the field?

[obliterata]

During the show one of the reasons they gave for not giving SU a bid was SU's record versus the rest of the teams in the tournament - the field. That's actually not a very good reason, I have no idea why they said that. Here's proof (record is vs multiple bid conferences in the field only):

SU... 5-8 (.385)

MichSt 5-9 (.357) - 9 seed
KSt...4-9 (.308)
Ark... 3-7 (.300) - 8 seed
Xav...5-12 (.294)
WF...4-10 (.286)
Miami 4-10 (.286) - 8 seed
SCar... 2-5 (.286) - 7 seed
USC...2-6 (.250)
StM's.. 1-3 (.250) - 7 seed

This is one of the many pro-SU stats and they're saying it's a negative, it's mind-boggling. They can't see how a simple thing like this is a plus for SU and everyone's supposed to trust they'll reach valid conclusions while going through all kinds of data.

Not me.

 

[CaptainJ]

During the show one of the reasons they gave for not giving SU a bid was SU's record versus the rest of the teams in the tournament - the field. That's actually not a very good reason, I have no idea why they said that. Here's proof (record is vs multiple bid conferences in the field only):

SU... 5-8 (.385)

MichSt 5-9 (.357) - 9 seed
KSt...4-9 (.308)
Ark... 3-7 (.300) - 8 seed
Xav...5-12 (.294)
WF...4-10 (.286)
Miami 4-10 (.286) - 8 seed
SCar... 2-5 (.286) - 7 seed
USC...2-6 (.250)
StM's.. 1-3 (.250) - 7 seed

This is one of the many pro-SU stats and they're saying it's a negative, it's mind-boggling. They can't see how a simple thing like this is a plus for SU and everyone's supposed to trust they'll reach valid conclusions while going through all kinds of data.

Not me.

I appreciate it, brother. It's really nice to have empirical data to support us that we should be in. I know it wont change anything NOW, but I would like to see the NCAA shamed because they purposefully screwed us. I did not want to use those words earlier, and didn't, but your post is the last straw that got me to say. Cuse was screwed by the NCAA, mocked with their first NIT opponent like Jake joked about with his call, and likely are the victim of a group of folks trying to do a "make up call", like some refs do. I'm guessing more pro-Cuse evidence will come forth, but this was all I needed right now. Great find, thanks!

 

[MarketCuse]

During the show one of the reasons they gave for not giving SU a bid was SU's record versus the rest of the teams in the tournament - the field. That's actually not a very good reason, I have no idea why they said that. Here's proof (record is vs multiple bid conferences in the field only):

SU... 5-8 (.385)

MichSt 5-9 (.357) - 9 seed
KSt...4-9 (.308)
Ark... 3-7 (.300) - 8 seed
Xav...5-12 (.294)
WF...4-10 (.286)
Miami 4-10 (.286) - 8 seed
SCar... 2-5 (.286) - 7 seed
USC...2-6 (.250)
StM's.. 1-3 (.250) - 7 seed

This is one of the many pro-SU stats and they're saying it's a negative, it's mind-boggling. They can't see how a simple thing like this is a plus for SU and everyone's supposed to trust they'll reach valid conclusions while going through all kinds of data.

Not me.

I'm telling you it seems these guys just looked at the teams total wins and losses for seeding. They were like 18? 18 Wins is not enough... out!

They relied on the statistical indexes because they don't watch basketball.

They really need to change the committee to be made entirely from basketball professionals. There were only like 30% basketball guys on the committee and you could tell with the seeding.