Record last 10 games

[CorduroyG]

I think the committee should go back to using this. I understand the "entire body of work" thing, but dont you want teams in the tournament that are playing their best in feb/march as opposed to teams that peaked in nov/dec? Lets say you got 2 bubble teams with similar #s, 1 team is 8-2 in their last 10, the other team is 5-5. But the team that is 5-5 had a tougher non-conference schedule and had better wins in nov/dec, so they get the nod even though theyre slumping down the stretch and the other team is hot. Id rather give it to the team thats peaking now as opposed to 3 months ago.

Villanova last year is a good example. They completely fell apart down the stretch, they were considered a bubble team (and many people had them out), yet ended up with a 9 (so they werent even a bubble team in the committee's eyes) seed solely based on how they started the season. Everyone knew that team was in a complete freefall, and sure enough they got bounced in the 1st round. You obviously cant base everything on "last 10", but i think it should be a factor when comparing bubble teams or when seeding teams.

 

[orange79]

Nothing precludes the committee from looking at this. It's just not one of the 'official' criteria they use anymore.

 

[Knicks411]

I think there is something to it, and I think you are probably right that Nova was overseeded as a 9 last year.

Committee is big on November and December counting for the same as Feb though.

 

[Toga]

All I know is that I would like a dollar for every time "body of work" gets mentioned over the next two weeks.

 

[CorduroyG]

All I know is that I would like a dollar for every time "body of work" gets mentioned over the next two weeks.

haha
terms you only hear this time of year

"on the bubble"
"theyre a lock"
"overall body of work"
"the eye test"
"our resident bracketologist joe lunardi"
"who did you play and who did you beat"


im sure im missing about 100 more

 

[bpo57]

I think the committee should go back to using this. I understand the "entire body of work" thing, but dont you want teams in the tournament that are playing their best in feb/march as opposed to teams that peaked in nov/dec? Lets say you got 2 bubble teams with similar #s, 1 team is 8-2 in their last 10, the other team is 5-5. But the team that is 5-5 had a tougher non-conference schedule and had better wins in nov/dec, so they get the nod even though theyre slumping down the stretch and the other team is hot. Id rather give it to the team thats peaking now as opposed to 3 months ago.

Villanova last year is a good example. They completely fell apart down the stretch, they were considered a bubble team (and many people had them out), yet ended up with a 9 (so they werent even a bubble team in the committee's eyes) seed solely based on how they started the season. Everyone knew that team was in a complete freefall, and sure enough they got bounced in the 1st round. You obviously cant base everything on "last 10", but i think it should be a factor when comparing bubble teams or when seeding teams.

It used to be that they relied too much on the last 10 and now they don't rely enough on it. I was shocked when Nova got in last year. They had no business being in that tournament.

 

[Knicks411]

haha
terms you only hear this time of year

"on the bubble"
"theyre a lock"
"overall body of work"
"the eye test"
"our resident bracketologist joe lunardi"
"who did you play and who did you beat"


im sure im missing about 100 more

Somethign about how the RPI is "just a tool, one of many in our toolbox" and how it is just a "method of sorting teams".

 

[jncuse]

Perhaps its considered by the committee after they place the skanks and butterfaces on the bubble after assessing the entire body of work.

With the case of Nova last year, there entire body of work, was above that of a bubble team. If they had been put in the bubble group maybe it would have been used against them.

 

[Cheriehoop]

I think the committee should go back to using this. I understand the "entire body of work" thing, but dont you want teams in the tournament that are playing their best in feb/march as opposed to teams that peaked in nov/dec? Lets say you got 2 bubble teams with similar #s, 1 team is 8-2 in their last 10, the other team is 5-5. But the team that is 5-5 had a tougher non-conference schedule and had better wins in nov/dec, so they get the nod even though theyre slumping down the stretch and the other team is hot. Id rather give it to the team thats peaking now as opposed to 3 months ago.

Villanova last year is a good example. They completely fell apart down the stretch, they were considered a bubble team (and many people had them out), yet ended up with a 9 (so they werent even a bubble team in the committee's eyes) seed solely based on how they started the season. Everyone knew that team was in a complete freefall, and sure enough they got bounced in the 1st round. You obviously cant base everything on "last 10", but i think it should be a factor when comparing bubble teams or when seeding teams.

Depends how our record looks, I can see varying the method year-to-year depending on how it effects us

 

[bpo57]

Depends how our record looks, I can see varying the method year-to-year depending on how it effects us

It's funny you say that because in the past SU has been on the receiving end of that "you finished very poorly" criticism that eventually led to an NIT bid. Last year Villanova lost 10 of its last 14 games. It was clear they were playing very poorly down the stretch. I think the Committee should try to focus on the best 37 at large teams at the time of selection. They place way too much emphasis on what happened in November and December.

 

[Cheriehoop]

It's funny you say that because in the past SU has been on the receiving end of that "you finished very poorly" criticism that eventually led to an NIT bid. Last year Villanova lost 10 of its last 14 games. It was clear they were playing very poorly down the stretch. I think the Committee should try to focus on the best 37 at large teams at the time of selection. They place way too much emphasis on what happened in November and December.

I was thinking the same thing - we've been on both sides of that argument and considering the conference's unbalanced schedule, and some of our "swoons" it's certainly effected us some seasons. Strength of schedule and whether home/away etc for those last games should count for something too. That's what has made this year so special how impressive we've handled the backloaded conference schedule so far.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

haha
terms you only hear this time of year

"on the bubble"
"theyre a lock"
"overall body of work"
"the eye test"
"our resident bracketologist joe lunardi"
"who did you play and who did you beat"


im sure im missing about 100 more

"strength of schedule"
"non-conference opponents"
"road to New Orleans"
"peaking when it counts"



Sounds like the beginning of a new drinking game.

 

[pfister1]

haha
terms you only hear this time of year

"on the bubble"
"theyre a lock"
"overall body of work"
"the eye test"
"our resident bracketologist joe lunardi"
"who did you play and who did you beat"


im sure im missing about 100 more

actually I think its' "who did you play and where did you play them"

I didn't think it was still relevant whether you won or lost, just whether you played on the road or not.

 

[tptcuse]

"hitting their stride"

 

[tptcuse]

"playing beyond expectations"

 

[tptcuse]

The scariest: "Tom Izzo has this team playing at their peak". I think he is the man.

 

[690West]

"punch their ticket"

 

[Ghost]

Really? I just mentioned it another thread, but I think it needs to be referenced again since it's probably the single most important criteria the NCAA uses in evaluating teams.

Has Digger declared the team to be "on a mission" yet.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

haha
terms you only hear this time of year

"on the bubble"
"theyre a lock"
"overall body of work"
"the eye test"
"our resident bracketologist joe lunardi"
"who did you play and who did you beat"


im sure im missing about 100 more

How about "I don't care what Duke's record is, they should be a #1 seed because they're Duke."

 

[All4SU]

"on a mission"