be a "trade off" that I'm sure they could accommodate if they had to. Make it one of the principals..If a team with a top 4 PROTECTED seed doesn't get a favorable location for the 1st and 2nd rounds, then said team shall be accommodated by placing that team as close to home as possible for the Regional rounds. Sure, you still have to win your way there, but at least it's better than starting in Hartford for example, and then going Back out East to DC for the Regional round.
IF they absolutely HAVE to place them in Hartford...then put them in the Midwest regional...that seems reasonable and fair for a team that is supposed to be a "protected" seed.
-
It's also not the committee's job to look at matchups. They make an S curve and tweak it slightly to account for locations, conference balance and rematches. They don't look and say "this team struggles with long athletic teams, lets give them a favorable or non-favorable matchup because of that".
We beat Murray State, and Utah State, and we lost to South Carolina by 20. In none of those games did the location of the game effect the final outcome.
It's not their job, but these are humans, and I am willing to bet good money it DOES occur. Everyone and their brother seem to agree that they look for "storylines". Well..if that's the case and you can make a valid argument it is, then they MUST be looking at matchups to some extent, right?? Those storylines we seemingly see every year don't just "happen" because that's the way the S-Curve fell. I'm not buying that for one second.
-
Guru, it sounds like you're just drawing arbitrary lines so that you can find something to complain about. You complain about getting MSU in the 8/9 game, well 8/9s are supposed to be toss ups so saying you drew the short straw there is really just complaining to complain. And you admit that they look for stories, well then Crean vs Izzo was a good one, the same way Wojo vs K would have been a good one if we didn't get trounced by SCAR.
Do you think that after their upset last year any UVA fans were thinking, "Man UMBC was just a bad match-up for us, how could the committee do that to us, if we had gotten Radford instead, we would have been fine"? (BTW have no idea about the resume comparison between UMBC and Radford, just saw that they were another 16). Of course not. You have said, over and over again that talent should win the majority of games (@Gtown) and that there are no excuses if the team with more talent doesn't win (@Gtown). So why are you now already making excuses (and pretty weak ones at that) for if we do lose to a team that we shouldn't in the tourney?
I get that you want Des Moines so that more MU fans can go to the game, but if you're already saying that the system is rigged if we draw Hartford against a team further East than us, I think your tin foil hat might be on too tight.
-
Disappointing way to lose last night scoring 1 pt in the final 6 ish minutes after coming back from down 12 early
But this was always a loss in my mind so didnt change anything.
Win at home and don’t come out flat vs SHU. 15-3 is fantastic.
Why did we only score 1 point in final 6 minutes. Something is wrong there. Lets hear the excuses.
-
Yes, everything is still in front of us, including the freight train coming in the other direction. Question still is there: Can we win the Beast regular season title and get the #1 seed.
-
Guru, it sounds like you're just drawing arbitrary lines so that you can find something to complain about. You complain about getting MSU in the 8/9 game, well 8/9s are supposed to be toss ups so saying you drew the short straw there is really just complaining to complain. And you admit that they look for stories, well then Crean vs Izzo was a good one, the same way Wojo vs K would have been a good one if we didn't get trounced by SCAR.
Do you think that after their upset last year any UVA fans were thinking, "Man UMBC was just a bad match-up for us, how could the committee do that to us, if we had gotten Radford instead, we would have been fine"? (BTW have no idea about the resume comparison between UMBC and Radford, just saw that they were another 16). Of course not. You have said, over and over again that talent should win the majority of games (@Gtown) and that there are no excuses if the team with more talent doesn't win (@Gtown). So why are you now already making excuses (and pretty weak ones at that) for if we do lose to a team that we shouldn't in the tourney?
I get that you want Des Moines so that more MU fans can go to the game, but if you're already saying that the system is rigged if we draw Hartford against a team further East than us, I think your tin foil hat might be on too tight.
Talent should win, that's never a question, but MU fans have gotten shafted so much with the places they have had to travel for the NCAA's....it's time for them to be rewarded, and this year is that time. Especially when you have a seed that is presumable going to be protected...follow your rules and procedures and Give a protected site (like your rules say) to a top 4 seed. You cited lunardi's bracket earlier and that is a great HYPOTHETICAL to use...I could care less if MU plays Vermont in Hartford, they'd wax them...and I don't care if Vermont was playing some other 3 seed as a 14(no matter what they'll get waxed), my problem is...why in the hell is a 14 seed getting a location that close to home when you are sending a 3 seed out to Hartford?? MAKE IT WORK. Another hypothetical...How would it be right for say a 7th seeded Iowa State(they will be higher but it's hypothetical), to play in Des Moines vs a 2nd seeded Kentucky?? Lower seeds should NEVER get a game in their home state, THAT should be a rule. We see it all the time where a lower seeded team gets a site closer to home then a higher seed in a different pod got. I have a problem with that.
-
Guru, it sounds like you're just drawing arbitrary lines so that you can find something to complain about. You complain about getting MSU in the 8/9 game, well 8/9s are supposed to be toss ups so saying you drew the short straw there is really just complaining to complain. And you admit that they look for stories, well then Crean vs Izzo was a good one, the same way Wojo vs K would have been a good one if we didn't get trounced by SCAR.
Do you think that after their upset last year any UVA fans were thinking, "Man UMBC was just a bad match-up for us, how could the committee do that to us, if we had gotten Radford instead, we would have been fine"? (BTW have no idea about the resume comparison between UMBC and Radford, just saw that they were another 16). Of course not. You have said, over and over again that talent should win the majority of games (@Gtown) and that there are no excuses if the team with more talent doesn't win (@Gtown). So why are you now already making excuses (and pretty weak ones at that) for if we do lose to a team that we shouldn't in the tourney?
I get that you want Des Moines so that more MU fans can go to the game, but if you're already saying that the system is rigged if we draw Hartford against a team further East than us, I think your tin foil hat might be on too tight.
You make my point...you think the Izzo vs Crean match up just happened?? or the potential Wojo vs K just "happened"?? Absolutely NOT, they PURPOSELY look for those things, which means they look at match ups.
-
Why did we only score 1 point in final 6 minutes. Something is wrong there. Lets hear the excuses.
We didnt.
-
Talent should win, that's never a question, but MU fans have gotten shafted so much with the places they have had to travel for the NCAA's....it's time for them to be rewarded, and this year is that time. Especially when you have a seed that is presumable going to be protected...follow your rules and procedures and Give a protected site (like your rules say) to a top 4 seed. You cited lunardi's bracket earlier and that is a great HYPOTHETICAL to use...I could care less if MU plays Vermont in Hartford, they'd wax them...and I don't care if Vermont was playing some other 3 seed as a 14(no matter what they'll get waxed), my problem is...why in the hell is a 14 seed getting a location that close to home when you are sending a 3 seed out to Hartford?? MAKE IT WORK. Another hypothetical...How would it be right for say a 7th seeded Iowa State(they will be higher but it's hypothetical), to play in Des Moines vs a 2nd seeded Kentucky?? Lower seeds should NEVER get a game in their home state, THAT should be a rule. We see it all the time where a lower seeded team gets a site closer to home then a higher seed in a different pod got. I have a problem with that.
You say that it doesn't matter where MU would play Vermont, that MU would win. Then why do you care where they play? I for one couldn't care less where the a game takes place as long as Marquette wins, we could play all of our tournament games on the moon if it meant that we'd win 6 in a row. I'm sure the only stat a competitor like you cares about the final score. You cited both Utah St, and Murray St earlier, and I know I don't have to remind you that we won those games. You're literally complaining about Marquette NCAA tournament victories, that is the part of this that is just baffling to me. For someone that only seems to look at the final score, you sure seem to care a lot about where the game took place.
You claim that you don't trust the committee, you claim that it's only because of location rather than seed, you cite three games in the last decade where we've played at a potential significant disadvantage because of location. All three games followed chalk, with us winning 2, and losing 1 in a blowout. If our loss to SCAR had some serious home cooking, or was even a single digit margin, you may have a point, but you have yet to give an example where the location of the game (which you said is the only reason why you don't trust the committee) actually effected the outcome. That is why it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.
-
We didnt.
Excuses, excuses!
-
You say that it doesn't matter where MU would play Vermont, that MU would win. Then why do you care where they play? I for one couldn't care less where the a game takes place as long as Marquette wins, we could play all of our tournament games on the moon if it meant that we'd win 6 in a row. I'm sure the only stat a competitor like you cares about the final score. You cited both Utah St, and Murray St earlier, and I know I don't have to remind you that we won those games. You're literally complaining about Marquette NCAA tournament victories, that is the part of this that is just baffling to me. For someone that only seems to look at the final score, you sure seem to care a lot about where the game took place.
You claim that you don't trust the committee, you claim that it's only because of location rather than seed, you cite three games in the last decade where we've played at a potential significant disadvantage because of location. All three games followed chalk, with us winning 2, and losing 1 in a blowout. If our loss to SCAR had some serious home cooking, or was even a single digit margin, you may have a point, but you have yet to give an example where the location of the game (which you said is the only reason why you don't trust the committee) actually effected the outcome. That is why it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.
Okay whatever DJ...you don't have an issue with a top 4 PROTECTED seed(like MU will be this year), getting sent somewhere nowhere close to home when rules/procedures state they are supposed to play as close to home as possible. Or a lower seed playing close to home when there is ZERO reason that should ever happen. None whatsoever. Yes, all I care about is MU winning the games, but..I want them to beat who they play, every game, and I want them to have every possible advantage they can on their way. When I have some time tomorrow, I will go through some past tournaments and give you some examples of overseeded,/underseeded teams in the past(not just MU). One that stands out to me, and as much as it pains me to say it...what about Wisconsin a couple of years ago when they were an 8. Pretty much EVERYONE agreed they were underseeded .
Two that also jump out to me just last year...TCU had NO BUSINESS being a 6 seed last year, and Tennessee had no business being a 3 seed.
-
Except for the games we’ve already played
-
Okay whatever DJ...you don't have an issue with a top 4 PROTECTED seed(like MU will be this year), getting sent somewhere nowhere close to home when rules/procedures state they are supposed to play as close to home as possible. Or a lower seed playing close to home when there is ZERO reason that should ever happen. None whatsoever. Yes, all I care about is MU winning the games, but..I want them to beat who they play, every game, and I want them to have every possible advantage they can on their way. When I have some time tomorrow, I will go through some past tournaments and give you some examples of overseeded,/underseeded teams in the past(not just MU). One that stands out to me, and as much as it pains me to say it...what about Wisconsin a couple of years ago when they were an 8. Pretty much EVERYONE agreed they were underseeded .
Two that also jump out to me just last year...TCU had NO BUSINESS being a 6 seed last year, and Tennessee had no business being a 3 seed.
You do know that the top 16 teams in the country are not evenly distributed geographically right? Just because you get a "protected seed" does not mean that you are guaranteed to be playing in you backyard. 4 "protected seeds" will be in San Jose/SLC, and there is really only 1 team projected to get a "protected seed" that would benefit from playing in those locations. That means that three "protected seeds" will be unhappy going out west, and you know what, one of them may be drawn against a New Mexico State, or Washington, and that sucks for them, but that does not mean that there was some conspiracy against them.
-
You do know that the top 16 teams in the country are not evenly distributed geographically right? Just because you get a "protected seed" does not mean that you are guaranteed to be playing in you backyard. 4 "protected seeds" will be in San Jose/SLC, and there is really only 1 team projected to get a "protected seed" that would benefit from playing in those locations. That means that three "protected seeds" will be unhappy going out west, and you know what, one of them may be drawn against a New Mexico State, or Washington, and that sucks for them, but that does not mean that there was some conspiracy against them.
Whatever, you are a tool...SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING WAS A CONSPIRACY?? I did not. I simply said, I do NOT trust the committee to get it right with seeding, location, teams etc. And time and time again, they have proven to not get it right all the time. So you trust a bunch of humans to get it right every single time. That's your prerogative. It's my prerogative to NOt trust them to get it right every single time, is that fair??
-
Whatever, you are a tool...SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING WAS A CONSPIRACY?? I did not. I simply said, I do NOT trust the committee to get it right with seeding, location, teams etc. And time and time again, they have proven to not get it right all the time. So you trust a bunch of humans to get it right every single time. That's your prerogative. It's my prerogative to NOt trust them to get it right every single time, is that fair??
No I don't trust people to get things right every single time, because many times there is no right solution.
This year will be a perfect example of that. There are zero potential brackets that allow all 16 "protected seeds" to play close to home. That's just the way it worked out this year. Someone will be SOL and will have to play a game on the west coast. You seem to think that there is some magic solution that makes everyone happy when that is simply not the case. If you want to blame anyone, blame the PAC12.
-
Huh? Uhh, no, the biggest game of the season is Sunday, against Creighton, as stated in the post...
I'm really trying not to continue giving you crap for this repetition. How about you stick with Rocky's suggestion of just letting it go so the rest of us can do the same? 👍🏼
-
What's sad about you saying a 4...Is with as much as I don't trust the committee, That loss last night is EXACTLY the thing in my opinion the committee would use to drop MU to a 4 seed. MU is the type of team that they would punish for one loss like that, whereas the Michigan's, MSU's, Duke's of the world could lose the rest of their games and not drop a seed line. I hate it, but that's the way it is...it shouldn't be though.
While not using the words "conspiracy theory", this line of thinking suggests that BBs get prefferential treatment, when in reality, they just have better resumes. Mich, MSU, and Duke all have more Q1A wins than MU.
-
While not using the words "conspiracy theory", this line of thinking suggests that BBs get prefferential treatment, when in reality, they just have better resumes. Mich, MSU, and Duke all have more Q1A wins than MU.
I get that, but that should NOT forgive them for losses like it seemingly will do. You can have 9 Q1 wins, but if you lose to say Penn St, Indiana, TCU, or whoever, a loss is a loss, and all teams should be treated equally as such. Not so far as who you lost to(some are better then others), but if one team is gonna get dinged for a loss, then so to should another for an "equal" loss.
Q1A should NEVER be a thing...it's biased towards the conferences like the ACC etc that have many more opportunities for Q1A wins then other conferences do. So, if that is always going to be the biggest factor for selection committee's, then schools that aren't in the ACC, SEC etc aren't playing on a level field and never will be. For example, Duke could theoretically get 2 Q1A wins in a WEEK. Butler, MU Xavier etc, may not have a chance to get that many in a year.
Now if we narrow it down to just Q1 wins(which is the proper way to do it in my opinion), then MU has more Q1 wins then Purdue, Michigan, UNC, Tennessee, Gonzaga and the same amount as Duke. They have to have some sort of "check and balance" to differentiate and understand that some schools just don;t have the same chances for Q1A wins. So...keep in mind they changed this really when no one was paying attention, and the question is why?? They had it Q1, Q2, etc. Why the need to define them even further?? Maybe, because, the playing field becomes more equal if you just leave it the way it was(the example of MU having more Q1 wins then the schools I listed above), and god forbid the committee have to explain why someone with more Q1 teams then someone got seeded two lines lower. This way they can just say more Q1A wins(even though they may not have as many overall Q1 wins. That's a cop out.
-
Dude, I tried to follow your train of thought, I really did, but I got completely lost trying to decipher your last paragraph.
The ACC is a better conference than the Big East so of course there are going to be more opportunities for Q1A games, the teams still have to win them though. We had an opportunity for a Q1A win literally yesterday, and we didn't rise to the occasion.
If you get rid of the Q1A/Q1B split then our win @Butler would be seen the same way as Duke's win @Virginia, they'd both be Q1. Personally I think Duke's win @Virginia is better than our win @Butler so it makes sense that they would get a bigger resume boost than us. Big enough to make up for a home loss to Syracuse even. Mich blowout win @Nova (who just beat us BTW) more than makes up for a loss @PennSt. MSU win @Mich more than makes up for a loss to I4 (who beat us by 23 BTW).
While not benefiting us a ton this year, I fully believe that the Q1A/Q1B split was beneficial in more accurately determining the quality of teams resumes.
-
What's sad about you saying a 4...Is with as much as I don't trust the committee, That loss last night is EXACTLY the thing in my opinion the committee would use to drop MU to a 4 seed. MU is the type of team that they would punish for one loss like that, whereas the Michigan's, MSU's, Duke's of the world could lose the rest of their games and not drop a seed line. I hate it, but that's the way it is...it shouldn't be though.
Can’t disagree with this. Unfortunately it’s going to be a while before MU receives the same benefit of the doubt as the Blue Bloods. Perhaps if we have comparably spectacular seasons for the next 5 years in a row we might be on the precipice of Blue Blood status, But if history is any guide, coach probably wouldn’t stay here after achieving that level of success. Wish it weren’t the case but until our program defies its own history, Porky will continue to share Guru’s cynicism.
-
Dude, I tried to follow your train of thought, I really did, but I got completely lost trying to decipher your last paragraph.
The ACC is a better conference than the Big East so of course there are going to be more opportunities for Q1A games, the teams still have to win them though. We had an opportunity for a Q1A win literally yesterday, and we didn't rise to the occasion.
If you get rid of the Q1A/Q1B split then our win @Butler would be seen the same way as Duke's win @Virginia, they'd both be Q1. Personally I think Duke's win @Virginia is better than our win @Butler so it makes sense that they would get a bigger resume boost than us. Big enough to make up for a home loss to Syracuse even. Mich blowout win @Nova (who just beat us BTW) more than makes up for a loss @PennSt. MSU win @Mich more than makes up for a loss to I4 (who beat us by 23 BTW).
While not benefiting us a ton this year, I fully believe that the Q1A/Q1B split was beneficial in more accurately determining the quality of teams resumes.
But see my friend..this is why the committee cannot just use #'s for everything..and why I want the committee to always be made up of basketball people..former coaches and players..why? Because they can look past the #'s and use the eye test. Sure..the #'s might say a loss to school x isn't that bad with their shiny 60 NET ranking..however a basketball person can look at it more objectively and say "I know their computer numbers are decent..but this is a 12-15 basketball team and they aren't very good..that's a bad loss".
I mean you wanna know how flawed the NET is(and granted we don't know exactly how they use it or how important it is) but Oklahoma State went from 98..UP to 89 after LOSING last night..in OT to Texas Tech..explain that!
-
But see my friend..this is why the committee cannot just use #'s for everything..and why I want the committee to always be made up of basketball people..former coaches and players..why? Because they can look past the #'s and use the eye test. Sure..the #'s might say a loss to school x isn't that bad with their shiny 60 NET ranking..however a basketball person can look at it more objectively and say "I know their computer numbers are decent..but this is a 12-15 basketball team and they aren't very good..that's a bad loss".
I mean you wanna know how flawed the NET is(and granted we don't know exactly how they use it or how important it is) but Oklahoma State went from 98..UP to 89 after LOSING last night..in OT to Texas Tech..explain that!
Except, once again, not everyone's eye test is the same. Did your eye test tell you that Nova had lost three straight, or did it tell you that they hadn't lost at home in 3 months? I realize that you don't like computers but they have been right far more consistently than your eye test, which is different than my eye test, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC player, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC coach, which is different than the eye test of a former Big East coach. Do you see how your one stop solution to everything may not be perfect?
-
Except, once again, not everyone's eye test is the same. Did your eye test tell you that Nova had lost three straight, or did it tell you that they hadn't lost at home in 3 months? I realize that you don't like computers but they have been right far more consistently than your eye test, which is different than my eye test, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC player, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC coach, which is different than the eye test of a former Big East coach. Do you see how your one stop solution to everything may not be perfect?
I like computers...I'm on them constantly, I just think with regards to the NCAA tournament, you sometimes HAVE to look beyond the numbers at things..Numbers can say whatever you want them to say...you have to really look at WHY the #'s may say what they say...there are always anomalies and flaws. They have to ask themselves...for instance "Okay, the numbers say Penn State is the 48th best team in Pomeroy(this is just an example), and 60th in NET, which are both pretty good..But..in actuality, they are a 12-15 basketball team...so why are the #'s saying this about them"??
You want ONE way...one way that it would be right all the time?? Let me do it..I will put teams in the field, seed them, and follow all rules and procedures. ;D
But seriously though...I have often thought that,(and this is where I actually WANT computers to do it) because of the makeup of the committee and the human element, that if they could somehow come up with a program, that can "calculate" the necessary criteria(whatever it is...ie 20 wins, above .500 in conference etc) to let the computers pick and seed the teams. Everyone would know ahead of time...okay this is what you HAVE to have to be an NCAA tournament team..Then it's all above board, everyone knows what they need to do ahead of time etc.
For instance, you "run" the program, it spits out the teams in order of the most deserving teams(that meet ALL criteria), and they are seeded as such...So say, if it spits out MU as the #8 team, they are the last two seed etc. This way you take the potentially biased human element out of it. It's not the computers I have an issue with, it's the people interpreting the #'s, and How they are interpreting them, that I have questions about. You have to know why the #'s are telling you what they are..that's the bottom line.
Bryce Harper hit like .243 last year...the #'s say that's what he was last year..a .243 hitter. But are we to believe that as gospel, or do we need to dig deeper and figure out why it was that way??
-
So you don't like the current numbers systems....and say people need to look beyond the numbers....but you want to develop a different numbers system....and not allow people to look beyond those numbers and just do whatever the numbers say?
-
I agree with TAMU, I'm completely befuddled by your solution. You don't trust the NET but you want a computer program to do what the NET does just better, and you don't trust the committee but you want people that can look past the numbers. This is yet another reason why it certainly looks like you're complaining just for the sake of it.
I do look forward to your bracket though. Since your eye test is better than the committee's evaluation, I expect that you'll release your bracket before they release theirs so we can ensure that you didn't just copy their bracket, and switch up a few teams a la Jesse Newel's AP ballot.
-
I agree with TAMU, I'm completely befuddled by your solution. You don't trust the NET but you want a computer program to do what the NET does just better, and you don't trust the committee but you want people that can look past the numbers. This is yet another reason why it certainly looks like you're complaining just for the sake of it.
I do look forward to your bracket though. Since your eye test is better than the committee's evaluation, I expect that you'll release your bracket before they release theirs so we can ensure that you didn't just copy their bracket, and switch up a few teams a la Jesse Newel's AP ballot.
No..my problem is..you seemingly have ZERO issues every year with the committee..Think everything is legit, fair etc. They select the right teams, seed them correctly and place them correctly..that the #'s we see are completely accurate and tell us exactly what we should know about these teams. Got it.
Nice world you live in DJ..I think you're the one arguing just to argue..
-
No..my problem is..you seemingly have ZERO issues every year with the committee..Think everything is legit, fair etc. They select the right teams, seed them correctly and place them correctly..that the #'s we see are completely accurate and tell us exactly what we should know about these teams. Got it.
Nice world you live in DJ..I think you're the one arguing just to argue..
No. As I said earlier the committee absolutely does not always get everything right, largely due to the fact that it would be impossible to do so. It doesn't matter if the committee used RPI, NET, KenPom, or your patented eye test, there are some problems that just do not have a perfect solution. That is what it seems like you do not get.
Based on your eye test S-curve, which 3 "protected seeds" other than Gonzaga would be going to San Jose/SLC? Keep in mind that you have to follow all the rules and place teams as close to home as possible. Kinda hard when literally 15 of the current top 16 bracketmatrix seeds are east of the Rockies.
I don't have a problem with the committee sending someone west because I understand that someone has to go west. Not all 68 teams can play in Des Moines.
-
Guru, what is strange to me is that you're the one that kept saying "just win and just worry about MU, nothing else matters."
I think the points you are making here prove that no program lives in a bubble.
I'll turn your point of view around and say that, the committee and NET are not perfect, but if MU (or any school) takes care of business, they won't have to worry about being on the bubble or what their seed is. Just win and it'll all take care of itself April 8th.
-
Guru, what is strange to me is that you're the one that kept saying "just win and just worry about MU, nothing else matters."
I think the points you are making here prove that no program lives in a bubble.
I'll turn your point of view around and say that, the committee and NET are not perfect, but if MU (or any school) takes care of business, they won't have to worry about being on the bubble or what their seed is. Just win and it'll all take care of itself April 8th.
Oh I know, and believe me, I hope we NEVER see the day again where MU is on the bubble, or NIT(not in tournament). It's nice to know that before the season even starts, barring something disastrous, you are going to be safely in the field and are essentially playing the year for seeding. I want that to continue for a very long time.
-
No. As I said earlier the committee absolutely does not always get everything right, largely due to the fact that it would be impossible to do so. It doesn't matter if the committee used RPI, NET, KenPom, or your patented eye test, there are some problems that just do not have a perfect solution. That is what it seems like you do not get.
Based on your eye test S-curve, which 3 "protected seeds" other than Gonzaga would be going to San Jose/SLC? Keep in mind that you have to follow all the rules and place teams as close to home as possible. Kinda hard when literally 15 of the current top 16 bracketmatrix seeds are east of the Rockies.
You pull out google maps, get the distance from said city to San Jose/SLC and Boom, there's your solution.(Houston would be one). I know everyone can't play close to home, I get that, I have always gotten that, but..if you can't put an MU in Des Moines for example, then can we TRY to at least get everyone within 12 hours(car ride) of home?? That seems reasonable to do.
I don't have a problem with the committee sending someone west because I understand that someone has to go west. Not all 68 teams can play in Des Moines.
-
The four closest projected protected seeds to the west coast are Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Houston, and Kansas. If you put them in San Jose/SLC and then follow the rules exactly, none of the teams in their pods could be the winner of the Big Sky, Big West, Mountain West, PAC 12, Southland, SWAC, Summit, or WAC, because all of those teams would be geographically closer than Tech, Houston and Kansas.
You would then be sending the three teams closest to Tulsa out west (causing all three of those teams to think that the committee screwed them over), leaving Tulsa with LSU and Purdue, and then they couldn't be in a pod with anyone closer to Tulsa than them (575 miles from Baton Rouge to Tulsa, and 650 miles from West Lafayette to Tulsa). That would then severely limit the potential teams that could be in pods with them, since we're following the rules 100% to the letter.
All of that is just strictly taking into account geography, you also have to consider that 1 seeds get priority over 2, who get priority over 3s etc. Then throw in that you can't match up with anyone from your Conference before (I believe) the S16. Then throw in that you can't have a rematch with anyone before (I believe) the S16.
The rules are meant more as guidelines. MU shouldn't have been able to play Syracuse in the round of 32 in 2011 but because of the number of teams the conference got, and the way the seeding broke, we did. Where's you outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our S16 should be vacated. MU shouldn't have been able to play Butler in the round of 32 in 2013 but because of the way seeding broke we did. Where's your outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our E8 should be vacated. I would much rather have had the 3 with a rematch of Butler, than dropping down to a 4 so that all the rules could appropriately be applied. Sometimes you draw the short stick, it happens, you have to deal with it. Sometimes you get a lucky draw, it happens, embrace it when it does.
MU could still very well end up in Des Moines, and I will be happy if that is the case, but if we do not get to play there, I will not be criticizing the committee because as a "protected seed" we didn't end up in the closest location.
-
Give me the 3 seed out west with Houston as the 2 and Gonzaga as the 1 erry gotdamn day!
-
I will say, one problem with the way the top 16 seeds go is that in terms of geography, you may be better of being #17 on the seed list instead of #15 in an unbalanced year like this.
Because the West Coast is so weak this year, with two locations in the western two time zones but only two teams capable of a top 16 finish in those time zones, seeds #15 and 16 will be shipped more than 1000 miles out west. Once those top 16 seeds are spread evenly among the 8 locations, though, then there is a random chance that seeds 17 on down could be placed somewhere much closer to home--at least somewhere in the eastern half of the US.
Of course, you are then a 5-seed against a theoretically better 12-seed, which also matters some. And, there is a chance that since you are no longer "protected" you could play a team that is even closer to home than you are (e.g., Marquette could play a Temple in Hartford). But, as seed 15 or 16 you are basically destined to get stuck in UT and CA while team 17 and 18 could end up much closer to home.
-
I will say, one problem with the way the top 16 seeds go is that in terms of geography, you may be better of being #17 on the seed list instead of #15 in an unbalanced year like this.
Because the West Coast is so weak this year, with two locations in the western two time zones but only two teams capable of a top 16 finish in those time zones, seeds #15 and 16 will be shipped more than 1000 miles out west. Once those top 16 seeds are spread evenly among the 8 locations, though, then there is a random chance that seeds 17 on down could be placed somewhere much closer to home--at least somewhere in the eastern half of the US.
Of course, you are then a 5-seed against a theoretically better 12-seed, which also matters some. And, there is a chance that since you are no longer "protected" you could play a team that is even closer to home than you are (e.g., Marquette could play a Temple in Hartford). But, as seed 15 or 16 you are basically destined to get stuck in UT and CA while team 17 and 18 could end up much closer to home.
This guy gets it. There are zero permutations of a perfectly balanced field, that favors the higher seed in every aspect, and there has never been a perfectly balanced field. Expecting one or getting upset when it doesn't happen is just looking for something to complain about.
-
Give me the 3 seed out west with Houston as the 2 and Gonzaga as the 1 erry gotdamn day!
Yep, I would gladly -- GLADLY! -- trade playing in Des Moines in the first two rounds for the opportunity at this scenario. (Not that they are mutually exclusive, but I'm just sayin'.)
As for the committee members, they DO use the eye test, which is why teams aren't seeded only because of what the computers say. I mean, in their first reveal of this season, they placed MU several rungs higher than where both the NET and the great KenPom said we should be.
There is no perfect system, and there certainly is nothing we here can control in regards to the one that currently exists.
Let's beat CU, SH and GT, win some games in the BET (preferably 3!) ... and then let's see if we have anything to be upset about.
Life is too much fun to get upset in advance about hypothetical situations.
-
Give me the 3 seed out west with Houston as the 2 and Gonzaga as the 1 erry gotdamn day!
I'd love to get Houston.
But Gonzaga is really, really good. I'd rather take a crack at a few of the other potential 1 seeds.
-
The four closest projected protected seeds to the west coast are Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Houston, and Kansas. If you put them in San Jose/SLC and then follow the rules exactly, none of the teams in their pods could be the winner of the Big Sky, Big West, Mountain West, PAC 12, Southland, SWAC, Summit, or WAC, because all of those teams would be geographically closer than Tech, Houston and Kansas.
You would then be sending the three teams closest to Tulsa out west (causing all three of those teams to think that the committee screwed them over), leaving Tulsa with LSU and Purdue, and then they couldn't be in a pod with anyone closer to Tulsa than them (575 miles from Baton Rouge to Tulsa, and 650 miles from West Lafayette to Tulsa). That would then severely limit the potential teams that could be in pods with them, since we're following the rules 100% to the letter.
All of that is just strictly taking into account geography, you also have to consider that 1 seeds get priority over 2, who get priority over 3s etc. Then throw in that you can't match up with anyone from your Conference before (I believe) the S16. Then throw in that you can't have a rematch with anyone before (I believe) the S16.
The rules are meant more as guidelines. MU shouldn't have been able to play Syracuse in the round of 32 in 2011 but because of the number of teams the conference got, and the way the seeding broke, we did. Where's you outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our S16 should be vacated. MU shouldn't have been able to play Butler in the round of 32 in 2013 but because of the way seeding broke we did. Where's your outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our E8 should be vacated. I would much rather have had the 3 with a rematch of Butler, than dropping down to a 4 so that all the rules could appropriately be applied. Sometimes you draw the short stick, it happens, you have to deal with it. Sometimes you get a lucky draw, it happens, embrace it when it does.
MU could still very well end up in Des Moines, and I will be happy if that is the case, but if we do not get to play there, I will not be criticizing the committee because as a "protected seed" we didn't end up in the closest location.
Maybe change some of the guidelines then, so it's perfectly clear to everyone and people understand, it may not always go this way or that way.
I don't really much care about rematches in conferences, I know it's not supposed to happen, but it's unavoidable sometimes. I care about MU and MU only, I always want the best draw, best seed, best location possible so they have the best chance as advancing as deep as possible. If other schools get screwed because of it, so be it. :) As far as the bolded above, Sure I'd have much rather had the #3 seed and played Butler, but, you know how you avoid that?? Bump MU up to the #2, problem solved. :)
In the end, I went the best draw possible for MU, because I want them advancing as deep as possible. But admittedly, I will be upset if on SS they get a #4 seed, instead of a #3 seed, because being a #4 is MUCH worse. And, I'd almost bet anything someone on the #3 line(like Houston), will have NO business being on that line...one loss or not. And I will be pissed(and I feel rightly so). They have what?? 2 quad 1 wins?? Especially when it seems to this point, from what most have deduced is Quad 1 wins matter... a lot. Okay, so if that's the case does that then suddenly not apply to Houston?? Further, VERY few teams have dropped(Oklahoma last year not withstanding), from where they were on the "reveal" show. Typically it's been a "what you see is what you get". But...it wouldn't surprise me if MU was one of the VERY few schools that has dropped from where they were on that show. That too will piss me off, because I'd want to hear the rationale as to why. When the committee doesn't answer specific questions, THAT'S when it leads to conspiracy theories etc. Just be transparent, that's all.
-
Maybe change some of the guidelines then, so it's perfectly clear to everyone and people understand, it may not always go this way or that way.
The only one that does not appear to understand this is you.
-
I'd love to get Houston.
But Gonzaga is really, really good. I'd rather take a crack at a few of the other potential 1 seeds.
Any of the probable 1 seeds we'd be a fairly large underdog, but Gonzaga doesn't force a ton of turnovers on defense (our achilles heel) and their strength of schedule is by far the weakest. We'd be by far the best team they'd faced (aside from probably 2 days prior) in calendar year 2019. That's the poison I pick.
-
Maybe change some of the guidelines then, so it's perfectly clear to everyone and people understand, it may not always go this way or that way.
I don't really much care about rematches in conferences, I know it's not supposed to happen, but it's unavoidable sometimes. I care about MU and MU only, I always want the best draw, best seed, best location possible so they have the best chance as advancing as deep as possible. If other schools get screwed because of it, so be it. :) As far as the bolded above, Sure I'd have much rather had the #3 seed and played Butler, but, you know how you avoid that?? Bump MU up to the #2, problem solved. :)
In the end, I went the best draw possible for MU, because I want them advancing as deep as possible. But admittedly, I will be upset if on SS they get a #4 seed, instead of a #3 seed, because being a #4 is MUCH worse. And, I'd almost bet anything someone on the #3 line(like Houston), will have NO business being on that line...one loss or not. And I will be pissed(and I feel rightly so). They have what?? 2 quad 1 wins?? Especially when it seems to this point, from what most have deduced is Quad 1 wins matter... a lot. Okay, so if that's the case does that then suddenly not apply to Houston?? Further, VERY few teams have dropped(Oklahoma last year not withstanding), from where they were on the "reveal" show. Typically it's been a "what you see is what you get". But...it wouldn't surprise me if MU was one of the VERY few schools that has dropped from where they were on that show. That too will piss me off, because I'd want to hear the rationale as to why. When the committee doesn't answer specific questions, THAT'S when it leads to conspiracy theories etc. Just be transparent, that's all.
Dude. Chill. We get it. You love MU. So do we, but wearing the tin foil so much that MU because of one loss will now drop so far... you gotta take a deep breath man.
Teams directly below MU have dropped 2+ games since the reveal.
Other teams like Texas tech have won a ton. We will be fine.