MSU should be sweating
- Thread starter SmellyCat
- Start date
BracketMatrix was updating live, which is how I saw that Virginia had jumped up from being out in the consensus.
MSU apparently was rated ahead of the Cats by the committee, though both appear to have been in the “next four in”.
Who of the next four out deserved it more?
I wonder if MSU would have made it in without their win over us. They likely would have dropped to the play-in game, at best.
My guess is "We can't have the 3rd place team in the ACC not make the tourney". Aside from that, uh...I've got nothing. They are likely the least-watchable team in college basketball, between the slowest tempo in the nation, elite defense, and horrifically bad offense.
I think you are right. 3rd place in the ACC. Lets ignore the metrics for this team.
Lets ignore the ACC's unbalanced schedule entirely.
I have Virginia as #61 or #57 depending on methodology. 6th best team in the ACC.
Torvik has them ranked #100 in games against "Top 100" competition.
In other words, against decent competition, they are about the 100th best team in the country.
Against the Top 50, Torvik has them ranked #129.
Saint John's is Torvik's #14 against the Top 50 and #14 against the Top 100.
The next worst "at-large" teams are Boise State and Utah State, ranked 61 and 63 by Torvik in games against the Top 100.
From memory the first 4 out did not include St. John's
Oklahoma
Seton Hall
Indiana State
Pitt
Oklahoma
Seton Hall
Indiana State
Pitt
ISU had as many Q4 losses as we did, and were 1-4 in Q1. I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Seton Hall has the bigger gripe over St. John's, if we're looking at actual wins and losses, though UVA does have a couple things in its favor.
Record breakdown:
St. John's - 1-7 (1-6) against at-large teams in tourney plus 1-2 against Seton Hall, 18-4 (10-2) against all other teams
Seton Hall - 2-5 (2-4) against at-large teams in tourney plus 2-1 against St. John's, 17-6 (9-3) against all other teams
Pitt - 1-6 (1-5) against at-large teams in tourney plus 2-0 against AQ NC State and 1-0 against Virginia, 18-5 (9-4) against all other teams
Virginia - 3-3 (1-2) against at-large teams in tourney plus 0-2 against AQ NC State and 0-1 against Pitt, 20-4 (13-3) against all other teams
Oklahoma - 2-11 (2-10) against at-large teams in tourney, 18-1 (6-1) against all other teams. No Q2/3/4 losses
Indiana State - 0-2 against at-large teams in tourney, 1-2 vs AQ Drake, 27-2 (18-2) against all other teams, 1 Q4 loss
So one point in UVA's favor is that they were the only one of these five teams to have nonconference wins over teams in the tourney. Additionally, Virginia had 0 Q3 losses, Seton Hall and St. John's each had 1 Q3 loss, and Pitt had 2 Q3 losses. Would've loved to see Indiana State, but like most mid-majors, they had few opportunities for good wins and lost the ones they had by 22 and 12.
Record breakdown:
St. John's - 1-7 (1-6) against at-large teams in tourney plus 1-2 against Seton Hall, 18-4 (10-2) against all other teams
Seton Hall - 2-5 (2-4) against at-large teams in tourney plus 2-1 against St. John's, 17-6 (9-3) against all other teams
Pitt - 1-6 (1-5) against at-large teams in tourney plus 2-0 against AQ NC State and 1-0 against Virginia, 18-5 (9-4) against all other teams
Virginia - 3-3 (1-2) against at-large teams in tourney plus 0-2 against AQ NC State and 0-1 against Pitt, 20-4 (13-3) against all other teams
Oklahoma - 2-11 (2-10) against at-large teams in tourney, 18-1 (6-1) against all other teams. No Q2/3/4 losses
Indiana State - 0-2 against at-large teams in tourney, 1-2 vs AQ Drake, 27-2 (18-2) against all other teams, 1 Q4 loss
So one point in UVA's favor is that they were the only one of these five teams to have nonconference wins over teams in the tourney. Additionally, Virginia had 0 Q3 losses, Seton Hall and St. John's each had 1 Q3 loss, and Pitt had 2 Q3 losses. Would've loved to see Indiana State, but like most mid-majors, they had few opportunities for good wins and lost the ones they had by 22 and 12.
Virginia lost to Notre Dame by 22.
Virginia lost to Memphis by 23.
Virginia lost to Wake Forest by 19.
Virginia lost to Virginia Tech by 34.
Of the Bubble Teams, I had them rated using two approaches (one that rewarded winning and the other that is based on scoring margins)
Virginia lost to Memphis by 23.
Virginia lost to Wake Forest by 19.
Virginia lost to Virginia Tech by 34.
Of the Bubble Teams, I had them rated using two approaches (one that rewarded winning and the other that is based on scoring margins)
| Team | Scoring Margins | Winning |
|---|---|---|
| Saint John's | 28 | 41 |
| Villanova | 34 | 52 |
| Indiana State | 39 | 32 |
| Wake Forest | 41 | 45 |
| Pittsburgh | 44 | 43 |
| Oklahoma | 45 | 44 |
| Providence | 53 | 53 |
| Virginia | 57 | 61 |
| Seton Hall | 62 | 55 |
So because he is goofy looking, is at Larry Bird's school, and knocks over a bunch of tomato cans...what?See below and you're welcome
Avila was injured and did not play in Indiana State's 102-80 loss in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
He played 18 minutes in their 87-75 loss at Michigan State. Foul trouble. The usual script when mid-majors go play at Power 5 locations.
The third best team in the Missouri Valley was Bradley.
Bradley won at UAB. Bradley beat Utah State (Mountain West champ). Bradley beat Vermont (28-6).
Indiana State deserved a bid over Virginia and a couple Mountain West teams.
He played 18 minutes in their 87-75 loss at Michigan State. Foul trouble. The usual script when mid-majors go play at Power 5 locations.
The third best team in the Missouri Valley was Bradley.
Bradley won at UAB. Bradley beat Utah State (Mountain West champ). Bradley beat Vermont (28-6).
Indiana State deserved a bid over Virginia and a couple Mountain West teams.
Last edited:
People only saying they should be in the tournament because of a hideous white guy. Its bizzare
Like the ones that have MSU in the top 25.
I'm a hideous white guy, can I be a walk on for the Cats next year if that helps them?
Top teams from mid-majors are always rated too low by the algorithms.
When a team like Indiana State has a NET rating that puts them in the NCAA field, they should be in the field.
Its pretty straightforward, really.
Not sure about the Bradley reference but they were 0-4 in Q1 and had a Q4 loss.
People used that CSU loss as a cudgel against us. We were 2 spots from a dreaded play-in game, with a 12-8 B1G record.
Eff the metrics. ISU had 23 games against Q3 and Q4 opponents.
The metrics define the Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, so you are using them while refuting them.
Bradley lost 3 times to Drake and 2 times to Indiana State, so thats probably the 0-4 in Q1.
They did beat Utah State in Peoria. Utah State won the Mountain West title and that league got 6 teams.
Indiana State and Drake could be better than all 6 of those teams.
I agree that it really doesn't make sense to harshly penalize teams for one or two bad losses. In a tournament to determine the national champ, they should focus much more on quality wins. How good can this team be? Not "How bad can this team be?" Especially in November.
What was the secret sauce that got Indiana State’s meaningless NET so high?
I personally do not understand how you can create a metric, and then disregard a metric when it doesn’t match your thoughts. That’s why the metric was invented!
And yeah, I’m sad the dude with the goggles won’t be there. Horace Grant was a hero to many a bespectacled Chicago kid because he wore them. And Chris Sabo won rookie of the year in Rec Specs as well.
I personally do not understand how you can create a metric, and then disregard a metric when it doesn’t match your thoughts. That’s why the metric was invented!
And yeah, I’m sad the dude with the goggles won’t be there. Horace Grant was a hero to many a bespectacled Chicago kid because he wore them. And Chris Sabo won rookie of the year in Rec Specs as well.
I once bought a car from Horace Grant's brother, and I didn't recognize him (though looking back he was a spitting image of Horace and Harvey) because he wasn't wearing goggles. At the car dealership.
