stever20 wrote:well, the number the committee is seeing is 270, so that's really end of the day all that matters for this year.
Bill Marsh wrote:stever20 wrote:well, the number the committee is seeing is 270, so that's really end of the day all that matters for this year.
Stever, the truth is that it doesn't matter at all for a team from a power conference like the Big East. The only thing that will matter for Marquette or any other Big East team is overall SOS. And that's all that should matter.
The only time it matters is in evaluating a team from a weaker conference. If a team blows through the MAAC, for example, and the committee wants to look beyond their conference records, they'll ask who else did you play? Such a team that scheduled a strong OOC schedule and did well against it will be viewed favorably because it demonstrated that it did all it could to challenge itself within the limits of what it has control over. In contrast, a team that didn't challenge itself OOC will be viewed unfavorably regardless of how it did OOC because it never challenged itself. It's those latter teams with high RPI but weak OOC SOS that get passed over despite the high RPI.
stever20 wrote:Bill Marsh wrote:stever20 wrote:well, the number the committee is seeing is 270, so that's really end of the day all that matters for this year.
Stever, the truth is that it doesn't matter at all for a team from a power conference like the Big East. The only thing that will matter for Marquette or any other Big East team is overall SOS. And that's all that should matter.
The only time it matters is in evaluating a team from a weaker conference. If a team blows through the MAAC, for example, and the committee wants to look beyond their conference records, they'll ask who else did you play? Such a team that scheduled a strong OOC schedule and did well against it will be viewed favorably because it demonstrated that it did all it could to challenge itself within the limits of what it has control over. In contrast, a team that didn't challenge itself OOC will be viewed unfavorably regardless of how it did OOC because it never challenged itself. It's those latter teams with high RPI but weak OOC SOS that get passed over despite the high RPI.
We've seen teams from power conferences who didn't play a good SOS OOC get penalized when they're close.
Look at 2013-14 St John's They finished 20-12 with #51 SOS. #140 OOC SOS though, and they got bumped as a result.
or look back at 2006-07 Syracuse. They finished 22-10 with #46 SOS. #122 OOC SOS though, and they didn't make the tourney.
To act like it's meaningless is a joke. Like I've said, Marquette would be extremely wise to not leave it in the hands of the committee.
hoyahooligan wrote:I actually agree with Stever, major conference teams with weak OOC schedules get dinged by the comittee every year. The committee wants to see teams test temselves OOC. If you don't have a good OOC SOS you can get burned. Overall SOS is always going to be high for high majors so isn't as big of a factor because it unfairly punishes midmajors who are stuck in their conferences.
Bill Marsh wrote:hoyahooligan wrote:I actually agree with Stever, major conference teams with weak OOC schedules get dinged by the comittee every year. The committee wants to see teams test temselves OOC. If you don't have a good OOC SOS you can get burned. Overall SOS is always going to be high for high majors so isn't as big of a factor because it unfairly punishes midmajors who are stuck in their conferences.
The charge to the committee isn't to punish anyone. It's to get the best field they can, specifically the best 36 at-large teams they can find. They are looking for evidence to help them determine who those 36 teams are who can best compete against the other top teams assembled in the tournament.
They have plenty of evidence on the teams from the top conferences regardless of their OOC schedules. But a team that goes 28-3 via weak conference and OOC schedule doesn't give them a lot to work with. Teams from 2nd and 3rd tier conferences who schedule competitively OOC give them a lot more to go on.
I know that there are teams who complain every year. There always will be when you draw a line somewhere. But do you have any examples of teams who truly got dinged just because of their OOC schedule when they truly deserved to be in?
hoyahooligan wrote:Bill Marsh wrote:hoyahooligan wrote:I actually agree with Stever, major conference teams with weak OOC schedules get dinged by the comittee every year. The committee wants to see teams test temselves OOC. If you don't have a good OOC SOS you can get burned. Overall SOS is always going to be high for high majors so isn't as big of a factor because it unfairly punishes midmajors who are stuck in their conferences.
The charge to the committee isn't to punish anyone. It's to get the best field they can, specifically the best 36 at-large teams they can find. They are looking for evidence to help them determine who those 36 teams are who can best compete against the other top teams assembled in the tournament.
They have plenty of evidence on the teams from the top conferences regardless of their OOC schedules. But a team that goes 28-3 via weak conference and OOC schedule doesn't give them a lot to work with. Teams from 2nd and 3rd tier conferences who schedule competitively OOC give them a lot more to go on.
I know that there are teams who complain every year. There always will be when you draw a line somewhere. But do you have any examples of teams who truly got dinged just because of their OOC schedule when they truly deserved to be in?
I just know anecdoteally during the selection show they've repeatedly said such and such team didn't get in because of their poor OOC schedule. Now I doubt that stands up to empirical testing.
Went to Kenpom and looked at teams that had kenpom's higher than the last at large team
2016: St. Mary's 27-5 Kenpom 34 OOC SOS 203 total SOS 136; Florida 19-14 Kenpom 35 OOC sos 4 total SOS 25; Creighton 18-14 kenpom 40 OOC SOS 229 total SOS 68; Valpraiso 26-6 Kenpom 42 OOC 76 total 135; Clemson 17-14 Kenpom 45 OOC 305 total 63; San Diego St 25-9 Kenpom 47 OOC 9 total 87; Florida St 19-13 Kenpom 48 OOC 173 total 31; GT 19-14 Kenpom 51 OOC 90 total 13; GW 23-10 Kenpom 52 OOC 174 total 90; BYU 23-10 Kenpom 53 OOC 89 total 114; South Carolina 24-8 Kenpom 58 OOC 184 total 77; Houston 22-9 Kenpom 61 OOC 333 total 117; VT 19-14 kenpom 63 OOC 314 total 28; Washington 18-14 Kenpom 66 OOC 97 total 48.
So there are exceptions like Florida and San Diego St, but of the 14 bubble teams 8 had OOC SOS worse than 100 and 2 others were in the 90s.
Now look at those last few bubble teams who made it:
Tulsa: 80; Oregon St 78; Dayton 23; Colorado 171; Texas Tech 50; Michigan 154; USC 107; Pitt 244; Cinci 133; VCU 61; Vanderbilt 26; Syracuse 100; Wichita St 10
So out of 13 half (6) had bad OOC SOS. So no a bad OOC SOS won't on it's own keep you out and a good one won't put you in, but it probably isn't a good thing. Now these are Kenpom SOS so maybe the RPI SOS are different but I'm not going to bother looking that up. Definitely anecdotal evidence but they have stated it in the past on selection sunday that OOC SOS hurt such and such team, but the point is there are no hard and fast rules or cut offs.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 16 guests