None scheduled as bad as they did. And none should get an at large bid.
Their WAB is like 32nd in the country. The average bubble teams (like a Seton Hall?) would’ve dropped, on average 2-3 games against their schedule.
Not if they lose, they won't be.
Thanks for being a dick. Apreciate the heads up to ignore you. Good lord. I did look it up, I guess whatever source I got to was wrong. But, alas
Who do you think makes up the Miami of Ohio roster ??
It absolutely has been. I’ve popped over there a few times this season, they're broken right now
You can’t lose more than 1.0 points in the WAB ratings with a single loss, and that would be losing at home to the single worst team in the NCAA. They would still have outperformed the average bubble team. And none of that is an opinion — it’s just understanding the math involved.
Agreed and when one closely inspects the SEC you find that while their middle and bottom are strong, they really don't have a great top team other than a surging FL. Not sure what the metrics say on that, but my eyeballs definitely aren't convinced. Sorry, SEC. Big12 is MUCH better than the SEC at the top.
It's really the right way to play that huge Arizona team, unless you also have a huge team like UNC. The size will dominate you if you let it, but Arizona isn't winning games from outside the arc. They need those interior points. Can also run on them and wear them down, if you can rebound.
Seton Hall has 2 Quad 3 losses. I think people are really underselling how hard it is to stay undefeated, Charmin schedule or not.
Yea BE Quad 3 losses(Butler and DePaaul I'm assuming). Sell me whatever you're smoking if you don't think those would be 2 of the best teams on Miam(OH)'s schedule lmao. I think people are underselling how hard it is to schedule the 360th best schedule
the Florida hype is hilarious! I still stand by the fact that they are a good team but far from great. They have lost every game against better competition (all ended close after being down double digits) they also have 3 bad losses to TCU, Missouri and Auburn at home. They have beaten literally no one and now people are drooling over them. Their starting backcourt shoots under 25% from 3 and have been so inconsistent all season. . Shoot, for as bad as Solo has shot the ball this year he would be huge upgrade over what they have.
Of course they would be, but you continue to miss the point. If you threw Seton Hall or Butler into the MAC it is very likely they'd have at least 1 or 2 losses right now, most teams would. There are stats that can tell you this.
it looks exactly the opposite of that
If a mid major gets out of the round of 32 not named Gonzaga, I’d be really surprised.
I'm not missing the point. I don't believe going undefeated against any schedule should be awarded with an at large bid. Where is the line? You can play D2 teams and be an at large? At large should be reserved for the best teams. That's how its always been done. If they win the conference tourney, dance away. We've seen mid majors deserving of at large bids. URI, St Mary's, Gonzaga, Wichita st, Butler, VCU, Yale, etc. These teams showed their quality against other quality teams. Maybe our criteria is different. There have been mid majors with better resumes that have had to win their conference tourney.
If you give them an at large for the sake of 0
Nah, the 4s and 5s can certainly be beat. But the Final Four looks like it will be some combination of 8 or so teams
I don't see it - St Louis, nice story, but the top teams have multiple player way more talented than Robby Avila. Nice stories - to me, the mid majors are dead. If he was that good, some P4 team would have thrown a chest at him.
If what you said is true then we're headed for a tournament of only P4 teams, because it has never been about finding the best 68 teams (or 37 if it's only at large). It has always been about finding the most deserving teams. There is no doubt that Auburn is a better team than Miami OH. But I don't find a power conference team with 15 or 16 losses on Selection Sunday all that deserving.