A | B | C | ||||
| W-L | 17-11 | 17-11 | 21-7 | |||
| RPI | 49 | 50 | 51 | |||
| SOS | 9 | 31 | 113 | |||
| W-L vs Top 50 | 2-7 | 1-9 | 1-5 | |||
| Last Ten | 4-6 | 5-5 | 6-4 | |||
| Road-Neutral | 4-7 | 5-8 | 6-5 |
Quote from: spiral97 on February 28, 2008, 09:58:32 AM
no.. but you could use a table:
W-L RPI SOS W-L vs Top 50 Last Ten Road-Neutral
Quote from: esotericmindguy on February 28, 2008, 01:13:23 PMReason again to expand the field....almost 350 DI teams now, plenty of good ones being left out, and expansion would get more of those mid majors you want that haven't proven a damn thing except that they have nice records.
None should get in, I'd rather take an unproven mid major over a major who has done sh*t against the top 50. These bubble teams can whine all they want, but if you're on the fence like all 3 of these teams likely are, you shouldn't complain if you don't get in. They have had numerous chances to distinguish themselves while the A10, CUSA, and MAC teams get left out each year because of their limited opportunities.
Quote from: 1990Warrior on February 28, 2008, 01:22:41 PM
Team A = Syracuse
Team B = Ohio State
Team C = Florida
Looks like everyone liked Syracuse who Lunardi has out. He has Ohio State in and Florida as an 11.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 28, 2008, 01:20:09 PMI don't think they should expand the field. I feel it's good as it is. I think it'd be too big if you add more teams, and then the debate will just continue on, because now instead of deciding who's the 40th or so best team (taking into account that each conference gets an automatic bid), it'd be deciding who is the 60th, 80th, or whatever best team is...there will always be debates about who should get in and who should be left out no matter how many teams there are. Has there ever been a year where it seemed like a team that got left out could win the National Championship? I think they have it right as it is now. College football, however, is a different story...Quote from: esotericmindguy on February 28, 2008, 01:13:23 PMReason again to expand the field....almost 350 DI teams now, plenty of good ones being left out, and expansion would get more of those mid majors you want that haven't proven a damn thing except that they have nice records.
None should get in, I'd rather take an unproven mid major over a major who has done sh*t against the top 50. These bubble teams can whine all they want, but if you're on the fence like all 3 of these teams likely are, you shouldn't complain if you don't get in. They have had numerous chances to distinguish themselves while the A10, CUSA, and MAC teams get left out each year because of their limited opportunities.
Quote from: spiral97 on February 28, 2008, 02:00:51 PM
yeah.. stood out to me too.. we're the only team (ranked at 15) in the kenpom top 20 RPI teams that has fewer wins than losses vs 1-50... wow.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on February 28, 2008, 02:23:17 PMQuote from: spiral97 on February 28, 2008, 02:00:51 PM
yeah.. stood out to me too.. we're the only team (ranked at 15) in the kenpom top 20 RPI teams that has fewer wins than losses vs 1-50... wow.
Out of curiosity, what's our record vs. top 100? It seems like we beat a ton of teams in the 50-80 range.
Also, what better way to better that top 50 record than with a nice home win this Saturday?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 28, 2008, 02:27:41 PM
Here's a good site to see the breakdown wins/losses versus quartiles:
http://teamrankings.com/ncb/mqtpower.php3?q=Marquette+Basketball
Quote from: 1990Warrior on February 28, 2008, 01:55:15 PM
I looked at our resume when I was setting this up and our 3-6 vs top 50 stood out big time compared to the top teams.
Quote from: chapman on February 29, 2008, 12:02:23 AM
Before I look, I'm going with team C. The SOS is nice, but when it comes down to it you need to win the games against good teams if you schedule them or they're in your conference. Would you think we were more deserving of a bid if we scheduled UNC, Kansas, and Vanderbilt instead of Coppin State, Savannah State, and IPFW but went 0-3 instead of 3-0? Arguably it would be better to go 1-2, and it would definitely be better to go 2-1 against those good teams. But 1-9 against the top 50? Eventually Team B needs to prove it can play with good teams. Team C is only 1-5, but it is four games better than the others, can hold its own on the road unlike A and B, and is playing slightly better in its conference than the others. I would rank their resumes in this order: C, A, B, without looking at specific opponents they've beaten.
After looking, I guess I'm in the slght minority by putting Florida ahead of Syracuse. But I'll stick to my first impressions. Looking at the actual schedules, I would probably put Syracuse just in the field, and keep Florida and OSU out.
Quote from: chapman on February 29, 2008, 12:02:23 AM
Before I look, I'm going with team C. The SOS is nice, but when it comes down to it you need to win the games against good teams if you schedule them or they're in your conference. Would you think we were more deserving of a bid if we scheduled UNC, Kansas, and Vanderbilt instead of Coppin State, Savannah State, and IPFW but went 0-3 instead of 3-0? Arguably it would be better to go 1-2, and it would definitely be better to go 2-1 against those good teams. But 1-9 against the top 50? Eventually Team B needs to prove it can play with good teams. Team C is only 1-5, but it is four games better than the others, can hold its own on the road unlike A and B, and is playing slightly better in its conference than the others. I would rank their resumes in this order: C, A, B, without looking at specific opponents they've beaten.
After looking, I guess I'm in the slght minority by putting Florida ahead of Syracuse. But I'll stick to my first impressions. Looking at the actual schedules, I would probably put Syracuse just in the field, and keep Florida and OSU out.