Shaka's team

[Lennys Tap]

Disagree completely. The entire season should count equally. Just like every other sport...but college football. It's about performance over the course of the season. Not who gets hot at the end.

I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.

I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.

All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.

[MUDPT]

I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.

I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.

All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing the which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.

CFB uses a pretty flawed system to determine who is in their playoff. Games matter at the end because the system is flawed, not because they matter more at the end.

[bilsu]

CFB uses a pretty flawed system to determine who is in their playoff. Games matter at the end because the system is flawed, not because they matter more at the end.

Conference championship games in Big 10 and SEC are big determining factors on who gets seeded 1 through 4 in CFB championship playoff.

[bilsu]

Honestly I'm just mostly annoyed by bilsu's constant negativity.

You can block me, if I bother you so much. The reality is I am a contrarian. I will take the other side of overly optimistic people and the other side of overly pessimistic people.

Posters here are overly optimistic about how good MU basketball is.  I was around for all of Al's games. I know what great is, I love MU basketball, but I also know many posters believe we are a great program. It galls me to see how much better Wisconsin has been than us this century. In the new Big East how many conference tournament games has MU won? We have been pretty pathetic.

I like Shaka. I like his personality, especially compared to Wojo's. I like how he brought in young players and is taking a long-term approach. None of his players' transferring out tells me his players' like him. This is much better than having a coach like Ewing, who seems to have his players running away as fast as they can from him. I do expect significant improvement out of Kolek and Prosper this year. They can replace Lewis and Morsell. The rest depends on how last year's reserves step up and whether the newcomers can make a difference. To me being good means winning games in Big East tournament and/or NCAA tournament. Zero tournament wins means we are irrelevant.

[GoFastAndWin]

The BIG 10/14/whatever is a shell of what it once was. Someone had to fill the void. Much to our chagrin, the hole was gleefully filled the last couple decades by the rodents. Get over it. NCAA success came to them because their players supremely excel at executing a system, outlined by a distinct culture. Shaka's players are committed to doing the same. Don't you think the folks at hallowed IU wonder as well how they were routinely surpassed by a bunch of two and three stars from Madison?

[The Sultan]

You can block me, if I bother you so much.

I'm not going to block you. I'm just going to make fun of your dumb takes.

[The Sultan]

I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.

I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.

All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.

They may be more fun, but they aren't more deserving.

[MU82]

I think a team's entire body of work should matter. But I do think there's something to be said for an 18-12 team that finished 2-8 perhaps being a little less deserving than an 18-12 team that finished 8-2. Maybe there's some way the computers can account for all of it? Or maybe not. I don't profess to know.

[Newsdreams]

I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.

I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.

All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.

No, you could be rewarding teams playing really crap competition. The way it works can be tweaked like they have done, but the way it is done is best, reward teams for playing hardest schedule. The problem with football they basically play mostly in conference. Too few games outside conferences.

[Newsdreams]

Conference championship games in Big 10 and SEC are big determining factors on who gets seeded 1 through 4 in CFB championship playoff.

Yes because they don't have much else to go with, strongest conferences and teams usually in top 10. Same would happen in ACC Big East if tournament teams in semis were all top 10, they probably would wait to rank 1-4 teams in tournament.

[PointWarrior]

you want to punish teams for a "Wojo finish" to the season?

I think a team's entire body of work should matter. But I do think there's something to be said for an 18-12 team that finished 2-8 perhaps being a little less deserving than an 18-12 team that finished 8-2. Maybe there's some way the computers can account for all of it? Or maybe not. I don't profess to know.

[MU82]

you want to punish teams for a "Wojo finish" to the season?

Your attempts at trolling aside ... maybe. As I said, I don't know enough about how all the computer rankings work or how they could be tweaked.

[brewcity77]

I think a team's entire body of work should matter. But I do think there's something to be said for an 18-12 team that finished 2-8 perhaps being a little less deserving than an 18-12 team that finished 8-2. Maybe there's some way the computers can account for all of it? Or maybe not. I don't profess to know.

For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.

Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.

"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.

[Lennys Tap]

For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.

Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.

"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.

When figuring "last 10" or some variant of it certainly we have computers capable of adding a weighted strength of schedule component to the equation. Maybe it would make things harder to predict for geniuses like Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm but it would nevertheless improve the quality of the tournament.

[MU82]

For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.

Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.

"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.

This is reasonable, brew, but with leagues so disparate in quality, why is "last 10" any more problematic than conference play period? For that matter, teams play disparate non-con schedules, too.

Obviously, strength of schedule metrics help smooth out the differences in conferences as well as in non-con schedules. So I wonder if some kind of similar metrics could make some kind of last-10 computation a useful measurement for the committee, too.

I can't speak for Lenny or anybody else, but I'm not talking about having last-10 be a hugely important thing. I just think it could be another factor that goes into the many that are fed into the computers. For the most part, a P6 team that finishes 9-1 is "better" than one that finishes 3-7. That's not universal, of course, in part because of the disparate schedules, but again that's for the computers to decide.

Bottom line, though, is I do agree with you that today's system for picking and ranking teams is superior to those of yesteryear. And I also generally agree that overall body of work should be the main determining factor.

[The Sultan]

When figuring "last 10" or some variant of it certainly we have computers capable of adding a weighted strength of schedule component to the equation. Maybe it would make things harder to predict for geniuses like Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm but it would nevertheless improve the quality of the tournament.

Are you sure it would do that? And even if you could prove it does, is that really important?

[Elonsmusk]

For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.

Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.

"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.

The bolded is a good point.  I do feel the last 10 should be applied just to all the teams on the bubble.  The totality of their season is still considered but you add the last 10 for the 5-10 bubble teams that are in the running for the last spots.  Buzz's A&M team last season is a perfect example - they should have been in the tournament..I mean look at Rutger's resume compared to A&M.

[The Sultan]

The bolded is a good point.  I do feel the last 10 should be applied just to all the teams on the bubble.  The totality of their season is still considered but you add the last 10 for the 5-10 bubble teams that are in the running for the last spots.  Buzz's A&M team last season is a perfect example - they should have been in the tournament..I mean look at Rutger's resume compared to A&M.

Perhaps Buzz's team shouldn't have underperformed early.

[Pakuni]

Perhaps Buzz's team shouldn't have underperformed early.

And perhaps Buzz shouldn't have created the softest nonconference schedule in the SEC.

[Lennys Tap]

Are you sure it would do that? And even if you could prove it does, is that really important?

I can't say I'm sure and I don't know if it's provable but logic and my experience tell me that it would (on the margins) improve the field and make seeding more accurate. Are those improvements "really important"? Nope. Most improvements aren't. Doesn't mean they're not worthwhile.

[Newsdreams]

The bolded is a good point.  I do feel the last 10 should be applied just to all the teams on the bubble.  The totality of their season is still considered but you add the last 10 for the 5-10 bubble teams that are in the running for the last spots.  Buzz's A&M team last season is a perfect example - they should have been in the tournament..I mean look at Rutger's resume compared to A&M.

No, it was their fault for scheduling one of the worst, softest non con schedules, came back to bite him.

[Elonsmusk]

And perhaps Buzz shouldn't have created the softest nonconference schedule in the SEC.

Well despite the weak Non-Con schedule Ken Pom (which I believe the committee does use as a component - Brew?) A&M was ranked 43 and Rutgers 74 after their last games of their respective conference tournaments.

[Newsdreams]

Well despite the weak Non-Con schedule Ken Pom (which I believe the committee does use as a component - Brew?) A&M was ranked 43 and Rutgers 74 after their last games of their respective conference tournaments.

Is a component as you say. They were helped by it and destroyed by other factors. Football schools were put on notice I believe 2 years ago that weak non-con games would factor more in the equation.

[MU82]

Yeah, I don't feel sorry for Buzz or his team. Just win more games and/or play a better schedule - 2 things in your control - and you won't be on the bubble.

And I'd say the same if it happened to Marquette.

[The Sultan]

Yeah, I don't feel sorry for Buzz or his team. Just win more games and/or play a better schedule - 2 things in your control - and you won't be on the bubble.

And I'd say the same if it happened to Marquette.

Right. That's why I never understood the "we should be in" outrage.

I mean...just win more.