Big Bubble Night Discussion | Page 15 | The Boneyard

Big Bubble Night Discussion

nelsonmuntz said:
If a bunch of teams only play 3 non-conference games next season, I will admit I was wrong, apologize to the whole board and never post here again. Will you do the same if the P6 conferences play their normal 9+ game non-conference schedule?
Expand ...
Don't be silly. Everyone on here (as far as I can tell) agrees that the computer rankings will do a better job of rating the teams in a season where all teams play 10ish OOC games. This season, it's all out the window. More games could help, but it's not a given. Look at Colgate. Adding games late could help, but it's not a given. Look at UNC-Marquette for an example.

I have understood you to be saying, in a nutshell, that UConn is guilty of shooting themselves in the foot by not scrambling to stuff more games into the final 2 weeks of the season. My critique of that position is not that adding more games will definitely hurt. My critique is that:
  1. Our current schedule is sufficient to get us in.
  2. I don't think it was as feasible to schedule these games as you think it was (and it certainly isn't feasible at all anymore).
  3. Side critique: You are responding to everyone's arguments with wild strawmen.
 
We missed out on 2 home games against teams that are some of the worst road teams in conference(Nova and Xavier)

Those would’ve been resume boosting wins. Now we need to pick up 2 resume wins (Hall, Creighton) to get lower than a 7 seed.
 
@nelsonmuntz I can’t keep up with the changing points now. Your argument was we put all our eggs in beating seton hall. Playing 2 or 3 mid majors wouldn’t have changed that, and Nobody will ever play 3 non conference games in a normal year. Why even bring that up? I know you usually go against the grain but this is extreme.
 
Jbirdp5 said:
@nelsonmuntz I can’t keep up with the changing points now. Your argument was we put all our eggs in beating seton hall. Playing 2 or 3 mid majors wouldn’t have changed that, and Nobody will ever play 3 non conference games in a normal year. Why even bring that up? I know you usually go against the grain but this is extreme.
Expand ...
Nobody thinks that playing only three OOC games is a good idea. Everyone is in agreement.

Just following the basics of the NET, a few more wins over the course of the season—especially wins of more than 10 points—would actively help that number.

So the questions become:

• did the program think 3 games was good?
• were there times when we could actually and reasonably have played games—i.e. were we on pause or our opponents?
• were there reasonable, available teams to replace teams we didn't play while we still could? Was the timing good?

The program obviously doesn't think 3 OOC games was good. They have at various times tried to reschedule.

A number of the cancelled games were due to our own covid protocols, particularly in the early OOC portion.

When the team could reschedule early we were coming off a long break and Hurley was reluctant because he wanted practice time. Given how poorly we've performed after our own Covid breaks, this seems wise. More games are better than fewer, but losses are worse than more games.

We only know a few of the teams they reached out to. Everything else is speculation and projection not based in the facts of the matter. For the last few weeks it would not have been possible to actually schedule games, so the discussion is not even really relevant.

Ultimately it would have been nice to get a few more games in. We have no evidence that—outside of early December maybe—the program didn't try themselves to do that.
 
Cuse on in 5 minutes. They’re at large hopes are shot with a loss.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I think the Big 10 is overrated, but they actually played some games out of conference and the Big East, for the most part, didn't. This is especially true of UConn.

As for the strawman argument, you are the one defending not playing any games, not me, yet neither you nor anyone else can make a coherent, affirmative argument for why playing 3 non-conference games is a good idea. So you make strawman arguments like the one above.
Expand ...
B14 played 84 games OOC (6 per team) while BE played 58 (5.3 per team). Did this few days ago (so opponents rankings may have changed a bit) to see who B14 beat:

Rated 101 or higher:

B14 was 75% of OOC games, lost 1 game
BE was 72% of OOC games, lost 3 games
Not much here, wins as expected. BE couple extra clunkers.

Rated 1-25:

B14 was 0-5
BE was 4-5
If best conference needs to beat the best, B14 didn't show it. Wasn't all bottom feeders losing, included Iowa, Illinois and 2 by Indiana.
BE had 4 different teams win against top 25.


Rated 26-50:

B14 was 5-4
BE was 2-7
Clearly B14 better record and probably should consider 1-25 and 26-50 together as B14 has so many teams in top 25 so less chance for top 25 games.

Combining 1-50 gets:
B14 was 5-9 for 14 games
BE was 6-12 for 18 games
Not much difference but BE played a significantly higher % of games against top 50 than the B14.
 
.-.
tzznandrew said:
Nobody thinks that playing only three OOC games is a good idea. Everyone is in agreement.

Just following the basics of the NET, a few more wins over the course of the season—especially wins of more than 10 points—would actively help that number.

So the questions become:

• did the program think 3 games was good?
• were there times when we could actually and reasonably have played games—i.e. were we on pause or our opponents?
• were there reasonable, available teams to replace teams we didn't play while we still could? Was the timing good?

The program obviously doesn't think 3 OOC games was good. They have at various times tried to reschedule.

A number of the cancelled games were due to our own covid protocols, particularly in the early OOC portion.

When the team could reschedule early we were coming off a long break and Hurley was reluctant because he wanted practice time. Given how poorly we've performed after our own Covid breaks, this seems wise. More games are better than fewer, but losses are worse than more games.

We only know a few of the teams they reached out to. Everything else is speculation and projection not based in the facts of the matter. For the last few weeks it would not have been possible to actually schedule games, so the discussion is not even really relevant.

Ultimately it would have been nice to get a few more games in. We have no evidence that—outside of early December maybe—the program didn't try themselves to do that.
Expand ...
I think this sums it all up pretty well. Would hurley have done anything differently looking back, maybe but this season is so unprecedented I think he and the program did what they could in a reasonable fashion.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I am saying we should have played more mid-majors in January and February. You are saying we shouldn't. So yes, you should probably start working on one of those Samurai death poems, just in case.
Expand ...
Can we end the conversation now about adding games? Whatever it could have been, it's irrelevant now. They're in the tournament and their seedline is rising.
 
tzznandrew said:
Can we end the conversation now about adding games? Whatever it could have been, it's irrelevant now. They're in the tournament and their seedline is rising.
Expand ...

Actually, the win tonight made my point. The only reason UConn was in any danger of not making the dance going into tonight was because of its schedule. Now that is resolved, the biggest thing holding us back from a good seed is also our schedule. 90% of this board was clutching pearls over getting in, which seems kind of silly now. Too bad UConn doesn't have a better record because the Huskies would have a shot at a 3 seed if they were 16-6 right now.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Actually, the win tonight made my point. The only reason UConn was in any danger of not making the dance going into tonight was because of its schedule. Now that is resolved, the biggest thing holding us back from a good seed is also our schedule. 90% of this board was clutching pearls over getting in, which seems kind of silly now. Too bad UConn doesn't have a better record because the Huskies would have a shot at a 3 seed if they were 16-6 right now.
Expand ...

Please show us a local OOC game that adding it, and winning, would have improved our seeding. We'll wait.
 
Uconn moving up only one spot in NET is a joke now only going by real ranking and that’s kenpom. Someone please tell me how Maryland and st bonaventure are better than Uconn.
 
pepband99 said:
Please show us a local OOC game that adding it, and winning, would have improved our seeding. We'll wait.
Expand ...

You think playing fewer games is better for seeding. I heard you the first time.

There will be a flood of teams only playing 3 OOC games next season. It is the wave of the future.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
You think playing fewer games is better for seeding. I heard you the first time.

There will be a flood of teams only playing 3 OOC games next season. It is the wave of the future.
Expand ...

wizard of oz scarecrow GIF
 
Giants2021 said:
NET haha joke Colgate 2 seed in patriot league and 3 seed in ncaa tourney according to them.
Expand ...

The NET rating is sort of jacked up this year because of the coronavirus and lack of OOC games to gather data from.

That being said, people need to understand that your own NET rating does not actually affect whether you get into the tournament or what your seeding is. The purpose of the NET ranking is to help slot the Q1/2/3/4 games. So UConn's NET rating affects the teams that played them (and the teams that then played those teams, etc) but not actually doing anything for UConn itself. That all comes down to resume (which again only uses NET as a sorting system for quadrants).
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Actually, the win tonight made my point. The only reason UConn was in any danger of not making the dance going into tonight was because of its schedule. Now that is resolved, the biggest thing holding us back from a good seed is also our schedule. 90% of this board was clutching pearls over getting in, which seems kind of silly now. Too bad UConn doesn't have a better record because the Huskies would have a shot at a 3 seed if they were 16-6 right now.
Expand ...
Nobody not hurley and not Dave Benedict said hey long term we should consider cutting down on our out of conference games this is a good formula we have found this year. A good portion of this was out of their control, so you’ve been arguing with yourself for most of this that this was somehow a plan to not play games.
Secondly beating quinnipiac, Fairfield, and sacred heart giving us 3 more wins right now would not have us 3 seeds higher In prognostications. where you found that information I don’t know but I don’t know anyone who would believe it.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You think playing fewer games is better for seeding. I heard you the first time.

There will be a flood of teams only playing 3 OOC games next season. It is the wave of the future.
Expand ...
I think you're forgetting that next year there hopefully won't be a global pandemic that throws a wrench into setting up and scheduling OOC games. This year is different in that way, obviously.
 
Psolo12 said:
I think you're forgetting that next year there hopefully won't be a global pandemic that throws a wrench into setting up and scheduling OOC games. This year is different in that way, obviously.
Expand ...
No, coaches that don’t want to play more OOC games are going to engineer another virus to get out of playing Fairfield
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Strawman gotta strawman.

My position is simple. We should have played more games. Playing more than 3 OOC games is not a particularly complicated or radical position, but for some reason it gives you the sadzz.
Expand ...
thick as a brick.
 
MU in MKE said:
The NET rating is sort of jacked up this year because of the coronavirus and lack of OOC games to gather data from.

That being said, people need to understand that your own NET rating does not actually affect whether you get into the tournament or what your seeding is. The purpose of the NET ranking is to help slot the Q1/2/3/4 games. So UConn's NET rating affects the teams that played them (and the teams that then played those teams, etc) but not actually doing anything for UConn itself. That all comes down to resume (which again only uses NET as a sorting system for quadrants).
Expand ...

If you’re going to state facts, and explain clearly how they effect arguments, I’m not sure there is a place for you on the Boneyard.
 
MU in MKE said:
The NET rating is sort of jacked up this year because of the coronavirus and lack of OOC games to gather data from.

That being said, people need to understand that your own NET rating does not actually affect whether you get into the tournament or what your seeding is. The purpose of the NET ranking is to help slot the Q1/2/3/4 games. So UConn's NET rating affects the teams that played them (and the teams that then played those teams, etc) but not actually doing anything for UConn itself. That all comes down to resume (which again only uses NET as a sorting system for quadrants).
Expand ...
I went to post something like this yesterday but stopped. People misunderstand what the NET is used for by the committee.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,190
Messages
4,556,250
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom