Shaka's team

[Lennys Tap]

I'm biased because I'm a Marquette fan, so I obviously wouldn't love it. But I'm quite sure I wouldn't be "apoplectic." I'd be upset that Shaka and the AD put together a cupcake non-con schedule, and I'd be ticked off that we had an 8-game losing streak that included home losses to bad teams.

Each college basketball program has control over two things -- their non-con schedule and their results on the court. Take care of those two things and stop whining about the stuff that's out of your control.

I don't buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I'm sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.

You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what's more you'd have a good argument.

[GoldenEagles03]

If you're going to make this point, then it's probably fair to point out that the two highest ranked players of that class - and the two best performers so far - were signed by the last guy. And yes, I know that Shaka had to re-recruit them, but obviously they already had been sold on Marquette by then.

I did. Reread pal.

[MU82]

I don't buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I'm sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.

You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what's more you'd have a good argument.

Tony, I love how you set up hypothetical situations and are 100% certain how everybody else would react if your hypothetical situation actually happened.

That's a great superpower, my friend!

It's Super Len ... who can change the course of Scoopy conversations, troll chicos with his droll wit. And who disguised as Lenny's Tap, mild-mannered poster for a great metropolitan website, fights a never-ending battle for mirth, merriment and the Scoopy way!

[wadesworld]

The Tourney'$ doing fine.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I'm sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.

You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what's more you'd have a good argument.

TAMU was a unique case. They had two Q1 and 2 Q2 wins before their run in the SEC tourney. They were also 58th in Kenpom. They were on the NIT bubble at the end of the regular season, not the NCAAT bubble. They had a historic run through the SEC tourney but the committee has consistently said that they don't weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season. I've always questioned that logic but TAMU shows that they believe it.

If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more. You can poke fun at Rutgers but they had 7 Q1 wins...and all of them before their conference tourney. They beat people.  TAMU didn't until it was too late

[The Sultan]

I couldn't care less about A+M or Rutgers.

My point was that the better the teams in the tournament the better the tournament. And there's no doubt in my mind that the #43 team in the final Pomeroy rankings is better than the #74 team. And that if MU (as #43) was passed over in favor of #74 that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you and most other Scoopers would be apoplectic.

Rutgers and Notre Dame went to double overtime in the play in game. ND went on to upset Alabama in the first round before losing to Texas Tech in the last minute of the second.

The tournament managed just fine without A&M.

[The Sultan]

TAMU was a unique case. They had two Q1 and 2 Q2 wins before their run in the SEC tourney. They were also 58th in Kenpom. They were on the NIT bubble at the end of the regular season, not the NCAAT bubble. They had a historic run through the SEC tourney but the committee has consistently said that they don't weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season. I've always questioned that logic but TAMU shows that they believe it.

If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more. You can poke fun at Rutgers but they had 7 Q1 wins...and all of them before their conference tourney. They beat people.  TAMU didn't until it was too late

Do they not weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season, or just each game as another datapoint like any other?  So for instance if Marquette plays Creighton in the BET, they would treat it as if they were playing an extra game with no additional weight because it's a conference tournament game.

[Newsdreams]

Do they not weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season, or just each game as another datapoint like any other?  So for instance if Marquette plays Creighton in the BET, they would treat it as if they were playing an extra game with no additional weight because it's a conference tournament game.

They have basically said that by the time tournaments of major conferences are being played Saturday the team field is set except for bubble teams that could be affected by bid thieves in tournaments with auto bids.

[The Sultan]

They have basically said that by the time tournaments of major conferences are being played Saturday the team field is set except for bubble teams that could be affected by bid thieves in tournaments with auto bids.

Gotcha. I mean, I do think conference tournament games should "count," but don't believe they should weigh more heavily than any other regular season game.

[MU82]

If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more.

Stop fibbing. Super Len used his X-Ray vision to peer deep into your brain, and you know he knows you know that you would be apoplectic.

Apoplectic, my man!!!!

[brewcity77]

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.

Kenpom is one of 6 metrics used by the Committee. NET is most important because the team sheets are ordered by NET and the SOS, Avg win, Avg loss, and Quadrant systems are all factored with NET. Then there are two resume-based metrics (Kevin Pauga Index, KPI and Strength of Record, SOR) and three efficiency based metrics (Basketball Performance Index, BPI, Sagarin, and Kenpom). If you weight resume and efficiency equally, after NET, kenpom's value weighting comes out to about 16.7% (each resume would be 25%, each predictive 16.7%).

In practice, the predictive metrics are more important when it comes to selection and resume metrics are more important when it comes to seeding. Though TAMU vs Rutgers seems to fly in the face of that.

What this really shows is how meaningless conference tournaments are. If you're using kenpom, the number to look at is #58, which is where TAMU was coming in to the conference tournies, while Rutgers was #74. Still a disparity, but not as much of one. And the Selection Committee really prioritized big pre-tourney wins. Rutgers had 8 regular season wins over the field while TAMU had just 3.

I'll be the first to say I'm not the person to defend Rutgers over TAMU. I think Rutgers was the worst at-large selection by the committee in more than a decade (2011 VCU, sorry Shaka). Sure, they had 7 Q1 wins, but they also had 7 losses outside Q1 and the Selection Committee claims to care about the whole season, which means November losses to DePaul, UMass, and Lafayette should be weighed just as much as wins over Purdue, Iowa, and Illinois.

I don't buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I'm sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.

You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what's more you'd have a good argument.

I would say to this that you can't look at one isolated metric as the reason for selection, especially when that metric represents one third of a second tier metric. Oklahoma was ranked even higher and was left out, while the "first team out" was Dayton, who was #58 at kenpom on Selection Sunday. Personally, I think they put too much stock in big wins and not enough in overall team quality this year. I'm fine with conference tournaments not mattering (at least they're consistent in that regard) and that no single metric should be the end-all, but I don't think either Rutgers or Notre Dame did enough to warrant inclusion. But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter (clearly).

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Poor Buzz

[Golden Avalanche]

I couldn't care less about A+M or Rutgers.

My point was that the better the teams in the tournament the better the tournament. And there's no doubt in my mind that the #43 team in the final Pomeroy rankings is better than the #74 team. And that if MU (as #43) was passed over in favor of #74 that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you and most other Scoopers would be apoplectic.

The bolded makes it obvious you didn't watch enough games involving these two teams.

Rutgers was, without an ounce of doubt, the better team.

[bilsu]

I think the NCAA has more problem seeding the teams than picking the actual teams in the tournament.
At most they leave out one team that should have been in the play in game. The last three Marquette matchups were mis-seeded.

[Lennys Tap]

The bolded makes it obvious you didn't watch enough games involving these two teams.

Rutgers was, without an ounce of doubt, the better team.

LOL.

The Golden Avalanche eye test vs the science of Ken Pom.

I'll take B. Without an ounce of doubt.

[lawdog77]

What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.

[Uncle Rico]

What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.

I agree with this analysis

[Shooter McGavin]

What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.

Sultan?

[The Sultan]

What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.

Yep.

[withoutbias]

Not losing 8 straight games is in your control.  Scheduling a tougher schedule than the worst in P6 conferences is in your control.  A bad whistle is not in your control.

[brewcity77]

I think the NCAA has more problem seeding the teams than picking the actual teams in the tournament.
At most they leave out one team that should have been in the play in game. The last three Marquette matchups were mis-seeded.

Hard disagree there. Personally, I had UNC an 8 and Marquette a 9. The Bracket Matrix consensus agreed on both point. In 2019 I had Marquette a 5 and Murray State a 12, as did Bracket Matrix. Bracket Matrix in 2017 had South Carolina a 7 and Marquette a 10. The only issue there was location. None of those matchups were mis-seeded. They were all spot on, but proved to be bad matchups for us.

[The Sultan]

Not losing 8 straight games is in your control.  Scheduling a tougher schedule than the worst in P6 conferences is in your control.  A bad whistle is not in your control.

Overcoming a couple bad calls is most certainly within your control.

[lawdog77]

Overcoming a couple bad calls is most certainly within your control.

Especially since in most games there are several missed calls going both ways.

[Uncle Rico]

Especially since in most games there are several missed calls going both ways.

Refs are bad across the board.  Sport is populated by bigger, faster and stronger players at the upper levels and the refs have all stayed the same.  Game is too fast for them and with basketball being an inherently physical game, no way they can be very good on a regular basis.

Does a decision by a ref cost teams a game or two a year?  I'd say yes, but it works both ways.

[tower912]

Start with the assumption that the refs are going to miss calls.   They are.  The best you can hope for is that the officiating does not dictate outcome.   It does from time to time, but not nearly as often as message board denizens believe.