Pig SIUE

[Pakuni]

Listening to Scoopers on this board, we played crappy, but at least we won.

That's a pretty fair assessment of the game.

[Newsdreams]

Brother Brew:

But we didn't lose.

Listening to Scoopers on this board, we played crappy, but at least we won.

We closed out when we had to. We did what we needed to do.

Again, if this game is the highlight reel of the non-conference season, then OK, we have problems. But I'll wait until we lose to some podunk university not worthy to carry our water before I push the panic button this soon.

Well according to previous years policies on this board, we didn't beat the spread so we technically lost. That game took a dump on our seeding.

[brewcity77]

Well according to previous years policies on this board, we didn't beat the spread so we technically lost. That game took a dump on our seeding.

It's easy to dismiss, but as a league the Big East hurt themselves opening night. Teams like Xavier, Providence, Creighton, Butler, and Marquette winning by closer than expected margins hurts the league and our hopes of 5-6 bids. Not as bad as the ACC or Pax-12 taking losses, but it's still not good.

Last year the Selection Committee made it very clear that NET is the most important factor in selection when they took Syracuse over Louisville and Utah State over Colorado State. Weeks like this are not good for the league as a whole.

[wadesworld]

Quality wins are always the most important thing for a bid. The Big East hasn't had any chances at those yet. Tomorrow is a good opportunity.

[The Equalizer]

It's easy to dismiss, but as a league the Big East hurt themselves opening night. Teams like Xavier, Providence, Creighton, Butler, and Marquette winning by closer than expected margins hurts the league and our hopes of 5-6 bids. Not as bad as the ACC or Pax-12 taking losses, but it's still not good.

Last year the Selection Committee made it very clear that NET is the most important factor in selection when they took Syracuse over Louisville and Utah State over Colorado State. Weeks like this are not good for the league as a whole.

Syracuse beat Bryant last year by just 1 point in their first game of the season.

The narrowness of that victory neither kept them out of the tournament nor prevented the ACC from getting 7 bids.

[brewcity77]

Syracuse beat Bryant last year by just 1 point in their first game of the season.

The narrowness of that victory neither kept them out of the tournament nor prevented the ACC from getting 7 bids.

Tell me you don't get how this works without telling me you don't get how this works... 

[PointWarrior]

Did close BE wins on opening night hurt NCAA chances more than a MU K-State scrimmage loss?

It's easy to dismiss, but as a league the Big East hurt themselves opening night. Teams like Xavier, Providence, Creighton, Butler, and Marquette winning by closer than expected margins hurts the league and our hopes of 5-6 bids. Not as bad as the ACC or Pax-12 taking losses, but it's still not good.

Last year the Selection Committee made it very clear that NET is the most important factor in selection when they took Syracuse over Louisville and Utah State over Colorado State. Weeks like this are not good for the league as a whole.

[brewcity77]

Did close BE wins on opening night hurt NCAA chances more than a MU K-State scrimmage loss?

I know this is tongue in cheek, but every game has an impact on the ratings of the rest of the league. The best example of this is last year's Pac-12. Everyone remembers how the Pac-12 had that great tourney run. UCLA, Oregon State, USC, they changed the narrative around the Pac-12.

But you know who didn't change that narrative? Arizona, California, Stanford, Arizona State, Utah, Washington State, or Washington. None of them played a single game after the Pac-12 tournament. However, look at their rank improvement in kenpom (the closest metric to NET) from the start to the end of the NCAA tournament despite not playing a game:

• Arizona 43 > 29, +14
  
• California 136 > 114, +22
  
• Stanford 83 > 57, +26
  
• Arizona State 113 > 86, +27
  
• Utah 72 > 44, +28
  
• Washington State 107 > 78, +29
  
• Washington 173 > 129, +44

Nothing better demonstrates how the performance of league members impacts the rest of the league. An average improvement of 27.1 spots despite not playing a single game.

The same thing happens in non-con. When a league collectively over or under achieves, it impacts where everyone stands at the end of the year. It turns bubble teams into locks or puts teams that don't deserve inclusion into the mix, and vice versa. That's that happened to the Big 10 last year when they dominated in non-con. It's why Penn State and Indiana were top-50 teams with losing records and why four Big 10 teams got NCAA bids despite .500 or worse league records.

If the Big East wants to be a 6-7 bid league, the entire league needs to deliver in November and December.

[jfp61]

I know this is tongue in cheek, but every game has an impact on the ratings of the rest of the league. The best example of this is last year's Pac-12. Everyone remembers how the Pac-12 had that great tourney run. UCLA, Oregon State, USC, they changed the narrative around the Pac-12.

But you know who didn't change that narrative? Arizona, California, Stanford, Arizona State, Utah, Washington State, or Washington. None of them played a single game after the Pac-12 tournament. However, look at their rank improvement in kenpom (the closest metric to NET) from the start to the end of the NCAA tournament despite not playing a game:

• Arizona 43 > 29, +14
  
• California 136 > 114, +22
  
• Stanford 83 > 57, +26
  
• Arizona State 113 > 86, +27
  
• Utah 72 > 44, +28
  
• Washington State 107 > 78, +29
  
• Washington 173 > 129, +44

Nothing better demonstrates how the performance of league members impacts the rest of the league. An average improvement of 27.1 spots despite not playing a single game.

The same thing happens in non-con. When a league collectively over or under achieves, it impacts where everyone stands at the end of the year. It turns bubble teams into locks or puts teams that don't deserve inclusion into the mix, and vice versa. That's that happened to the Big 10 last year when they dominated in non-con. It's why Penn State and Indiana were top-50 teams with losing records and why four Big 10 teams got NCAA bids despite .500 or worse league records.

If the Big East wants to be a 6-7 bid league, the entire league needs to deliver in November and December.

I doubt it will. Marquette, Creighton, and Georgetown are too young. Butler and Xavier are injured and were some of the more overrated teams before the season. Seton Hall is solid, but the big games they have seem too big for them @ Michigan and home to Texas are likely defeats. They might get OSU, Liddel could be a clear top 5 college player this year. I dont trust St Johns at IU, or againist Kansas. I guess PC could beat Wisco and Texas Tech, but they might lost one of the URI or Vermont games. UConn really doesnt play as hard of a schedule as they could have, hopefully they get the Bonnies.


At least this league doesnt have a Washington. Mike hopkins could have and should have been gone after last year.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Thank you Brew for your vigilance. 

[The Equalizer]

Tell me you don't get how this works without telling me you don't get how this works...

Oh, I understand exactly how it works.  

Just having fun by pointing out that one of your examples of how important point-spread in buy games is happened to squeak by a buy game by a single point and still managed to make the tournament. 

And it didn't seem to hurt the ACC either, as they still got 7 teams in, the same as the number of teams they had in 2019.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Oh, I understand exactly how it works.  

Just having fun by pointing out that one of your examples of how important point-spread in buy games is happened to squeak by a buy game by a single point and still managed to make the tournament. 

And it didn't seem to hurt the ACC either, as they still got 7 teams in, the same as the number of teams they had in 2019.

Of course it hurt them but they did other things to offset it. If they had won by more it would've improved their resume and maybe resulted in a better seed

[brewcity77]

Oh, I understand exactly how it works.  

Just having fun by pointing out that one of your examples of how important point-spread in buy games is happened to squeak by a buy game by a single point and still managed to make the tournament. 

And it didn't seem to hurt the ACC either, as they still got 7 teams in, the same as the number of teams they had in 2019.

Saying you understand how this works while doubling down on not understanding how this works.

I'm specifically talking about bulk results, not one-off events. That's why the Pac-12 results from the tournament had such an outsized impact on their conference cohorts.

Also, your ACC example further shows you don't get it. 2019 ACC had 7 teams, but 3 were 1-seeds with an average of 3.7 for the third ranked league. 2021 ACC had 7 teams, but none better than a 4-seed and an average of 7.6. So rather than disproving my point, you're actually reinforcing it.

[Pakuni]

Also, your ACC example further shows you don't get it. 2019 ACC had 7 teams, but 3 were 1-seeds with an average of 3.7 for the third ranked league. 2021 ACC had 7 teams, but none better than a 4-seed and an average of 7.6. So rather than disproving my point, you're actually reinforcing it.

And how did the results of a single non-conference game in early November result in this?

Nobody disputes that it's important for a conference to fare well with its nonconference slate. But the impact of a few games - and not even losses, but just closer than projected wins - among a schedule of some 120 games is negligible.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And how did the results of a single non-conference game in early November result in this?

Nobody disputes that it's important for a conference to fare well with its nonconference slate. But the impact of a few games - and not even losses, but just closer than projected wins - among a schedule of some 120 games is negligible.

Why vote? There are millions of votes cast. The impact of my vote is negligible.

[Pakuni]

Why vote? There are millions of votes cast. The impact of my vote is negligible.

I'm not sure that's the best analogy.

[Newsdreams]

I'm not sure that's the best analogy.

It is, every bit positive you can do moves you into better territory.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not sure that's the best analogy.

It's not. The score in a non conference game is hundreds times more impactful on a teams tournament resume than a single vote is on the outcome of a national election

[brewcity77]

And how did the results of a single non-conference game in early November result in this?

If you would read the part of the quote you deleted, your question would be answered.

I'm specifically talking about bulk results, not one-off events. That's why the Pac-12 results from the tournament had such an outsized impact on their conference cohorts.

[Pakuni]

If you would read the part of the quote you deleted, your question would be answered.

Great. We agree, one game isn't that significant.

[brewcity77]

Great. We agree, one game isn't that significant.

I never made the claim that it was.

[Pakuni]

I never made the claim that it was.

I was going on this statement. Perhaps I misunderstood.
"It's easy to dismiss, but as a league the Big East hurt themselves opening night."

[brewcity77]

I was going on this statement. Perhaps I misunderstood.
"It's easy to dismiss, but as a league the Big East hurt themselves opening night."

"As a league" pretty clearly indicates not one result but a bulk set of multiple results. When Equalizer tried to make it about one result, I dismissed that notion out of hand.

I don't understand why the concept of a series of multiple results impacting the league as a whole is causing confusion and pushback to something I clearly never said.

[Pakuni]

"As a league" pretty clearly indicates not one result but a bulk set of multiple results. When Equalizer tried to make it about one result, I dismissed that notion out of hand.

I don't understand why the concept of a series of multiple results impacting the league as a whole is causing confusion and pushback to something I clearly never said.

Right, then I didn't misunderstand. In response to your "Big East really hurt itself," I wrote that a handful of games (eight to be exact) among the 125-135 nonconference games that will be played cumulatively (before the 180+ league games) will not significantly impact anyone's rankings.

[brewcity77]

Right, then I didn't misunderstand. In response to your "Big East really hurt itself," I wrote that a handful of games (eight to be exact) among the 125-135 nonconference games that will be played cumulatively (before the 180+ league games) will not significantly impact anyone's rankings.

18 games in March of last year moved Pac-12 teams that didn't play a single game in that time an average of +27.1 spots on kenpom. 8 games won't have that drastic a difference, but improving your league metrics, and thus increasing the bids & seeding you get, is really just about beating the spread more often than not.

The league was 3-5 that night with the only covers being against sub-300 teams that help you the least. Thus far the only teams with winning records against the spread are Seton Hall, St John's, and DePaul at 1-0 each. The average Big East team is down 1.3 spots on kenpom. It's not a disaster yet, but it's not good for the league. And if it continues, it will have negative impacts come March.

It's better than taking losses like the Pac-12 and ACC, but in the NET era, margin matters for everyone in the league.