(02-21-2023 11:42 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 04:34 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Unfortunately, we are still a one bid league. I read an article today from CBS sports bracketology that noted some years there could be teams in the top 30 in the NET get left off based on resume...

If a top 30 score can’t get you in a 68-team field, it’s a completely useless metric and no one should even bother keeping up with it. Why are people so resistant to just admitting it’s a money-chasing popularity contest and getting on with their lives?

That said, we don’t deserve an at-large this year with our “bad losses” to “good wins” ratio, and I’m OK with that.

VUSA had two top 35 RPI teams left out of the tournament in 2018. It's not just NET

*Note, I see the typo of VUSA, and I'm going to leave it. Don't overthink it, it's just funny.

(02-21-2023 11:51 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 11:42 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 04:34 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Unfortunately, we are still a one bid league. I read an article today from CBS sports bracketology that noted some years there could be teams in the top 30 in the NET get left off based on resume...

If a top 30 score can’t get you in a 68-team field, it’s a completely useless metric and no one should even bother keeping up with it. Why are people so resistant to just admitting it’s a money-chasing popularity contest and getting on with their lives?

That said, we don’t deserve an at-large this year with our “bad losses” to “good wins” ratio, and I’m OK with that.

VUSA had two top 35 RPI teams left out of the tournament in 2018. It's not just NET

*Note, I see the typo of VUSA, and I'm going to leave it. Don't overthink it, it's just funny.

The metrics themselves aren’t the problem, it’s the fact that they’re just ignored when convenient.

Developing an ostensibly unbiased statistical measurement that gives a clear picture of a team’s relative strength is pointless when you’re just gonna get “Yeah, but….”

I don't like how little emphasis they put on your actual NET ranking. But, I do feel they have been pretty consistent. Even a decade ago with rpi it was the amount of wins against the top rpi wins you have. Now it's 75% amount of wins against quad 1 teams. It's why on the NET they list your wins by quad ranking on the NET rankings site.

Why are Marshall and JMU not receiving any votes. JMU has won 7 of last 8 and Marshall has won 6 of last 7 and that loss was only against Louisiana who could also be receiving votes after winning 11 of their last 14.

(02-22-2023 12:43 PM)Johnnychimpo Wrote:  Why are Marshall and JMU not receiving any votes. JMU has won 7 of last 8 and Marshall has won 6 of last 7 and that loss was only against Louisiana who could also be receiving votes after winning 11 of their last 14.

We may, now. But JMU won't and USM certainly lost those 3. We have to get through ODU to have any consideration though.

(02-22-2023 12:02 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 11:51 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 11:42 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 04:34 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Unfortunately, we are still a one bid league. I read an article today from CBS sports bracketology that noted some years there could be teams in the top 30 in the NET get left off based on resume...

If a top 30 score can’t get you in a 68-team field, it’s a completely useless metric and no one should even bother keeping up with it. Why are people so resistant to just admitting it’s a money-chasing popularity contest and getting on with their lives?

That said, we don’t deserve an at-large this year with our “bad losses” to “good wins” ratio, and I’m OK with that.

VUSA had two top 35 RPI teams left out of the tournament in 2018. It's not just NET

*Note, I see the typo of VUSA, and I'm going to leave it. Don't overthink it, it's just funny.

The metrics themselves aren’t the problem, it’s the fact that they’re just ignored when convenient.

Developing an ostensibly unbiased statistical measurement that gives a clear picture of a team’s relative strength is pointless when you’re just gonna get “Yeah, but….”

Set their formula whatever it may be. Remove the committee. Remove any subjective rankings from the formula. Subtract the autobid number from 68. Let's say 30 (I don't know how many there are). Take the next 38 teams available in order. Determine seeding from that ranking, exclusively. STOP moving the bar when smaller teams learn how to maximize their potential.

It's hard enough for mids to maintain a high NET, let alone when someone can just arbitrarily say, "No, they aren't going," with no repercussions.

It would be much, much better if the betting market seeded the NCAA tourney. The clowns who do it now are idiots.

(02-23-2023 05:42 AM)TomorrowHerd Wrote: