(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:57 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:48 AM)freshtop Wrote:  2 road games per is pretty lean.

WKU is a basketball centric and played 5 true road games in OOC.

I think you would struggle to find another "non-power" conference that averages 2 OOC road games over their top 6 programs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MWC a whole hell of a lot different than C-USA. It just is.

Not debating that. They are clearly spending money on home games that many other programs and conference outside the "have's" are not. That was my point. NET isn't really to blame for them crushing opponents at home. Most programs win at home. The MWC won at home and did so convincingly which is why the robots like them so much. Other conferences have a couple programs here and there that do the same, but then they get to conference play and have to go on the road and since everyone else didn't pad their schedule accordingly they get drug down into the murk when they lose.

Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

For reference the ACC is 34-80 (0.425) in quad 1 games this year so far. The MWC is 29-56 (0.518).

(02-19-2024 04:50 AM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:07 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  They could get 5 or 6 tourney bids. That would be a record for them. This conference is clearly on the rise. I know realignment is done for football purposes first and foremost but the MWC would be foolish to let the Pac 2 dictate anything to them at this point because they have all the leverage. Because the MWC is so good in basketball now maybe OSU and WSU wont mind joining up. There's still some work to be done in football but it seems in football the MWC will rise with the Pac 12's demise. If the Pac 2 want indy for football and WCC for every other sport if they cant do the reverse merger with the MWC is that really better than joining the Mountain West at this point ?

The deal is the 2Pac Shakur have a more prestigious name, even if it's mostly an eggshell of what it was, and are sitting on a ton of exit fees and Tournament credits. The MWC has some of the latter but not much in the way of a name and nothing when it comes to exit fees.

It would benefit the best of the MWC (along with the best of the AAC and even the Sun Belt) to combine into a best-of-the-rest conference and leave the deadweight like San Jose State, Air Force (yeah, I get it, they're good but there's a limit on what they can be) and Wyoming behind. Boise, SDSU and Fresno are programs with a lot of potential if you could elevate their status some. I wouldn't go beyond 8-10.

As others and myself have posted here many times, a national BOR conference makes no sense unless there's a media partner (or partners) out there who would be willing to give the members a big enough increase in annual distributions to offset the additional travel costs and compensate for the adverse impacts on student athletes.

As of now there is no indication that any media company or set of companies is prepared to do this. In the context of what's happening with other conferences, the product just isn't that compelling.

(02-19-2024 12:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:57 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  MWC a whole hell of a lot different than C-USA. It just is.

Not debating that. They are clearly spending money on home games that many other programs and conference outside the "have's" are not. That was my point. NET isn't really to blame for them crushing opponents at home. Most programs win at home. The MWC won at home and did so convincingly which is why the robots like them so much. Other conferences have a couple programs here and there that do the same, but then they get to conference play and have to go on the road and since everyone else didn't pad their schedule accordingly they get drug down into the murk when they lose.

Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

Boise scheduled well OOC- #26 OOC SOS right now. 7 Q1/2 games (and home vs North Texas- they're #78 and could easily get into top 75 to make it 8).

The only team they played who was good and knew they were good at the time was Clemson which they lost by 20. St Marys was bad back then and UNT sucks. They played and killed some absolute dogs other than that.

(02-19-2024 12:33 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:57 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  MWC a whole hell of a lot different than C-USA. It just is.

Not debating that. They are clearly spending money on home games that many other programs and conference outside the "have's" are not. That was my point. NET isn't really to blame for them crushing opponents at home. Most programs win at home. The MWC won at home and did so convincingly which is why the robots like them so much. Other conferences have a couple programs here and there that do the same, but then they get to conference play and have to go on the road and since everyone else didn't pad their schedule accordingly they get drug down into the murk when they lose.

Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

Right.

The other thing the top 6 teams have done is not lose much to the other 5. Only 5 losses between the 6 against the other teams- and 3 of them were to UNLV(other 2 vs Wyoming).

(02-19-2024 12:44 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:57 AM)freshtop Wrote:  Not debating that. They are clearly spending money on home games that many other programs and conference outside the "have's" are not. That was my point. NET isn't really to blame for them crushing opponents at home. Most programs win at home. The MWC won at home and did so convincingly which is why the robots like them so much. Other conferences have a couple programs here and there that do the same, but then they get to conference play and have to go on the road and since everyone else didn't pad their schedule accordingly they get drug down into the murk when they lose.

Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

Boise scheduled well OOC- #26 OOC SOS right now. 7 Q1/2 games (and home vs North Texas- they're #78 and could easily get into top 75 to make it 8).

The only team they played who was good and knew they were good at the time was Clemson which they lost by 20. St Marys was bad back then and UNT sucks. They played and killed some absolute dogs other than that.

Boise gets full credit for it though. Their schedule is not going to be looked at negatively.

(02-19-2024 12:33 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:57 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  MWC a whole hell of a lot different than C-USA. It just is.

Not debating that. They are clearly spending money on home games that many other programs and conference outside the "have's" are not. That was my point. NET isn't really to blame for them crushing opponents at home. Most programs win at home. The MWC won at home and did so convincingly which is why the robots like them so much. Other conferences have a couple programs here and there that do the same, but then they get to conference play and have to go on the road and since everyone else didn't pad their schedule accordingly they get drug down into the murk when they lose.

Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

You do if every team has the same scheduling philosophy of murdering dregs in the non-conference to get the max NET efficiency benefit.

(02-19-2024 12:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:44 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

Boise scheduled well OOC- #26 OOC SOS right now. 7 Q1/2 games (and home vs North Texas- they're #78 and could easily get into top 75 to make it 8).

The only team they played who was good and knew they were good at the time was Clemson which they lost by 20. St Marys was bad back then and UNT sucks. They played and killed some absolute dogs other than that.

Boise gets full credit for it though. Their schedule is not going to be looked at negatively.

Nothing about their schedule suggests they are a tournament caliber team. They lost every legit OOC game and then all the sudden start winning when they hit the conference games full of teams that scheduled just like them. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy just like it is in the Big12/Big10.

(02-19-2024 12:51 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:33 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:57 AM)freshtop Wrote:  Not debating that. They are clearly spending money on home games that many other programs and conference outside the "have's" are not. That was my point. NET isn't really to blame for them crushing opponents at home. Most programs win at home. The MWC won at home and did so convincingly which is why the robots like them so much. Other conferences have a couple programs here and there that do the same, but then they get to conference play and have to go on the road and since everyone else didn't pad their schedule accordingly they get drug down into the murk when they lose.

Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

You do if every team has the same scheduling philosophy of murdering dregs in the non-conference to get the max NET efficiency benefit.

except they didn't.

Oh and if you think it's just NET. Lets just look at the RPI.
SDSU 2
Boise 30
Colorado St 10
Utah St 8
Nevada 34
New Mexico 17

oh, and UNLV is 75 so road games at UNLV would be Q1 games as well.

(02-19-2024 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:51 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:33 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Half of their OOC games were on the road. That's not ******* gaming the system. This isn't what the MVC did years ago.

Part of why they're so high in the NET is they actually WON on the road/neutral....
SDSU 4-2
Utah St 5-1
Boise 3-3
New Mexico 5-1
Colorado St 5-0
Nevada 5-1

That's pretty darn good.

Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

You do if every team has the same scheduling philosophy of murdering dregs in the non-conference to get the max NET efficiency benefit.

except they didn't.

Oh and if you think it's just NET. Lets just look at the RPI.
SDSU 2
Boise 30
Colorado St 10
Utah St 8
Nevada 34
New Mexico 17

oh, and UNLV is 75 so road games at UNLV would be Q1 games as well.

You mean the flawed metric and the flawed metric that it replaced are both terrible? Wow I'm shocked. I'm not just making this up. They have been getting murdered in the tournament for years because they have been gaming the system. Every year the committee makes the same stupid mistake of rewarding it just to watch them fall on their face. SDST last year was the first win the conference had in 5 years and 12 tries. They were the higher or equal seed 9 times!!! That is hilariously bad.

(02-19-2024 12:43 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 04:50 AM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:07 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  They could get 5 or 6 tourney bids. That would be a record for them. This conference is clearly on the rise. I know realignment is done for football purposes first and foremost but the MWC would be foolish to let the Pac 2 dictate anything to them at this point because they have all the leverage. Because the MWC is so good in basketball now maybe OSU and WSU wont mind joining up. There's still some work to be done in football but it seems in football the MWC will rise with the Pac 12's demise. If the Pac 2 want indy for football and WCC for every other sport if they cant do the reverse merger with the MWC is that really better than joining the Mountain West at this point ?

The deal is the 2Pac Shakur have a more prestigious name, even if it's mostly an eggshell of what it was, and are sitting on a ton of exit fees and Tournament credits. The MWC has some of the latter but not much in the way of a name and nothing when it comes to exit fees.

It would benefit the best of the MWC (along with the best of the AAC and even the Sun Belt) to combine into a best-of-the-rest conference and leave the deadweight like San Jose State, Air Force (yeah, I get it, they're good but there's a limit on what they can be) and Wyoming behind. Boise, SDSU and Fresno are programs with a lot of potential if you could elevate their status some. I wouldn't go beyond 8-10.

As others and myself have posted here many times, a national BOR conference makes no sense unless there's a media partner (or partners) out there who would be willing to give the members a big enough increase in annual distributions to offset the additional travel costs and compensate for the adverse impacts on student athletes.

As of now there is no indication that any media company or set of companies is prepared to do this. In the context of what's happening with other conferences, the product just isn't that compelling.

If not a fully national conference, then half the continent like the old WAC and AAC could work for the 2Pac Shakur.

(02-19-2024 12:56 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:44 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

Boise scheduled well OOC- #26 OOC SOS right now. 7 Q1/2 games (and home vs North Texas- they're #78 and could easily get into top 75 to make it 8).

The only team they played who was good and knew they were good at the time was Clemson which they lost by 20. St Marys was bad back then and UNT sucks. They played and killed some absolute dogs other than that.

Boise gets full credit for it though. Their schedule is not going to be looked at negatively.

Nothing about their schedule suggests they are a tournament caliber team. They lost every legit OOC game and then all the sudden start winning when they hit the conference games full of teams that scheduled just like them. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy just like it is in the Big12/Big10.

LOL, did you just compare the MWC to the Big 12? Other than WV and Okie State they aren't on the same planet as us (they have bad teams too).

(02-19-2024 01:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:51 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:33 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

You do if every team has the same scheduling philosophy of murdering dregs in the non-conference to get the max NET efficiency benefit.

except they didn't.

Oh and if you think it's just NET. Lets just look at the RPI.
SDSU 2
Boise 30
Colorado St 10
Utah St 8
Nevada 34
New Mexico 17

oh, and UNLV is 75 so road games at UNLV would be Q1 games as well.

You mean the flawed metric and the flawed metric that it replaced are both terrible? Wow I'm shocked. I'm not just making this up. They have been getting murdered in the tournament for years because they have been gaming the system. Every year the committee makes the same stupid mistake of rewarding it just to watch them fall on their face. SDST last year was the first win the conference had in 5 years and 12 tries. They were the higher or equal seed 9 times!!! That is hilariously bad.

doesn't mean a ******* thing on if they get teams in.

(02-19-2024 01:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:51 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:33 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Most of them played nobodies. SDSU sure. CoSt sure. The others? Might as well have been playing high school teams.

That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

You do if every team has the same scheduling philosophy of murdering dregs in the non-conference to get the max NET efficiency benefit.

except they didn't.

Oh and if you think it's just NET. Lets just look at the RPI.
SDSU 2
Boise 30
Colorado St 10
Utah St 8
Nevada 34
New Mexico 17

oh, and UNLV is 75 so road games at UNLV would be Q1 games as well.

You mean the flawed metric and the flawed metric that it replaced are both terrible? Wow I'm shocked. I'm not just making this up. They have been getting murdered in the tournament for years because they have been gaming the system. Every year the committee makes the same stupid mistake of rewarding it just to watch them fall on their face. SDST last year was the first win the conference had in 5 years and 12 tries. They were the higher or equal seed 9 times!!! That is hilariously bad.

Well, what exactly do you want? No system is without flaws. No system will account for injuries, cold shooting nights, or a team like St. Mary's that started slow and came on strong later. No system will totally account for margin of victory or a game that was a 35-point blowout with 6 minutes left before the losing team closed it to 19 by the end of garbage time.

We have systems (plural with an -s, though the primary one is the NET) that give you and the committee an idea of who is good and who isn't, who has been playing good teams and who hasn't and to a lesser extent, by how much they've won or lost by. It's merely a start in evaluation and it's up to you and, more importantly, the committee to determine how valid the data is and seed teams accordingly.

(02-19-2024 02:38 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:51 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:33 PM)freshtop Wrote:  That isn't true. Ever MWC program has played at least six quad 1 games this season. Many have come in conference play, but you don't end up with that many quad 1 opportunities if everyone scheduled poorly OOC.

You do if every team has the same scheduling philosophy of murdering dregs in the non-conference to get the max NET efficiency benefit.

except they didn't.

Oh and if you think it's just NET. Lets just look at the RPI.
SDSU 2
Boise 30
Colorado St 10
Utah St 8
Nevada 34
New Mexico 17

oh, and UNLV is 75 so road games at UNLV would be Q1 games as well.

You mean the flawed metric and the flawed metric that it replaced are both terrible? Wow I'm shocked. I'm not just making this up. They have been getting murdered in the tournament for years because they have been gaming the system. Every year the committee makes the same stupid mistake of rewarding it just to watch them fall on their face. SDST last year was the first win the conference had in 5 years and 12 tries. They were the higher or equal seed 9 times!!! That is hilariously bad.

Well, what exactly do you want? No system is without flaws. No system will account for injuries, cold shooting nights, or a team like St. Mary's that started slow and came on strong later. No system will totally account for margin of victory or a game that was a 35-point blowout with 6 minutes left before the losing team closed it to 19 by the end of garbage time.

We have systems (plural with an -s, though the primary one is the NET) that give you and the committee an idea of who is good and who isn't, who has been playing good teams and who hasn't and to a lesser extent, by how much they've won or lost by. It's merely a start in evaluation and it's up to you and, more importantly, the committee to determine how valid the data is and seed teams accordingly.

When you routinely get blasted in the tournament like the MWC/Big10, using a different system to judge is warranted. They are raking in credits that belong to more deserving schools. I don't think it will ever happen because those committees are lazy.

(02-19-2024 02:41 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 02:38 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:51 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  You do if every team has the same scheduling philosophy of murdering dregs in the non-conference to get the max NET efficiency benefit.

except they didn't.

Oh and if you think it's just NET. Lets just look at the RPI.
SDSU 2
Boise 30
Colorado St 10
Utah St 8
Nevada 34
New Mexico 17

oh, and UNLV is 75 so road games at UNLV would be Q1 games as well.

You mean the flawed metric and the flawed metric that it replaced are both terrible? Wow I'm shocked. I'm not just making this up. They have been getting murdered in the tournament for years because they have been gaming the system. Every year the committee makes the same stupid mistake of rewarding it just to watch them fall on their face. SDST last year was the first win the conference had in 5 years and 12 tries. They were the higher or equal seed 9 times!!! That is hilariously bad.

Well, what exactly do you want? No system is without flaws. No system will account for injuries, cold shooting nights, or a team like St. Mary's that started slow and came on strong later. No system will totally account for margin of victory or a game that was a 35-point blowout with 6 minutes left before the losing team closed it to 19 by the end of garbage time.

We have systems (plural with an -s, though the primary one is the NET) that give you and the committee an idea of who is good and who isn't, who has been playing good teams and who hasn't and to a lesser extent, by how much they've won or lost by. It's merely a start in evaluation and it's up to you and, more importantly, the committee to determine how valid the data is and seed teams accordingly.

When you routinely get blasted in the tournament like the MWC/Big10, using a different system to judge is warranted. They are raking in credits that belong to more deserving schools. I don't think it will ever happen because those committees are lazy.

Not really. The decision on who makes the tournament should be based 100% on what happened this season. Not last year. or 5 years ago.

(02-19-2024 02:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 02:41 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 02:38 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  except they didn't.

Oh and if you think it's just NET. Lets just look at the RPI.
SDSU 2
Boise 30
Colorado St 10
Utah St 8
Nevada 34
New Mexico 17

oh, and UNLV is 75 so road games at UNLV would be Q1 games as well.

You mean the flawed metric and the flawed metric that it replaced are both terrible? Wow I'm shocked. I'm not just making this up. They have been getting murdered in the tournament for years because they have been gaming the system. Every year the committee makes the same stupid mistake of rewarding it just to watch them fall on their face. SDST last year was the first win the conference had in 5 years and 12 tries. They were the higher or equal seed 9 times!!! That is hilariously bad.

Well, what exactly do you want? No system is without flaws. No system will account for injuries, cold shooting nights, or a team like St. Mary's that started slow and came on strong later. No system will totally account for margin of victory or a game that was a 35-point blowout with 6 minutes left before the losing team closed it to 19 by the end of garbage time.

We have systems (plural with an -s, though the primary one is the NET) that give you and the committee an idea of who is good and who isn't, who has been playing good teams and who hasn't and to a lesser extent, by how much they've won or lost by. It's merely a start in evaluation and it's up to you and, more importantly, the committee to determine how valid the data is and seed teams accordingly.

When you routinely get blasted in the tournament like the MWC/Big10, using a different system to judge is warranted. They are raking in credits that belong to more deserving schools. I don't think it will ever happen because those committees are lazy.

Not really. The decision on who makes the tournament should be based 100% on what happened this season. Not last year. or 5 years ago.

I get it. It is too tough for you to understand.

(02-19-2024 02:53 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 02:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 02:41 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 02:38 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 01:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  You mean the flawed metric and the flawed metric that it replaced are both terrible? Wow I'm shocked. I'm not just making this up. They have been getting murdered in the tournament for years because they have been gaming the system. Every year the committee makes the same stupid mistake of rewarding it just to watch them fall on their face. SDST last year was the first win the conference had in 5 years and 12 tries. They were the higher or equal seed 9 times!!! That is hilariously bad.

Well, what exactly do you want? No system is without flaws. No system will account for injuries, cold shooting nights, or a team like St. Mary's that started slow and came on strong later. No system will totally account for margin of victory or a game that was a 35-point blowout with 6 minutes left before the losing team closed it to 19 by the end of garbage time.

We have systems (plural with an -s, though the primary one is the NET) that give you and the committee an idea of who is good and who isn't, who has been playing good teams and who hasn't and to a lesser extent, by how much they've won or lost by. It's merely a start in evaluation and it's up to you and, more importantly, the committee to determine how valid the data is and seed teams accordingly.

When you routinely get blasted in the tournament like the MWC/Big10, using a different system to judge is warranted. They are raking in credits that belong to more deserving schools. I don't think it will ever happen because those committees are lazy.

Not really. The decision on who makes the tournament should be based 100% on what happened this season. Not last year. or 5 years ago.

I get it. It is too tough for you to understand.

I'm saying what reality is. What the ******* ACC or SEC did years before is MEANINGLESS to this year.

(02-19-2024 02:41 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  When you routinely get blasted in the tournament like the MWC/Big10, using a different system to judge is warranted. They are raking in credits that belong to more deserving schools. I don't think it will ever happen because those committees are lazy.

Losing (or winning) in the Tournament does very little to establish who are the best teams from the regular season and who is the worst. The Tournament is a crapshoot where whoever is playing the best, combined with who has the most talent, combined with sheer luck determines who advances far.

For example, UConn has 5 titles. They have in no way been an equal to Duke in the last 40 years other than that.

To add to that, didn't a MWC team just play for the national title? Hello?

(02-19-2024 03:13 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 02:41 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  When you routinely get blasted in the tournament like the MWC/Big10, using a different system to judge is warranted. They are raking in credits that belong to more deserving schools. I don't think it will ever happen because those committees are lazy.

Losing (or winning) in the Tournament does very little to establish who are the best teams from the regular season and who is the worst. The Tournament is a crapshoot where whoever is playing the best, combined with who has the most talent, combined with sheer luck determines who advances far.

For example, UConn has 5 titles. They have in no way been an equal to Duke in the last 40 years other than that.

That is true on a year to year basis, but its hard to deny when a trend singles out certain conferences.