No Bad Losses

[CommodoresAndCats]

I'm pretty happy with how the team is performing so far in the season. Even though there have been some nail biters, the team has yet to accrue a bad loss. VaTech was probably the last team in the OOC portion of the schedule that was a real threat to deal us a loss (although DePaul could be a possibility too).

Even though the tournament is still a likely longshot, it's very important to the committee to not have any bad losses. So far the Cats have avoided any bad losses, now if (big if) the team can finish out the OOC schedule without any more defeats along with a winning B1G record then the team might be on the bubble.

 

[hdhntr1]

I'm pretty happy with how the team is performing so far in the season. Even though there have been some nail biters, the team has yet to accrue a bad loss. VaTech was probably the last team in the OOC portion of the schedule that was a real threat to deal us a loss (although DePaul could be a possibility too).

Even though the tournament is still a likely longshot, it's very important to the committee to not have any bad losses. So far the Cats have avoided any bad losses, now if (big if) the team can finish out the OOC schedule without any more defeats along with a winning B1G record then the team might be on the bubble.

If they have a winning BIG record, they are likely in. Without Law, I see them as about 8 conference wins regular season which would have them as just out. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

[NJCat83588]

If they have a winning BIG record, they are likely in. Without Law, I see them as about 8 conference wins regular season which would have them as just out. I would love to be proven wrong.

A winning Big 10 record, i.e 10 wins, would definitely put them in, no matter the SOS of the non-conference schedule. I think only 3 Big 10 teams in the last 10 years won 10 and didn't make the tourney.

 

[Styre]

A winning Big 10 record, i.e 10 wins, would definitely put them in, no matter the SOS of the non-conference schedule. I think only 3 Big 10 teams in the last 10 years won 10 and didn't make the tourney.

10 wins would probably require at least 2 more in the conference tournament, as they could go 10-8 in what could be a surprisingly weak Big Ten and still not have a single "good win" on the resume.

We saw with a couple of Carmody-era teams what you get with a resume with no good wins and no bad losses and rankings in the 50s-70s: a 4-seed in the NIT.

 

[NJCat83588]

10 wins would probably require at least 2 more in the conference tournament, as they could go 10-8 in what could be a surprisingly weak Big Ten and still not have a single "good win" on the resume.

We saw with a couple of Carmody-era teams what you get with a resume with no good wins and no bad losses and rankings in the 50s-70s: a 4-seed in the NIT.

BC never won 10 Big 10 games though.....his high water mark was 8-10 in 2008-09. And to win 10 regular season games this year, NU will need to get a couple of upsets on the road: ruling out any wins against MD (home and away), MSU, @Iowa, @Indiana, and @Purdue, even if NU then wins all their games in Evanston, they would still need 3 road wins from among: @UNL, @Minny, @OSU, @Mich and @PSU to get to 10 wins. Even the most optimistic case would have them winning either @OSU or @MIch plus 2 out of 3of the other away games. Those would be good resume games.

22-9 in the regular season should put NU in the tournament even with the ridiculously weak OOC schedule. On win int he BTT would clinch it.

 

[Styre]

22-9 in the regular season should put NU in the tournament even with the ridiculously weak OOC schedule. On win int he BTT would clinch it.

Let's put it this way -- I hope we get to that record (or better!) and then we can all find out together.

 

[NJCat83588]

Let's put it this way -- I hope we get to that record (or better!) and then we can all find out together.

Amen to that!

 

[EvanstonCat]

Amen to that!

And yet my prediction for 22 wins earlier was laughed at... hmm....

 

[NJCat83588]

And yet my prediction for 22 wins earlier was laughed at... hmm....

I explained my laughter to you already: I thought winning 2 NCAA Tournament games was funny, given that only 1 first-time participant in the NCAA (Florida Gulf Coast and the hot wife) had ever made it to the Sweet 16 in the history of the tournament. Reading comprehension......

 

[Medill90]

I explained my laughter to you already: I thought winning 2 NCAA Tournament games was funny, given that only 1 first-time participant in the NCAA (Florida Gulf Coast and the hot wife) had ever made it to the Sweet 16 in the history of the tournament. Reading comprehension......

....yeah, but, there's only one Big Ten team that hasn't made the tournament and no power five schools other than NU have missed. So NU making the tournament isn't like some first time mid major conference winner. NU would probably be a "top-50" team and making it to the second week would be about as difficult as an average week in the Big Ten.

 

[NJCat83588]

....yeah, but, there's only one Big Ten team that hasn't made the tournament and no power five schools other than NU have missed. So NU making the tournament isn't like some first time mid major conference winner. NU would probably be a "top-50" team and making it to the second week would be about as difficult as an average week in the Big Ten.

OK, I take your point. But you'd have to win back-to-back games, which is about a 25% probability if NU wins 10 Big 10 regular season games......

 

[jjjjjjj]

I explained my laughter to you already: I thought winning 2 NCAA Tournament games was funny, given that only 1 first-time participant in the NCAA (Florida Gulf Coast and the hot wife) had ever made it to the Sweet 16 in the history of the tournament. Reading comprehension......

Funny how easy it is to find facts to support an argument when you can just make them up.

UConn was in the Sweet 16 in its first year as a tournament participant. So was Louisville. And St. John's. Arizona. Montana State. San Jose State. Texas A&M. And those were just the first few that I checked.

 

[NJCat83588]

Funny how easy it is to find facts to support an argument when you can just make them up.

UConn was in the Sweet 16 in its first year as a tournament participant. So was Louisville. And St. John's. Arizona. Montana State. San Jose State. Texas A&M. And those were just the first few that I checked.

Check your source. The NCAA was expanded to 64 teams in 1985, which would be the first season a team would have to win 2 games to get to the Sweet 16. UConn first went to the NCAA in 1954, losing to Navy 85-80, but this wasn't a Sweet 16 appearance relevant to my argument. Likewise, Louisville, St. John's, Arizona all went to the tournament before 1985 and therefore aren't relevant. Montana State? They went for the first time in 1986 and promptly lost in the first round to (ironically) St. John's! No Sweet 16 for them! San Jose State? Went in 1980 and lost first round. A&M? Lost in the first round in 1954.

 

[jjjjjjj]

Check your source. The NCAA was expanded to 64 teams in 1985, which would be the first season a team would have to win 2 games to get to the Sweet 16. UConn first went to the NCAA in 1954, losing to Navy 85-80, but this wasn't a Sweet 16 appearance relevant to my argument. Likewise, Louisville, St. John's, Arizona all went to the tournament before 1985 and therefore aren't relevant. Montana State? They went for the first time in 1986 and promptly lost in the first round to (ironically) St. John's! No Sweet 16 for them! San Jose State? Went in 1980 and lost first round. A&M? Lost in the first round in 1954.

You said "only 1 first-time participant in the NCAA (Florida Gulf Coast and the hot wife) had ever made it to the Sweet 16 in the history of the tournament. Reading comprehension......"

Now you're changing "the history of the tournament" to sometime more recent.

You're also wrong. UConn, Montana State and San Jose State all went to the NCAAs in 1951, and all were in the Sweet 16 that year.