The B12 bubble is going to be tough. Lots of parity so far in that conference and their teams didn’t accumulate bad losses.
NCAA Tourney Odds
- Thread starter rtabachk
- Start date
One thing to point out about that site: it is counting Rider as an upcoming game on our schedule still. So that is throwing the win totals you guys are talking about off by 1.
How do you know that? I was wondering. That’s a big factor helping to explain the percentages. I’m a numbers person and the data didn’t make sense. Inclusion of Rider adds more color.
It's listed as our easiest remaining game on here. Also they project our record at 16-15 which would require the extra game.
I agree, At 13-7 we probably end up no worse than 6th place. There is no way the 6th place team doesn't make the tourney. The projections also have Iowa in the tourney, a team we just beat with a 3-4 conference record.
Hey, but I wouldn't mind winning 14 conference games.
12 wins we are in. Unless we lose our last 5
They were 13-5 actually, that was before the 20 game schedule. As for why they were left out... I have no clue. It seems like they clearly should have been selected.
The league had one of its worst years ever and Nebraska's wins were almost all vs. the conference's bottom feeders.
If we get to 19 wins that means we will have won significant games in February, which is a BRUTAL stretch of games. That will be way above bubble territory IMHO
If we go 7-6 to finish the season we would be 18-12 total and 12-8 in the BIG. If we went 1-1 in the BET we would finish 19-13 overall which I think would get us in. There are however no guarantees.
have you done the indepth analysis for 2021-22? it is possible the analysis sound.
Unless you have really looked at things close you arent using math/logic to come to a 100% conclusion.
Nebraska at 22-11 (13-5) didnt dance. B1G was down that year, but still.
Keep in mind that 12-8 is probably a 5-7 seed so that first game in the BIG tourney could be a landmine type neutral game - and it’s almost certainly not a resume builder.
Not that Lunardi’s field is the end all, but if we use his bracket as the proxy - right now our field resume is just a pair of home wins over a 2 and a 7 seed. Would 3 wins over field teams be enough to overcome our losses? It probably would depend how good those 3 wins turn out to be. There are a lot of unknowns.
There are plenty of potential paths to 12-8 that could result in more than 3 wins over field teams. The problem is that most of those paths would either involve taking another Q3 loss or leave us with a dreadful 3-10 or worse road record (and this time, unlike 2019-20 there won’t be the caveat that nearly all road opportunity was against a field team).
we have had excellent level of play against a Purdue and second half Maryland
and we have had Illinois and Seton Hall level of play
if we can play like the former for a couple of nights.....
Illinois we played like we didn’t belong on the same floor. Seton hall we actually played well and put forth a spirited effort, but couldn’t hit any shots.
None..that criteria was specifically wiped our more than a decade ago
yes, aware of the difference between the two games, Illinois was a much worse loss.....
I included the Hall because games with them usually are nail-biters....except for the last couple...I think the Hall is also a good measuring stick for us...we did not measure up this year
Too early for in depth analysis, but it’s not too early to get a general idea of what helps and hurts. For example, parity in the B12 will be bad for us. Without a deep BIG tourney run, most of their teams at 14 losses would have better resumes and computer numbers than us at 13 losses. There’s enough information already to know this, unfortunately.
understood
well, we have it laid out in front of us....there are enough quality teams on our schedule, a few on the road, to stake our claim...
it certainly won't be easy, and odds are we fall short...
2017-18, Nebraska 22-9, 13-5, 0-1 tourny, 0-1 NIT(51-100 loss)
The RPI still determined the at-larges, 1-50, 51-100, 101-200, 200+ format.
Home win 0.6 or 0.666, Road 1.4 or 1.333, such a weird format.
The B1G was 4th or 5th that year.
*Side note, wish we could enter the old results into the new NET format and see how many at larges they got wrong back then*
RPI #51 Nebraska was 0-9 vs 1-50, 16-1 home, 4-8 road, 5-0 vs 51-100, 17-1 vs 100+ had a bad 20 pt road loss to a 16-17 Chris Mullen led St Johns.
4 B1G teams made it
Big 10 final RPIs, Purdue(6-5 vs top 50) #14, Mich St(3-4) #15, OSU(2-7) #20,
Michigan(11-6) #39, made it to the final four.
PSU(21-13), won the NIT(26-13), 16 wins 100+(16-2), low RPI regular season,
finished 6-7 vs top 50, #73
6 B1G teams under 0.500
Indiana(16-15) 0-10 vs top 50, Maryland(19-13) 0-10, 15-1 vs 100+,
*Wisconsin 2-10, Minn 3-9, NW 0-9, Iowa 0-11, Illinois 1-7, Rutgers 1-11*
Reminds me of the ACC last few years, top heavy with little depth.
The RPI still determined the at-larges, 1-50, 51-100, 101-200, 200+ format.
Home win 0.6 or 0.666, Road 1.4 or 1.333, such a weird format.
The B1G was 4th or 5th that year.
*Side note, wish we could enter the old results into the new NET format and see how many at larges they got wrong back then*
RPI #51 Nebraska was 0-9 vs 1-50, 16-1 home, 4-8 road, 5-0 vs 51-100, 17-1 vs 100+ had a bad 20 pt road loss to a 16-17 Chris Mullen led St Johns.
4 B1G teams made it
Big 10 final RPIs, Purdue(6-5 vs top 50) #14, Mich St(3-4) #15, OSU(2-7) #20,
Michigan(11-6) #39, made it to the final four.
PSU(21-13), won the NIT(26-13), 16 wins 100+(16-2), low RPI regular season,
finished 6-7 vs top 50, #73
6 B1G teams under 0.500
Indiana(16-15) 0-10 vs top 50, Maryland(19-13) 0-10, 15-1 vs 100+,
*Wisconsin 2-10, Minn 3-9, NW 0-9, Iowa 0-11, Illinois 1-7, Rutgers 1-11*
Reminds me of the ACC last few years, top heavy with little depth.