I know we have a million hoops threads...

[spartanhusker]

...so I'll of course add one more!

I KNOW we could have done more to support our position outside the league with a better schedule TO A DEGREE, but within...only the bad loss to Illinois...FIVE LOSSES, all on road, 3 to top teams!!!

But then to get kicked by the NIT.....wow.

Just disheartened.

And if you KNEW we were not getting in, I agree...didn't think we had much chance...but Rasmussen was WEAK on the show yesterday....ESPECIALLY about OU...

 

[chicolby]

The simple truth: the big 12 was littered with chances to pick up quad one wins yet when these quad one teams lost, they still maintained their quad one status. In layman terms: there is only upside with no downside. This is what happens when you only reward wins without punishing losses.

A win over OU even late in the season on the road still represented quad one or two wins for teams when nearly everyone was beating them.

If you don’t knock teams down for losing, then you have an inequitable system.

 

[spartanhusker]

they went from 14-2 to 18-13...there is NO WAY that that team without the star name of Trae Young(who I love watching) gets in...

 

[inWV]

When a key metric is flawed, and you peg that metric for your decision-making, then poor results will follow. Clearly the desire was to de-emphasize conference play and that is so obviously a stupid decision, given that teams play nearly the entirety of the back half of their seasons in conference. Emphasizing play earlier in the season when teams are still shaping up their play was simply a flawed decision.

 

[Huskerfan2112]

Bring on football.

 

[saluno22]

The simple truth: the big 12 was littered with chances to pick up quad one wins yet when these quad one teams lost, they still maintained their quad one status. In layman terms: there is only upside with no downside. This is what happens when you only reward wins without punishing losses.

A win over OU even late in the season on the road still represented quad one or two wins for teams when nearly everyone was beating them.

If you don’t knock teams down for losing, then you have an inequitable system.

Sounds a lot like SEC football a few years ago: Top 5 team loses to unranked team, so then they must both be really good and both are now Top 5 teams. It all makes sense.

 

[newAD]

...so I'll of course add one more!

I KNOW we could have done more to support our position outside the league with a better schedule TO A DEGREE, but within...only the bad loss to Illinois...FIVE LOSSES, all on road, 3 to top teams!!!

But then to get kicked by the NIT.....wow.

Just disheartened.

And if you KNEW we were not getting in, I agree...didn't think we had much chance...but Rasmussen was WEAK on the show yesterday....ESPECIALLY about OU...

You are right on the losses. Nebraska needed to beat one of them on the road. That’s why I was pretty convinced we were not going to get in (without winning the BIG tourney) because Nebraska hadn’t shown they could win on the road against quality competition.

I was especially scared when the committee released their top 16 and Rasmussen commented about winning on the road (against good teams) when talking about the top seeds at the time. We had none and after OSU, we had no more chances at any.

 

[9and4]

The simple truth: the big 12 was littered with chances to pick up quad one wins yet when these quad one teams lost, they still maintained their quad one status. In layman terms: there is only upside with no downside. This is what happens when you only reward wins without punishing losses.

A win over OU even late in the season on the road still represented quad one or two wins for teams when nearly everyone was beating them.

If you don’t knock teams down for losing, then you have an inequitable system.

"That's some catch that Catch-22."
"It's the best there is."

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

You are right on the losses. Nebraska needed to beat one of them on the road. That’s why I was pretty convinced we were not going to get in (without winning the BIG tourney) because Nebraska hadn’t shown they could win on the road against quality competition.

I was especially scared when the committee released their top 16 and Rasmussen commented about winning on the road (against good teams) when talking about the top seeds at the time. We had none and after OSU, we had no more chances at any.

You’re telling me that beating Ohio State takes you from a 5 seed in the NIT to an NCAA berth? A gain of at least 17 spots? Sadly they told us we were a mid major.

It is what it is, when your on the bubble in the tournament, you never should be confident, but the best bet is to just schedule no 250+ fringe conference teams. We’d be around 40 RPI if you subtract those 2 wins(Marist & Delaware State). Then just hope the BigTen is improved, or just plays better during the non conference.

 

[schuele]

You’re telling me that beating Ohio State takes you from a 5 seed in the NIT to an NCAA berth? A gain of at least 17 spots? Sadly they told us we were a mid major.

It is what it is, when your on the bubble in the tournament, you never should be confident, but the best bet is to just schedule no 250+ fringe conference teams. We’d be around 40 RPI if you subtract those 2 wins(Marist & Delaware State). Then just hope the BigTen is improved, or just plays better during the non conference.

The Marist game was part of a tournament, so the Huskers had limited control over that one. Obviously you could shop for a better tournament, but Missouri and West Virginia were also there, and UCF was projected to be pretty good. The unforced error, in addition to Delaware State, was Stetson - with an RPI in the 330s.

 

[newAD]

You’re telling me that beating Ohio State takes you from a 5 seed in the NIT to an NCAA berth? A gain of at least 17 spots? Sadly they told us we were a mid major.

It is what it is, when your on the bubble in the tournament, you never should be confident, but the best bet is to just schedule no 250+ fringe conference teams. We’d be around 40 RPI if you subtract those 2 wins(Marist & Delaware State). Then just hope the BigTen is improved, or just plays better during the non conference.

No I didn't say that. I said that was Nebraska's last chance at a big road win in their last 12-13 games. It might have helped, but PSU beat OSU 3 times, and didn't get in.

 

[chicolby]

I think the Illinois loss meant absolutely nothing. I think Nebraska needed to find a way to pick up 3 quad 1 wins. They needed to win two of @ Penn State, @ Ohio State or in the B1G vs. Michigan, or KU or Creighton. All were out there and were winnable games. I'm not sure if 3 were enough, considering the committee had Nebraska 17 spots out of the dance.

What I'm most confused by is why the Big 12 is considered so elite. Stay with me a bit. If not for reputation and pre-season ratings, here is KU's non-conference schedule:

Beat Kentucky 65-61
Beat SDSU 98-64
Beat Syracuse 76-60
Lost to Washington 74-65
Lost to Arizona State 95-85
Beat Nebraska 73-72
Beat Stanford 75-54

Syracuse and Arizona State were bubble teams. Kentucky is the best non-conference win. The rest of their quad one wins came in conference. I won't argue that, except for we see the same thing with the other top teams in conference.

Texas Tech

Beat Boston College
Beat Northwestern
Lost to Seton Hall
Beat Nevada

Then conference play. Nothing there seems that amazing, then they all start stacking up quad one wins in conference.

Then you go to the other side, you get OU who may have actually proven in non-conference that they were elite, but then just handed out quad one wins to everyone in conference.

This is not that different than the SEC. They come in with such a high reputation. They have one team that goes out and wins a couple marquee games in the non-conference, then they just build their reputation by beating each other and the media says "man, that conference is so deep".

I believe in my heart of hearts, if Nebraska played in the Big 12, they'd have been invited to the NCAA. Instead, they are seeded ONLY above the Big 12 last team in Iowa State.

 

[Hugo_Stiglitz7]

I think the Illinois loss meant absolutely nothing. I think Nebraska needed to find a way to pick up 3 quad 1 wins. They needed to win two of @ Penn State, @ Ohio State or in the B1G vs. Michigan, or KU or Creighton. All were out there and were winnable games. I'm not sure if 3 were enough, considering the committee had Nebraska 17 spots out of the dance.

What I'm most confused by is why the Big 12 is considered so elite. Stay with me a bit. If not for reputation and pre-season ratings, here is KU's non-conference schedule:

Beat Kentucky 65-61
Beat SDSU 98-64
Beat Syracuse 76-60
Lost to Washington 74-65
Lost to Arizona State 95-85
Beat Nebraska 73-72
Beat Stanford 75-54

Syracuse and Arizona State were bubble teams. Kentucky is the best non-conference win. The rest of their quad one wins came in conference. I won't argue that, except for we see the same thing with the other top teams in conference.

Texas Tech

Beat Boston College
Beat Northwestern
Lost to Seton Hall
Beat Nevada

Then conference play. Nothing there seems that amazing, then they all start stacking up quad one wins in conference.

Then you go to the other side, you get OU who may have actually proven in non-conference that they were elite, but then just handed out quad one wins to everyone in conference.

This is not that different than the SEC. They come in with such a high reputation. They have one team that goes out and wins a couple marquee games in the non-conference, then they just build their reputation by beating each other and the media says "man, that conference is so deep".

I believe in my heart of hearts, if Nebraska played in the Big 12, they'd have been invited to the NCAA. Instead, they are seeded ONLY above the Big 12 last team in Iowa State.

What do you think its record would have been in the Big 12 this year?

 

[husker2612]

The simple truth: the big 12 was littered with chances to pick up quad one wins yet when these quad one teams lost, they still maintained their quad one status. In layman terms: there is only upside with no downside. This is what happens when you only reward wins without punishing losses.

A win over OU even late in the season on the road still represented quad one or two wins for teams when nearly everyone was beating them.

If you don’t knock teams down for losing, then you have an inequitable system.

Agree. I don't understand letting 10 old guys decided who to put it. 1 it is impossible to follow every single team. 2. opinions can be easily swayed with only 10 people. 3 10 people can be easily bribed to let a certain team in.
Not sure if this would be feasible or not. Here is my idea on how to select the 36 at large teams.
Who knows these teams better than anyone? Other coaches and the media.So let them decided. Every coach and media person gets a ballot. They each put in the top 36 at large teams. coaches can not put their own school in. The top 36 get in. Then let the comity break it down to match ups and regions and such. To me this would be a much more fair and unbiased approach. I believe would truly get the best 36 teams left.

 

[huskerfan1414]

The simple truth: the big 12 was littered with chances to pick up quad one wins yet when these quad one teams lost, they still maintained their quad one status. In layman terms: there is only upside with no downside. This is what happens when you only reward wins without punishing losses.

A win over OU even late in the season on the road still represented quad one or two wins for teams when nearly everyone was beating them.

If you don’t knock teams down for losing, then you have an inequitable system.

Its also proof that the metrics are clearly flawed by biases and media feelings.

Its much like thesec in football...they all start the year ranked, so when they beat each other they can either say "look at all these ranked teams they beat" or they dont fall outpf the rankings because "their losses are to ranked teams".
They decide who is good before the season starts, or way too early in the season.
Period.

 

[chicolby]

What do you think its record would have been in the Big 12 this year?

Obviously we're making guesses now, but I believe Nebraska's talent level would have a comparable record to K-State or TCU. Better than OU or Baylor.

 

[kidofSN]

Have to wonder if Neb only loses six games all year with those being Creighton, KU, Ohio State, Purdue, Mich State and once to Michigan if they make it in. I say probably not based on what we know today! Just saying