To the people that were fighting me when I said UVA couldn't be a 1 seed read Jerry Palm here

[Alsacs]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...5740/bracketology-nebraska-continues-its-roll

ACC champ Virginia also lost Sunday. The Cavaliers went down at Maryland in the Terps' final regular-season ACC game before moving to the Big Ten next year. There was a lot of talk that this cost Virginia a shot at a No. 1, but they never really had a shot. They don't have enough high-quality wins to compete with Wisconsin or Kansas and too many losses (even before Sunday) to compete with Villanova. I still would put Syracuse ahead of Virginia despite two bad losses for the Orange.


When I said UVA had NO CHANCE I was looking the freaking resumes and people on here were fighting me. Syracuse right now has the best resume in the ACC despite the Tech and BC losses.

Look at this as well

However, characterizing Virginia as a top seed isn't as ridiculous as viewing Duke as a No. 1. The Blue Devils already have seven losses, and only three teams have been No. 1 seeds with seven losses since expansion in 1985. Duke also has two bad losses (Notre Dame and last Wednesday at Wake Forest) and no team has ever been a No. 1 with that stain on their résumé. In fact, that would work against Syracuse, too.

Root for Syracuse to win its first 2 games in the ACCT and I think we clinch the 2 seed in the East. If we beat Duke on Saturday if we get their then I think Sunday wouldn't matter for us unless Villanova doesn't win the Big East. Looking at the BET bracket Nova has the tougher path than Creighton having PC/St. John's in the semis versus Xavier/Marquette.

 

[rrlbees]

As many others have said, if UVA had beat md and win the acct, they certainly would have been in the conversation and I'm betting would hVe gotten the 1.

 

[creatorsgam]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...5740/bracketology-nebraska-continues-its-roll

ACC champ Virginia also lost Sunday. The Cavaliers went down at Maryland in the Terps' final regular-season ACC game before moving to the Big Ten next year. There was a lot of talk that this cost Virginia a shot at a No. 1, but they never really had a shot. They don't have enough high-quality wins to compete with Wisconsin or Kansas and too many losses (even before Sunday) to compete with Villanova. I still would put Syracuse ahead of Virginia despite two bad losses for the Orange.


When I said UVA had NO CHANCE I was looking the freaking resumes and people on here were fighting me. Syracuse right now has the best resume in the ACC despite the Tech and BC losses.

Look at this as well

However, characterizing Virginia as a top seed isn't as ridiculous as viewing Duke as a No. 1. The Blue Devils already have seven losses, and only three teams have been No. 1 seeds with seven losses since expansion in 1985. Duke also has two bad losses (Notre Dame and last Wednesday at Wake Forest) and no team has ever been a No. 1 with that stain on their résumé. In fact, that would work against Syracuse, too.

Root for Syracuse to win its first 2 games in the ACCT and I think we clinch the 2 seed in the East. If we beat Duke on Saturday if we get their then I think Sunday wouldn't matter for us unless Villanova doesn't win the Big East. Looking at the BET bracket Nova has the tougher path than Creighton having PC/St. John's in the semis versus Xavier/Marquette.

Wolves do not fret over the opinion of sheep. SUball

 

[sutomcat]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...5740/bracketology-nebraska-continues-its-roll

ACC champ Virginia also lost Sunday. The Cavaliers went down at Maryland in the Terps' final regular-season ACC game before moving to the Big Ten next year. There was a lot of talk that this cost Virginia a shot at a No. 1, but they never really had a shot. They don't have enough high-quality wins to compete with Wisconsin or Kansas and too many losses (even before Sunday) to compete with Villanova. I still would put Syracuse ahead of Virginia despite two bad losses for the Orange.


When I said UVA had NO CHANCE I was looking the freaking resumes and people on here were fighting me. Syracuse right now has the best resume in the ACC despite the Tech and BC losses.

Look at this as well

However, characterizing Virginia as a top seed isn't as ridiculous as viewing Duke as a No. 1. The Blue Devils already have seven losses, and only three teams have been No. 1 seeds with seven losses since expansion in 1985. Duke also has two bad losses (Notre Dame and last Wednesday at Wake Forest) and no team has ever been a No. 1 with that stain on their résumé. In fact, that would work against Syracuse, too.

Root for Syracuse to win its first 2 games in the ACCT and I think we clinch the 2 seed in the East. If we beat Duke on Saturday if we get their then I think Sunday wouldn't matter for us unless Villanova doesn't win the Big East. Looking at the BET bracket Nova has the tougher path than Creighton having PC/St. John's in the semis versus Xavier/Marquette.

Good points.

With the ACC tournament championship being decided so late on Selection Sunday, the committee has a hard time being flexible depending on the result of the ACC championship game. My fear is that SU ends up playing UNC on Sunday, setting up a situation where because of the difference in resumes between UNC and SU, SU gets severely penalized with a loss and maybe is capped on how high they can go with a win as well.

It is going to be very tempting for the committee to pencil in the ACC champ as the 2 in the East regardless of who it is, with another member of the Big 4 getting the 2 in the South, another the 3 in the West and another a 3 or a 4 in the Midwest.

The good news for SU is that, assuming SU wins the ACC, it looks like Nova is the team they need to beat out for a 1 seed. And in that scenario, it would be easy to add a proviso that in the event Nova and SU win their tournaments, SU gets the 1 seed and Nova drops to a 2.

Not a fan of playing the ACC championship so late on a Sunday. The setup the old Big East had was far more convenient for people traveling to the tournament. It was great to have all day Saturday available to do whatever you wanted to do in NYC and you had all day Sunday to get back home in time for the Selection Sunday show.

Heck, with the starting times the ACC has, I am going to have a really hard time finding time to golf on Saturday or Sunday. If I can't golf, what in the world is there to do in Greensboro? I don't like checkers or Nascar and I just got a haircut so I don't need the services of Floyd the Barber.

 

[Cusefan0307]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...5740/bracketology-nebraska-continues-its-roll

ACC champ Virginia also lost Sunday. The Cavaliers went down at Maryland in the Terps' final regular-season ACC game before moving to the Big Ten next year. There was a lot of talk that this cost Virginia a shot at a No. 1, but they never really had a shot. They don't have enough high-quality wins to compete with Wisconsin or Kansas and too many losses (even before Sunday) to compete with Villanova. I still would put Syracuse ahead of Virginia despite two bad losses for the Orange.


When I said UVA had NO CHANCE I was looking the freaking resumes and people on here were fighting me. Syracuse right now has the best resume in the ACC despite the Tech and BC losses.

Look at this as well

However, characterizing Virginia as a top seed isn't as ridiculous as viewing Duke as a No. 1. The Blue Devils already have seven losses, and only three teams have been No. 1 seeds with seven losses since expansion in 1985. Duke also has two bad losses (Notre Dame and last Wednesday at Wake Forest) and no team has ever been a No. 1 with that stain on their résumé. In fact, that would work against Syracuse, too.

Root for Syracuse to win its first 2 games in the ACCT and I think we clinch the 2 seed in the East. If we beat Duke on Saturday if we get their then I think Sunday wouldn't matter for us unless Villanova doesn't win the Big East. Looking at the BET bracket Nova has the tougher path than Creighton having PC/St. John's in the semis versus Xavier/Marquette.

Duke is a four seed right now. Their profile is basically the same as ours last year.

 

[Marsh01]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...5740/bracketology-nebraska-continues-its-roll

ACC champ Virginia also lost Sunday. The Cavaliers went down at Maryland in the Terps' final regular-season ACC game before moving to the Big Ten next year. There was a lot of talk that this cost Virginia a shot at a No. 1, but they never really had a shot. They don't have enough high-quality wins to compete with Wisconsin or Kansas and too many losses (even before Sunday) to compete with Villanova. I still would put Syracuse ahead of Virginia despite two bad losses for the Orange.


When I said UVA had NO CHANCE I was looking the freaking resumes and people on here were fighting me. Syracuse right now has the best resume in the ACC despite the Tech and BC losses.

Look at this as well

However, characterizing Virginia as a top seed isn't as ridiculous as viewing Duke as a No. 1. The Blue Devils already have seven losses, and only three teams have been No. 1 seeds with seven losses since expansion in 1985. Duke also has two bad losses (Notre Dame and last Wednesday at Wake Forest) and no team has ever been a No. 1 with that stain on their résumé. In fact, that would work against Syracuse, too.

Root for Syracuse to win its first 2 games in the ACCT and I think we clinch the 2 seed in the East. If we beat Duke on Saturday if we get their then I think Sunday wouldn't matter for us unless Villanova doesn't win the Big East. Looking at the BET bracket Nova has the tougher path than Creighton having PC/St. John's in the semis versus Xavier/Marquette.

I think had Virginia won yesterday and swept through the ACC tourney beating 2 of the big 3 (Syracuse, Duke and UNC) they would have most definitely been seriously considered for a one seed. Its a moot point now of course.

 

[bballbeadle]

Tomcat, do you think there are going to be many Orange fans in Greensboro?

 

[Frozen]

Not a fan of playing the ACC championship so late on a Sunday.

If I'm recalling correctly, either the MEAC or the SWAC used to hold their tournament final late on Sunday afternoon. I recall, at least once or twice, the brackets being revealed before their game had ended. And the bracket just said that #1 seed Kentucky would play whoever wins the SWAC. Maybe I'm imagining that but I don't think so.

 

[Marsh01]

If I'm recalling correctly, either the MEAC or the SWAC used to hold their tournament final late on Sunday afternoon. I recall, at least once or twice, the brackets being revealed before their game had ended. And the bracket just said that #1 seed Kentucky would play whoever wins the SWAC. Maybe I'm imagining that but I don't think so.

They used to hold it Sunday afternoon you are correct

 

[RF2044]

Gotta love "I told you so" posts. Oh Lord

 

[jsshap]

Gotta love "I told you so" posts. Oh Lord

Indeed. Especially when the "I told you" is essentially "remember when I said that even if UVA runs the table they wont get a 1 seed? Well, now that they lost yesterday and therefore did not run the table, you can see that I was right and you were wrong."

 

[Alsacs]

If I'm recalling correctly, either the MEAC or the SWAC used to hold their tournament final late on Sunday afternoon. I recall, at least once or twice, the brackets being revealed before their game had ended. And the bracket just said that #1 seed Kentucky would play whoever wins the SWAC. Maybe I'm imagining that but I don't think so.

In 1987 they did the Selection Show while games were still going on. Listen to Jim Nantz if UCLA beats Washington in the Pac-10 Final then the final at-large bid would go to the Houston Cougars, but if Washington upsets Reggie Miller led UCLA then Cougars are out and the Huskies will take that slot with the Pac-10 automatic bid.

 

[Alsacs]

Indeed. Especially when the "I told you" is essentially "remember when I said that even if UVA runs the table they wont get a 1 seed? Well, now that they lost yesterday and therefore did not run the table, you can see that I was right and you were wrong."

Hey buddy READ THE FREAKING STATEMENT BY PALM which WAS MY POINT. However, I will now pay attention to crap you say because before I never did and will cherry pick your crap.

Palm statement
"There was a lot of talk that this cost Virginia a shot at a No. 1, but they never really had a shot. They don't have enough high-quality wins to compete with Wisconsin or Kansas and too many losses (even before Sunday) to compete with Villanova. "

I said the same thing last week. However, go ahead and take your shot instead of reading.

 

[jncuse]

Virginia needed things to break their way, but to say they had zero shot before yesterday is blatantly incorrect.

Wisconsin could be at 7 losses, kansas at 8 or 9 losses. Syracuse could be at 5 or 6 losses (before yesterday) .

He then uses Villanova as the final out to prove his point -- a real demonstration of inconsistency. Because nova has less losses he says. Potentially 4 vs 5.



So let me get this all straight. Wisconsin is ahead of Virginia with 2 more losses because of quality wins. BUT, even though Virginia could have 5 top 25 wins vs 1 for nova, Nova is ahead because of one less loss.

That is Lunardiesque.

Let's remember what a bad loss really is... Virginia did not have any at 5. Losses vs legit tourney teams in duke, Wisconsin, vcu, tennessee... and a loss on the road at a top mid major with an RPI around 60. none are bad losses. Are we going to give nova points because 3 of its losses could potentially be against the same team? Is that better than losses to 3 other teams. Nova had only a few shots at top 25 wins, and they blew it 3 times against the same team.

That is Lunardiesque.

If they had won yesterday here is the scenario they needed this week to be a #1.

- win acc
- wisconsin and nova lose this week.

 

[Alsacs]

Virginia needed things to break their way, but to say they had zero shot before yesterday is blatantly incorrect.

Wisconsin could be at 7 losses, kansas at 8 or 9 losses. Syracuse could be at 5 or 6 losses (before yesterday) .

He then uses Villanova as the final out to prove his point -- a real demonstration of inconsistency. Because nova has less losses he says. Potentially 4 vs 5.



So let me get this all straight. Wisconsin is ahead of Virginia with 2 more losses because of quality wins. BUT, even though Virginia could have 5 top 25 wins vs 1 for nova, Nova us ahead because of less losses.

That is Lunardiesque.

If they had won yesterday here is the scenario they needed this week to be a #1.

- win acc
- wisconsin and nova lose this week.

Virginia's ACC schedule costed them a shot at a 1 seed. Of the other 4 ACC NCAA tournament teams they only played each of them 1 time and 2 of them on the road.
Virginia played #2 Syracuse at home, #4 North Carolina 2-0 at home
Virginia played @#3 Duke, @#5 Pitt, 1-1 in those road games.

Their conference schedule reduced their chances at the 1 seed was part of my argument. Even if the beat Maryland, beating North Carolina x2, Syracuse x2 or Syracuse, Duke as their best 4 wins wouldn't have been enough for a 1 seed when they did nothing in the non-conference portion of their schedule, but lose 4 games total 2 of which were at home, and beat only SMU on a neutral court.
Virginia had no chance at a 1 seed because of their non-conference resume, and their ACC conference schedule being soft as they played #8, #9, #12, #15 post season seeds two times.

 

[jncuse]

Gotta love "I told you so" posts. Oh Lord

EDIT - Comment adjusted no intention to pick a fight just debate.

 

[Alsacs]

Especially when they are wrong.

If Virginia won the ACC tournament and beat Maryland they would have been 29-5
Their best wins would have been North Carolina x2, Syracuse, Duke-N, SMU, @Pitt that would be 6 wins over NCAA tournament teams
Assume Wisconsin lost their first B1G tournament game they would be 25-7
Their best wins Florida, @Michigan, @Virginia, St. Louis-N, Michigan State, @UW-Green Bay, Iowa x2, St. John's-N, West Virginia.
That is 9 wins over NCAA tournament teams, and not including a 10th win over a good WVU on a neutral floor or 11th win over a good Minnesota team, and Wisconsin beat Virginia ON ITS OWN HOME FLOOR and won @UW-Green Bay who beat Virginia on the same floor.

Virginia would have had 2 less losses and that is assuming UVA beat Maryland yesterday and won the ACC and Wisconsin lost to Minnesota in its FIRST GAME.

Yet you want to tell me because UVA beat a bunch of mediocre ACC teams in a row that gets them a 1 seed. They had NO CHANCE BECAUSE THEY DON'T have ENOUGH quality wins because their ACC schedule was terrible.

 

[sutomcat]

Tomcat, do you think there are going to be many Orange fans in Greensboro?

Since we sold out our allotment and had one of the 4 biggest allotments, so yes, I think so.

It won't be like the BET was, when we would have half the arena for some of our games, but we will show up better than any school in the ACC except UNC and Duke.

We should do even better in the ACC tourney in DC in 2016. And better still when it finally moves to MSG in 2017*

*=contingent on the New Big East schools continuing to be terrible basketball fans, which is close to a lock

 

[jncuse]

Virginia's ACC schedule costed them a shot at a 1 seed. Of the other 4 ACC NCAA tournament teams they only played each of them 1 time and 2 of them on the road.
Virginia played #2 Syracuse at home, #4 North Carolina 2-0 at home
Virginia played @#3 Duke, @#5 Pitt, 1-1 in those road games.

Their conference schedule reduced their chances at the 1 seed was part of my argument. Even if the beat Maryland, beating North Carolina x2, Syracuse x2 or Syracuse, Duke as their best 4 wins wouldn't have been enough for a 1 seed when they did nothing in the non-conference portion of their schedule, but lose 4 games total 2 of which were at home, and beat only SMU on a neutral court.
Virginia had no chance at a 1 seed because of their non-conference resume, and their ACC conference schedule being soft as they played #8, #9, #12, #15 post season seeds two times.

You are doing the opposite of what looking at the entire resume is. You are picking on certain limitations, and saying because of these limitations they have no shot. Indeed Virginia has limitations, which we need to determine if they overcome based on everything else they did. For some teams the limitatins cannot be overcome - Virginia may have with 4 top 25 wins in conference. That is what analyzing an entire resume is.

1. Explain to me how Villanova with 4 losses is ahead of Virginia if they end with 5 losses. Palm says this would be the case. How does Nova go 1-4 vs top 25 teams, and be ahead of a team with 4 top 25 wins? Virginia has one sub 50 loss (a road game against an RPI 60 team)... is that one loss going to make up for the fact that Nova could not get a quality win (especially if it got 3 shots at Creighton)

2. Why would Syracuse be clearly ahead of Virginia with 5 or 6 losses? If Syracuse had loss yesterday, and Virginia wins out, how could Syracuse be ahead.

Say they had both ended up with 5 losses, and Virginia wins the ACC.

Yes, Syracuse had the better OOC. But Virginia would be 20-1 in the ACC vs Syracuse at 16-5 or 15-5. No matter the schedule gap, that is a much better performance in the ACC.

Point is you need to assess everything.

Virginia would have 4 top 25 wins - UNC, Syracuse, 2 ACC Scalps (2 Neutral Court Victories)
Syracuse would have 3 or 4 top 25 wins - Villanova, Duke, UNC (0 or 1 Neutral Court Victories)

In terms of schedule. What if Virginia had got to play Duke twice, but once at home? Is that really an extra loss? Alternatively if they had played Syracuse on the road yes it could be one more loss. The big differnece in our schedules, is they did not get to play Duke at home, but got the advantage of playing us only at home. To me that is worth one extra loss.

When we compare losses - Syracuse is clearly worse. A bad loss is like an elite win.. like it or not. A bad loss hurts more than a loss to your 50 ish type team.

Edge for Virginia in elite wins, clear edge in terms of quality of losses. But Syracuse does have more depth in the middle, due to Maui. To me its a toss up, but I can certainly see the commitee focusing on the bigger things (more or same top 25 wins, 2 bad losses) which in aggregate go against Syracuse.

 

[jncuse]

If Virginia won the ACC tournament and beat Maryland they would have been 29-5
Their best wins would have been North Carolina x2, Syracuse, Duke-N, SMU, @Pitt that would be 6 wins over NCAA tournament teams
Assume Wisconsin lost their first B1G tournament game they would be 25-7
Their best wins Florida, @Michigan, @Virginia, St. Louis-N, Michigan State, @UW-Green Bay, Iowa x2, St. John's-N, West Virginia.
That is 9 wins over NCAA tournament teams, and not including a 10th win over a good WVU on a neutral floor or 11th win over a good Minnesota team, and Wisconsin beat Virginia ON ITS OWN HOME FLOOR and won @UW-Green Bay who beat Virginia on the same floor.

Virginia would have had 2 less losses and that is assuming UVA beat Maryland yesterday and won the ACC and Wisconsin lost to Minnesota in its FIRST GAME.

Yet you want to tell me because UVA beat a bunch of mediocre ACC teams in a row that gets them a 1 seed. They had NO CHANCE BECAUSE THEY DON'T have ENOUGH quality wins because their ACC schedule was terrible.

The real problem I have with Palm's comment, is that he says even if Virginia is ahead of Wisconsin, than Nova will take them down because of less losses. It totally lacked consistency. Screaming at Virginia's schedule, and saying they only beat a bunch of middling teams -- you mean the same thing Villanova did?

Please address what appears to be an inconsistency (Nova ahead Virginia because of less losses), which was my main point, without screaming please. Remember that was my criticism of Palm's point.

Once you acknowledge my original point (re Virginia vs Nova), then I will address Virginia vs Wisconsin. Which I certainly think could be Wisconsin's way. But I am not going to veer into that debate, when my main point of inconsistency regarding Virginia / Nova continues to be ignored.

 

[Alsacs]

You are doing the opposite of what looking at the entire resume is. You are picking on certain limitations, and saying because of these limitations they have no shot. Indeed Virginia has limitations, which we need to determine if they overcome based on everything else they did. For some teams the limitatins cannot be overcome - Virginia may have with 5 top 25 wins. That is what analyzing an entire resume is.

1. Explain to me how Villanova with 4 losses is ahead of Virginia if they end with 5 losses. Palm says this would be the case. How does Nova go 1-4 vs top 25 teams, and be ahead of a team with 4 top 25 wins? Virginia has one sub 50 loss (a road game against an RPI 60 team)... is that one loss going to make up for the fact that Nova could not get a quality win (especially if it got 3 shots at Creighton)

2. Why would Syracuse be clearly ahead of Virginia with 5 or 6 losses? If Syracuse had loss yesterday, and Virginia wins out, how could Syracuse be ahead.

Say they had both ended up with 5 losses, and Virginia wins the ACC.

Yes, Syracuse had the better OOC. But Virginia would be 20-1 in the ACC vs Syracuse at 16-5 or 15-5. No matter the schedule gap, that is a much better performance in the ACC.

Point is you need to assess everything.

Virginia would have 4 top 25 wins - UNC, Syracuse, 2 ACC Scalps (2 Neutral Court Victories)
Syracuse would have 3 or 4 top 25 wins - Villanova, Duke, UNC (0 or 1 Neutral Court Victories)

In terms of schedule. What if Virginia had got to play Duke twice, but once at home? Is that really an extra loss? Alternatively if they had played Syracuse on the road yes it could be one more loss. The big differnece in our schedules, is they did not get to play Duke at home, but got the advantage of playing us only at home. To me that is worth one extra loss.

When we compare losses - Syracuse is clearly worse. A bad loss is like an elite win.. like it or not. A bad loss hurts more than a loss to your 50 ish type team.

Edge for Virginia in elite wins, clear edge in terms of quality of losses. But Syracuse does have more depth in the middle, due to Maui.

Numbers to Come..

Wisconsin would still have a better resume than UVA or Nova if you want to add Nova to the discussion. However, Nova with 4 losses versus UVA with 5 losses.

Villanova played road games @St. Joseph's, @ Syracuse, @Creighton, @Georgetown, @Providence, @St. John's, @Xavier, @Marquette,@DePaul, @Seton Hall, @Butler

NCAA teams/bubble teams St. Joe's, Syracuse, Creighton, Providence, St. John's, Xavier
Villanova went 4-2 in those games and beat decent teams Georgetown, Marquette on the road as well

Virginia played road games @UW-Green Bay, @Tennessee, @Florida State, @NC State, @Duke,@Notre Dame, @Pittsburgh, @ Clemson, @Virginia Tech, @Maryland.

NCAA teams/bubble teams, UW-Green Bay, Tennessee, Florida State, Duke, Pittsburgh
Virginia went 2-3 in those games and beat decent teams NC State, Clemson.

Virginia has wins over Syracuse and North Carolina at home and neutral court win over SMU. Villanova has wins over Kansas, and Iowa on neutral floors which equal UVA's wins and the have home court wins over Providence, St. John's, Xavier as well.

Nova has more wins assume they won their first 2 BET games and lost to Creighton in the BET final and UVA beat UNC and SU/Duke that resume only has 6 wins over NCAA Tournament teams while Nova would have 2 wins over PC, St. John's, Xavier, and wins not on their home court over Kansas, Iowa, St. Joe's. Thus, I would vote for Nova because they played more NCAA tournament teams and beat more good teams away from their homecourt.

 

[jsshap]

Hey buddy READ THE FREAKING STATEMENT BY PALM which WAS MY POINT. However, I will now pay attention to crap you say because before I never did and will cherry pick your crap.

Palm statement
"There was a lot of talk that this cost Virginia a shot at a No. 1, but they never really had a shot. They don't have enough high-quality wins to compete with Wisconsin or Kansas and too many losses (even before Sunday) to compete with Villanova. "

I said the same thing last week. However, go ahead and take your shot instead of reading.

My apologies. Understand, however, that finding one columnist that supports your position and acting like it proves you were right and everyone was wrong is not seen as a real meaningful contribution to the board...especially when it seems rather obvious to most of us that had UVA run the table and finished the season 17-1 in conference and with about 20 wins in a row (most pretty easy wins) including 2 wins over Duke/SU/UNC at the end, they would have certainly been in the discussion for a 1, especially given all of the recent losses by other top teams. That is notwithstanding their awful OOC record and weaker conference schedule. Even if we accept Jerry Palm as the gospel, a passing comment as to what would have been had they not lost does not change that. But no matter what Palm thinks I thought this was obvious before the SU game and was still obvious going into the Maryland game. So the "I was vindicated" import of your post came off as a little silly. But you are correct, I misread your post initially, and am sorry about that.

 

[jncuse]

Wisconsin would still have a better resume than UVA or Nova if you want to add Nova to the discussion. However, Nova with 4 losses versus UVA with 5 losses.

Villanova played road games @St. Joseph's, @ Syracuse, @Creighton, @Georgetown, @Providence, @St. John's, @Xavier, @Marquette,@DePaul, @Seton Hall, @Butler

NCAA teams/bubble teams St. Joe's, Syracuse, Creighton, Providence, St. John's, Xavier
Villanova went 4-2 in those games and beat decent teams Georgetown, Marquette on the road as well

Virginia played road games @UW-Green Bay, @Tennessee, @Florida State, @NC State, @Duke,@Notre Dame, @Pittsburgh, @ Clemson, @Virginia Tech, @Maryland.

NCAA teams/bubble teams, UW-Green Bay, Tennessee, Florida State, Duke, Pittsburgh
Virginia went 2-3 in those games and beat decent teams NC State, Clemson.

Virginia has wins over Syracuse and North Carolina at home and neutral court win over SMU. Villanova has wins over Kansas, and Iowa on neutral floors which equal UVA's wins and the have home court wins over Providence, St. John's, Xavier as well.

Nova has more wins assume they won their first 2 BET games and lost to Creighton in the BET final and UVA beat UNC and SU/Duke that resume only has 6 wins over NCAA Tournament teams while Nova would have 2 wins over PC, St. John's, Xavier, and wins not on their home court over Kansas, Iowa, St. Joe's. Thus, I would vote for Nova because they played more NCAA tournament teams and beat more good teams away from their homecourt.

I bolded this comment above. I would go with Virginia (I will explain below), but I also respect your opinion on Nova (because not everyone will find everything the same level of importnace) but to me it is a classic toss up. I don't think one can clearly say Villanova would be ahead of Virginia. Not zero chance.

Let's take the top 25 out of play for a second.

In terms of the middle teams they played, I am not going to consider one much better in terms of SOS especially when assessing a one seed:

Iowa, St. Joes, (Xavier, Georgotown, Providence, Marquette)*2
Tennessee, Green Bay, Pitt, Florida St (2) , Clemson, Maryland (2), NC St

Of course Virginia loss two of those games before yesterday, so I have to give Nova the clear edge.

But to me I can't justify a team that is 1-4 vs top 25, vs a team that is 4-3 vs top 25. That makes up the 2 loss difference above in my view. To me that is clearly more quality of wins for Virginia - top 25 wins is what you need to be a one seed.

With regards to Wisconsin. Yes, I would view Wisconsin (7L) to be ahead of Virginia (5). But I would also say its not 100% clear either. What we have is 2 toss up's -- one I view Wisconsin as ahead, and one I view Virginia ahead. Its not clear enough to say there is zero chance a committee would act a certain way.

And I will conclude with that thought, because I feel I am wasting way too much time on a hypothetical that will now never happen. LOL.

Now time to waste time on hypotheticals that may or may not happen.

 

[Alsacs]

I bolded this comment above. I would go with Virginia (I will explain below), but I also respect your opinion on Nova (because not everyone will find everything the same level of importnace) but to me it is a classic toss up. I don't think one can clearly say Villanova would be ahead of Virginia. Not zero chance.

Let's take the top 25 out of play for a second.

In terms of the middle teams they played, I am not going to consider one much better in terms of SOS especially when assessing a one seed:

Iowa, St. Joes, (Xavier, Georgotown, Providence, Marquette)*2
Tennessee, Green Bay, Pitt, Florida St (2) , Clemson, Maryland (2), NC St

Of course Virginia loss two of those games before yesterday, so I have to give Nova the clear edge.

But to me I can't justify a team that is 1-4 vs top 25, vs a team that is 4-3 vs top 25. That makes up the 2 loss difference above in my view. To me that is clearly more quality of wins for Virginia - top 25 wins is what you need to be a one seed.

With regards to Wisconsin. Yes, I would view Wisconsin (7L) to be ahead of Virginia (5). But I would also say its not 100% clear either. What we have is 2 toss up's -- one I view Wisconsin as ahead, and one I view Virginia ahead. Its not clear enough to say there is zero chance a committee would act a certain way.

And I will conclude with that thought, because I feel I am wasting way too much time on a hypothetical that will now never happen. LOL.

Now time to waste time on hypotheticals that may or may not happen.

My criteria is who did you beat, and where did you play them.

I excuse road losses more than home losses, and value road wins a lot more than home wins because the NCAA tournament is played on neutral courts. Virginia has more top 25 wins I agree but their best wins are at home against North Carolina and Syracuse while Villanova's best wins are on neutral floors. Thus, if I was in the committee room I would be hammering that away. Nova has a better neutral/road resume thus when its close I go with that.

 

[RF2044]

My criteria is who did you beat, and where did you play them.

I excuse road losses more than home losses, and value road wins a lot more than home wins because the NCAA tournament is played on neutral courts. Virginia has more top 25 wins I agree but their best wins are at home against North Carolina and Syracuse while Villanova's best wins are on neutral floors. Thus, if I was in the committee room I would be hammering that away. Nova has a better neutral/road resume thus when its close I go with that.

The question is, do you value road losses more than home wins?