The committee told us that conference record means nothing

[Alsacs]

5 teams with losing conference records received at-larges. Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona State and Syracuse.

Nebraska went 13-5 in the Big Ten.
USC 12-6 in the PAC-12.

JB nailed the non-conference this year.
Neutral site-UConn
@Georgetown
Neutral site-Kansas
Big Ten-ACC challenge
Buffalo
St. Bonaventure
Iona
No bad 250 RPI teams.

Hope we keep this format going.

 

[Knicks411]

Can't wait till next year when people forget this and again talk about conf record like it means anything without context

 

[bpo57]

Can't wait till next year when people forget this and again talk about conf record like it means anything without context

I'm trying to get my head around the context where USC can go 14-7 in the Pac-12 and ASU goes 8-11 and yet ASU gets the nod over USC. Somehow a 20 game sample is deemed irrelevant. If SU was dinged in that scenario we'd all be barking at the moon, and rightfully so.

 

[SoBristol]

In our case, a losing ACC record means a play-in game in Dayton for a #11 seed. So, yeah, if that is your goal. But a winning ACC record gets you directly into the first weekend against a lower seed. Unless you shoot yourself in the foot early, a couple of times (as our 2016-17 team did).

 

[Knicks411]

I'm trying to get my head around the context where USC can go 14-7 in the Pac-12 and ASU goes 8-11 and yet ASU gets the nod over USC. Somehow a 20 game sample is deemed irrelevant. If SU was dinged in that scenario we'd all be barking at the moon, and rightfully so.

I don't think irrelevant is the right word. Just not the entire sample. I'm sure USC would've been ahead of ASU if the conference season was all the data they had. But it wasn't.

 

[PhatOrange]

I'm trying to get my head around the context where USC can go 14-7 in the Pac-12 and ASU goes 8-11 and yet ASU gets the nod over USC. Somehow a 20 game sample is deemed irrelevant. If SU was dinged in that scenario we'd all be barking at the moon, and rightfully so.

USC is really the only team you can make a case for that 'should' be in. RPI 24 and SOS 62. 9-10 in Quadrant 1 and 2 games.

IMO, they got shafted because of the investigations (and maybe rightfully so.)

 

[bpo57]

I don't think irrelevant is the right word. Just not the entire sample. I'm sure USC would've been ahead of ASU if the conference season was all the data they had. But it wasn't.

USC beat a whole bunch of teams that ASU couldn't beat. I'm fine valuing big OOC wins but when you lose 11 games in the weakest power conference in the country then you should be playing in the NIT.

 

[Knicks411]

USC is really the only team you can make a case for that 'should' be in. RPI 24 and SOS 62. 9-10 in Quadrant 1 and 2 games.

IMO, they got shafted because of the investigations (and maybe rightfully so.)

USC did something pretty impressive; they went 14-7 in Pac 12 play (including the conf tournament) and didn't win a single game in conf against a team that made the tournament.

As far as I can tell, they won a single game against a tournament team (New Mexico State).

 

[bpo57]

USC did something pretty impressive; they went 14-7 in Pac 12 play (including the conf tournament) and didn't win a single game in conf against a team that made the tournament.

As far as I can tell, they won a single game against a tournament team (New Mexico State).

They played in a weak league so their wins were de-valued. But somehow ASU's 11 losses in that league were overlooked. Go figure.

 

[Alsacs]

I'm trying to get my head around the context where USC can go 14-7 in the Pac-12 and ASU goes 8-11 and yet ASU gets the nod over USC. Somehow a 20 game sample is deemed irrelevant. If SU was dinged in that scenario we'd all be barking at the moon, and rightfully so.

I agree but that is what happened in 2007.
SU was 10-6 and teams 9-7 and 8-8 made it ahead of us.
The LA schools only played the Arizona schools one time in the regular season.

Arizona State is the weakest at-large but the committee valued they beat two 1 seeds away from home in Xavier on a neutral floor and Kansas at Kansas.
USC was 0-5 against the pac-12 teams in the tournament.
The committee basically said we want good wins and bad losses over a lot of medicore wins and bad losses.

 

[SoBeCuse]

USC did something pretty impressive; they went 14-7 in Pac 12 play (including the conf tournament) and didn't win a single game in conf against a team that made the tournament.

As far as I can tell, they won a single game against a tournament team (New Mexico State).

I think your last sentence is the gist of the verdict re: USC. As a Trojan I’m not too upset. I think the Cowboys have more of a beef with the Sooners getting in than ASU over USC.

Also, nobody is talking about Bennie Boatwright. He’s done. I think they want to put teams in there who have a chance to actually do something potentially. Without him they are toast. He’s a big weapon.

 

[Knicks411]

They played in a weak league so their wins were de-valued. But somehow ASU's 11 losses in that league were overlooked. Go figure.

I don't know why you keep saying stuff like "overlooked" and "irrelevant". They were part of the package. The committee felt that the work out of conference outweighed that.

 

[bpo57]

I agree but that is what happened in 2007.
SU was 10-6 and teams 9-7 and 8-8 made it ahead of us.
The LA schools only played the Arizona schools one time in the regular season.

Arizona State is the weakest at-large but the committee valued they beat two 1 seeds away from home in Xavier on a neutral floor and Kansas at Kansas.
USC was 0-5 against the pac-12 teams in the tournament.
The committee basically said we want good wins and bad losses over medicore wins and bad losses.

USC played Arizona twice in that 14-7 record. USC also played the next best team in the league (UCLA) 2x and ASU only played them once.

I'll amend your last sentence by including the word "many" in front of the first use of the word "bad". Losing 11 games in the weakest power conference is grounds for exclusion.

 

[bpo57]

I don't know why you keep saying stuff like "overlooked" and "irrelevant". They were part of the package. The committee felt that the work out of conference outweighed that.

You yourself essentially said that USC didn't beat anybody in their conference - I can't argue against that btw - yet ASU lost 11 games in that same weak conference. Help me out here - how does that make any sense? And how does the word overlook not apply?

 

[Knicks411]

You yourself essentially said that USC didn't beat anybody in their conference - I can't argue against that btw - yet ASU lost 11 games in that same weak conference. Help me out here - how does that make any sense?

They at least beat USC and UCLA (at home, to be fair) and they had a much better out of conference schedule. Arizona State won 5 games against tournament teams, including a neutral site win over a 1 seed, and a road win against a 1 seed. USC won 1.

Anyway, i'm not trying to re-litigate USC-Arizona State (really, I'm not). I was just making the point that the committee has said conf record doesn't mean much without context, and once again, has shown that. That's all.

 

[CorduroyG]

it meant nothing last year too, we went 10-8 in acc and didnt make it. non conference schedule is hugely important, and getting some road/neutral wins

 

[StopCoolio]

To show how little they valued conference wins, Nebraska had 13 and got a 5 seed in the NIT.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I do find it a little weird than non con record seems to matter but conference record doesn't.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Unlike BPO the committee thought the Pac 12 stunk. Washington getting a 5 seed in the NIT proved that.

 

[AZOrange]

To show how little they valued conference wins, Nebraska had 13 and got a 5 seed in the NIT.

They didn’t ignore conf records they just looked at them in terms of conf strength and balance. For example how many of our losses were attributable to 1-2 seeds? How many were in USCs resume?

How many tourney teams did SU play? How many did they beat?

How many did USC play and beat?

 

[Alsacs]

I do find it a little weird than non con record seems to matter but conference record doesn't.

It is because most conferences don’t play balanced schedules.
The Big East and Big XII do
They have true round robins.
The ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC don’t play true round robins so the committee has to analyze those teams conference schedules as to who they played and where.

 

[bpo57]

They at least beat USC and UCLA (at home, to be fair) and they had a much better out of conference schedule. Arizona State won 5 games against tournament teams, including a neutral site win over a 1 seed, and a road win against a 1 seed. USC won 1.

Anyway, i'm not trying to re-litigate USC-Arizona State (really, I'm not). I was just making the point that the committee has said conf record doesn't mean much without context, and once again, has shown that. That's all.

I hear ya. My point, sorry to repeat, is that I understand why USC's P-12 wins are de-valued. Just struggling to understand why ASU's losses to those same teams are not penalized. You made a good point about USC beating only one tournament team yet ASU lost to seven different P-12 teams.

Essentially ASU is living off of two nights (Xavier and KU) where they shot 13-27 and 14-28 from 3. Shooting the lights out in those two games got them into the tourney and enabled them to get away with a putrid performance in their weak conference.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Conference record has never mattered.

 

[bpo57]

Unlike BPO the committee thought the Pac 12 stunk. Washington getting a 5 seed in the NIT proved that.

LOL you could easily find 15 different posts where I said the P-12 stunk this year. I think you're confusing last year and this year. No worries.

 

[bpo57]

Conference record has never mattered.

Uh I would not say never. Back in the day (ten years ago +) if you were five games behind another conference member you had no chance of getting in ahead of them.