A 19-15 team made the tourney
- Thread starter Msubulldogfan1
- Start date
Colin Sexton made the field as a media darling. The rest of the Bama stiffs are coming with him as window dressing.
Alabama has more quadrant 1 wins than almost any other team in the country. The committee has long put more precedence on who you beat rather than who you lost to. Oklahoma in the same boat. If you have some really good wins it cancels out those losses.
But geese they lost to vandy, UCF, Minnesota, some school called Carleton University, a losing record in conference.
I don’t make the rules. I just tell them to you. Vanderbilt made the tournament last year with an 18-15 record because of their tough non conference schedule and beating some really good teams. That’s the way it works.
I’m questioning how it works, I understand the reasoning behind them getting in.
My point is, at some point, wins and losses should matter...a loss to a good team is still a loss and visa versa
MSU's Tourney chances took a signicant hit the day the schedule was released.... If Howland wants to be in the Tourney next year, he better schedule like it.
The committee does it that way to prevent teams from scheduling a bunch of tomato cans at home in the non conference and getting a gaudy record. They want teams to challenge themselves out of conference and on the road or at neutral sites.
Yes, I understand how it works. My point is they place a little TOO MUCH emphasis on it. 19-15 should not get you in, period. Imo anyway.
I remember when there weren't quadrants and **** and teams made it on their record. I know our preconference was shat on but we did play Cincinnati and Stephen F Austin, who are both in. We also went .500 in a rough league and won one in our tourney.
At this point, it doesn't matter but the selections used to be made by the committee not the media darlings and their favorites.
It's funny that we could have a worse record with better pre-conference and be in the mix. Is it just me or is that funny?
What happened in 2012? We had good non conference wins and finished .500 in the regular season SEC play.
21-12 and we still didn't make it
21-12 and we still didn't make it
Dickie V making some sense about some ******** selections bringing up the fact that the traditional powers get more of those big pre-conference matchups than the rest of us. I know dude is nearly senile at times but his rant was worth listening to if for nothing else other than hearing him making a case for common sense.
That's absolutely the way it is. John Cohen and Ben Howland need to wake the f up. It's very clear and it's been very clear for a long time that the committee wants you to schedule some non-conference games. OU has been absolutely horrible the last 15 games. But they got in because of their non conference schedule.
I agree with Dickie V
The blue bloods basically collude the process by having the Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Michigan State, Kansas, Arizona Aircraft carrier round robin every year. It basically guarantees them being in the tournament.
That being said, I don’t have a huge issue with the committee valuing wins over losses.
The committee wants to have a great tournament. Any team can be asleep and lose, but by valuing who you beat, they are guaranteeing that the tournament is full of mostly capable teams. Having a good record doesn’t mean your any good or can beat good teams.
If we’d just beef up our non-conference schedule, we’d be fine and the system would benefit us. Problem is, the blue bloods won’t do home and homes and the early season showcases want blue bloods for better TV ratings.
Texas A&M came in as the 25th overall team. Texas A&M does not play good defense and their backcourt is very weak. They went 20-12, 9-9, that's nothing great.
How are they 25th? They are 25th b/c they beat WV, Oklahoma State and USC and they lost to Arizona. All of these games were away from home. They aren't a great team, but they were comfortably in b/c of the way they scheduled.
How are they 25th? They are 25th b/c they beat WV, Oklahoma State and USC and they lost to Arizona. All of these games were away from home. They aren't a great team, but they were comfortably in b/c of the way they scheduled.
And Colin Sexton off Bama. In fact, I would bet my football season tickets, if Mississippi State had the same resume as Bama or Oklahoma and was 19-15 overall, we wouldn’t even make the first 4 out.
Edited to Add: I don’t think Miss State should be in. I just don’t think Bama or Oklahoma should be in either!
Edited to Add: I don’t think Miss State should be in. I just don’t think Bama or Oklahoma should be in either!
Last edited:
That's what I am saying, especially to the downvoters, we have now fully experienced the new rules and need to change to fit it.
Whether I think it is stupid or not we need to change things.
Missing the point here. OK and Bama got in solely because of their highly prolific star players.
Dp you really think they arent aware?
1- some of the non-con teams we played were WAY worse than expected.
2- the schedule wasnt created to get the team ready for a deep NCAA T run. It was built to give them experience and confidence leading into conference play.
I would expect next season'a nonzcon schedule to be more challenging. Not because Cohen and Howland suddenly learned whats expected from a schedule to make the tournament, but because the team will be better than this season and the scheduling strategy will be to accomplish a different goal than this season.
The '15-'16 LSU team finished 3rd in the conference, won 19 games, and missed the tournament.
Thats in spite of having media darling Ben Simmons on the team who had been written about over and again by all the major and minor sports news outlets i can think of.
The fact that you think Bama got into the tournament just because they have a really good player is laughable.
Jock Landale is a flippin stud and was a late season POY candidate, but not in the field.
Then we should play them on the road. Trade 3 terrible W's for 2 or 3 L's and a much better nonconference SOS. The metrics the committee uses are dumb as hell, but they are what they are. Schedule accordingly. This isn't football where that 7th home game helps with ticket sales and bowl chances.
Agreed 100%. Our nonconference schedule in basketball this season was the most embarrassing thing to come out of our athletic department since LT hired Croom. FIVE games against RPI 300+ teams. 2 SWAC schools and UT Martin, who were 3 games who are guaranteed to be in the 300+ range regardless of the sport (seriously, UT Martin just needs to roll down to NAIA and be done with it). Unacceptable job by all involved.
I just want to take a moment to point out that the conventional wisdom right now is that expanding the CFP to 8 teams will solve all the arguments, disputes, and controversies over who gets in and who doesn't. Anyone who actually believes that is out of their mind.
A conversation between my wife and mother in law last night....
MIL- Is Memphis going to make the tournament?
Wife- Um... no
MIL- What!?! Why? They’ve been playing a lot better lately
Wife- Because we didn’t beat anynody this year
MIL- We almost beat Cincinnati!
Wife- But we didn’t
MIL- We played really well!
Wife- For a half
MIL- This is all so bogus and disrespectful to our AAC conference
I always get a kick out of this time of year
MIL- Is Memphis going to make the tournament?
Wife- Um... no
MIL- What!?! Why? They’ve been playing a lot better lately
Wife- Because we didn’t beat anynody this year
MIL- We almost beat Cincinnati!
Wife- But we didn’t
MIL- We played really well!
Wife- For a half
MIL- This is all so bogus and disrespectful to our AAC conference
I always get a kick out of this time of year
There are 351 Division 1 basketball teams, and 68 make the NCAA tournament. That is 19%. 19% of 129 football programs is 25.
What does this tell you? It tell you that the basketball tournament is too big, and the football tournament is too small. I think you could legitimately determine a national champion with a 32 team basketball tournament (roughly 10%), and a 8 or 12 team football tournament (6-10%). You would be close to 100% accuracy with that model, and prevent dumb cinderellas.
It was apparent the day that schedule was announced that they weren't sufficiently aware of the realities of scheduling to give yourself a decent chance to make the tournament. The fact that in hindsight, the schedule turned out to be even worse than we thought it would be doesn't change the fact it was a terrible schedule to begin with.
Would it eliminate all controversy? No. But it would be a much better overall setup. In an 8 team playoff you would hypothetically take each champion from the 5 power conferences, the highest ranked G5 school, and 2 at large teams. That pretty much gives everyone an avenue to be represented and you wouldn't need any more than that. Anyone complaining after that should just shutup. The 64 team NCAA basketball tournament field makes it fun but I would argue that there are TOO MANY teams in the basketball tournament. One could argue that if you don't win either your league's regular season championship or tourney championship you probably have no business playing for a national championship. The basketball tourney should probably be no more than 48 teams at most but letting more teams in at least keeps more people interested longer I guess and gives us the "Cinderella" story on occasion.
But you don't really need all that. There was never a year where a team outside the top 4 of the BCS had a legitimate argument that they deserved to be in the national championship game. I'm sure there were teams outside the top four that theoretically could have won in a playoff, but I don't think there was ever a year where there was a team arguably in the top two that weren't in the top four of the BCS. They could go back to the BCS and the playoff and it would be a big improvement to me.
It's all in your perspective of who should be in I guess. In the 4 years we've had the playoffs the #4 seed has won the whole thing 2 of the 4 years [OSU 2015, Bama 2018] and in both of those years there was a decent amount of argument about whether either of those 2 teams 'deserved' to get the fourth spot.
To be clear, I'm looking at it from the old system of the top two teams should play for the national championship. If you are one of the top two teams based on the regular season, you should get a shot. I think that the BCS system was very good at identifying the two best teams, and I don't think there was ever anybody outside of the top four that could legitimately argue they were a top two team, even if they were good enough to potentially win a playoff.
I think Bama definitely would have been in the top 4 of the BCS, and probably higher than 4th.
OSU I'm not sure about, but they also had a really bad loss (I think a home loss to Va tech, a team that also was beat by like a FCS team or really awful FBS team), so they couldn't really argue they had a top two resume, even if by the end of the year they were as good or better than anybody.
In the last 30 years those 6 programs have missed the tourney maybe five times total. They don't need the Aircraft Carrier Tournament to get in.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Keys to Victory vs. Auburn
-
02
Rivals Basketball Recruiting
4-star center Chris Brown commits to Mississippi State
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Auburn Q and A
-
04
Maroon and White Basketball
Mississippi State vs. Xavier: How, Where, and When to Watch Bulldog Basketball
-
05
Maroon and White
"I started something I didn't finish": Mississippi State QB Kamario Taylor joins Sports Center to talk 2027 return