Mich St went 19-14??? | Syracusefan.com

Mich St went 19-14???

CorduroyG

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
8,184
Like
14,470
10-10 in conference? And got a 9 seed?????

This drives me nuts. I dont give 2 effs what their analytics say or their NET or any other bs metric. YOU ARE WHAT YOUR RECORD SAYS YOU ARE

19-14??? Gimme a break.

I assume they played a tough schedule. But what other sport do you get rewarded for losing to good teams? Its so stupid. Imagine it the nfl did this? The seahawks went 9-8 last year, but they played a tougher schedule than a team that went 10-7, so the seahawks make the playoffs lol.

There should be certain requirements to get an at large. 20+ wins, above .500 in conference. Play in the toughest conference for that given year? Oh well, them’s the breaks.
 
10-10 in conference? And got a 9 seed?????

This drives me nuts. I dont give 2 effs what their analytics say or their NET or any other bs metric. YOU ARE WHAT YOUR RECORD SAYS YOU ARE

19-14??? Gimme a break.

I assume they played a tough schedule. But what other sport do you get rewarded for losing to good teams? Its so stupid. Imagine it the nfl did this? The seahawks went 9-8 last year, but they played a tougher schedule than a team that went 10-7, so the seahawks make the playoffs lol.

There should be certain requirements to get an at large. 20+ wins, above .500 in conference. Play in the toughest conference for that given year? Oh well, them’s the breaks.
14th SOS, that’ll buy you a lot of wiggle room. Basically the only reason A&M is in.
 
10-10 in conference? And got a 9 seed?????

This drives me nuts. I dont give 2 effs what their analytics say or their NET or any other bs metric. YOU ARE WHAT YOUR RECORD SAYS YOU ARE

19-14??? Gimme a break.

I assume they played a tough schedule. But what other sport do you get rewarded for losing to good teams? Its so stupid. Imagine it the nfl did this? The seahawks went 9-8 last year, but they played a tougher schedule than a team that went 10-7, so the seahawks make the playoffs lol.

There should be certain requirements to get an at large. 20+ wins, above .500 in conference. Play in the toughest conference for that given year? Oh well, them’s the breaks.
In 2015-16, we were 19-13, 10-10 and went to the final 4.
 
YOU ARE WHAT YOUR RECORD SAYS YOU ARE

19-14??? Gimme a break.

I assume they played a tough schedule. But what other sport do you get rewarded for losing to good teams? Its so stupid. Imagine it the nfl did this? The seahawks went 9-8 last year, but they played a tougher schedule than a team that went 10-7, so the seahawks make the playoffs lol.
Would you have Samford (29-5) as the 4th one seed along with UConn/Purdue/Houston?
 
Would you have Princeton (24-4) as the 4th one seed along with UConn/Purdue/Houston


No id have a team in that won 20 games and went 13-7 in a major conference like seton hall
 
In 2015-16, we were 19-13, 10-10 and went to the final 4.

Ive always felt finishing above .500 in conference should be a requirement for an at large.

Im not saying michigan st cant make a deep run, but you should earn your bid by winning enough games, not playing a tough schedule.
 
Ive always felt finishing above .500 in conference should be a requirement for an at large.

Im not saying michigan st cant make a deep run, but you should earn your bid by winning enough games, not playing a tough schedule.
That's fair. Was just sayin' we would've been out that year. As well as 17-18 when we went 8-10 in conf and made the sweet 16.

I think if you have that requirement along with the 20+ wins, I see no reason to play a tough OOC
 
The committee ignored NET and went by wins to put UVA in. Where's OP with that thread?
 
10-10 in conference? And got a 9 seed?????

This drives me nuts. I dont give 2 effs what their analytics say or their NET or any other bs metric. YOU ARE WHAT YOUR RECORD SAYS YOU ARE

19-14??? Gimme a break.

I assume they played a tough schedule. But what other sport do you get rewarded for losing to good teams? Its so stupid. Imagine it the nfl did this? The seahawks went 9-8 last year, but they played a tougher schedule than a team that went 10-7, so the seahawks make the playoffs lol.

There should be certain requirements to get an at large. 20+ wins, above .500 in conference. Play in the toughest conference for that given year? Oh well, them’s the breaks.
A fair push.

They had no bad losses (all Q1 and 2) but Q1 wins were over Illinois twice and Indiana State...which didn't make it but perhaps should have.

Hopefully they suck so UVA isn't the only one that has a clear What performance at a time where the ACC is under self attack.
 
Syracuse went 20-13 in 2018, with an 8-10 ACC record. Got in.
Nebraska went 22-10 in 2018, with a 13-5 BIG record. Missed
Should we have raged over that?

In 23/24 OOC
BIG had 14 Q1 wins (40% Win). ACC had 10 Q1 Wins (28% Win)
ACC had 13 bad losses, the BIG had 5 bad losses.

The BIG played better than the ACC in OOC play this year and its members got treated accordingly.
Just like the ACC played better than the BIG in OOC play in 2018 and its members got treated accordingly.

I get it that in the portal era teams are not static and evolving. But its the same for every conference -- and its combined data of 15 teams which takes out some noise, as compared to one team.
 
I’m fine with Michigan State being in, but probably should’ve been in a play-in. And UVa should’ve been out altogether.

But no one with a straight face can tell me UNC fans would be excited to draw them in round 2 given Izzo’s March history (with the Middle Tenn loss being an exception).
 
Last edited:
That's fair. Was just sayin' we would've been out that year. As well as 17-18 when we went 8-10 in conf and made the sweet 16.

I think if you have that requirement along with the 20+ wins, I see no reason to play a tough OOC

And that would turn college basketball into college football which is bad IMO. There used to be so many more cool OOC games in football but now the Big Ten/SEC just rely on the strength of their conferences and play cupcakes.
 
Michigan St's margin was abnormally high leading to their NET despite their modest record.

But oddly it was their winning margins in Q1 and Q3 games that drove most of this, and not margins in Q4 games that a lot of teams with beefed up NET's relied on. They only played 4 Q4 games OOC which is low for a P6 team now sadly.

Teams like Pitt and many of the B12 feasted on playing a number of Q4 teams and then destroying them.

I can live with margin being relied upon in Q1 and even Q3 games to a degree. But the thing with Q4 games is that the "expected margin" is typically limited because teams will coast at the end / sit players. If you choose not to, or choose to extend it a bit longer than others, you can control your NET narrative more easily. Its not as easy to do in Q1 and Q2 games... although Syracuse managed to do so negatively

Think of the 1-16 matchups with 30-35 point spreads. It's always a crapshoot based on when the team will let up. That being said are some teams now waiting much longer to let up or playing harder in these games.
 
Last edited:
I’m fine with Michigan State being in, but probably should’ve been in a play-in. And UVa should’ve been out altogether.

But no one with a straight face can tell me UNC fans would be excited to draw them in round 2 given Izzo’s March history (with the Middle Tenn loss being an exception).
In the last 9 seasons they have lost in the first or second round 5 times. Much like JB at the end Izzo is living off his reputation. They are quite mediocre recently. 4 straight years of 13 losses.
 
And that would turn college basketball into college football which is bad IMO. There used to be so many more cool OOC games in football but now the Big Ten/SEC just rely on the strength of their conferences and play cupcakes.

EDIT - Just realized you were talking about the BIG/SEC in College Football and not Basketball. I'll keep the point below regardless, but it is a bit irrelevant to your point (except for the last paragraph)

For whatever reason the SEC played a markedly harder schedule than others this year in college basketball.

-------

The ACC played a much softer OOC schedule than the SEC. In my calculations last month, SEC played just above 40% of their OOC games as Q1+Q2, IIRC from my data analysis I did last month. The MWC, B12, and the ACC were all around30%, with the B12 being the lowest.

I didn't get around to accumulating the data fully for the other 3 conferences, so can't comment on the BIG. But the SEC actually seemed to play markedly harder schedules than the other 3 I analyzed.

I can tell you that teams across all conferences are playing way to many cupcake games though, and as long as they keep NET the way it is, it's not going to change. There is no punisher for playing really bad teams like the RPI had. Which is why I want a NET/RPI hybrid... might actually encourage teams to play more Q1 and Q2 games, because one system is rough on Q4 games (RPI) and the other is rougher on Q3 games (NET)
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
167,889
Messages
4,735,654
Members
5,930
Latest member
CuseGuy44

Online statistics

Members online
243
Guests online
1,082
Total visitors
1,325


Top Bottom