If UConn doesn't make the tournament...

[UConnDad]

Our goal is to win a game and get in, fine maybe it happens but let's be honest, We have seen nothing in this team that makes us think we can go on some kind of run. I root just as hard and bleed the same color blue as any, but with no rose colored glasses. But the topic here is if we lose so here goes. There will be a complete meltdown on this board at first which is expected, followed by blame and recriminations against KO and the coaching staff. What will follow is a discussion of
What players we can add to next year's excellent class to get us tournament competitive. By that time the initial hangover will be waning and time to hit antidepressants. Of course we can avoid a lot of this by winning the next 9 games.

I'm never relinquishing my rose colored glasses. I refuse. 9 W's sounds good!

 

[tzznandrew]

I think the narrative that the AAC is treated unfavorably the committee is overstated on this board, but the metrics you cite in this post are the same ones that weren't used the year prior, and the traditional data points that were used in 2014 were de-emphasized last season when it was time to justify the inclusion of a brand program like UCLA.

Comparing the resumes of SMU and N.C. State in 2014, it isn't outrageous to argue that the goalposts are being moved to satisfy some subjective inclinations:

SMU - 3-4 vs. RPI top 25, 4-5 vs. RPI top 50, 4-6 vs. RPI top 100, 53 RPI overall, 31 BPI

N.C. State - 1-7 vs. RPI top 25, 3-9 vs. RPI top 50, 6-12 vs. RPI top 100, 54 RPI overall, 61 BPI

By virtually all objective data, SMU was more tournament worthy than N.C. State. Did it help N.C. State that they were in a power five conference? Did it help them to have rich program history and a large, traveling fan base? Did it help them to have one of the best players in the country in T.J. Warren?

To infer that extraneous variables may contribute to the selection process does not insinuate that there is corruption. If the advanced metrics are going to be presented in opposition of last years Temple team, then it is a certainty that by the same logic there were three AAC teams shafted in 2014.

Cincinnati was seeded properly in 2014. I think Memphis was, as well. SMU and Cincinnati both got fair shakes last season, and Temple - taken by some criteria - was hardly an egregious omission. In examining all of the data, though, it's fair to wonder whether the tie actually goes to the runner if you're from this conference.

To be fair, SMU had a NCSOS of 303 vs. NCState's 87. That matters.

So to does the fact that SMU lost three straight to end the year, including that awful Houston loss in the first round of the tournament. Meanwhile, NC State won two games in the ACCT. Neither of them had impressive resumes, so I don't think this was that egregious at all.

 

[champs99and04]

To be fair, SMU had a NCSOS of 303 vs. NCState's 87. That matters.

So to does the fact that SMU lost three straight to end the year, including that awful Houston loss in the first round of the tournament. Meanwhile, NC State won two games in the ACCT. Neither of them had impressive resumes, so I don't think this was that egregious at all.

The NCSOS is already factored into the RPI and BPI. It definitely matters, but there's no sense in counting it twice.

SMU did nothing to help themselves by falling apart down the stretch, but I'm pretty sure all portions of the schedule are assigned equal weight, meaning it is irrelevant who was playing better at the time (now could that have influenced the selection, maybe).

It isn't SMU not getting in so much as it is who got in instead. That N.C. State team did not have a tournament resume.

 

[tzznandrew]

The NCSOS is already factored into the RPI and BPI. It definitely matters, but there's no sense in counting it twice.

SMU did nothing to help themselves by falling apart down the stretch, but I'm pretty sure all portions of the schedule are assigned equal weight, meaning it is irrelevant who was playing better at the time (now could that have influenced the selection, maybe).

It isn't SMU not getting in so much as it is who got in instead. That N.C. State team did not have a tournament resume.

I don't disagree with you--but the committee has cited NCSOS multiple times when explaining why a team was not included. They're less beholden to the RPI and more interested in some of the derived stats.

 

[CTBasketball]

Well ladies and gents, we're getting closer to the season's most pivotal game. A bout with the Bearkittens of Cincinnati. Here is what's going thru my mind while I waste away at work until 1:45 when I jump across the street to the bar to watch:

• I'm hungry
• I'm thirsty
• I'm ****ing tired. Thank god its the weekend.
• Oh look ESPN. (2 hours later of RPI and KenPom excel spreadsheet crunching)
• There's no way Cincinnati gets in with a loss.
• Monmouth's starting lineup has a total of 9 hands.
• Daniel Hamilton just stop doing too much.
• Just play ****ing defense.
• Don't let Gary Clark eat your children.
• Please don't ****ing get swept by Cincinnati. Just win.

 

[BFieldHusky]

Kenpom at 29 this morning.

 

[weyuo]

I think everyone is probably right about all the slights to the AAC & UConn.
But I just gotta believe that if you are a major basketball power, and you can't place yourself solidly among the top 35 + teams or win your conference, how angry can you get for not having a bid?
I hope we get in. But, if we don't, we are to blame more than any committee.

That's absolutely true. UConn had it's chances to get a good seed and that started back in November. But they blew it, not the conference(which they should have dominated but got handled by Temple and Cincy). They had their shot at the rest of the country too but struck out vs the Cuse, #18 Maryland and Gonzaga.

 

[joober jones]

If we don't make the tournament, I'll find a folding chair and make a sad Ollie face.