Ken Pom
- Thread starter mugrat86
- Start date
Because if our team continues to play this well, we will have bigger jumps in our NET, and the non-computer look of our resume will be tournament worthy (better recent play in the B1G and OOC losses are further in the rear view mirror). All of that assumes we continue to play well.
If we go 7-6 the rest of the way and win 1 B1G tournament game, we are in.
Don't think what we're saying is that different. 7-6 with 1 B1G tourney win would put us at 13 wins in conference which is what I had posted as being on the right side of the bubble.
I 100% agree that the non-computer look would be better (even with just 12 wins). I don't know about the bigger NET jumps based on just continuing playing how we are; it seems like road wins and blowouts are most important, but supposedly it does look at efficiency numbers so that could be true.
Again, hoping it doesn't matter and we just keep winning
If we get to 12or 13+ wins and are in 6th place in the conference with a few additional wins against some higher rated teams, we are in. 11 or less is probably no. Forget the bad losses. We can’t change history as Ron Harper said. Destiny is in our hands. If we play D like last night and our shots fall we can beat most teams in this conference. Bottom line is if we don’t play well the next 6 weeks, we don’t deserve to be in. Personally, I am looking forward to another 7-8 + wins one game at a time.
RU potentially becoming a problem for the Big we are a little over 100 in the NET, but I think 5th or 6th in the league, if we hold serve how do you jump somebody below us in league over us? If our recent performance and league standing remains strong. While Lafayette, UMass and Depaul losses suck, they were also early, and potentially we finish strong win a game or two in the League tournament how can you move somebody past us who we are ahead of in league and perhaps beat. Could end up costing a spot or two to some of the middle of the pack teams in league
This is not how it works. You can easily jump teams over us.. you just do it. There’s nothing stopping them.
It's more like saying Rutgers and Florida both failed a test (loss to a Q4), so why are we now averaging an F and they're still averaging a C?
Because not all failures are equal. Florida got a 55/100 and we got a 15/100... both scores are an F, but theirs is much less damaging. 85 and 55 gets you to a 70, while 85 and 15 gets you to a 45. Now throw 100 on each of those, and the first scenario gets you to an 80 while the second only gets you to 67.
Losing to Lafayette is way worse than losing to Texas Southern. Way worse. To compare them, Texas Southern is NET 198 of 358... that's roughly in the 45th percentile. Lafayette is 322 of 358... that's about 10th percentile. Kenpom has Texas Southern beating Lafayette by 11 on a neutral floor.
Yeah this happens all the time.
2019 Big 12:
Oklahoma makes it at 7-11. Texas misses at 8-10.
2019 SEC:
South Carolina goes 11-7. Three teams behind them (two at 10-8, one at 9-9) make it.
Two easy examples from the last "normal" tournament.
If we finish 5th or 6th in the league how many wins is that likely to be?
If we finish one game ahead of someone in the B1G standings but their NCAA resume is significantly better due to strong OOC schedule and no anchor Q4 losses.... they are going to get in over us
It's going to be our NCAA tournament resume measured against theirs. If it's razor close then they should use some common sense and take the team with the better B1G finish
Right. The biggest obstacle for us is major conference parity because unfortunately our OOC resume is going to be worse than everyone’s no matter what we do. Right now the whole B12 would get in ahead of us. If too many teams finish 8-10 or 9-9 in that league that would be bad for us. We want lots of teams with 15+ losses. Realistically, a 14 loss K-State team on selection Sunday would most likely have a better resume than us even at 12-8 (13 losses) because they don’t have that stupid Lafayette loss.
but we have that Purdue win, thats why we need for Purdue to win as much as possible and get that #1 seed
I know. But we need Purdue to be more than just a little better than wins over Texas, TT, etc.
If we’re in striking distance I hope Pike will be vocal about Geo’s absence from the UMass game and down the stretch of Lafayette.
We should’ve still won those games, but I think Geo has made enough of a name for himself that knowledge of that might mean something to the selection committee. Early season games, we probably don’t lose either without veteran super senior PG. At least I think there’s at least a possibility there could be some committee members that think that way.
We should’ve still won those games, but I think Geo has made enough of a name for himself that knowledge of that might mean something to the selection committee. Early season games, we probably don’t lose either without veteran super senior PG. At least I think there’s at least a possibility there could be some committee members that think that way.
Everyone keeps bringing up what would we be ranked if Lafayette was a win and not a loss, and I've got a close approximation of the NET.
I05 (11-6) Avg NET win 189 / avg NET loss 118
2-2 2-2 1-1 6-1
If we subtract 323 from the loss and add 323 to the win.
?? (12-5) Avg NET win 200 / avg NET loss 77
2-2 2-2 1-1 7-0
60 Cincinnati(13-5) Avg NET win 200 / avg NET loss 75
1-2 2-1 2-2 8-0
It's not an exact science but Cincinnati has the closest resume resembling ours if we put the Lafayette loss in the win column, give or take a +/- of 1 or 2 spots.
I05 (11-6) Avg NET win 189 / avg NET loss 118
2-2 2-2 1-1 6-1
If we subtract 323 from the loss and add 323 to the win.
?? (12-5) Avg NET win 200 / avg NET loss 77
2-2 2-2 1-1 7-0
60 Cincinnati(13-5) Avg NET win 200 / avg NET loss 75
1-2 2-1 2-2 8-0
It's not an exact science but Cincinnati has the closest resume resembling ours if we put the Lafayette loss in the win column, give or take a +/- of 1 or 2 spots.
I disagree. Everything is evaluated. It might not be a huge consideration but definitely a consideration
It’s not considered. It’s possible some of the committee members may personally have some bias against teams that are bottom feeders but it’s been disclosed many time that conference record is a metric that’s stripped from the evaluation board. Everything is broken down by overall body of work.
no they have specific criteria as to what and what should not be considered
there will always a human element in the selection process but no that is always up to the individual member
Let's get a rematch with Lafayette this season (write a big check) and whip them by 25+ to show it was a fluke. 
I get your point that officially it’s not part of matrix, but if their is personal bias then it is considered. There is always personal bias to things of that nature.