Just how bad is the bubble this year?

[zls44]

It does not matter one iota when UConn played game x versus game y. 3-9 does not matter and does not get considered.

Hey, I'm not saying it's right, but the truth is UConn is still very safely in at the moment. It's a crappy year. If Drexel doesn't get in but UConn does, Drexel has a legit argument, but it is the way it is.

 

[Inyatkin]

Who ever thought they'd see a time when people would be arguing why we definitely shouldn't even be considered, and the voice of reason guys would say, "Sorry guys, we're in"

 

[NHUConnfan]

On sheer number of top 50 wins, we're in. It sounds ridiculous...but it's the fact.

As far as this team goes, yeah...I don't think they get it. But after watching the first half of Cincy v. Marquette, I now see that our guards just don't drive the ball to the hoop. Kemba did that last year. Hell, Shabazz did that last year. We simply don't do that anymore because our guards are enamored at the possibility of an alley-oop rather than driving in down the lane.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

From a pure basketball fan perspective, I'd rather see a mid-major with a winning record in its conference get a shot than a powerhouse that's playing like garbage.

Maybe Uconn should be trying to join the CAA instead of the ACC. That way we can play Towson and Deleware a couple times per year, get our guaranteed 24 wins, and have everyone argue that we should make the tournament because, hey, we'd be a "hungry mid major team that deserves a shot".

The statistics that the Committee uses are skewed in favor of major conference teams because they should be. When VCU plays middle of the road CAA teams, they play Northeastern and James Madison. Middle of the road in our league is Cincinnatti and West Virginia.

 

[8893]

When so-called "fans" of our team fail to appreciate the significance of simply making the NCAA tournament--no matter what the circumstances or seed--and some are actively arguing against it, one has to wonder whether it's the players or the fan base whose asses have been bitten harder by "The Disease of More."

I don't care what you think of this squad of kids and all the judgments you have projected on them; when you start to think that you don't want them to make the NCAAs, you have stopped understanding what is good for the program (assuming you ever did in the first place).

 

[freescooter]

As I said, the RPI is merely a fancier BCS. For proof you need look no further than last year's Tournament. The great and powerful 11 bid Big East got as many teams into the Sweet 16 as the CAA. Look att the Sweet 16 and you had 2 11s, a 12, an 8 and a 10. No systemm that works even reasonably well should result in that much of a misfire. It badly unvalues mid-mjaors and overvalues modest teams from big conferences. it isn't "as it should be" it is a function of the way the formula is written, specifically to overvalue certain things and undervalue others.

 

[bobbygt]

When so-called "fans" of our team fail to appreciate the significance of simply making the NCAA tournament--no matter what the circumstances or seed--and some are actively arguing against it, one has to wonder whether it's the players or the fan base whose asses have been bitten harder by "The Disease of More."

I don't care what you think of this squad of kids and all the judgments you have projected on them; when you start to think that you don't want them to make the NCAAs, you have stopped understanding what is good for the program (assuming you ever did in the first place).

My guess is that every single one of the posters who say, "Uconn doesn't deserve to get in," are merely frustrated that the team consistently fails to win must win games.

It's sorta like arguing with your partner and saying things that don't really make sense or you're just bluffing so as not to be too passive.

I'm almost 100% sure that all of them really really want uconn in the tournament and would give their third nut (or their other pair of ovaries) to ensure that the huskies get in.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The fact is, missing the Tournament this year would be a colossal embarrassment for our program and merely getting in would erase a lot of the negativity.

 

[freescooter]

Missing the tournament would be no worse than missing it in 2010, or not even getting an NIT bid in 2007...You get in because you earn it. You think UCONN has earned it this year? Seriously?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

As I said, the RPI is merely a fancier BCS. For proof you need look no further than last year's Tournament. The great and powerful 11 bid Big East got as many teams into the Sweet 16 as the CAA. Look att the Sweet 16 and you had 2 11s, a 12, an 8 and a 10. No systemm that works even reasonably well should result in that much of a misfire. It badly unvalues mid-mjaors and overvalues modest teams from big conferences. it isn't "as it should be" it is a function of the way the formula is written, specifically to overvalue certain things and undervalue others.

The fact that 10, 11, and 12 seeds made the Sweet Sixteen is a function of the parity in today's game and the fact that it's a single elimination tournament -not a function of teams being seeded or added to the field incorrectly. It's the reason why the tournament is as great as it is - the very nature of the system (single elimination, neutral courts) increases the chances of upsets happening.

Further, you mention that those higher seeded Sweet Sixteen teams were seeded incorrectly since the system "undervalues mid majors and overvalues modest big conference teams." Yet you leave out the fact that two of those higher seeded teams were Marquette and Florida State.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Missing the tournament would be no worse than missing it in 2010, or not even getting an NIT bid in 2007...You get in because you earn it. You think UCONN has earned it this year? Seriously?

No. You get in because you have one of the best 37 at-large profiles in the country.

If Uconn meets that criteria, they get in. It's that simple.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Missing the tournament would be no worse than missing it in 2010, or not even getting an NIT bid in 2007...You get in because you earn it. You think UCONN has earned it this year? Seriously?

Coming off a championship with all these returning players, receiving truckloads of negative press with the media and fans nation-wide openly rooting against us, I think this would be worse than not making the Tournament in 2010 or 2007.

And like other posters are saying, I definitely don't think we've "earned" it, but we have a better profile than most bubble teams and I don't care how we get in as long as we do.

 

[freescooter]

No. You get in because you have one of the best 37 at-large profiles in the country.

If Uconn meets that criteria, they get in. It's that simple.

So we've established that its the BCS...

 

[HuskyBballFan]

So we've established that its the BCS...

Yes, the BCS uses a flawed computerized system just like the RPI. But that's where the comparisons end.

The BCS system gives TWO teams the chance to actually play for the National Championship. The NCAA selection committee gives 68 teams a chance.

 

[tzznandrew]

Yes, the BCS uses a flawed computerized system just like the RPI. But that's where the comparisons end.

The BCS system gives TWO teams the chance to actually play for the National Championship. The NCAA selection committee gives 68 teams a chance.

The last teams left out are not going to win the title. There have been many OOC games as well. Just not the case with football. In the BCS, we don't really know if the 8th best team is the best team--just like in basketball. A number of 2-3 seeds win it all the time.

 

[champs99and04]

When so-called "fans" of our team fail to appreciate the significance of simply making the NCAA tournament--no matter what the circumstances or seed--and some are actively arguing against it, one has to wonder whether it's the players or the fan base whose asses have been bitten harder by "The Disease of More."

I don't care what you think of this squad of kids and all the judgments you have projected on them; when you start to think that you don't want them to make the NCAAs, you have stopped understanding what is good for the program (assuming you ever did in the first place).

We're not in the 80's anymore. Of course I have been spoiled by the success of this program, but as a program striving to become a blue blood, making the tournament does not carry much significance. You could say, "well, maybe not, but it would be a huge embarassment if we missed it", to which I'd argue that missing the tournament in 2007 and 2010 only made the program stronger, in an odd sort of way. There is really no difference to me between missing the tournament entirely, and limping in as a 12 seed to lose in a first round game.

Under the current criteria, you could argue that UConn should get in, and you might be right. But do these guys really deserve it? I think they answered that question pretty emphaticly on Tuesday night.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

We're not in the 80's anymore. Of course I have been spoiled by the success of this program, but as a program striving to become a blue blood, making the tournament does not carry much significance. You could say, "well, maybe not, but it would be a huge embarassment if we missed it", to which I'd argue that missing the tournament in 2007 and 2010 only made the program stronger, in an odd sort of way. There is really no difference to me between missing the tournament entirely, and limping in as a 12 seed to lose in a first round game.

Under the current criteria, you could argue that UConn should get in, and you might be right. But do these guys really deserve it? I think they answered that question pretty emphaticly on Tuesday night.

I'm not sure how you could ever prove that to actually be true. The Price/Adrien/Thabeet group was better after 2007 because they stayed together for 2 years after that and turned into a junior/senior dominated team in 2009. You can say that they were "extra motivated after missing the tourny" but do you really think making the tournament in 2007 would have been bad for that group?

I truly and honestly don't know how someone can call themselves a fan of a college basketball team and be indifferent as to whether or not they make the NCAA tournament. That simply does not compute on any level.

 

[caw]

As I said, the RPI is merely a fancier BCS. For proof you need look no further than last year's Tournament. The great and powerful 11 bid Big East got as many teams into the Sweet 16 as the CAA. Look att the Sweet 16 and you had 2 11s, a 12, an 8 and a 10. No systemm that works even reasonably well should result in that much of a misfire. It badly unvalues mid-mjaors and overvalues modest teams from big conferences. it isn't "as it should be" it is a function of the way the formula is written, specifically to overvalue certain things and undervalue others.

There is a huge problem with this argument. RPI is a component (main maybe but not sole) for who makes the tournament and seeding. When looking at last year's Tournament, one shouldn't look at it and say "X, Y, Z" didn't live up to their seeding, but rather look at it as "who should have gotten in instead that looked like they could win the whole thing".

There is no "good" way to measure who is on the right side and who is on the wrong side. RPI does a decent job of separating teams but even NCAA members ignore it for what they perceive as correct (ie VCU over other teams last year).

31 teams earn their way into the NCAAT and 37 are just who the committee feel are the most deserving left. It's rare where you can point to a team that didn't make the NCAA's and say, "They could have won 6 games" or look at a full bracket and say "the best team isn't in it this year". The BCS is consistent in having teams left out who "could" win the big game or look like the "best" team in the country.

 

[freescooter]

I think you missed my point. It really isn't about the makeup of the tournament vs the BCS game. It is that the system used is equally flawed, though in a different way. It badly overvalues Strength of schedule to the point where it rewards teams for losing. That makes zero sense. And it creates a circular logic where the big east teams have the toughest schedules, thus making the big East the best conference, thus making Big East teams play the toughest schedule which makes the Big East the toughest conference...Strength of schedule basically accounts for 75% of the RPI. So it overrates major conference teams and underrates mid-majors and let's face it, if you are a mid-major, a CAA team for example, you simply aren't going to play as many games against Top 50 teams, you'll probably play them on the road (RPI doen't account for this) and you'll probably also play them very early before you've totally gotten into a groove.

 

[tzznandrew]

I think you missed my point. It really isn't about the makeup of the tournament vs the BCS game. It is that the system used is equally flawed, though in a different way. It badly overvalues Strength of schedule to the point where it rewards teams for losing. That makes zero sense. And it creates a circular logic where the big east teams have the toughest schedules, thus making the big East the best conference, thus making Big East teams play the toughest schedule which makes the Big East the toughest conference...Strength of schedule basically accounts for 75% of the RPI. So it overrates major conference teams and underrates mid-majors and let's face it, if you are a mid-major, a CAA team for example, you simply aren't going to play as many games against Top 50 teams, you'll probably play them on the road (RPI doen't account for this) and you'll probably also play them very early before you've totally gotten into a groove.

Unless something has changed, it absolutely accounts for R/N/H games.

A road win is 1.3 wins, a road loss 0.6--and vice versa for home games.

Also, how is SOS composed? A team's adjusted W/L record. So if the CAA went out and won a bunch of games, they'd bring those wins back to the conference. There's nothing inherently unfair about this (especially after the home-road adjustment).

What is unfair is those top teams feel little incentive to play mid-to-low majors in road games. But that's not the RPI's fault.

Also, 25% is your own W/L record. A loss hurts that more than adding Syacuse's 30 wins to the 900 games that go in SOS. It just makes the loss hurt less than a loss to Columbia. As it should.

It's not the best system, but not as bad or biased as you're making it seem.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

RPI does account for road games.

 

[caw]

I think you missed my point. It really isn't about the makeup of the tournament vs the BCS game. It is that the system used is equally flawed, though in a different way. It badly overvalues Strength of schedule to the point where it rewards teams for losing. That makes zero sense. And it creates a circular logic where the big east teams have the toughest schedules, thus making the big East the best conference, thus making Big East teams play the toughest schedule which makes the Big East the toughest conference...Strength of schedule basically accounts for 75% of the RPI. So it overrates major conference teams and underrates mid-majors and let's face it, if you are a mid-major, a CAA team for example, you simply aren't going to play as many games against Top 50 teams, you'll probably play them on the road (RPI doen't account for this) and you'll probably also play them very early before you've totally gotten into a groove.

No, I get your point and I get that there are flaws, but they are not equal (which is my point).

The RPI may be based too much in SOS and that's fine. Why?

The point of both the football and basketball season is to win the National Championship first and foremost. The usage flaws in the BCS go far and beyond the usage flaws in the RPI. Even if the same/similar technical/calculation flaws exist, it is truly the usage flaws that cause the harm in the BCS compared to the RPI. I would argue adamantly against using just RPI to pick teams for the NCAAT and the selection committee doesn't use RPI by itself to pick teams that is why the flaws in RPI just don't matter as much.

 

[sparky]

They need divine intervention to succeed. Where's Tebow? I think they will make the tourney, but perhaps a 12 seed. No chemistry, uncoachable kids, missing JC.

 

[tzznandrew]

Uncoachable kids? The kids who won the national championship last year? Who Kemba called likable and coachable?

Or are you talking about Drummond, who everyone has been impressed with with regards to his willingness to learn?

They lack chemistry and miss JC. These are true. That third one is patently absurd.

 

[SubbaBub]

Now shown as 12 seed out west. OIOW, the last non-play-in spot. To me, this means we're out unless we win 3 more games.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[champs99and04]

I'm not sure how you could ever prove that to actually be true. The Price/Adrien/Thabeet group was better after 2007 because they stayed together for 2 years after that and turned into a junior/senior dominated team in 2009. You can say that they were "extra motivated after missing the tourny" but do you really think making the tournament in 2007 would have been bad for that group?

I truly and honestly don't know how someone can call themselves a fan of a college basketball team and be indifferent as to whether or not they make the NCAA tournament. That simply does not compute on any level.

Because Calhoun is at his best in time of doubt, that's why. Of course I have no proof, just as you have no proof that missing the tournament in those two seasons didn't help the program. I just think Calhoun gets the most out of his players when he's got the whole "Nobody expects anything out of us" mantra going.

I've already explained to you my thoughts on this team and the tournament. If they play well in these next few games, show signs of improvement, and look like a team capable of making a run, then I'd love for them to be in the tournament. If they squeak by Pitt and Providence and then get blown out by Louisville, then no, I won't really care all that much, because to this point, this team hasn't shown that they have what it takes to beat good teams, nevermind consecutively. You don't have to understand where I'm coming from, just as I don't understand all the folks that would give away their virginity to see a lifeless, underachieving team in the tournament.

 

[champs99and04]

Uncoachable kids? The kids who won the national championship last year? Who Kemba called likable and coachable?

Or are you talking about Drummond, who everyone has been impressed with with regards to his willingness to learn?

They lack chemistry and miss JC. These are true. That third one is patently absurd.

A willingness to learn and a quick learner are two completely different things. I wouldn't argue with you that these are all coachable kids, but it does seem like they haven't grasped the concepts quite as quickly as they did last year (probably because of not having an on floor leader).

 

[tzznandrew]

Because Calhoun is at his best in time of doubt, that's why. Of course I have no proof, just as you have no proof that missing the tournament in those two seasons didn't help the program. I just think Calhoun gets the most out of his players when he's got the whole "Nobody expects anything out of us" mantra going .

The "no one believes in us thing" may work, but not over whole seasons. 1996-97 and 2006-07 were prime examples where the teams weren't believed in yet failed.

I think JC is at his best with teams led by a talented, experienced PG.

As for not being able to disprove that the was better for missing the tournament, such an argument is clearly fallacious. You can't disprove that, between his sophomore and junior year, AJ was kidnapped by aliens and replaced by an alien with an Achilles ACL. I mean, he wasn't very good one year, and then he was great the next. And previously all his health issues were brain related--then a part of his body far away from it gets hurt while his head is fine. Suspicious enough where the History Channel might just call me to be an expert on Ancient Aliens.

Of course, the far more likely scenario is the one that is most logical--he got healthy and a year older.

While missing the tourney might have made them better, despite the loss of game action and negatives for recruiting, it's simply far more likely experience--with the requisite strength, savvy, comraderie, and comfort that comes with it--was the reason behind their continued improvement.

 

[tzznandrew]

A willingness to learn and a quick learner are two completely different things.

this is true. Fair enough.

Learning to ride without the training wheels (Kemba) is difficult. They've taken some falls, but they'll eventually be okay--unfortunately, due to a ton of things (self-, NCAA-, and health-inflicted), it may not be this year.

 

[8893]

Can we please stop the nonsense? There are no circumstances, ever, where it would be better for the team or for the program if we miss the NCAA tournament. None. Ask anyone with any remote connection to any Division 1 basketball program their thoughts on this and let us know what the response is.