What's people think nebrasketballs chances of making the big dance are

[schuele]

Despite the selection committee and the TV talking heads always talking about full body of work and how games in November mean just as much as those in March, I do believe the committee members are human and they know who's playing well at tournament time and who isn't. That's why I felt the Michigan game in New York City was so crucial - Huskers had a little bit of hot-team buzz going, and a win over Michigan would have enhanced that. But losing that game handily put NU back on the pile of bubble team resumes for about 10 days, with no opportunity to play their way back into the conversation.

I'm hopeful the committee will be mindful of how butt-ugly awful some of these other bubble teams have played the past few weeks, and give the Huskers one of the 11-vs-11 slots in Dayton. Would be a perfect fit, with the team having been off for more than a week. But, I think the odds are slim.

 

[big red22]

Nebraska has zero shot IMO iF the committee stays true to the criteria the have listed. That is what I have based my opinion on. It is NOT debatable. I don’t necessarily like the criteria, but I have looked at it just to understand the rules.

Here let me show you what I know for starters... and you show me how what I highlighted is an accurate statement on your part

Here is the source

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/mens-basketball-selections-101-selections

I highlighted some specifics for you

Selection Criteria
The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is one of many factors used by NCAA sports committees when evaluating team selection, seeding and bracketing.

The basic RPI consists of a team’s Division I winning percentage (25 percent weight), its opponents’ winning percentage (50 percent weight) and its opponents opponents’ winning percentage (25 percent weight). The RPI is one of many factors the committees use for selecting and seeding teams.

Other criteria the committee considers in the selections process are:

• An extensive season-long evaluation of teams through watching games, conference monitoring calls and regional advisory committee rankings;
• Complete box scores and results;
• Head-to-head results and results versus common opponents;
• Imbalanced conference schedules and results;
• Overall and non-conference strength of schedule;
• The quality of wins and losses;
• Road record;
• Player and coach availability; and
• Various computer metrics.

Each of the 10 committee members uses these various resources to form his or her own opinion, resulting in the committee’s consensus position on selection and seeding.

Team Sheets
The committee often refers to "team sheets" when comparing team performance. The team sheets contain in-depth team information about strength of schedule, performance against top-50 teams and home/road records.

Starting with the 2017-18 season, the team sheets took on a new look. They now not only include each team’s RPI, but also include a team’s ranking in five other metrics: the ESPN strength of record and BPI rankings, as well as the KPI, KenPom and Sagarin rankings. In addition, a team’s schedule and results are now broken down in four quadrants that place greater emphasis on games played on neutral courts and in true road environments. The quadrant breakdown is as follows:

• Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75
• Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135
• Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240
• Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.

Download team sheets

Seeding
The committee creates a seed list 1 through 68 -- which is used to assess competitive balance of the top teams across the four regions of this national championship. Additionally, the seed list reflects the sequential order with which teams will be placed in the bracket.

Automatic Qualifiers: A total of 32 conferences will place an automatic qualifier in the NCAA tournament field. These qualifiers are determined by conference tournaments.

At-Large: With the tournament field of 68, there are 36 at-large spots after the AQs. The committee selects the 36 best teams to fill the at-large berths. There is no limit on the number of at-large teams the committee may select from one conference.

 

[big red22]

I also see no where on that "Selection Critiria" that says the quadrants are based solely on "RPI"

 

[chicolby]

That might be hard to read if the link is broken.

Here is a good read from CBSSports.

 

[newAD]

They haven’t painted themselves in a corner. They simply stated how they will be looking at different types of games. They also did not eliminate the eye test. If they had painted themselves in a corner, there would be no need to have a committee. Certainly the lack of quad one wins will be used against Nebraska during discussions. I believe the argument for Nebraska will require some committee members to take a leap of faith.

My optimism lies in the fact that this is not a simple formula. If it was stated with fact that a team with fewer quad one wins is out, I’d have no problem agreeing with you. And once again, I’ll openly admit that I think the odds are not high, but I believe there is still a chance.

Would that eye test include their last game where they got whipped by a team that got taken to overtime the day before by Iowa? How in the hell do you get your ass handed to you by a team you beat before, on a neutral court, who got taken to overtime 24 hours before??? The Nebraska game was Michigan's easiest win of their 4 over the weekend.

What exactly have you seen lately from Nebraska that says they pass the eye test?

* Needing a last second 3 by Palmer to beat Illinois at home?
* A victory at home against Penn State without all Big 10 defensive team member Watkins?
* Winning games against Indiana, Iowa, Rutgers (twice), Wisconsin, and a beat up Minnesota, all with losing records?
* Losing their last road game at RPI # 181 Illinois?
* A 4 point win at home vs NIT bound Maryland (who lost to Wisconsin in the BIG Tourney)?
* Losing their last chance at a high quality road win at OSU (that Penn State beat 3 times)?
* Oh yes, we got Michigan at home almost 2 months ago!

That's what everyone's eyeballs saw for the last 13 games but you think the eyeball test could help???

Hell in the last 48 hours, Nebraska has dropped from a projected #1 seed to a #4 seed in the NIT.

 

[newAD]

I also see no where on that "Selection Critiria" that says the quadrants are based solely on "RPI"

Then you aren't looking very hard. What the hell do you think it is based on?

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/...quadrant-1-2-wins-selection-sunday/393915002/

This year, the committee's classifications will be Quadrants 1, 2, 3 and 4. Per ncaa.com, "the quadrants are meant to serve as an indicator of how good a team’s wins are, or how bad their losses are. Each quadrant is divided based on a combination of the location of the game — home, neutral court, or away — and the opponent’s RPI."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...look-at-the-quadrants/?utm_term=.f93a5392d8be

Quadrant 1: Home games vs. RPI top 30 teams; neutral vs. 1-50; road vs. 1-75.

 

[big red22]

Then you aren't looking very hard. What the hell do you think it is based on?

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/...quadrant-1-2-wins-selection-sunday/393915002/

This year, the committee's classifications will be Quadrants 1, 2, 3 and 4. Per ncaa.com, "the quadrants are meant to serve as an indicator of how good a team’s wins are, or how bad their losses are. Each quadrant is divided based on a combination of the location of the game — home, neutral court, or away — and the opponent’s RPI."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...look-at-the-quadrants/?utm_term=.f93a5392d8be

Quadrant 1: Home games vs. RPI top 30 teams; neutral vs. 1-50; road vs. 1-75.

Hmmm... I think I'll take NCAA.com's word over Detroit free press

 

[newAD]

Hmmm... I think I'll take NCAA.com's word over Detroit free press

When wrong, deny, good strategy.

 

[newAD]

Hmmm... I think I'll take NCAA.com's word over Detroit free press

https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...ee-leader-explains-why-even-easy-wins-matter/

Here's a question posted to Bruce Rasmussen, the chairman of the Selection committee. Funny how he did not correct the CBS Sport reporter and say, that he was wrong to assume it's all based on RPI.

CBS Sports: Your run as chair comes at an interesting time of transition. There's the quadrant system, but that system is still using RPI as the native data point. This could be the last year RPI is the metric embedded in team sheets, though. Where do you fall philosophically in following the rules and protocol in place with RPI while balancing the modern metrics and advanced ways of analyzing teams through data?

 

[big red22]

Hmmm... I think I'll take NCAA.com's word over Detroit free press

When wrong, deny, good strategy.

I'm not wrong... You're like a liberal getting all your information from CNN or a conservative getting all your information from Fox News. Then when the direct source says otherwise.

NCAA.org... does "NOT" say - Quadrant 1: Home games vs. RPI top 30 teams; neutral vs. 1-50; road vs. 1-75.

It says -
Starting with the 2017-18 season, the team sheets took on a new look. They now not only include each team’s RPI, but also include a team’s ranking in five other metrics: the ESPN strength of record and BPI rankings, as well as the KPI, KenPom and Sagarin rankings. In addition, a team’s schedule and results are now broken down in four quadrants that place greater emphasis on games played on neutral courts and in true road environments. The quadrant breakdown is as follows:

• Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75
• Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135
• Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240
• Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.

Spin it any way you want I am taking it from the source! Whatever dude, you are like talking to a wall. No matter what facts are placed in front of you, you're opinion takes precedence

 

[big red22]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...ee-leader-explains-why-even-easy-wins-matter/

Here's a question posted to Bruce Rasmussen, the chairman of the Selection committee. Funny how he did not correct the CBS Sport reporter and say, that he was wrong to assume it's all based on RPI.

CBS Sports: Your run as chair comes at an interesting time of transition. There's the quadrant system, but that system is still using RPI as the native data point. This could be the last year RPI is the metric embedded in team sheets, though. Where do you fall philosophically in following the rules and protocol in place with RPI while balancing the modern metrics and advanced ways of analyzing teams through data?

And his first sentence in his response... "I've seen the evolution of the committee since I've been on it for five years. The RPI is a sorting tool. People think it's used more than it is in the room."

 

[iamnumber1also]

I'm still feeling Nebraska has a good chance. I think it helps the chairman is very familiar with Nebraska and seems to be trying to down play the quadrants in interviews. Many people are also only focusing on quadrant 1 wins totally disregarding losses

 

[chicolby]

Would that eye test include their last game where they got whipped by a team that got taken to overtime the day before by Iowa? How in the hell do you get your ass handed to you by a team you beat before, on a neutral court, who got taken to overtime 24 hours before??? The Nebraska game was Michigan's easiest win of their 4 over the weekend.

What exactly have you seen lately from Nebraska that says they pass the eye test?

* Needing a last second 3 by Palmer to beat Illinois at home?
* A victory at home against Penn State without all Big 10 defensive team member Watkins?
* Winning games against Indiana, Iowa, Rutgers (twice), Wisconsin, and a beat up Minnesota, all with losing records?
* Losing their last road game at RPI # 181 Illinois?
* A 4 point win at home vs NIT bound Maryland (who lost to Wisconsin in the BIG Tourney)?
* Losing their last chance at a high quality road win at OSU (that Penn State beat 3 times)?
* Oh yes, we got Michigan at home almost 2 months ago!

That's what everyone's eyeballs saw for the last 13 games but you think the eyeball test could help???

Hell in the last 48 hours, Nebraska has dropped from a projected #1 seed to a #4 seed in the NIT.

I swear, you make a really good argument against Nebraska. Bravo!!

Let me try.

• They gave up a last second 3+1 to the Illinois player on the play right before that. As you would say with the Kansas loss, a loss is a loss (even though they made a last second 3 to beat Nebraska)
• A commanding victory against Penn State - a game that was never in doubt. That same Penn State (without Watkins) had no problem handling Ohio State in the conference tournament.
• You're mad because they beat the teams they were supposed to?
• A 4 point win over Maryland? Oh heavens to betsy. Maryland also beat Butler and Penn State. Again, a win is a win.
• The loss at OSU, hurt. Of course.
• Yes, it was a resounding thumping by 20 points over the conference champion, who is now ranked 7th in polls.

Again, you seem hell bent on proving why the team doesn't deserve to be there.

You continue to try and convince us why the team has no shot. Most positive fans would look to show what the team has done to make the committee think about it, but the self-loathing Husker basketball fans want nothing to do with that.

 

[chicolby]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...ee-leader-explains-why-even-easy-wins-matter/

Here's a question posted to Bruce Rasmussen, the chairman of the Selection committee. Funny how he did not correct the CBS Sport reporter and say, that he was wrong to assume it's all based on RPI.

CBS Sports: Your run as chair comes at an interesting time of transition. There's the quadrant system, but that system is still using RPI as the native data point. This could be the last year RPI is the metric embedded in team sheets, though. Where do you fall philosophically in following the rules and protocol in place with RPI while balancing the modern metrics and advanced ways of analyzing teams through data?

Read the entire article from Bruce Rasmussen and tell me unequivocally that you think Nebraska has no shot. He was very specific in his answers and I can't see anything that specifically pointed to Nebraska being out of consideration, despite what the experts think.

 

[newAD]

I'm not wrong... Your like a liberal getting all your information from CNN or a conservative getting all your information from Fox News. Then when the direct source says otherwise.

NCAA.org... does "NOT" say - Quadrant 1: Home games vs. RPI top 30 teams; neutral vs. 1-50; road vs. 1-75.

It says -
Starting with the 2017-18 season, the team sheets took on a new look. They now not only include each team’s RPI, but also include a team’s ranking in five other metrics: the ESPN strength of record and BPI rankings, as well as the KPI, KenPom and Sagarin rankings. In addition, a team’s schedule and results are now broken down in four quadrants that place greater emphasis on games played on neutral courts and in true road environments. The quadrant breakdown is as follows:

• Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75
• Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135
• Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240
• Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.

Spin it any way you want I am taking it from the source, whatever dude. You are like talking to a wall

A wall that does some research.

The metrixs are RANKED and AVERAGED. Nowhere does it say they are averaged to make the quads. Even if they did, from all of them I checked yesterday, it wouldn't help in comparison to other teams.

Maybe a picture will help you get it. FROM THE SOURCE:

# 7- Average RPI of the teams beaten- For Nebraska, a whopping 178.59

#12 Team RPI- For Nebraska currently #61

#13 Average RPI for teams lost to- For Nebraska 52.6

#18 Team RPI Non-con games- For Nebraska # 157

And there's the four quads at the bottom.

#8 is the only positive, Win/loss record all games

And back to what you quoted that I read weeks ago. Greater emphasis on neutral courts and true road environments. How exactly did Nebraska do in those games this year?

 

[newAD]

I swear, you make a really good argument against Nebraska. Bravo!!

Let me try.

• They gave up a last second 3+1 to the Illinois player on the play right before that. As you would say with the Kansas loss, a loss is a loss (even though they made a last second 3 to beat Nebraska)
• A commanding victory against Penn State - a game that was never in doubt. That same Penn State (without Watkins) had no problem handling Ohio State in the conference tournament.
• You're mad because they beat the teams they were supposed to?
• A 4 point win over Maryland? Oh heavens to betsy. Maryland also beat Butler and Penn State. Again, a win is a win.
• The loss at OSU, hurt. Of course.
• Yes, it was a resounding thumping by 20 points over the conference champion, who is now ranked 7th in polls.

Again, you seem hell bent on proving why the team doesn't deserve to be there.

You continue to try and convince us why the team has no shot. Most positive fans would look to show what the team has done to make the committee think about it, but the self-loathing Husker basketball fans want nothing to do with that.

Look at the criteria diagram, start crunching numbers with the other bubble teams, then tell me how I am not being objective.

 

[big red22]

A wall that does some research.

The metrixs are RANKED and AVERAGED. Nowhere does it say they are averaged to make the quads. Even if they did, from all of them I checked yesterday, it wouldn't help in comparison to other teams.

Maybe a picture will help you get it. FROM THE SOURCE:

# 7- Average RPI of the teams beaten- For Nebraska, a whopping 178.59

#12 Team RPI- For Nebraska currently #61

#13 Average RPI for teams lost to- For Nebraska 52.6

#18 Team RPI Non-con games- For Nebraska # 157

And there's the four quads at the bottom.

#8 is the only positive, Win/loss record all games

And back to what you quoted that I read weeks ago. Greater emphasis on neutral courts and true road environments. How exactly did Nebraska do in those games this year?

The committee often refers to "team sheets" when comparing team performance. The team sheets contain in-depth team information about strength of schedule, performance against top-50 teams and home/road records.

So what part of "Committee often refers to" means the deciding factor?

Look here is the problem you are saying the committee would not be doing their job if Nebraska got in. I think that is a false statement, because it is clear as day they use multiple metrics to make their decisions, and it has been mentioned multiple times.

Like Chicolby I don't think we are a shoe in, but I think we have a chance.

 

[chicolby]

Look at the criteria diagram, start crunching numbers with the other bubble teams, then tell me how I am not being objective.

I don't think you're following my point. At all. I'm not trying to convince you that Nebraska will make the dance. I'm not trying to convince you that your metrics are wrong. I'm simply asking why a fan needs to only point out the negatives as you did so eloquently in your previous post. One would seriously think you must be an ASU or OU fan to only cherry pick every negative point you could make.

I'm simply optimistic. And again, I'm not stupid, nor am I trying to convince anyone that I think Nebraska is a lock. But as a fan and one who watched this team play quite a bit this year, when this team is on, they are a tough out for anyone in the country. And for that reason, I'd love to see them get a shot. So while you're stating your points about why they don't belong, I'm just trying to counter balance all the negativity on this board. I'm not crazy right. This is a fan board right?

 

[Harry Caray]

Louisville is blowing out Florida State, that is not good for us. Would give them another Quadrant 1 win.

 

[huskerbaseball13]

Louisville is blowing out Florida State, that is not good for us. Would give them another Quadrant 1 win.

Not good at all...but FSU's RPI with a loss is projected to drop to 52 which would make it a quad 2 win for the time being. On the flip side, Louisville's RPI is projected to move to 39 which makes them likely tournament team.

 

[gw2kpro]

This thread needs some $100 dollar bets.

Honoring them later is always optional.

 

[jimbosc]

I was told there would be no math.

 

[newAD]

The committee often refers to "team sheets" when comparing team performance. The team sheets contain in-depth team information about strength of schedule, performance against top-50 teams and home/road records.

So what part of "Committee often refers to" means the deciding factor?

Look here is the problem you are saying the committee would not be doing their job if Nebraska got in. I think that is a false statement, because it is clear as day they use multiple metrics to make their decisions, and it has been mentioned multiple times.

Like Chicolby I don't think we are a shoe in, but I think we have a chance.

Earlier in the game, Fox Sports displayed Providence's record in Quad 1 games. They listed Nova and Xavier, #s 2 and 3 (In RPI). You better email Fox Sports and tell them they are wrong!

 

[big red22]

Earlier in the game, Fox Sports displayed Providence's record in Quad 1 games. They listed Nova and Xavier, #s 2 and 3 (In RPI). You better email Fox Sports and tell them they are wrong!

Yeah and they have 3 quad 4 losses... Every team other than Nebraska deserves in according to you

 

[newAD]

I don't think you're following my point. At all. I'm not trying to convince you that Nebraska will make the dance. I'm not trying to convince you that your metrics are wrong. I'm simply asking why a fan needs to only point out the negatives as you did so eloquently in your previous post. One would seriously think you must be an ASU or OU fan to only cherry pick every negative point you could make.

I'm simply optimistic. And again, I'm not stupid, nor am I trying to convince anyone that I think Nebraska is a lock. But as a fan and one who watched this team play quite a bit this year, when this team is on, they are a tough out for anyone in the country. And for that reason, I'd love to see them get a shot. So while you're stating your points about why they don't belong, I'm just trying to counter balance all the negativity on this board. I'm not crazy right. This is a fan board right?

So I’m a bad fan because I am pointing out “only the negatives” according to the criteria?

Ok, take the metrics, take the criteria, and tell me what are the positives for Nebraska? I pointed out the one I can find on the team sheet. #8, overall record. There isn’t much else to hang out hat on that I can find when you compare to other “bubble” teams. So if you have any other positives based on the criteria, I’m dying to hear it. Give me a reason to be optimistic and WHY.

 

[hddude55]

This thread needs some $100 dollar bets.

...

I think that's already the case for the loudest proponent of NU's chances in this thread.

 

[newAD]

Yeah and they have 3 quad 4 losses... Every team other than Nebraska deserves in according to you

Show me exactly where I have said “deserves.” My opinion has been based on that picture I posted since Nebraska lost to OSU.

I think Nebraska should be in, and I think if we had prior years criteria they’d be in. But it’s not.

 

[tdierberger]

So I’m a bad fan because I am pointing out “only the negatives” according to the criteria?

Ok, take the metrics, take the criteria, and tell me what are the positives for Nebraska? I pointed out the one I can find on the team sheet. #8, overall record. There isn’t much else to hang out hat on that I can find when you compare to other “bubble” teams. So if you have any other positives based on the criteria, I’m dying to hear it. Give me a reason to be optimistic and WHY.

You’re fighting tooth and nail to piss on peoples’, albeit tempered, enthusiasm. People shouldn’t have to give you a reason to be hopeful or optimistic. You’re glass half empty. That’s fine. But you seem to be working pretty hard to convince other people to see it your way, when I think they’d rather just wait and be hopeful. We may not get in, and you might end up being right. Not sure that really means anything though.

 

[newAD]

You’re fighting tooth and nail to piss on peoples’, albeit tempered, enthusiasm. People shouldn’t have to give you a reason to be hopeful or optimistic. You’re glass half empty. That’s fine. But you seem to be working pretty hard to convince other people to see it your way, when I think they’d rather just wait and be hopeful. We may not get in, and you might end up being right. Not sure that really means anything though.

Sorry next year I’ll stay uninformed, ignorant and just hope.

 

[tdierberger]

Sorry next year I’ll stay uninformed, ignorant and just hope.

Nope. By all means, continue martyring yourself. You’ll be a hero if/when the time comes to tell us how right you were.

 

[newAD]

Nope. By all means, continue martyring yourself. You’ll be a hero if/when the time comes to tell us how right you were.

Martyring? Ya ok, having an opinion makes me a person trying to be a hero. Boy we’re a tad sensitive.

 

[newAD]

More bad news from the future mayrtar. Providence just knocked off Xavier. They are likely off the bubble now. 2 OT wins in their conference tourney.

 

[schuele]

More bad news from the future mayrtar. Providence just knocked off Xavier. They are likely off the bubble now. 2 OT wins in their conference tourney.

Yeah that was a huge comeback by the Friars. Tough charging call at the end on Xavier, but since it went against one of the biggest showboating douchebags in college basketball (J.P. Macura), it's hard for me to be objective about whether or not it was the right call.

 

[newAD]

Yeah that was a huge comeback by the Friars. Tough charging call at the end on Xavier, but since it went against one of the biggest showboating douchebags in college basketball (J.P. Macura), it's hard for me to be objective about whether or not it was the right call.

I wanted to rewind my dvr to watch that play/call but I switched back to KU/KSU just in time to see it was over. Doh!

 

[chicolby]

So I’m a bad fan because I am pointing out “only the negatives” according to the criteria?

Ok, take the metrics, take the criteria, and tell me what are the positives for Nebraska? I pointed out the one I can find on the team sheet. #8, overall record. There isn’t much else to hang out hat on that I can find when you compare to other “bubble” teams. So if you have any other positives based on the criteria, I’m dying to hear it. Give me a reason to be optimistic and WHY.

You make me tired. I don’t care whether you are optimistic or not. Keep living in your depressed negative world.

 

[newAD]

You make me tired. I don’t care whether you are optimistic or not. Keep living in your depressed negative world.

Of course my world is depressed. I’m a Nebraska basketball fan. If you aren’t depressed too then you must not be a real Nebraska Basketball fan.