Who exactly were the last 4 teams in?

[dasher]

and the last team in was?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

and the last team in was?

Who are the 4 play in games?

Tulsa was last in.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Can someone make a case for tulsa ? i have yet to hear anyone outside of the committee make any case for them.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Can someone make a case for tulsa ? i have yet to hear anyone outside of the committee make any case for them.

The committee chair was asked and cited their Ws over tourney teams. They beat Wichita State, Iona, UConn, SMU, Cincy, Temple. The problem is the best team from that group was 35th. Also they lost twice to Memphis in the last week, including an awful performance in the AACT. Oh and they lost to Oral friggin Roberts.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

Can someone make a case for tulsa ? i have yet to hear anyone outside of the committee make any case for them.

I tried just now but all I see is a win over Cincy and another over UConn. Maybe over Iona was good? OSU has a down year. A bad loss to Oral Roberts ... IDK, looks like a mishmash. Must be a higher rpi?

 

[Briancuse]

Tulsa was the last team in, The committee chair said it.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The committee chair was asked and cited their Ws over tourney teams. They beat Wichita State, Iona, UConn, SMU, Cincy, Temple. The problem is the best team from that group was 35th. Also they lost twice to Memphis in the last week, including an awful performance in the AACT. Oh and they lost to Oral friggin Roberts.

when i see this sort of blatant disregard for recent performance, it makes me think..aside from auto bids, the committee , in order to make it alot easier on themselves, doesnt really care what happens in the tourneys. they literally chuck it out unless a team that wouldnt be in at all, has a chance to win an auto bid.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Using the seed list the last 4 in were Tulsa, Wichita State, Michigan, and Vandy. Next 4 were VCU, SU, Temple, Pitt.

 

[jncuse]

Can someone make a case for tulsa ? i have yet to hear anyone outside of the committee make any case for them.

4-5 vs top 50
8-8 vs top 100
Only 2 sub 100 losses were to Memphis

They are very competitive in terms of quantity and %. But the 4 wins when you look at them are meh -- UConn, Wichita St, SMU, and Cincy at home.

It as the same for Temple who was 5-6 vs top 50, and 7-9 vs top 100. It was clear that they accepted the AAC RPI's at face value this year like any power conference.

Nobody on the outside had 4 top 50 wins that was in the discussion. The little guys certainly didn't. Only one who was close was St. Bonaventure who was 3-2 and 7-5 respectively. The one P5 school who was in the discussion that did not make it was South Carolina, and they only had 1 top 50 win.

It seems that once you were placed on the bubble this entire selection came down to # of top 50 wins. Not that unusual, and in retrospect since this was the reason that the committee settled on Syracuse, Michigan, and Vanderbilt, it probably should not be shocking that they followed up with Temple and Tulsa.

They used the same methodology throughout. I think some just thought they would mix it up a bit, but in the end they went with the old standard and did not veer from it at all.

It's probably why we are not even in the play in game. Personally I still like St. Bonnies over Tulsa if you are going to focus purely on quality games. 2 top 50 wins away from home.

 

[Briancuse]

4-5 vs top 50
8-8 vs top 100
Only 2 sub 100 losses were to Memphis

They are very competitive in terms of quantity and %. But the 4 wins when you look at them are meh -- UConn, Wichita St, SMU, and Cincy at home.

It as the same for Temple who was 5-6 vs top 50, and 7-9 vs top 100. It was clear that they accepted the AAC at face value this year.

Nobody on the outside had 4 top 50 wins that was in the discussion. The little guys certainly didn't. Only one who was close was St. Bonaventure who was 3-2 and 7-5 respectively. The one P5 school who was in the discussion was South Carolina, and they only had 1 top 50 win.

It seems that once you were placed on the bubble this entire selection came down to # of top 50 wins. Not that unusual, and in retrospect since this was the reason that the committee settled on Syracuse, Michigan, and Vanderbilt, it probably should not be shocking that they followed up with Temple and Tulsa.

They used the same methodology throughout. I think some just thought they would mix it up a bit, but in the end they went with the old standard and did not veer from it at all.

It's probably why we are not even in the play in game. Personally I still like St. Bonnies over Tulsa if you are going to focus purely on quality games. 2 top 50 wins away from home.

Tulsa's numbers are pretty good, I just thought getting blown out by a bad Memphis team was enough to knock them out of the discussion.

 

[jncuse]

Tulsa's numbers are pretty good, I just thought getting blown out by a bad Memphis team was enough to knock them out of the discussion.

I did too and apparently everyone else too.

 

[CaptainJ]

I did too and apparently everyone else too.

I dont claim to be an expert, but was trying to say all along that bad losses didn't outweigh or even equal quality wins. I think there's actually more of a distance in weight than most people apparently think. Tulsa certainly was a surprise, but I found it cool the chap took the time to grace us with an explanation. Maybe I overspoke when I said this season's would set precedent in helping folks understand the formula better, but it seems to have been fairly enlightening.

What might be more interesting to me, if it exists, is knowing who their first team out was.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Seems as though the committee decided that the single most important selection criteria was the quality of your best wins. Your conference record, bad losses, last ten, etc etc, mattered not. It was basically well take your best and compare it to the other teams best and see whose "best is better" .

I cant say I disagree with this. The idea is to get as many teams in the tourney that have a chance to win the games they are in (at least regarding the at large teams). So if you stink up the joint when off, but when on can beat some pretty good teams, that is valued over being consistently decent.