Updated Metrics (2/26/23) | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Updated Metrics (2/26/23)

Our non-conf has been disintegrating down the stretch. Iowa St (4 straight), Florida (6 of 7), and Ok St (5 straight) all with major losing streaks this month. Florida and Ok St. have major starters out with injury (Castleton and Avery Anderson respectively).

Oregon got swept on the Washington road trip to take themselves off the bubble, too.

Alabama still good, if problematic.
 
willie99 said:
The most important variable. George Mason should not have been selected in 2006. In their own conference, Hofstra finished higher, had a better RPI, beat them twice and eliminated them in the conference tournament. But Mason's AD was on the committee and Mason got the at large, not Hofstra
Expand ...

Given that they made the Final Four, hard to say the committee made a bad choice giving them an at large bid.
 
auror said:
Our non-conf has been disintegrating down the stretch. Iowa St (4 straight), Florida (6 of 7), and Ok St (5 straight) all with major losing streaks this month. Florida and Ok St. have major starters out with injury (Castleton and Avery Anderson respectively).

Oregon got swept on the Washington road trip to take themselves off the bubble, too.

Alabama still good, if problematic.
Expand ...
Yea…our OOC schedule was not good contrary to what a lot of people on here think.
 
pj said:
Given that they made the Final Four, hard to say the committee made a bad choice giving them an at large bid.
Expand ...

You earn a bid or not before tournament play. Anyone can go on a run once they're in, and many teams do.

Based on metrics and head to head results, their conference member Hofstra deserved an at large bid before them. But Mason had a member on the committee. So Mason got the opportunity and played far over their heads. It happens

Their conferences regular season and post season champ, UNCW, lost in the first round
 
Last edited:
Mason was a 12 seed, meaning they were one of the last at large bids, not like the committee saw something special in them
 
If we run the table, we're a two seed. That's a big "if", but an absolute "if" none the less

A one is almost certainly out of the question, but remotely possible with a lot of help over the next two weeks. We need to look awesome, and we need a lot of losses, including a few bad losses

I'd be happy with a 3 or 4. 4's get a weak automatic bid conference to get their feet wet, 5's and 6's get stronger at large bids, maybe with a chip on their shoulder
 
Speaking of metrics.. Does anyone know what Nova/Hall metrics look like going into tonight's game?? Curious to see whether one of them may have an outside shot at squeaking into the Tournament with a strong finish to regular season and a strong BET.. I expect our game to be a rock fight at Nova/Senior Night and that could be/would be a huge W for them vs us. FWIW.. Still expect us to win..
 
Last edited:
auror said:
Our non-conf has been disintegrating down the stretch. Iowa St (4 straight), Florida (6 of 7), and Ok St (5 straight) all with major losing streaks this month. Florida and Ok St. have major starters out with injury (Castleton and Avery Anderson respectively).

Oregon got swept on the Washington road trip to take themselves off the bubble, too.

Alabama still good, if problematic.
Expand ...
Sadly correct. And one of our top conference wins (vs. Creighton) has fallen out of the rankings too.

Our resume is basically Bama and Marquette wins. Maybe Providence if people look at the rankings rather than the computer numbers.
 
Vuce said:
We will definitely drop in the power ratings a lot because of it for sure right?
Expand ...
Considering the committee had us outside the top 16 even though 95% of the BY (not including me) thought we were a lock…the NET is a guide, not a hard and fast rule. Our omission proved my point about our questionable OOC SOS and scheduling practices.
 
shizzle787 said:
Considering the committee had us outside the top 16 even though 95% of the BY (not including me) thought we were a lock…the NET is a guide, not a hard and fast rule. Our omission proved my point about our questionable OOC SOS and scheduling practices.
Expand ...
The poor OOC will show up in the metrics and we will drop right? FL, Iowa St and Ok St will drag us down with the computer. The top 16 on March 12th matters not a pre release so not sweating that
 
Vuce said:
The poor OOC will show up in the metrics and we will drop right? FL, Iowa St and Ok St will drag us down with the computer. The top 16 on March 12th matters not a pre release so not sweating that
Expand ...
You know he's not going to actually answer your question because it would be admitting they're all sad about something that will have a microscopic if any impact on anything going forward.
 
can someone explain why quadrant wins are determined by RPI ranking instead of NET ranking?
 
Hans Sprungfeld said:
"But DePaul outscored us in the second half. Can't do stuff like that in the Tournaments"

(^ I hope I don't see that in the post-game thread)
Expand ...
Just between the two of us I would want nothing more than to begin the second half of every game we play from here on in with a 30 point lead and have to accept the fact that our opponent outscored us by 2-4 points in the second half.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Just between the two of us I would want nothing more than to begin the second half of every game we play from here on in with a 30 point lead and have to accept the fact that our opponent outscored us by 2-4 points in the second half.
Expand ...
At halftime, I texted my sister that I wanted a second-half margin of 9+ points, which was the final margin in the Seton Hall and St John's game, simply to be a talking point to shut up anybody who seriously expressed concern about the second half.

And, I looked & saw that Northwestern wallopped DePaul by 38 points in November so this wasn't their largest beat down, and Creighton took a 27-point halftime margin over Georgetown and grew it to 40 points for the game.

In such matters, there's no winning except for winning, so let's just win.
 
willie99 said:
Mason was a 12 seed, meaning they were one of the last at large bids, not like the committee saw something special in them
Expand ...
They were an 11: they played us in the E8 rather than the S16. That whole side of the bracket fell apart as they beat MSU and UNC, and the 2-seed, Tennessee, got knocked out by Wichita State. Going into the second weekend, things looked pretty darn good for us, in that we only had to beat a 4 and then a 7 or 11 to make the FF.

::sigh::
 
tzznandrew said:
They were an 11: they played us in the E8 rather than the S16. That whole side of the bracket fell apart as they beat MSU and UNC, and the 2-seed, Tennessee, got knocked out by Wichita State. Going into the second weekend, things looked pretty darn good for us, in that we only had to beat a 4 and then a 7 or 11 to make the FF.

::sigh::
Expand ...
Man, that mason game still haunts me.
How? How? How? That 06 team was so rich in talent!!!!!
 
tzznandrew said:
They were an 11: they played us in the E8 rather than the S16. That whole side of the bracket fell apart as they beat MSU and UNC, and the 2-seed, Tennessee, got knocked out by Wichita State. Going into the second weekend, things looked pretty darn good for us, in that we only had to beat a 4 and then a 7 or 11 to make the FF.

::sigh::
Expand ...
And I believe Tony Skynn like punched his girlfriend in the face the day or two before and got into a fight. But the coaching staff and school was like yea let him play.

Or I could be wrong. Pretty heavy acquisition to be slinging around these days, so maybe I’m off the deep end.
 

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
3,478
Total visitors
3,617
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,560
Messages
4,401,295
Members
10,213
Latest member
illini2013


.
..
Top Bottom