Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 4974350, member: 1969"]
Appreciate the research.

A few notes though.
1) Rutgers did not miss the NCAA tournament because of its Schedule last year.  The real reason they missed the tournament is because they had 5 Q3/ "bad" Losses - they were 2-5 in the Q3 quadrant.   5 Q3 losses is unheard of for a bubble team.

2)   I know this isn't the claim you are making above, but I did want to state the bold item which limits comparables.   [B]Its not the NET of the 70s that is the disqualifying factor for teams (to prove that you would need to find teams with satisfactory Q1+Q2 and limited bad losses that missed the tournament, and those are hard to find) - its that team in the 70's in NET don't typically have the quality win profile with limited bad losses.  [/B]They don't have a satisfactory Q1+Q2 record or they have 3,4 or 5 bad losses.     That is why they miss.   Say we go 5-1 to close, its will be very hard to find comparables to us.   Our Q1/Q2 record will be "satisfactory" and we will only have 1 bad loss.  We will be an anomaly.

There are basically only 2 paths to a net in the 70s and good enough Q1/Q2/limited bad losses to be considered for the NCAA tournament,
1) A lot of really good Q1 wins to offset the bad.
2) Your win/loss profile is fine but your NET is exceptionally distorted by margin like Syracuse this year,
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?