I think its safe to that at minimum 3 from the group of 6 get in but i could see 4 or 5, not all 6.
This is what we wanted, it’s nerve wracking, and I love it!
- Thread starter BillyC80
- Start date
I think its safe to that at minimum 3 from the group of 6 get in but i could see 4 or 5, not all 6.
one thing is even with alot of recent losses Ohio State simply will not budge from that great NET,,,,I sense a flaw in the system, yes they did awesome early on but when you 2-6 in league play you should fall to more than 19. I mean they are in good shape if they finish 8-12 in league which is 5-6 the rest of the way.
on the flip side a team like Minnesota will struggle to get in at 16-14/10-10 in league
I think folks are severely underrating just how strong the B1G is this year. If you look at sites that rate the conferences, the difference between the B1G and the ACC/SEC is pretty close to the difference between the ACC/SEC and the Atlantic 10.
The B1G had a very, very strong year OOC. It is my opinion that will be rewarded/reflected come Selection Sunday.
The B1G had a very, very strong year OOC. It is my opinion that will be rewarded/reflected come Selection Sunday.
thats true but as I posted above that Minnesota can go 10-10 and finish 16-14 and they are not getting in unless they do serious damage in the Big 10 tourney
Depends who they are up against.
If Minnesota gets five more wins that is likely two or three more Quad 1 victories which would put them in the 4-7 range in Quad 1 games. If that resume is going up against Memphis, Washington, URI and Oklahoma (for example) Minnesota may not get in, but it isn't an "open and shut" case (imo). Being they would likely be the "11th" or even "12th" B1G bid I could see that could work against them, but maybe not.
I truly find it hard to see a scenario where the B1G isn't a 10 bid league with 12 teams in kenpom top-40 and 12 teams in Net ranking top-44.
Last edited:
the NET isnt the end all be all either
last year
NC State 33
Clemson 35
Texas 38....now this may a case study because they had some great metrics and great sos and didnt get in at 16-16
Furman 41
Memphis 46
Nebraska 48
Lipscomb 49
Penn State 50
TCU 52...huge snub at 20-13
Creighton 53
Indiana 54...another case study....17-15, did they sweep MSU last year?
teams that got in with worse nets
Syracuse 42
Iowa 43
Washington 45
Ohio State 55
Temple 56
Seton Hall 57
Minnesota 61
Arizona State 63
St Johns 73
last year
NC State 33
Clemson 35
Texas 38....now this may a case study because they had some great metrics and great sos and didnt get in at 16-16
Furman 41
Memphis 46
Nebraska 48
Lipscomb 49
Penn State 50
TCU 52...huge snub at 20-13
Creighton 53
Indiana 54...another case study....17-15, did they sweep MSU last year?
teams that got in with worse nets
Syracuse 42
Iowa 43
Washington 45
Ohio State 55
Temple 56
Seton Hall 57
Minnesota 61
Arizona State 63
St Johns 73
similar to Indiana last year who finished 17-15 who had better wins....Texas was 16-16 didnt make it, TCU was 20-13 didnt make it
I just spent my lunch break watching the highlights of Mi State beating Duke to go to last year's final 4 and imagining RU in their place.
After years of watching a team with no tourney chances, I honestly have no idea who I am any more.
After years of watching a team with no tourney chances, I honestly have no idea who I am any more.
I had the same thought about the “flaw in the system” and at first I figured the NET, being dynamic, would correct itself. It has somewhat but it seems there should be a bigger correction with teams like OSU. Either that or the teams beating OSU are not getting a big enough bump in NET.
One thing I thought made sense in years past is when the selection committee weighed more heavily the last 10 games. I realize that could hurt us with our schedule toward the end of the season, and maybe that’s why that metric isn’t weighted the same as before. Conference schedules can be lopsided in terms of strength of teams played and when.
Visualization is a good thing, and I hope our players utilize that technique. Sometimes you have to think it before you can do it.
Top had 11 teams:
Two ACC, three Big Ten, two Big 12, one American, one Big East, two mid-majors.
Bottom had 9 teams:
One ACC, three Big Ten, zero Big 12, one American, two Big East, two Pac-12
So basically the Big 12 got "screwed" in favor of the Pac-12. A strong top-to-bottom conference gave up bids to a weaker one.
And that's exactly what's going to happen this year. The Big Ten will get 9 or 10, giving up a few to weaker conferences.
Similar threads
