MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: 82fanatic on February 22, 2023, 08:35:45 PM
-
Updated. 3/1
since Feb 14
1 Alabama 1 L Tenn W Georgia W SC. W Ark. W Aub
2 houston 1 W smu W Memphis. W tulane. W E. Car
3 purdue 1. L Maryland. W Ohio S. L Indiana
4 Kansas 1 W OklS W Baylor W TCU. W W Vir. W TxTech
5 Texas 2 W okl W iowa St L Baylor L TCU
6 arizona 2 W Utah W Col L Arz St
7 Baylor 2 L Kan L kansas St. W Texas. W OkSt.
8 UCLA 2 W Stanford W Cal. W Utah. W Col.
9 Tennesee 3 W Bama L Kent L TAMU. W SCar. W Ark
10. Virginia 3 W Louisville W ND L BC. L NC. W Clem
11. Iowa St 3 L Kan L Texas L Ok
12. Kansas St 3 L OklSt W Iowa S W Baylor. W OkSt W OK
13 Indiana 4 L NWU W Ill L MSU. W Purdue. L Iowa
14 Marquette 4 W Xavior W creighton W DePaul
15 Gonzaga 4 W LMU W pepp. W SD. W St M
16 Xavier 4 L Marq W Depaul L Nova. W SH
-
Updated. Thanks BC
-
X-A-V-I-E-R with an E
-
X-A-V-I-E-R with an E
I kinda like the way it looks with an O....
-
X-A-V-I-E-R with an E
Would you like to talk about our lord and Xavior?
-
Given what happened to the teams in front of us, I could see us moving to an "8" position, especially after the Creighton win.
That would give us a weak "2" seed that might get us to Des Moines in place of Kansas State. Assuming no more than one loss, which would occur in the Big East tournament, I would guess we're a strong "3". If we win the Big East and don't lose again, we're a weak "2".
-
Given what happened to the teams in front of us, I could see us moving to an "8" position, especially after the Creighton win.
That would give us a weak "2" seed that might get us to Des Moines in place of Kansas State. Assuming no more than one loss, which would occur in the Big East tournament, I would guess we're a strong "3". If we win the Big East and don't lose again, we're a weak "2".
Ive been saying this since the reveal came out. I have a hard time believing no matter how good the Big12 seems to be that they are going to give the 4th best team a better seed that the big east winner. I know everyone will use the argument they have a better resume but im not buying that.
-
Ive been saying this since the reveal came out. I have a hard time believing no matter how good the Big12 seems to be that they are going to give the 4th best team a better seed that the big east winner. I know everyone will use the argument they have a better resume but im not buying that.
If their resume is better (and it currently is) they will get the better seed. The committee is not going to consider that they've potentially already placed 3 B12 teams and no BEast teams when/if comparing them.
-
Would you like to talk about our lord and Xavior?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/37nRXpCEP9H1f1WVrb/giphy.gif)
-
I kinda like the way it looks with an O....
"Ex-zay-vyer"? or "Zay-vyer"?
-
Zay-vyer
-
Zay-vyer
ding ding ding. Give that man a cigar. Just one of my pet peeves. And I have no loyalty to X.
-
ding ding ding. Give that man a cigar. Just one of my pet peeves. And I have no loyalty to X.
My Marquette girlfriend's brother was at Xavier while we were at Marquette. He was a judgmental, pompous ass. Holier than thou. I noticed how much my mispronunciation of Xavier upset him. You know, somehow I just never seemed to get it right. Imagine that.
-
My Marquette girlfriend's brother was at Xavier while we were at Marquette. He was a judgmental, pompous ass. Holier than thou. I noticed how much my mispronunciation of Xavier upset him. You know, somehow I just never seemed to get it right. Imagine that.
I can appreciate that for sure. Like when my best friend and I who is a UW Oshkosh alum, discuss college basketball, I refer to his favorite team as the BADgers and their conference as the Big 14.
-
My Marquette girlfriend's brother was at Xavier while we were at Marquette. He was a judgmental, pompous ass. Holier than thou. I noticed how much my mispronunciation of Xavier upset him. You know, somehow I just never seemed to get it right. Imagine that.
I have family who are X alums. That’s the only reason that I know…..cuz their pompous ass will tell you.
I once called that school in Spokane Gon-zogga. I was corrected immediately…were not the zogs, were the zags. Goo four you.
-
I have family who are X alums. That’s the only reason that I know…..cuz their pompous ass will tell you.
I once called that school in Spokane Gon-zogga. I was corrected immediately…were not the zogs, were the zags. Goo four you.
I pronounced it EX (then just a hint of a pause) zave yer. It was not just the EX that pissed him off, it was the strong accent on EX. He wasn't easily rattled, but that did it every single time.
-
X-A-V-I-E-R with an E
Being a MU engineering grad, we are not known for our spelling proficiency. Thanks. I will correct.
Right now I think we stand at 10 or 11. Definite 3 seed.
-
"Ex-zay-vyer"? or "Zay-vyer"?
Cugat or Scruggs? “Ex-zay-vyer”
The school? “Zay-vyer”
-
Cugat or Scruggs? “Ex-zay-vyer”
The school? “Zay-vyer”
Cugat wife was pretty good….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0aH_hS_AVuA
-
Being a MU engineering grad, we are not known for our spelling proficiency. Thanks. I will correct.
Right now I think we stand at 10 or 11. Definite 3 seed.
A joke from my time at MU descibing an engineer on graduation day:
Fore yeers ago I kould knot spel inginear, and now I are won!.
Back to the thread topic. Solid 3 seed. Two is a stretch.
-
ESPN Game Day possible NC teams: BE=3 (inc. MU); Big 10=1. ;D
-
A joke from my time at MU descibing an engineer on graduation day:
Fore yeers ago I kould knot spel inginear, and now I are won!.
Back to the thread topic. Solid 3 seed. Two is a stretch.
Sounds like a 4never post, hey?
-
My Marquette girlfriend's brother was at Xavier while we were at Marquette. He was a judgmental, pompous ass. Holier than thou. I noticed how much my mispronunciation of Xavier upset him. You know, somehow I just never seemed to get it right. Imagine that.
I pronounce the S in IllinoiS all the time, just to piss off my work colleagues. As you can see, my phone also autocorrects to a capital S in IllinoiS. I don’t know any better…I wasn’t raised in the Midwest, I just work here now.
-
It feels like things have gone as well as possible for MU in the last week. Especially to put us in a strong position for a 3 seed.
-
I pronounce the S in IllinoiS all the time, just to piss off my work colleagues. As you can see, my phone also autocorrects to a capital S in IllinoiS. I don’t know any better…I wasn’t raised in the Midwest, I just work here now.
First, the topic-
Hoping Baylor and Oklahoma St. win today'.
One of my nieces just loves to find something that irritates the crap out of family members, and then diabolically exploits it. When I found that the expression "fixing" dinner was her achilles, revenge was so sweet.
-
It feels like things have gone as well as possible for MU in the last week. Especially to put us in a strong position for a 3 seed.
I know, I know. I'm being greedy, but is there any way we can get a 2 seed? Probably not.
-
I know, I know. I'm being greedy, but is there any way we can get a 2 seed? Probably not.
We may have to win out but that's conceivable.
-
Iowa St doing a great job of justifying the 3 seed they got. 👀
-
I know, I know. I'm being greedy, but is there any way we can get a 2 seed? Probably not.
It's possible. We certainly have to win out the regular season. Baylor may need to lose out but all three games are difficult so theoretically possible. Kansas State would also need to lose at least once more possibly twice (very possible). For good measure we should hope for another Tennessee loss just to make sure they aren't ahead of us.
A lot needs to go our way, but it's possible.
-
DEEE MOYNES
DEEE MOYNES
-
DEEE MOYNES
DEEE MOYNES
Did some one say this today, or just a wish/hope?
-
Dez Mo-inez
-
Did some one say this today, or just a wish/hope?
USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2023/02/24/ncaa-tournament-bracketology-kentucky-nears-safety-marquette-rises/11313157002/
-
Updated
-
At this rate a BET finals appears might be enough if we win the next 2
-
Updated
Where is it updater? Do they update the top 16 (reveal) weekly? Ty.
-
Top of pg 1
-
1 more L for UVA vs UNC
-
1 more L for UVA vs UNC
Thanks. Went in to update after that game, looked up all others, then forgot the NC game🤷🏻
-
Thank you for doing this!
-
Thank you for doing this!
Your welcome. 😊
I believe we are firmly on the 3 line. Win out, and win one in BET, middle of 3 line.
-
Updated.
since Feb 14
1 Alabama 1 L Tenn W Georgia W SC. W Ark. W Aub
2 houston 1 W smu W Memphis. W tulane. W E. Car
3 purdue 1. L Maryland. W Ohio S. L Indiana
4 Kansas 1 W OklS W Baylor W TCU. W W Vir. W TxTech
5 Texas 2 W okl W iowa St L Baylor L TCU
6 arizona 2 W Utah W Col L Arz St
7 Baylor 2 L Kan L kansas St. W Texas. W OkSt.
8 UCLA 2 W Stanford W Cal. W Utah. W Col.
9 Tennesee 3 W Bama L Kent L TAMU. W SCar. W Ark
10. Virginia 3 W Louisville W ND L BC. L NC. W Clem
11. Iowa St 3 L Kan L Texas L Ok
12. Kansas St 3 L OklSt W Iowa S W Baylor. W OkSt W OK
13 Indiana 4 L NWU W Ill L MSU. W Purdue. L Iowa
14 Marquette 4 W Xavior W creighton W DePaul
15 Gonzaga 4 W LMU W pepp. W SD. W St M
16 Xavier 4 L Marq W Depaul L Nova. W SH
As we stand after Butler win.
My opinion.
Teams no longer ahead of MU
Indiana
Iowa St
Virginia
Tennesee
So we are now #10
We have to beat out 2 of these for the final 2 seed.
Very close with all
Kansas state. (Plays OU and WVU)
Purdue. ( plays @rodents, vs I’ll)
Baylor ( plays ASU).
Longer shots
Ariz. (plays USC and UCLA)
Texas. ( plays TCU and Kansas)
UCLA ( plays ASU and Ariz)
Any 2 of these 6 teams suffer a loss, we will get the 2!
Reminds me of my teenage years yearning for a UCLA loss so we could be #1!
Life as a MU fan is good AGAIN!
-
Updated.
since Feb 14
1 Alabama 1 L Tenn W Georgia W SC. W Ark
2 houston 1 W smu W Memphis. W tulane. W E. Car
3 purdue 1. L Maryland. W Ohio S. L Indiana
4 Kansas 1 W OklS W Baylor W TCU. W W Vir. W TxTech
5 Texas 2 W okl W iowa St L Baylor
6 arizona 2 W Utah W Col L Arz St
7 Baylor 2 L Kan L kansas St. W Texas. W OkSt.
8 UCLA 2 W Stanford W Cal. W Utah. W Col.
9 Tennesee 3 W Bama L Kent L TAMU. W SCar. W Ark
10. Virginia 3 W Louisville W ND L BC. L NC. W Clem
11. Iowa St 3 L Kan L Texas L Ok
12. Kansas St 3 L OklSt W Iowa S W Baylor. W OkSt
13 Indiana 4 L NWU W Ill L MSU. W Purdue. L Iowa
14 Marquette 4 W Xavior W creighton W DePaul
15 Gonzaga 4 W LMU W pepp. W SD. W St M
16 Xavier 4 L Marq W Depaul L Nova. W SH
As we stand after Butler win.
My opinion.
Teams no longer ahead of MU
Indiana
Iowa St
Virginia
Tennesee
So we are now #10
We have to beat out 2 of these for the final 2 seed.
Very close with all
Kansas state.
Purdue
Baylor
Reminds me of my teenage years yearning for a UCLA loss so we could be #1!
Life as a MU fan is good AGAIN!
Purdue is not falling to a 3
-
Purdue is not falling to a 3
Even if they lose to the badgers?
I added the other 3 targets
-
If I had to guess the S-Curve right now I would say:
1. Alabama
2. Houston
3. Kansas
4. Purdue
5. Texas
6. UCLA
7. Baylor
8. Arizona
9. Kansas State
10. Tennessee
11. Marquette
12. Gonzaga
13. UConn
14. Virginia
15. Indiana
16. Xavier
I think Marquette was ahead of Tennessee before tonight by a sliver but Tennessee dominating Arkansas is more impressive than us dominating Butler even on the road so I think that puts them a scootch ahead for now.
Our best shot at a 2 seed is Arizona losing their last two games. A loss to USC on the road won't hurt them much but a little and losing at UCLA won't hurt them at all but it keeps them from moving up. That happens and maybe an early exit from the P12 tournament combined with a deep MU run would be enough to steal the last two seed. Gotta outperform Tennessee and K-State down the stretch as well.
-
Fair points.
I’ll say this though-
Texas has @TCU and v Kansas this week.
0-2 there and that a 22-9, 11-7 team that I would be very hard pressed to see ahead of a 25-6, 17-3 Marquette squad going into conference tournaments, and they were the top 2 seed at the reveal.
As for the others, I can’t see both UCLA and Arizona as 2 seeds. Brew had Arizona higher, but I always felt they were the one to fall off to the 3 line because they play at UCLA to close the season. They’ve already lost at home to ASU since then and travel to USC as well.
I don’t see Arizona as a #2 seed over Marquette.
Again this is assuming MU plays on Saturday night in NYC.
Next up is Baylor, Kansas St, and Tennessee.
Kansas St won’t matter imo if MU gets to the BET final. They were ahead of Marquette at the reveal, but that was without the X and @Creighton wins, and before the BE title. Also, they will probably lose at WVU. Marquette would be ahead of Kansas St in the above scenario and probably ahead of Baylor as well, but that one I’m not as confident about.
As for Tennessee they feel like the type of team that could make a run in the SEC tourney and keep Marquette off the 2 line if all goes right, but maybe Bruce Pearl takes care of that because they are on the road on Saturday.
Even Purdue has @UW and v Illinois and two losses there and I’m not quite sure Marquette couldn’t pass them up as well, maybe do the unfathomable and slide onto the 1 line! They would be 24-7, 13-7 before the B10 tourney.
Of course that would be a miracle of 10 things going right, but it’s not a 0% chance imo, I’d say 3-5% chance haha
-
Texas goes down. One step closer to 2 seed!
-
Texas goes down. One step closer to 2 seed!
To a Q1 team on the road. It keeps them from putting distance between us and them but it doesn't get us closer.
What it does do for us is help push TCU to a 5 seed. That is a team I would not want to see in the second round and we're not dropping to a 4.
-
TAMU. I know you have a much better grasp of the numbers that are used. However, I think there are still humans involved in the process, and I think the latest results will affect their decisions.
So your telling me that if Marquette had lost to creighton they would not have dropped a seed? Creighton is similar to TCU.
Texas has lost twice since the reveal. Thinking they drop one seed is not a big move or unreasonable.
-
3 of the 4 B12 teams gave one more L coming. Also an L coming for UCLA or AZ - if we win out we are a mortal lock for a 2 otherwise they might as well just disband the committee and seed directly from NET
-
TAMU. I know you have a much better grasp of the numbers that are used. However, I think there are still humans involved in the process, and I think the latest results will affect their decisions.
So your telling me that if Marquette had lost to creighton they would not have dropped a seed? Creighton is similar to TCU.
Texas has lost twice since the reveal. Thinking they drop one seed is not a big move or unreasonable.
Yes, I'm telling you that we wouldn't have dropped if we lost to Creighton. We wouldn't have moved up but we wouldn't have lost ground either, especially if we kept it close.
Thinking Texas drops from the top 2 seed to the second or third 2 seed is not a big move or unreasonable. Thinking they dropped an entire seed line is. Teams don't move that much this late in the season, unless they are winning Q1 games or losing Q3/Q4 games.
-
3 of the 4 B12 teams gave one more L coming. Also an L coming for UCLA or AZ - if we win out we are a mortal lock for a 2 otherwise they might as well just disband the committee and seed directly from NET
I think some are overestimating the impact of single games at this point in the season.
-
3 of the 4 B12 teams gave one more L coming. Also an L coming for UCLA or AZ - if we win out we are a mortal lock for a 2 otherwise they might as well just disband the committee and seed directly from NET
NET has little to do with it. Texas is only three spots above us and would be a three seed if they seeded directly by NET. What does have to do with it is them having double the Q1 wins, quadruple the road Q1 wins, a much stronger SOS, a much stronger Noncon SOS, and their worst loss being a neutral court loss to #36 Illinois while we have two losses worse than that.
Humans make the decision. Humans can be effected by optics. But optics can't make up for their resume beating ours in almost every major category. Maybe Q1 wins added in the BET would be enough to convince them but historically they've mostly disregarded the BET
-
I think some are overestimating the impact of single games at this point in the season.
On scoop? After TAMU and Brew have exhaustively explained how this stuff works? 🤔
-
Texas isn't dropping off the 2-line. They were the 5 overall at the reveal. They still have 10 Q1 wins and zero losses outside Q1. We cannot catch them, even if they lose to Kansas.
I think there's a divide between UCLA, Baylor, Texas, and the rest of the 2/3 seeds. Here's the problem with the idea of Marquette passing each of them:
- UCLA: The Bruins don't have the top end wins, but they have a Resume Average of 7, Predictive Average of 3.3, and zero losses outside the top two quadrants. For comparison, Marquette has a 14 average in both. The question for UCLA is more if they can beat Arizona and pass Purdue for the last 1-seed than if anyone passes them.
- Baylor: Resume average of 5, Predictive Average of 10, and an absurd 11 Q1 wins with a 15-8 Q1+2 record. Just too much quantity of quality to pass them. It's not close enough for head-to-head to be a consideration.
- Texas: Resume average of 7, Predictive Average of 8.7, 10 Q1 wins, 13-7 Q1+2. They are a bit behind the two above, but Marquette likely can't match any of their metrics nor their high end win totals. The BET doesn't matter that much.
That leaves Arizona. I currently have the Wildcats as the last 2, and feel there's a case to be made for 4 teams to get that spot. K-State, Marquette, and Gonzaga can make a claim. I know Tennessee has the metrics, but without Zakai Zeigler and with just a 2-2 record since the Selection Show, I think they're more likely to drop to a 4 than climb back to a 2. So here's each team's case:
- Arizona: 11.5 resume average, 11.0 predictive. 4-0 vs Q1A is their calling card. 13-4 in Quads 1+2 but they do have a Q3 loss. For those watching the minutia, if Colorado falls from 74 to 76, Arizona loses a Q2 win, dropping their Q1+2 record to 12-4 with a Q3 loss.
- Kansas State: 9 resume average, 20.7 predictive. 9 Quadrant 1 wins is the most of any team in this mix with 9-6 Q1 and 13-7 Q1+2, no bad losses. The real drawback to their claim is the predictive numbers, but that didn't keep them from being on the 3-line at the reveal. They've done nothing but win since the reveal and road wins at Texas and Baylor are huge. If they beat WVU this weekend, I think they cement their case ahead of Marquette.
- Gonzaga: 9 resume average, 9 predictive. Only 3-4 in Q1A, but 10-4 against the first three quadrants with one Q3 loss. Own the best single win of this group on a neutral court over Alabama, though if Gonzaga's game against Kentucky was classfied as a home game, Alabama's game in Birmingham should've been the same. Best road record as well, though that's partially WCC competition. This committee seems to prefer results to numbers, so I think the quantity of good results for the other three has Gonzaga last, but they do have the best computer numbers.
- Marquette: 14 resume, 14 predictive. 4 Q1A wins is tied for most, but 5-5 in Q1 and 10-6 in Q1+2 is the worst mark of this group.It would really help for Colorado to drop, because it would likely move Villanova (76) into the top-75 of the net, change Marquette's Q1 record to 6-5 and their Q1+2 to 11-6, which coupled with Arizona going to 12-4 looks a lot closer. I'll be honest, I don't think Marquette can get to the 2-line. I think either Arizona or K-State will stay ahead of them. But if they smash the piss out of St. John's (30-40 point win), and the Selection Committee focuses on a conference tourney run at least making it to Saturday) then maybe they get to a 2-seed. But I'm really skeptical.
-
You guys are the experts, but it feels we've entered into a cult of Q1(A). The committee really talks about these teams - moving from NET 74 to 76 doesn't qualitatively change anything - and the committee knows that. We've had a lot of good wins - and since December 20th we've very much looked the part of a two seed.
At the end of the day, if MU wins out they will be 27-6, having won 9 straight, 14 of 15 and will have been 21-2 since December 20th and are likely top-5 in both polls. They'll have picked up 2 more high quality wins in the BET.
I just don't see how they lose out to a non-BIG12 Tourney winning K-State or Baylor (with 9 losses that went 5-3 over their last 8 (and that we curb stomped head to head!)) or whoever loses the UCLA-AZ game. If we win out - I think the PAC-12 title game will be for a 2 seed. And that's assuming none of those teams stumble earlier.
Or course for us winning out is no given either - but it we do I don't think anyone would begrudge us a 2.
-
You guys are the experts, but it feels we've entered into a cult of Q1(A). The committee really talks about these teams - moving from NET 74 to 76 doesn't qualitatively change anything - and the committee knows that. We've had a lot of good wins - and since December 20th we've very much looked the part of a two seed.
At the end of the day, if MU wins out they will be 27-6, having won 9 straight, 14 of 15 and will have been 21-2 since December 20th and are likely top-5 in both polls. They'll have picked up 2 more high quality wins in the BET.
I just don't see how they lose out to a non-BIG12 Tourney winning K-State or Baylor (with 9 losses that went 5-3 over their last 8 (and that we curb stomped head to head!)) or whoever loses the UCLA-AZ game. If we win out - I think the PAC-12 title game will be for a 2 seed. And that's assuming none of those teams stumble earlier.
Or course for us winning out is no given either - but it we do I don't think anyone would begrudge us a 2.
I think you are valuing things the committee doesn’t. The last 10 games don’t really matter much anymore. Overall record is less important than who that is against.
-
At the end of the day, if MU wins out they will be 27-6, having won 9 straight, 14 of 15 and will have been 21-2 since December 20th and are likely top-5 in both polls. They'll have picked up 2 more high quality wins in the BET.
Winning 9 straight, 14 out of 15 and their rankings don't matter.
The problem continues to be an uninspiring non-conference performance and a crappy bottom of the BE.
-
Well - I hope we get the chance to find out!
FWIW - how cool is it that the biggest debate on Scoop in early March is if we have a shot at a 2 seed.
-
Exactly. And again, I don't think there is much of a difference between the bottom of the 2 line and the top of the 3 line. They were a 3 in 2003 and again in 2013 - they beat the 2 seeds each time in the S16. They can do it a third time.
-
While I agree the 2 seed is incredibly improbable, if not impossible at the stage.
It is kinda bothersome that the outright winner of the second or third best conference in the country can’t get on the two line.
Especially if they win the BET.
-
Exactly. And again, I don't think there is much of a difference between the bottom of the 2 line and the top of the 3 line. They were a 3 in 2003 and again in 2013 - they beat the 2 seeds each time in the S16. They can do it a third time.
I'd call it a big a difference in the early rounds. 19 times a 3s been upset by a 14, 9 times a 2s been upset by a 15. That's a glaring difference
-
I'd call it a big a difference in the early rounds. 19 times a 3s been upset by a 14, 9 times a 2s been upset by a 15. That's a glaring difference
That's because two seeds are usually better than three seeds. But again, I said "top of the three, bottom of the 2." I don't think playing the best 15th seed or the worst 14th seed is significantly different.
-
That's because two seeds are usually better than three seeds.
Or is it that 14s can end up with a good team like Davidson that can scare the crap out of you while 15s are usually (not always) improbably bid thiefs
-
Will the committee do another reveal? (There was a second women's reveal.)
-
I think some are overestimating the impact of single games at this point in the season.
Saint Marys, UCONN and Wisconsin think some are overestimating the impact of NET.
-
While I agree the 2 seed is incredibly improbable, if not impossible at the stage.
It is kinda bothersome that the outright winner of the second or third best conference in the country can’t get on the two line.
Especially if they win the BET.
Unfortunately, the Big East is probably the 4th best conference this year.
Big 12 is 1st by a lot. Top end quality combined with depth. No weak teams.
Big 10 is deeper than the BE and the SEC is better at the top. The bottom of the Big East is really bad and drags the conference down a bit.
Not that seeding matters a ton this year. There is a lot of parity in college basketball. Any team could be knocked out as early as the 2nd round. Survive and advance will be the mantra of this tournament.
-
moving from NET 74 to 76 doesn't qualitatively change anything - and the committee knows that.
This is categorically incorrect. When the committee comes in next week, they are starting from scratch. As they scrub those lines, they are doing so with the most recent data. And particularly in a league like the Big East with a double round robin, turning a Q3 win into a Q1 win matters. As does it going the other way.
It's why I'd love to see not just a Villanova win Saturday, but Seton Hall to win at Providence. If the Pirates could pull a Clemson over NC State type result, unlikely as that is, MU could turn two Q3 wins into Q1 wins. When you stack resumes up, 2 additional Q1 wins stands out.
-
This is categorically incorrect. When the committee comes in next week, they are starting from scratch. As they scrub those lines, they are doing so with the most recent data. And particularly in a league like the Big East with a double round robin, turning a Q3 win into a Q1 win matters. As does it going the other way.
It's why I'd love to see not just a Villanova win Saturday, but Seton Hall to win at Providence. If the Pirates could pull a Clemson over NC State type result, unlikely as that is, MU could turn two Q3 wins into Q1 wins. When you stack resumes up, 2 additional Q1 wins stands out.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative.
Quantitatively absolutely is matters - changing from 76 to 74 changes the Q.
Qualitatively - I doubt this more - this is why the committee gets paid the big bucks. Do you really think, when digging down into the Ws and Ls of each team - they see the Nova win and think (well, that's kind of a crappy win since Nova's net is 76, but it would have been a nice win if Nova's net had been 74)? I mean - maybe - this is why there's a whole investigatory method of discontinuity designs - but I'd hope the committee members realize that a win over the 74 team is qualitatively the same as a win over a 76 team.
-
Unfortunately, the Big East is probably the 4th best conference this year.
Big 12 is 1st by a lot. Top end quality combined with depth. No weak teams.
Big 10 is deeper than the BE and the SEC is better at the top. The bottom of the Big East is really bad and drags the conference down a bit.
Not that seeding matters a ton this year. There is a lot of parity in college basketball. Any team could be knocked out as early as the 2nd round. Survive and advance will be the mantra of this tournament.
The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.
-
The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.
The problem with statements about conference strength is that we usually only look at the top teams. The Big Ten isn't "terrible." They just have a bunch of mediocre teams that are going to fill out the 6-9 seeds in the bracket but only have one or two that step out.
The Big East has a TERRIBLE bottom. That's what is dragging the conference down.
-
The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.
The Big Ten has a large volume of mediocre tourney teams. I think the Big East tourney teams are much more dangerous.
But Marquette needed to be a little better in nonconference play to contend for a 2 seed. Beat Purdue and a 2 seed is much more attainable. Or if Marquette had beaten Wisconsin, Mississippi State, and Utah (instead of Georgia Tech), a 2 seed is much more attainable.
The BE didn't provide enough Q1 and Q2 games to overcome our nonconference performance. It is what it is at this point.
-
The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.
The Big East this year is probably one of strongest conferences ever. The conference's fifth place team is seventh in the NET.
-
The Big East this year is probably one of strongest conferences ever. The conference's fifth place team is seventh in the NET.
You are conflating 5th place with 5th best.
-
You are conflating 5th place with 5th best.
I'm aware. And the person I was responding to was conflating 2nd place with 2nd best. That was the point I was trying to make.
-
The problem with statements about conference strength is that we usually only look at the top teams. The Big Ten isn't "terrible." They just have a bunch of mediocre teams that are going to fill out the 6-9 seeds in the bracket but only have one or two that step out.
The Big East has a TERRIBLE bottom. That's what is dragging the conference down.
Hoping Ewing and Anderson are gone after they lose in the BET. And what's the matta with Matta?
I really do not understand some scoopers who seem to think having weak teams to build up their W/L records is a good thing.
-
I'm aware. And the person I was responding to was conflating 2nd place with 2nd best. That was the point I was trying to make.
Ok, now I understand. We are in agreement.
-
Hoping Ewing and Anderson are gone after they lose in the BET. And what's the matta with Matta?
I really do not understand some scoopers who seem to think having weak teams to build up their W/L records is a good thing.
I'd wait a couple years on Matta to see if he's really "back" from his back. I know the games changed since he was at Ohio st but it's hard to believe someone who's had unreal success at 3 schools wouldn't be able to be at least competitive
-
I'd wait a couple years on Matta to see if he's really "back" from his back. I know the games changed since he was at Ohio st but it's hard to believe someone who's had unreal success at 3 schools wouldn't be able to be at least competitive
During the MU game at one point, they showed him up close and he was just rubbing his forehead. I wondered at that point if he was having any regrets.
-
During the MU game at one point, they showed him up close and he was just rubbing his forehead. I wondered at that point if he was having any regrets.
I thought he was struggling to walk quite a bit on the sidelines. I wouldn’t be shocked if he doesn’t last very long at Butler.
-
The Big East this year is probably one of strongest conferences ever. The conference's fifth place team is seventh in the NET.
I doubt this is one of the strongest Big East years of the past decade
-
I doubt this is one of the strongest Big East years of the past decade
The grouping at the top is stronger than usual. The bottom is weak. In the recent past you usually had Nova hunting a 1 seed and then a bunch of 7-10 seeds. This year you have a bunch of 3-5 seeds and then out of the Tournament.
-
I doubt this is one of the strongest Big East years of the past decade
If you say this, then you’d have to think college basketball as a whole is down. If you said it about the BiG14Whatever, then of course I’d agree with you. 🤣
-
The grouping at the top is stronger than usual. The bottom is weak. In the recent past you usually had Nova hunting a 1 seed and then a bunch of 7-10 seeds. This year you have a bunch of 3-5 seeds and then out of the Tournament.
Have you seen the BiG14Whatever lately? Bunch of 5-10 seeds and then out of the tournament.
I actually feel like the BigEast and the BiG14Whatever are going to make solid NCAA runs this year.
-
Based on the information updated, here's the records of each school since the last announcement in easy to read format and my guess where they'll be seeded.
Rank School Seed Record Guess
1 Alabama 1 4-1 1
2 Houston 1 4-0 1
3 Purdue 1 1-2 3
4 Kansas 1 5-0 1
5 Texas 2 2-2 2
6 Arizona 2 2-1 2
7 Baylor 2 2-2 2
8 UCLA 2 4-0 1
9 Tennessee 3 3-2 3
10 Virginia 3 3-2 4
11. Iowa St 3 0-3 Out
12. Kan. St 3 4-1 2
13 Indiana 4 2-3 Out
14 Marquette 4 3-0 3
15 Gonzaga 4 4-0 3
16 Xavier 4 2-2 Out
Notably, I would expect Indiana, Xavier and Iowa State to be out of the Top 4 seeds.
The four "1" seeds would be UCLA, Houston, Alabama and Kansas. All have been leaders all season and are playing well now.
I see Texas, Arizona and Baylor with Kansas State to be two seeds.
Purdue has played so poorly lately, I'd imagine them a three seed, along with us, Gonzaga and Tennessee. I can't see us, given the NCAA's historical bias against us and our comparative schedule strength being any higher than 3 absent running the table and having three or four teams ahead of us lose.
-
UCLA up 20 on Arizona State with under 4 to go. That locks them into a 2 seed. Hopefully USC can do us a favor against Arizona tonight.
-
Jerry Palm’s latest has MU a 2 seed.
-
Jerry Palm’s latest has MU a 2 seed.
I think that’s further proof we are a 3 seed right now.
-
Quit citing Jerry Palm and Joe Lunardi
-
Arizona wins at USC. That's another Q1 road win for them. That may lock us out of a 2 seed. I still think they are our best chance to pass. Would need them to lose to UCLA and lose to someone stupid in the P12 tourney first round
-
While I agree the 2 seed is incredibly improbable, if not impossible at the stage.
It is kinda bothersome that the outright winner of the second or third best conference in the country can’t get on the two line.
Especially if they win the BET.
Not how it works
-
On scoop? After TAMU and Brew have exhaustively explained how this stuff works? 🤔
Yes it is exhausting.
-
Not how it works
Michigan is in 2nd place in the big ten. Most don’t have them in the field.
-
ISU helping us out with Baylor - if we win out we must be ahead of them if they take the L here and one more in the B12 tourney.
-
Tenn and KSU also down - Brew - doesn't that put us as the last 2?
-
Michigan is in 2nd place in the big ten. Most don’t have them in the field.
Worth noting its a SEVEN way tie for 2nd. Which is kind of hilarious.
-
Tenn and KSU also down - Brew - doesn't that put us as the last 2?
Arizona is the last 2 at this point. We may be the top 3. If I had to guess the S-Curve right now:
1. Houston
2. Alabama
3. Kansas
4. UCLA
5. Purdue
6. Texas
7. Baylor
8. Arizona
9. Marquette
10. Kansas State
11. Tennessee
12. Gonzaga
13. UConn
There's not much distance between the current 3 seeds. I think UConn may be close as well
-
Arizona is the last 2 at this point. We may be the top 3. If I had to guess the S-Curve right now:
1. Houston
2. Alabama
3. Kansas
4. UCLA
5. Purdue
6. Texas
7. Baylor
8. Arizona
9. Marquette
10. Kansas State
11. Tennessee
12. Gonzaga
13. UConn
There's not much distance between the current 3 seeds. I think UConn may be close as well
I get overall body of work yadda yadda - but at the level of the last 2 seed presumably the committee takes a REALLY close look at the specific comparison. Baylor is 2-3 since the reveal and that ISU loss is *just* Q1 - and it was a large margin loss. Marquette will have those Nova and SHU wins *just* outside Q1 - I get the line is the line - but when you combine that with the fact that MU SPANKED Baylor head 2 head how in the world could the committee but Baylor ahead of MU we win the BET and Baylor loses in the B12T?
-
Plus - unless Baylor wins out they will have 10 losses - the "eye test" of double-digit losses. Tried to ask ChatGPT how many times two seeds have had 10 or more losses - I don't think we have to worry about AI taking our jerbs anytime soon....
"Since the NCAA men's basketball tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, 2 seeds have had 10 or more regular season losses only a few times.
To be more specific, only four teams have been selected as 2 seeds despite having 10 or more losses in the regular season. These teams are:
UCLA in 1986 - finished the regular season with a record of 18-11
Oklahoma in 1992 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-11
Michigan State in 2001 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-12
Michigan State in 2016 - finished the regular season with a record of 26-5, but lost its first game in the Big Ten tournament, finishing the season with a record of 26-6"
Incidentally - I think UNC in 2018 is the only 2 seed in the modern era with 10 or more regular seasons losses - but I could be wrong since ChatGPT couldn't help me out.
-
Based on the information updated, here's the records of each school since the last announcement in easy to read format and my guess where they'll be seeded.
Rank School Seed Record Guess
1 Alabama 1 4-1 1
2 Houston 1 4-0 1
3 Purdue 1 1-2 3
4 Kansas 1 5-0 1
5 Texas 2 2-2 2
6 Arizona 2 2-1 2
7 Baylor 2 2-2 2
8 UCLA 2 4-0 1
9 Tennessee 3 3-2 3
10 Virginia 3 3-2 4
11. Iowa St 3 0-3 Out
12. Kan. St 3 4-1 2
13 Indiana 4 2-3 Out
14 Marquette 4 3-0 3
15 Gonzaga 4 4-0 3
16 Xavier 4 2-2 Out
Notably, I would expect Indiana, Xavier and Iowa State to be out of the Top 4 seeds.
The four "1" seeds would be UCLA, Houston, Alabama and Kansas. All have been leaders all season and are playing well now.
I see Texas, Arizona and Baylor with Kansas State to be two seeds.
Purdue has played so poorly lately, I'd imagine them a three seed, along with us, Gonzaga and Tennessee. I can't see us, given the NCAA's historical bias against us and our comparative schedule strength being any higher than 3 absent running the table and having three or four teams ahead of us lose.
Not a chance in a million that Purdue drops all the way to a 3 seed.
-
Plus - unless Baylor wins out they will have 10 losses - the "eye test" of double-digit losses. Tried to ask ChatGPT how many times two seeds have had 10 or more losses - I don't think we have to worry about AI taking our jerbs anytime soon....
"Since the NCAA men's basketball tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, 2 seeds have had 10 or more regular season losses only a few times.
To be more specific, only four teams have been selected as 2 seeds despite having 10 or more losses in the regular season. These teams are:
UCLA in 1986 - finished the regular season with a record of 18-11
Oklahoma in 1992 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-11
Michigan State in 2001 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-12
Michigan State in 2016 - finished the regular season with a record of 26-5, but lost its first game in the Big Ten tournament, finishing the season with a record of 26-6"
Incidentally - I think UNC in 2018 is the only 2 seed in the modern era with 10 or more regular seasons losses - but I could be wrong since ChatGPT couldn't help me out.
Not the way this works.
-
Based on the information updated, here's the records of each school since the last announcement in easy to read format and my guess where they'll be seeded.
Rank School Seed Record Guess
1 Alabama 1 4-1 1
2 Houston 1 4-0 1
3 Purdue 1 1-2 3
4 Kansas 1 5-0 1
5 Texas 2 2-2 2
6 Arizona 2 2-1 2
7 Baylor 2 2-2 2
8 UCLA 2 4-0 1
9 Tennessee 3 3-2 3
10 Virginia 3 3-2 4
11. Iowa St 3 0-3 Out
12. Kan. St 3 4-1 2
13 Indiana 4 2-3 Out
14 Marquette 4 3-0 3
15 Gonzaga 4 4-0 3
16 Xavier 4 2-2 Out
Notably, I would expect Indiana, Xavier and Iowa State to be out of the Top 4 seeds.
The four "1" seeds would be UCLA, Houston, Alabama and Kansas. All have been leaders all season and are playing well now.
I see Texas, Arizona and Baylor with Kansas State to be two seeds.
Purdue has played so poorly lately, I'd imagine them a three seed, along with us, Gonzaga and Tennessee. I can't see us, given the NCAA's historical bias against us and our comparative schedule strength being any higher than 3 absent running the table and having three or four teams ahead of us lose.
Well, we're the only school in history to give them the middle finger and told them to pound sand in 1970.
-
To suggest that there has been a "historical bias" against Marquette by the NCAA is just laughable. There were maybe a couple of questionable placings back fifty years ago, but that has ZERO bearing on why we might be a three seed.
It is very obvious as to why we would have that seeding. And it has been explained as such repeatedly. It's like people just don't want to see it.
-
To suggest that there has been a "historical bias" against Marquette by the NCAA is just laughable. There were maybe a couple of questionable placings back fifty years ago, but that has ZERO bearing on why we might be a three seed.
It is very obvious as to why we would have that seeding. And it has been explained as such repeatedly. It's like people just don't want to see it.
The snub of the NCAA in 1970 over geographic placement is such ancient history that I doubt many people on the committee remember it or know about it, much less care about it.
MU has had many cases of getting seeds more favorable than expected so the idea that the NCAA has a historical bias against MU is absurd.
-
To suggest that there has been a "historical bias" against Marquette by the NCAA is just laughable. There were maybe a couple of questionable placings back fifty years ago, but that has ZERO bearing on why we might be a three seed.
It is very obvious as to why we would have that seeding. And it has been explained as such repeatedly. It's like people just don't want to see it.
Who’s more likely to be biased…the NCAA against Marquette in seeding the tournament? Or self-avowed Marquette fans in favor of Marquette? Hmmmm…
The next time all the teams’ fans are satisfied with the selection and seeding will be the first. There will be 350+ teams in the tournament, and all of them will be on the 1-4 lines.
-
Who’s more likely to be biased…the NCAA against Marquette in seeding the tournament? Or self-avowed Marquette fans in favor of Marquette? Hmmmm…
The next time all the teams’ fans are satisfied with the selection and seeding will be the first. There will be 350+ teams in the tournament, and all of them will be on the 1-4 lines.
I think a lot has to do with how the big 12 is being represented. At some point the amount of losses needs to catch up with a team no matter how many good wins they have. Its a serious question when looking at Texas and Baylor. Yes they have twice the amount of Q1 wins which seems to be the main component of seeding. They have also had about twice the amount of opportunities and when they lose it doesn't seem to do anything to them but when they win the shoot up a seed line. So back to my questions how many losses would it take to knock them down. Baylor has 3 more losses than Marquette and Texas 2 more losses. Would it take both teams to have 4, 5, 6 more losses than Marquette to get a worse seed. I think its up for discussion? Marquette won their conference by 2 games so the comparison is fair, its not like we are comparing a 4th,5th place.
If conference champions mean nothing they should go away and just have all 350 D1 teams play random schedules across every time zone and do away with conferences moving forward.
-
I think a lot has to do with how the big 12 is being represented. At some point the amount of losses needs to catch up with a team no matter how many good wins they have. Its a serious question when looking at Texas and Baylor. Yes they have twice the amount of Q1 wins which seems to be the main component of seeding. They have also had about twice the amount of opportunities and when they lose it doesn't seem to do anything to them but when they win the shoot up a seed line. So back to my questions how many losses would it take to knock them down. Baylor has 3 more losses than Marquette and Texas 2 more losses. Would it take both teams to have 4, 5, 6 more losses than Marquette to get a worse seed. I think its up for discussion? Marquette won their conference by 2 games so the comparison is fair, its not like we are comparing a 4th,5th place.
If conference champions mean nothing they should go away and just have all 350 D1 teams play random schedules across every time zone and do away with conferences moving forward.
Those are good questions. We will know in a week. It really comes down to how the selection Committee perceives the strength of the various conferences. Obviously everybody is in love with the Big 12, but is it their strength or besides Kansas, they just have 5 or 6 other good teams. Hardly anybody appears to think there is an elite team in BEast. I think UConn is close to elite and MU also close, with 4 other good teams. Dont think Big 20, ACC, SEC, etc. are any stronger than BEast. Guess that is why they have a selection Committee.
-
Being a conference champion means something as evidenced by how excited Marquette was post game yesterday and the long line fans had to deal with to get their picture with the trophy. And also conferences are useful for scheduling and media contract purposes.
But it means nothing in terms of NCAA selection or seeding. It COULD mean something in terms of selection, but conferences have decided that tournaments should determine that.
-
I will also point out that Scoopers never seemed to be on the "winning a conference championship should mean something in terms of NCAA seeding" until Marquette won one. Very strange.
-
Updated.
since Feb 14
1 Alabama 1 4-2 L Tenn W Georgia W SC. W Ark. W Aub L TAMU
2 houston 1 5-0. W smu W Mem W tulane. W E. Car. W WSU
3 purdue 1. 2-2 L Maryland. W Ohio S. L Indiana. W Wis
4 Kansas 1 5-1. W OklS W Baylor W TCU. W W Vir. W TxTech. L TX
5 Texas 2 3-2. W okl W iowa St L Baylor L TCU. W Kan.
6 arizona 2 3-2. W Utah W Col L ASU W USC L UCLA.
7 Baylor 2 2-3. L Kan L kansas St. W Texas. W OkSt. L Iowa st
8 UCLA 2 6-0 W Stanford W Cal. W Utah. W Col. W ASU W Arz
9 Tennesee 3 3-3 W Bama L Kent L TAMU. W SCar. W Ark. L Aub
10. Virginia 3 4-2 W Louisville W ND L BC. L NC. W Clem. W. Louis
11. Iowa St 3 2-4 W TCU L Kan L Texas L Ok. L WVU W bay.
12. Kansas St 3 4-2 L OklSt W Iowa S W Baylor. W OkSt W OK. L WVU
13 Indiana 4 2-3 L NWU W Ill L MSU. W Purdue. L Iowa
14 Marquette 4 5-0 W Xavior W creighton W DePaul. W But. W SJ
15 Gonzaga 4 5-0 W LMU W pepp. W SD. W St M. W CHST
16 Xavier 4 4-2 L Marq W Depaul L Nova. W SH W PROV. W BUT
-
I will also point out that Scoopers never seemed to be on the "winning a conference championship should mean something in terms of NCAA seeding" until Marquette won one. Very strange.
I think fans would still be bitching. However, this discussion (and I think we are a solid three seed currently) shows me MU is very close to a two and even a one seed (have to win the BET). That's exciting.
Where I think MU has and will always be screwed is geographical placement because of the B12 and B1G history, location, composition and power. It just is a fact and honestly it's tough for a committee, especially with the super conferences to figure out where to put MU where we have always been an odd slot.
That said we have no one to blame but ourselves (Badger loss) and our conference brethren (Georgetown, DePaul for the crap they have cobbled together for too long). Where won loss record will matter is our ranking. Top 5 is a definite possibility this week with the reporters and coaches to finish the regular season. Wow
-
I will also point out that Scoopers never seemed to be on the "winning a conference championship should mean something in terms of NCAA seeding" until Marquette won one. Very strange.
Well, we have not been winning on this scale in a long time. So cut Scoopers who see it differently a little slack.
-
Dr. B
No doubt the Q9 loss to the Badgers hurt them and I agree with your take on Big 12 and Big 10. They likely will be three, but very close to a two and that is life.
I think finishing regular season ranked in the top five is validation of a fantastic season. They need to win six games in NCAA and I am ready, regardless of the seeding.
-
I get overall body of work yadda yadda - but at the level of the last 2 seed presumably the committee takes a REALLY close look at the specific comparison. Baylor is 2-3 since the reveal and that ISU loss is *just* Q1 - and it was a large margin loss. Marquette will have those Nova and SHU wins *just* outside Q1 - I get the line is the line - but when you combine that with the fact that MU SPANKED Baylor head 2 head how in the world could the committee but Baylor ahead of MU we win the BET and Baylor loses in the B12T?
You can keep adding factors outside the official criteria if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they smoke us in almost every official criteria. Baylor is ahead of Arizona on the S-Curve.
Also the ISU loss isn't "just Q1", they're 11 spots from falling out.
Plus - unless Baylor wins out they will have 10 losses - the "eye test" of double-digit losses. Tried to ask ChatGPT how many times two seeds have had 10 or more losses - I don't think we have to worry about AI taking our jerbs anytime soon....
"Since the NCAA men's basketball tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, 2 seeds have had 10 or more regular season losses only a few times.
To be more specific, only four teams have been selected as 2 seeds despite having 10 or more losses in the regular season. These teams are:
UCLA in 1986 - finished the regular season with a record of 18-11
Oklahoma in 1992 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-11
Michigan State in 2001 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-12
Michigan State in 2016 - finished the regular season with a record of 26-5, but lost its first game in the Big Ten tournament, finishing the season with a record of 26-6"
Incidentally - I think UNC in 2018 is the only 2 seed in the modern era with 10 or more regular seasons losses - but I could be wrong since ChatGPT couldn't help me out.
Go and look up what seed a team with 11 Q1 wins usually gets. Let me know if you find a 3 seed.
-
Updated.
since Feb 14
1 Alabama 1 4-2 2 losses, ranked 12 and 24
2 houston 1 5-0
3 purdue 1. 2-2 2 losses to unranked teams
4 Kansas 1 5-1.
5 Texas 2 3-2. 2 losses ranked 7 and 22
6 arizona 2 3-2. 2 losses unranked and 4 th.
7 Baylor 2 2-3. 3 losses. #3,#11, and unranked
8 UCLA 2 6-0
9 Tennesee 3 3-3 3 losses. #23,#24, and unranked
10. Virginia 3 4-2 2 losses. Both unranked
11. Iowa St 3 2-4 4 losses. #3, #22, #9, and 2 unranked
12. Kansas St 3 4-2 2 losses to unranked teams.
13 Indiana 4 2-3 3 losses to unranked teams.
14 Marquette 4 5-0
15 Gonzaga 4 5-0
16 Xavier 4 4-2
I think we are 8th right now. Loosing to unranked teams is going to drop you.
I think Baylor is #9. MU maybe even 7 th. Losses to unranked teams will drop you a seed!
-
We really need Marquette to win the BET title so we can resolve this question. There’s a couple posters here with all of their chips pushed to the center.
-
The Big East this year is probably one of strongest conferences ever. The conference's fifth place team is seventh in the NET.
The Big 10 and Big 12 will get teams in with losing conference records. The Big East has two teams with 10-10 conference records who are not even considered bubble teams. That should tell you this is a weak Big East compared to other Big East years.
-
The grouping at the top is stronger than usual. The bottom is weak. In the recent past you usually had Nova hunting a 1 seed and then a bunch of 7-10 seeds. This year you have a bunch of 3-5 seeds and then out of the Tournament.
I do not think this is true.
-
I think a lot has to do with how the big 12 is being represented. At some point the amount of losses needs to catch up with a team no matter how many good wins they have. Its a serious question when looking at Texas and Baylor. Yes they have twice the amount of Q1 wins which seems to be the main component of seeding. They have also had about twice the amount of opportunities and when they lose it doesn't seem to do anything to them but when they win the shoot up a seed line. So back to my questions how many losses would it take to knock them down. Baylor has 3 more losses than Marquette and Texas 2 more losses. Would it take both teams to have 4, 5, 6 more losses than Marquette to get a worse seed. I think its up for discussion? Marquette won their conference by 2 games so the comparison is fair, its not like we are comparing a 4th,5th place.
If conference champions mean nothing they should go away and just have all 350 D1 teams play random schedules across every time zone and do away with conferences moving forward.
This is the problem as I have said earlier. These ratings are largely to do with how conferences have done in the non-conference season. The Big East had weaker than usual non-conference results, which hurts the number of quad 1 possible wins in the conference. The Big 12 had a great non-conference record, which results in them having a lot of quad 1win opportunities in conference play. The system does not recognize that teams in March are not the same teams they were in November. The true conference strength measurement is who is left in the sweet 16.
-
The Big 10 and Big 12 will get teams in with losing conference records. The Big East has two teams with 10-10 conference records who are not even considered bubble teams. That should tell you this is a weak Big East compared to other Big East years.
I wasn’t serious. I was making the point that just looking at a team’s rank in a conference (e.g., Michigan at 2) doesn’t necessarily tell you how strong the team or the conference is. In other words, cherry picking a stat to make a point can lead to absurd comments (like mine that you quoted).
-
I think fans would still be bitching. However, this discussion (and I think we are a solid three seed currently) shows me MU is very close to a two and even a one seed (have to win the BET). That's exciting.
Where I think MU has and will always be screwed is geographical placement because of the B12 and B1G history, location, composition and power. It just is a fact and honestly it's tough for a committee, especially with the super conferences to figure out where to put MU where we have always been an odd slot.
That said we have no one to blame but ourselves (Badger loss) and our conference brethren (Georgetown, DePaul for the crap they have cobbled together for too long). Where won loss record will matter is our ranking. Top 5 is a definite possibility this week with the reporters and coaches to finish the regular season. Wow
good stuff doc the thing about the badger loss is WHEN we lost to them, they were at the height of their season a little too early obviously. they started out 11-1 with wins over kansas, maryland(#3 at the time) and at iowa. then they went on a bad roll and really haven't recovered for any number of reasons-injuries, lack of talent, lack of depth, etc. but in all fairness, they were peaking too early and we had yet to find ourselves. we'd kick the chit out of them today on anyone's floor
-
I do not think this is true.
Outside of having Nova as legit title contenders, the 4 best teams this year (Providence not on the level as MU, Xavier, UCONN, or Creighton) are better than the 2nd best team in a number of years in the BE
-
I do not think this is true.
Ok, then you’d be wrong.
-
Updated.
since Feb 14
1 Alabama 1 4-2 2 losses, ranked 12 and 24
2 houston 1 5-0
3 purdue 1. 2-2 2 losses to unranked teams
4 Kansas 1 5-1.
5 Texas 2 3-2. 2 losses ranked 7 and 22
6 arizona 2 3-2. 2 losses unranked and 4 th.
7 Baylor 2 2-3. 3 losses. #3,#11, and unranked
8 UCLA 2 6-0
9 Tennesee 3 3-3 3 losses. #23,#24, and unranked
10. Virginia 3 4-2 2 losses. Both unranked
11. Iowa St 3 2-4 4 losses. #3, #22, #9, and 2 unranked
12. Kansas St 3 4-2 2 losses to unranked teams.
13 Indiana 4 2-3 3 losses to unranked teams.
14 Marquette 4 5-0
15 Gonzaga 4 5-0
16 Xavier 4 4-2
I think we are 8th right now. Loosing to unranked teams is going to drop you.
I think Baylor is #9. MU maybe even 7 th. Losses to unranked teams will drop you a seed!
We are 9th or 10th. It doesn't matter if an opponent is ranked or unranked.
-
good stuff doc the thing about the badger loss is WHEN we lost to them, they were at the height of their season a little too early obviously. they started out 11-1 with wins over kansas, maryland(#3 at the time) and at iowa. then they went on a bad roll and really haven't recovered for any number of reasons-injuries, lack of talent, lack of depth, etc. but in all fairness, they were peaking too early and we had yet to find ourselves. we'd kick the chit out of them today on anyone's floor
Kansas beat Wisconsin.
-
Kansas beat Wisconsin.
oops, my bad thanks-close game 69-68 was that a last second shot ?
-
Updated.
since Feb 14
1 Alabama 1 4-2 2 losses, ranked 12 and 24
2 houston 1 5-0
3 purdue 1. 2-2 2 losses to unranked teams
4 Kansas 1 5-1.
5 Texas 2 3-2. 2 losses ranked 7 and 22
6 arizona 2 3-2. 2 losses unranked and 4 th.
7 Baylor 2 2-4. 4 losses. #3,#11, and unranked Loss to Iowa St
8 UCLA 2 6-0
9 Tennesee 3 3-4 4 losses. #23,#24, and unranked. Loss to miss
10. Virginia 3 4-2 2 losses. Both unranked
11. Iowa St 3 2-4 4 losses. #3, #22, #9, and 2 unranked
12. Kansas St 3 4-2 2 losses to unranked teams.
13 Indiana 4 2-3 3 losses to unranked teams.
14 Marquette 4 5-0
15 Gonzaga 4 5-0
16 Xavier 4 4-2
I think we are 8th right now. Loosing to unranked teams is going to drop you.
I think Baylor is #9. MU maybe even 7 th. Losses to unranked teams will drop you a seed!
Add another loss by Baylor and Tennessee. Further support my premises. We should be a 2 seed! Let’s cement it tomorrow!