Rearranging Our Wins - Would It Change Our Tourney Status?

[Tugg Speedman]

We are 9 - 6 in the BE.  5 - 1 in the last six.

Rearrange the schedule so we started BE play 5 - 1 (same results, just changing the timing of them).

With that kind of start, as the pre-season favorite, we would have been tied or in first place alone in the BE after three weeks.  Would we have been ranked, or maybe other receiving votes, in mid-January (overall we would have been 13-6 at that point).  

If we started 5 - 1 (13-6), and then went 4 - 5 since to arrive at our current record, would we be in the same position tourney as now, just outside the bubble?

What I'm asking ... does "WHEN" you win the matter?  Are we unfortunate that we started winning in late February instead of early January?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Yup, always wanna be winning later in the year. I dont know why but that always seems to affect the committee.

[T.V. Diener 34]

We are 9 - 5 9-6 in the BE.  5 - 1 in the last six.

Rearrange the schedule so we started BE play 5 - 1 (same results, just changing the timing of them).

With that kind of start, as the pre-season favorite, we would have been tied or in first place alone in the BE after three weeks.  Would we have been ranked, or maybe other receiving votes, in mid-January (overall we would have been 13-6 at that point).  

If we started 5 - 1 (13-6), and then went 4 - 5 since to arrive at our current record, would we be in the same position tourney as now, just outside the bubble?

What I'm asking ... does "WHEN" you win the matter?  Are we unfortunate that we started winning in late February instead of early January?

FIFY

[Tugg Speedman]

Yup, always wanna be winning later in the year. I dont know why but that always seems to affect the committee.

But I'm saying the opposite ... We wee written off by Febrauary 1st.  Had we won earlier our tourney status would be better than today.

[chapman]

With that kind of start, as the pre-season favorite, we would have been tied or in first place alone in the BE after three weeks.  Would we have been ranked, or maybe other receiving votes, in mid-January (overall we would have been 13-6 at that point).  

No

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2014/week/12/seasontype/2

[MarsupialMadness]

But I'm saying the opposite ... We wee written off by Febrauary 1st.  Had we won earlier our tourney status would be better than today.

I agree.  I was thinking about this same exact question this morning.  We'll see who ultimately ends up making the tournament though.

[Tugg Speedman]

No

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2014/week/12/seasontype/2

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

[The Equalizer]

We are 9 - 6 in the BE.  5 - 1 in the last six.

Rearrange the schedule so we started BE play 5 - 1 (same results, just changing the timing of them).

With that kind of start, as the pre-season favorite, we would have been tied or in first place alone in the BE after three weeks.  Would we have been ranked, or maybe other receiving votes, in mid-January (overall we would have been 13-6 at that point).  

If we started 5 - 1 (13-6), and then went 4 - 5 since to arrive at our current record, would we be in the same position tourney as now, just outside the bubble?

What I'm asking ... does "WHEN" you win the matter?  Are we unfortunate that we started winning in late February instead of early January?

Probably not--especially when they get into who those wins were against and where they occurred.

Losing the road game early in the season then winning the home game later (as we did with Butler and Xavier) doesn't tell you whether you're improving as a team or simply taking advantage of the home court. 

If we lost to Xavier or Butler at home in early January, then beat them on the road more recently, it might be signs of some improvement. 

Meanwhile, we never would have been ranked even starting conference play 5-1 becuase our overall record would have been 13-6--not nearly good enough to get ranked.  Plus those five wins would have been seeded with the likes of DePaul, Butler and Seton Hall, which would have impressed no one.

[The Equalizer]

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

No ranked team had more than 4 losses at that point of the season.  At 13-6, there is no way we would have been ranked with a 5-1 start to conferene play.

[Tugg Speedman]

No ranked team had more than 4 losses at that point of the season.  At 13-6, there is no way we would have been ranked with a 5-1 start to conference play.

How about other receiving votes?

[The Equalizer]

How about other receiving votes?

The worst "also receiving votes" was New Mexico with 1 vote--they had a 14-4 record and a 5-1 conference start.  We lost to them in non-conference.

13-6 woudln't have put us in "Also Receiving Votes" either.