Tennessee 2025, part 2

[HuskyNan]

Funny how no one complains about USC being in the tournament even though their resume is almost identical.

It’s almost like some people still feel the rivalry or something

 

[nwhoopfan]

People are arguing logic vs. metrics. The metrics actually say Tennessee is a 6 seed while logic (record especially over their last 10-12 games) says they should be MUCH lower. The easy answer? The metrics are wrong. To have a 16-13 Tennessee team as the NET 22 is a joke. By that metric alone, Tennessee should be a 6-seed. And oddly enough, 17-13 USC is 23 according to the NET.

And saying that Tennessee had 25 good minutes against UConn or only lost to Texas by 4 is NOT enough to give them a break for the seedings. If a pair of 16-13 team and 17-13 are basically 6-seeds per the NET metrics, then the data they use is flawed.

It's interesting that a few are even talking about either of those teams (Tennessee or USC) missing the tourney. That's not happening, but it does seem the NET and other metrics are flawed and should be fixed.

That's what I keep saying! We see the results the formula is giving us, it's pretty easy to determine that the formula is significantly flawed. It's almost as if losses are meaningless.

How many games would Tennessee have to lose to drop out of the NET Top 25? Or Top 50? They could be 10 games under .500 and the NET would still like them.

I still really believe that RPI was better than NET. It wasn't this nonsensical. And the numbers actually changed after losses.

 

[Vowelguy]

It’s almost like some people still feel the rivalry or something

I hate them more than most (I admire what the Romans did to Carthage and view it as a model for Knoxville), but let's not confuse rivalry with objective analysis.

 

[BRS24]

It’s almost like some people still feel the rivalry or something

I hate them more than most (I admire what the Romans did to Carthage and view it as a model for Knoxville), but let's not confuse rivalry with objective analysis.

Both of you have valid arguments. I would compare it to Auburn / Alabama. The football rivalry hasn't been very competitive over the last few years, however both fan bases, are just as passionate today as they were years and years ago.

As a since passed friend from AL once said, when I asked to date my now wife, her daddy had two questions:

1 - what church do you go to?​

2 - Auburn or Alabama?​

ps - he answered both of them correctly.

 

[HuskyNan]

I hate them more than most (I admire what the Romans did to Carthage and view it as a model for Knoxville), but let's not confuse rivalry with objective analysis.

Objectivity isn’t a requirement to post on fan bulletin boards, including the Boneyard

 

[Vowelguy]

Objectivity isn’t a requirement to post on fan bulletin boards, including the Boneyard

I didnt say it was.

"The NCAA is being biased by picking a team I'm biased against." is a Jedi-mind trick argument, though.

 

[Bone Dog]

I only replied to what I believed to be the question, namely whether Tennessee deserves to be in the tournament somewhere. I think that's obvious, not merely on metrics but also because they're kinda fun to watch, and the NCAA has to consider that. Is the NET flawed? Sure, but it's not the only consideration the committee uses. Is RPI better? Maybe, but that's not germane to the question.

Does Tennessee deserve some special seeding? No, and neither does USC. But it would seem strange to exclude either of them. For one thing, both of them could probably win their first round and maybe second round games.

 

[JstVisiting]

Funny how no one complains about USC being in the tournament even though their resume is almost identical.

Or Nebraska, a team that doesn't even have the one good win.