Sorry... called it...
- Thread starter Spartanhusker
- Start date
they have lost 8 of their last 10 including their last 4 -- their only 2 wins were Rutgers and Indiana .. 2 of those loses were to Wisconsin .... how was it clear they were making progress?
they must be making progress when you apply the eye ball test and not their actual record
Last edited:
Well I’m happy for you. But I have to say, I’m more then glad I’m not like that. I had hope, believed in the team and guess what...I still do. It’s college basketball. Teams lose, happens all the time. Sucks we caught one in the final games but it is what it is. We are a team that’s growing and getting better. But I still have hopes, I’m seeing improvements and this is one of our best basketball teams we had in years. If we miss the dance, so be it. All we can do is keep getting better.
Come on...it took a lucky *** last second 3 for NU to beat them at home. This is not a good match up for the Huskers. It just isn't.
Sorry would apply only if your percentage when you "call it" is greater than 50%...much greater.
Fair enough ... but you have no business even being mentioned as a bubble team if a team with an rpi of 188 is giving you match up problems.
I agree...they don't.
Its like getting numbers at a bar...The Huskers hit on a few hotties and got shot down...they got a bunch of number from girls that happened to be the DD that night..sure it is fun and you feel good but the next day instead of texting them...you decided to start over and look for better.
Wow.... bring down the hate.... didn’t mean I didn’t WANT the win, but several factors:
^ we are not that great, better than I thought we’d be, but still...we can’t take days off
^ I’ll stand by my statement that Underwood is a very good coach
^ I played on a team in college like Illinois( not nearly as good) but good enough on some days to beat really good teams out of the blue
Blessings !
^ we are not that great, better than I thought we’d be, but still...we can’t take days off
^ I’ll stand by my statement that Underwood is a very good coach
^ I played on a team in college like Illinois( not nearly as good) but good enough on some days to beat really good teams out of the blue
Blessings !
Underwood is a very very good coach...Lord help the Big Ten if he gets his guys in and if Izzo retires within the next three years.
Nebraska WASN’T expected to be a dance team this year, I guess win the rest of the season and win the B1G tournament and they get there. No problem. 
We don't have an answer for Black. And Illinois shot the lights out from 3. Bad combination for us. They threw up and made 2 prayers at the shot clock buzzer and made both. The first one the guy threw up one handed running to his left jumping off of one foot. The next one bounced off the rim, the backboard, the rim again, rolled around and fell in. With 2 breaks in that game we win it. Basketball is just that way.
That is virtually the definition of a bubble team. It's a team who has holes who is borderline as far as being in the top third of the country. For heaven's sake, St John's beat 2 top ten teams last week. NU has holes and when the other team catches fire from 3 and we don't get any calls from the officials, we can have a tough time overcoming it. That IS the definition of a bubble team.
No ... Illinois is in no way even close to the caliber of St John's and to suggest so is inaccurate
St John's has a better winning % against the RPI top 100 than we do
take Illinois' RPI and divide it by 2 and that value is still 20 points higher than St Johns
St John's RPI = 70, Neb RPI = 60, Illinois RPI = 180 (188 before beating Neb) ..
depending on how the remainder of the season plays out St John's could end up with a better RPI than Nebraska
there are only 3 power conference teams with a higher RPI than Illinois
Last edited:
How in God's name did you take the jump to suggesting that I was saying Illinois was the caliber of St. John's? And NU is certainly not a top 10 talent team. The point was that a vastly inferior team to an opponent can at any time step up and beat that superior team. . NU while maybe the best team since Nee's best teams, still has holes and Illinois exposed them. Likewise St. John's did the same to 2 at least on paper vastly superior teams. Upsets happen in basketball.
St. John’s is a respectable team - they have a better rpi than Penn State. Illinois is one of the worst teams from a
power conference. There is about a 60-70 rpi difference between Villanova and St. John’s. There is a 130 rpi difference between Neb and Illinois. Complete choke job in pretty close to a must win game. Villanova didn’t have anywhere near the the motivation against St. John’s that Nebraska should have had against Illinois.
Agree upsets happen but they shouldn’t when
playing a team with an rpi pushing 200 when you have a ton on the line. Given the lack of any other quality wins on the resume you could just as easily categorize the Michigan win as merely an upset.
Nebraska losing to Illinois if Nebraska is truly an RPI around 50 is far worse than Villanova losing to St. John’s. Particularly given what is on the line for Nebraksa
Last edited:
And all I heard this season about St John's beating NU was how terrible of a loss that was....until just recently. St John's RPI is where it is in large part because of the perception of their conference, early non-con wins, wins over TWO top 10 teams now and their win over NU. Their RPI got a HUGE boost after their wins over those 2 top 10 teams. **** happens. Good teams lose to crappy teams. Happens every year and yet I'm not excusing the loss to Illinois. It shouldn't have happened but it did.
I maintain that Neb loss to Illinois is far far worse than Nova’s loss to St Johns. But we can agree to disagree .. no worries.
I’m not sure how St. John’s is getting a boost because of the “perception” of their conference - the RPI doesn’t award any perception points
Last edited:
Bottom line... could not afford to lose it and did.
Love our team... hurts when that happens.
Love our team... hurts when that happens.
Doesn't RPI take in to account the poll rankings of teams? If it does, a conference's perception does play a role in their teams' poll rankings. If it's strictly W/L records of opponents then I would venture that it probably over values early season non-conference records.
The rpi is just a math equation. games early in the season or late in the season are not factored any differently. If your conference teams won a bunch of non conference games, early in the season, then it helps the other teams in the league. But at that time it isn't really perception of a league but a calculation of the league's games vs teams from other leagues.
your winning % - 25%
Opponents winning % - 50%
Opponents opponents winning % - 25%
bonuses for win against really good teams and penalties for losses to really bad teams.
your winning % - 25%
Opponents winning % - 50%
Opponents opponents winning % - 25%
bonuses for win against really good teams and penalties for losses to really bad teams.
So no poll ranking but obviously bonuses for wins over really good teams does a similar thing. As with any statistical analysis with so many variables, the RPI is far from perfect. My point with the early games is that the RPI assumes that teams stay constant from the non-conference to the end of the year. Thus my point about the early wins being over valued. IF for instance a conference (Big East for example) has a bunch of success as a group early in the season, their whole conference statistically gets an RPI boost when in fact maybe other conferences as a group have teams get better as the season goes on. Maybe the Big East has a bunch of injuries to key players during the conference schedule and actually as the year goes on it becomes a weaker conference. How the wins and losses are viewed doesn't change. So in reality the early season wins probably don't accurately reflect what the teams are at tournament team. There's no way around it statistically and that's why we have a tournament I guess. It's also why we shouldn't be surprised when a conference with great RPI teams suddenly loses a bunch of games early and unexpectedly in the tournament. The bottom line is that if you don't play well enough to be in the top 68 teams, you have nothing to ***** about if you don't get in.
To be fair, the Huskers could've beaten Illinois and Jerry Palm would've still had the Huskers off the bubble.
We will probably need to win out and get to the finals of the B1G to get back on the bubble.
I think 2 wins and then a 1st round win will get them in, but that loss made it all difficult.
The RPI doesn’t assume anything. If St John’s is 10-2 in its out of conference games and all off those games are against teams that end up 5-20, their RPI is affected negatively. It just so happens that they have OOC wins over Duke, Nebraska and others that bolster their RPI. The RPI is a living thing, it is constantly changing. So I am not sure I understand what you are talking about there.
The wins can’t be over valued. When Nebraska beat Wisconsin on the road I believe Wisconsin was a quadrant 2 ranked team. However, after the loss Wisconsin fell to a quadrant 3 team, so the win lost value. The same works in reverse.
Sure it does. It's just the nature of statistical analysis in this case where there is a difference in scheduling once conference play starts. In order for statistically analysis to be valid there has to be some constants. There is no way to adjust changes in a conference's teams play across conferences once they quit playing non-conference games. IF a conference as a whole wins a bunch of games in the pre-season and then as a group falls apart, they are only playing each other so there is no way statistically for the RPI to recognize that change between conferences. Your only comparison once conference play starts is based on the results of those early season games and we should know by now that teams can change dramatically one way or the other as the season goes on. Logically then one can say that conferences can change in strength over that time period then as well. The ultimate adjustment in RPI happens retrospectively as the tournament games happen and teams are forced to play non-conference opponents again.
But is it technically analysis or is it just raw data.
There is a reason why you don’t typically see an RPI until mid season. There would be too much flux from day to day.
The only constants in the formula are the records of the teams and the award or penalties for road/home and top 75/bottom 75 wins and losses.
There are no bonus points awarded or penalties assessed for conference games.
Don’t get me wrong there are flaws. 50ish % of the total is opppnents winning percentage is too much weight. It can allow for a team’s RPI to fall even when they win and rise when lose.
I just don’t think it is biased or make assumptions. The consumers of the data may make assumptions but the data is what the data is.
There is a reason why you don’t typically see an RPI until mid season. There would be too much flux from day to day.
The only constants in the formula are the records of the teams and the award or penalties for road/home and top 75/bottom 75 wins and losses.
There are no bonus points awarded or penalties assessed for conference games.
Don’t get me wrong there are flaws. 50ish % of the total is opppnents winning percentage is too much weight. It can allow for a team’s RPI to fall even when they win and rise when lose.
I just don’t think it is biased or make assumptions. The consumers of the data may make assumptions but the data is what the data is.
Mikel Severe and Sam McKewon had a very similar conversation about this this afternoon. The subject though was the Big 12 and how they seem to be over valued by the RPI and over rated by the committee every year based on non-conference wins then the rest of the conference gets an RPI bump because of KU specifically.
I see what they are saying but the value is the value based solely on numbers. If you want to talk about the methodology or how the committee relies on those numbers, that is different than saying the numbers make assumptions. Again just my opinion.
if we are dealing with perception - there is certainly may be a misperception here about the strength of the BIG and how tournament performance will bear this out - now it is a new year and the BIG may represent well
but over the last 2 years - of the 6 major basketball conferences the BIG is dead last in NCAA tourney winning % and is the only conference not to have at least one representative in the final 4 during these years. The BIG hasn't even had a team make the final 8 the last 2 tournaments - every other conference has had multiple.
I suspect the numbers look better as you go back further - but over the last 2 years the BIG has been the worst major conf in the tournament by a pretty wide margin
but over the last 2 years - of the 6 major basketball conferences the BIG is dead last in NCAA tourney winning % and is the only conference not to have at least one representative in the final 4 during these years. The BIG hasn't even had a team make the final 8 the last 2 tournaments - every other conference has had multiple.
I suspect the numbers look better as you go back further - but over the last 2 years the BIG has been the worst major conf in the tournament by a pretty wide margin
Last edited: