Blind Resume Part 2: 3 Teams For 1 Spot

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
25,129
Reaction score
5,914
Points
113
You're on the Selection Committee, and you have 3 teams competing for the final at-large bid. Which one do you select?

Team A
KPI/NET Average: 32
Quad 1 Record: 1-6 (.143)
Quad 1/2 Record: 6-8 (.429)
Best 3 NET Wins/Total: 115 (#30, #40, #45)
True Road Record: 1-5 (.167)
Road/Neutral Record: 4-6 (.400)
Overall SOS: 26
Non-Conference SOS: 47
Average Net Win: 137
Average Net Loss: 29
Record vs. My Current Field of 68: 2-7 (.222)

Team B
KPI/NET Average: 51
Quad 1 Record: 3-7 (.300)
Quad 1/2 Record: 7-9 (.438)
Best 3 NET Wins/Total: 73 (@ #15, #28, vs. #30)
True Road Record: 1-7 (.125)
Road/Neutral Record: 5-7 (.417)
Overall SOS: 59
Non-Conference SOS: 199
Average Net Win: 132
Average Net Loss: 39
Record vs. My Current Field of 68: 3-6 (.333)

Team C
KPI/NET Average: 28
Quad 1 Record: 1-4 (.200)
Quad 1/2 Record: 6-5 (.545)
Best 3 NET Wins/Total: 228 (@ #68, @ #77, vs. #83)
True Road Record: 5-3 (.625)
Road/Neutral Record: 7-5 (.583)
Overall SOS: 49
Non-Conference SOS: 23
Average Net Win: 144
Average Net Loss: 34
Record vs. My Current Field of 68: 0-5 (.000)
 

Gophers are team B.

So I pick Team B.
 

1. Team B
2. Team A
3. Team C

And might I add that I absolutely love when you post these every year!
 

MinnGopher said:
1. Team B
2. Team A
3. Team C

And might I add that I absolutely love when you post these every year!
Click to expand...

Will start doing a couple per week starting next week. We've got a huge bubble to work with this year.
 




B.

The other two don't belong on the bubble so I won't rank after that.
 






Teams A & C might surprise you

This particular Blind Resume exercise was done to show that some teams generally assumed to be "safely in the field" don't necessarily have better looking resumes than some of those considered on or near the bubble. Otis correctly pegged the Gopher resume (B), but I think you might be surprised who teams A and C are. Both, generally speaking, are not being talked about as bubble teams because of their gaudy NET rankings, while the Gophers are considered a bubble team.

The teams?

A = Auburn (NET #24)

B = Gophers (NET 58)

C= Washington (NET #30)
 

ethomasp31 said:
A
C
B
Click to expand...

How can you legitimately put a team who went 0-5 against tourney teams, 1-4 against quad 1, and don't have any top 50 wins over a team that went 3-6 against tourney teams, 3-7 against quad 1 (pretty ****ty too), and is 3-6 against tourney teams?

EDIT: Okay now that its Washington I feel like an ass..still curious to hear your reasoning though just from an understanding level
 




SelectionSunday said:
Worth noting, Washington has lost to both the Gophers & Auburn.
Click to expand...

True, its kind of just mind boggling to me that a team like Washington is going to get in barring a catastrophic meltdown. Idk I guess it doesn't really make Washington better it just shows I perceive them as a good team just because they are whooping up on the crappy Pac12.

The gophers are probably going to end up going 19-12 imo and then end up winning one in the B1G and then playing to get into the tourney against a top seeded team that we will lose to. Obviously if one of those 3 regular season wins we are yet to get are against a team like Mich/Mich State, it would help. But man if we did that how could you leave a team like us out with what would probably be 4 top 30 wins.
 

MinnGopher said:
How can you legitimately put a team who went 0-5 against tourney teams, 1-4 against quad 1, and don't have any top 50 wins over a team that went 3-6 against tourney teams, 3-7 against quad 1 (pretty ****ty too), and is 3-6 against tourney teams?

EDIT: Okay now that its Washington I feel like an ass..still curious to hear your reasoning though just from an understanding level
Click to expand...

I looked their NET/KP rankings, strength of schedule, true road record, non conference schedule.

B's strength of schedule was the poorest. They played by far the easiest non conference schedule. They have won 1 true road game all year. Their KP/NET ranking was about 20 spots lower than the other two teams. None of the teams had a good Quad 1 record, but all did pretty well against Quad 2. I don't think it is that crazy that I had team B as the third team in that group.
 

I have them all in the field

Washington as a 7 seed
Auburn as a 9
Gophers as a 12 (last 4 in)
 

ethomasp31 said:
I looked their NET/KP rankings, strength of schedule, true road record, non conference schedule.

B's strength of schedule was the poorest. They played by far the easiest non conference schedule. They have won 1 true road game all year. Their KP/NET ranking was about 20 spots lower than the other two teams. None of the teams had a good Quad 1 record, but all did pretty well against Quad 2. I don't think it is that crazy that I had team B as the third team in that group.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah I get that but how many wins do we have that are better than Washington's? Gophs probably have at least 5 wins better than Washingtons best win. Who has Washington beat that makes you think they will win a game in the tourney or could win multiple? None according to the rankings while team B has won 3 against tourney teams. I mean yeah Washington can't control how good their conference is but they also lost every chance they had against good teams.

I also do like that you keep non conf sos in mind but what are we going to reward Washington for playing better Q3 and Q4 games than the gophers? They didn't beat any of those good teams in non-conf so idk why you would really reward them for that. Best non-conf win is A&M who is 10-13 and Western Kentucky who is 16-10.

I actually think Washington is a better team than us based off of how consistent they play but I do think we have a better tourney resume. Washington might be getting the shaft by how bad the Pac12 is but honestly that happens in college hoops.
 

so based off this do we want Washington to lose so they are off the bubble in the event they don't win the Pac Tourney?
 

tmvander said:
so based off this do we want Washington to lose so they are off the bubble in the event they don't win the Pac Tourney?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure even if Washington only wins like 3 the rest of the way they would still get in
 

tmvander said:
so based off this do we want Washington to lose so they are off the bubble in the event they don't win the Pac Tourney?
Click to expand...

We absolutely want Washington, Iowa, and Wisconsin (and to a lesser extent Utah, A&M, and Omaha) to finish their seasons strong. Always want your best wins to look as strong as possible in the eyes of the Selection Committee, especially if you hover near the bubble.
 

MinnGopher said:
I mean yeah I get that but how many wins do we have that are better than Washington's? Gophs probably have at least 5 wins better than Washingtons best win. Who has Washington beat that makes you think they will win a game in the tourney or could win multiple? None according to the rankings while team B has won 3 against tourney teams. I mean yeah Washington can't control how good their conference is but they also lost every chance they had against good teams.

I also do like that you keep non conf sos in mind but what are we going to reward Washington for playing better Q3 and Q4 games than the gophers? They didn't beat any of those good teams in non-conf so idk why you would really reward them for that. Best non-conf win is A&M who is 10-13 and Western Kentucky who is 16-10.

I actually think Washington is a better team than us based off of how consistent they play but I do think we have a better tourney resume. Washington might be getting the shaft by how bad the Pac12 is but honestly that happens in college hoops.
Click to expand...


I didn't know it was Washington when I gave the order. I thought it probably was a smaller conference school who hadn't had opportunities to beat teams with a higher NET. I think with as weak as the bubble is, the Gophers have a good chance to make it. All year people have been saying 9 or10 B1G teams would make the tournament. To me it looks like the Gophers are solidly in the 8th spot and the teams behind them will have a difficult time catching them. I'm not even sure any of the team's below them will finish the year at .500 as Nebraska and Indiana are going to be well below that in the conference. Now if Indiana beats us today, then we are in deep trouble. But if we win today and go 9-11 with a B1G tournament win, I would be very surprised if they didn't make it. That doesn't seem like a very high bar. For Indiana to still be one of the last 4 in, while sitting at 4-9 and 13-11, shows that this is an extremely weak bubble.
 

MinnGopher said:
I actually think Washington is a better team than us based off of how consistent they play
Click to expand...

Yes. That matters more than any particular win or loss in the season, particularly in the early part of the season. While living in Iowa City during the eighties I remember a bad Iowa team (13-15 record) beating Memphis (then Memphis State) during the preseason of the 1983-84 year. Memphis had been a final 16 team the year before and ended up being a final 16 team in that year's tournament (losing to national runner-up Houston with Hakeem). To get to the Sweet 16 that year, Memphis State beat Big Ten champ (15-3 conference record) Purdue easily in the round of 32.

Losing to Iowa didn't make Memphis bad or Iowa good.
 

MinnGopher said:
The gophers are probably going to end up going 19-12 imo and then end up winning one in the B1G and then playing to get into the tourney against a top seeded team that we will lose to.
Click to expand...

I easily could see this team finishing 8th, Illinois finishing 9th, and losing to Illinois in their first game of the tournament. Despite losing to the Gophers a few weeks ago, Illinois is a more consistently performing team right now.
 

SS, a quick question... can you add number of Q3/Q4 losses to future résumés? Or if you have another method of taking bad losses into account that would be appreciated.

Also, I second the people saying that they love these posts. Thanks for keeping it going!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom