Pick a blind resume

[jdubs30]

Team A is considered a "lock"; team B is assumed to be on the outside looking in right now, which resume looks better to you?

Team A
vs. top 50 RPI: 4-5
vs. 51- 100 RPI: 0-1
Best win: #20 RPI
Best OOC win: #113 RPI
Worst loss: #231 RPI
# of losses outside of top 100 RPI: 3
Road record: 8-7
SOS: 114
RPI: 53
Non-Conf SOS: 296

Team B
vs. top 50 RPI: 4-10
vs. 51-100 RPI: 1-1
Best win: #1 RPI
Best OOC win: #77 RPI
Worst loss: #175 RPI
# losses outside of top 100 RPI: 2
Road record: 5-8
SOS: 36
RPI: 63
Non-Conf SOS: 106

I'll come back in a little and reveal the teams; does team A seem like a definite lock to any of you?

 

[Marsh01]

Smu and california?

 

[jdubs30]

Smu and california?

MARSH YOU RUIN EVERYTHING

 

[Marsh01]

MARSH YOU RUIN EVERYTHING

Lol. Sorry! This is more important than my job this time of year!!!

 

[jdubs30]

Lol. Sorry! This is more important than my job this time of year!!!

I hear you bro.

Regardless, how is SMU a lock? Their best OOC win is Sam Houston State; they have 4 top 100 wins and 3 100+ losses. With a very subpar SOS.

 

[Marsh01]

I hear you bro. Regardless, how is SMU a lock? Their best OOC win is Sam Houston State; they have 4 top 100 wins and 3 100+ losses. With a very subpar SOS.

I agree. Far from a lock in my opinion

 

[Chris02M]

I hear you bro.

Regardless, how is SMU a lock? Their best OOC win is Sam Houston State; they have 4 top 100 wins and 3 100+ losses. With a very subpar SOS.

smu isn't a lock most have them inj barely whether its Dayton round or just a couple slots above

 

[bpo57]

I think SMU is a lock. And it's not so much based simply on criteria. I think the Committee throws their stated criteria out the window when it suits them. SMU has had some good wins and to me passes the eye test. They played Lville very tough for about 37 minutes recently with their best player on the bench in big foul trouble. But here's the deal. They have a marquee coach and play in a fairly large market. That will get them over the line.

 

[jncuse]

I think SMU is a lock. And it's not so much based simply on criteria. I think the Committee throws their stated criteria out the window when it suits them. SMU has had some good wins and to me passes the eye test. They played Lville very tough for about 37 minutes recently with their best player on the bench in big foul trouble. But here's the deal. They have a marquee coach and play in a fairly large market. That will get them over the line.

Didn't you say the same thing last year with respect to Kentucky?

But I do agree with most everything you said before that. And it's not that they miss on all criteria -- they nailed the biggest one. The biggest criteria for selection is top 50 wins IMO. And with 3 elite top 25 wins / and 4 top 50 wins, on the surface they look great. 4-5 top 50 record, with 3 top 25 wins is very good.

The problem is everything else on the resume stinks after that. 3 bad losses is not good. No wins between 51-100... not good, although part of that is due to lack of opportunity in the AAC. And worst of all is an OOC SOS that the committee likes to punish if you are a bubble team.

After their 4 key wins, its a totally empty resume. 19 games against sub 150 teams.

 

[jncuse]

While I have SMU as in on my bracket, if I miss by one at large, I expect this one to be that wrong pick. I just can't label them a lock.

I expect the committee will bury them on the last 4 for their scheduke, instead of fully disposing of them.

There is simply not a strong enough contender on the outside to take their spot.

The top mid major on the outside is probably Louisiana Tech. Their OOC SOS is #280. So they can't really let them in either if that is why they exclude SMU.

Cal, Minny, Florida St -- these are bad looking teams with one or two less bad losses

Top 50 / Top 100
4-10, 5-11
2-8, 6-11
3-9. 6-12

vs SMU

4-5, 4-6

 

[BuffOrange]

I used to like the blind resume game but now I hate it. And I'm more of a 'data' than an 'eye test' guy...

The only one of those ten categories I care about is 'best win'. None of the others tell you anything.
Are the Top50 games vs 40s at home or teens on the road? You need that distribution imo.
Best OOC win - who cares? Just give me the best six or seven overall wins, in or out of conference.
Road record doesn't tell you who they played.
SoS doesn't tell you who they beat, or if the easier SoS is artificially deflated due to a Cornell/Binghamton.

I get that the goal is to take away the school name & be objective. Looking at the schedule/results & replacing the opponents' names with their kenpom rank would be a much better way of achieving that objective analysis imo.

 

[bpo57]

Didn't you say the same thing last year with respect to Kentucky?

But I do agree with most everything you said before that. And it's not that they miss on all criteria -- they nailed the biggest one. The biggest criteria for selection is top 50 wins IMO. And with 3 elite top 25 wins / and 4 top 50 wins, on the surface they look great. 4-5 top 50 record, with 3 top 25 wins is very good.

The problem is everything else on the resume stinks after that. 3 bad losses is not good. No wins between 51-100... not good, although part of that is due to lack of opportunity in the AAC. And worst of all is an OOC SOS that the committee likes to punish if you are a bubble team.

After their 4 key wins, its a totally empty resume. 19 games against sub 150 teams.

Re UK I was wrong. Not a crazy thought though to think the blue bloods might get preferential treatment.

IMO you are putting too much emphasis on who SMU didn't play. I've watched them play several times and they are not a bubble team. They beat Cinci and Memphis both by double digits and also beat UConn twice. I've said it ad nauseum but if you proved you are legit the last 2 months then who cares about the OOC ?

 

[Full_Rebar]

SMU is a lock because they have Larry Brown and a good story.

 

[bpo57]

Yep. All of the projections I have seen have SMU in.