Even with poor non-conference slate, 21 wins should get the Gophers a ticket to the Madness

Donate To GopherHole
topos said:
You're not wrong, but if we make the tournament, it will be because we stacked Q1 wins (on the road) in the remaining Big Ten schedule. Missouri being Q3/Q4 is irrelevant, although I understand the sentiment that staying in Q3 would be ideal.

One blemish won't kill you, especially if you have 4/5 road victories. Bubble teams are rarely good on the road. With some of Pitino's bubble teams, our biggest blemish was the lack of road wins. It won't be an issue with this team if we end up on the bubble.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if you’re assuming the gophs rattle off at Purdue at Illinois at northwestern haha.

But the talk isn’t if a 15-5 big 10 team gets in.

The thread is 21 wins. A 11-9 gophs with 1 big10 tourney win is likely screwed. And with a Q4 loss it’s forsure screwed.

Even if we get two good Q1 wins. To make it 3. That means to be in that 21 range we flop some of the home games which are more bad losses
 

MUgopher32 said:
Well yeah if you’re assuming the gophs rattle off at Purdue at Illinois at northwestern haha.

But the talk isn’t if a 15-5 big 10 team gets in.

The thread is 21 wins. A 11-9 gophs with 1 big10 tourney win is likely screwed. And with a Q4 loss it’s forsure screwed.

Even if we get two good Q1 wins. To make it 3. That means to be in that 21 range we flop some of the home games which are more bad losses
Click to expand...
Yeah they’d need 2 in the B10 tourney in that setting as our first game will be a non tourney team. The big ten relative weakness this year definitely will limit our chances. To say they ignore your trend line though I don’t think is accurate, the same as they also view if you have guys out. Biggest things is this resume has minimal wins vs tourney teams right now, a very weak SOS and a couple rough losses. And I agree with you it’s probably going to need more than 21 wins this year with how weak the big ten looks versus typical years and who we’ve had our games against (unsure if most things calculate your sos based on who you’ve played already vs your whole schedule, but games vs ill, Purdue, and at nw all may raise our NET just by virtue of adding better teams to our schedule)
 

MonikerSchmoniker45 said:
I'm not so sure. The committee seems to put more stock in the end of season results. Just gotta take care of business moving forward.
Click to expand...
Recency bias is real and does skew perceptions.

Also, I think our rags to riches story would be endearing especially when picked to finish last to the bubble - that’s Cinderella gift wrapped 🎁. Gimme me some of that Jim Nance.
 

MUgopher32 said:
Well yeah if you’re assuming the gophs rattle off at Purdue at Illinois at northwestern haha.

But the talk isn’t if a 15-5 big 10 team gets in.

The thread is 21 wins. A 11-9 gophs with 1 big10 tourney win is likely screwed. And with a Q4 loss it’s forsure screwed.

Even if we get two good Q1 wins. To make it 3. That means to be in that 21 range we flop some of the home games which are more bad losses
Click to expand...

I think, generally, we agree. We just have different viewpoints on how impactful the Missouri loss is.

However, I'd be willing to bet everything I have if the Gophers win @Purdue, @Illinois, and @NW and finish 11-9; they are shoe-ins even without a win in the Big Ten tourney.

Beat Iowa on Sunday, and the avenues start opening up!
 
Last edited:

upnorthkid said:
Yeah they’d need 2 in the B10 tourney in that setting as our first game will be a non tourney team. The big ten relative weakness this year definitely will limit our chances. To say they ignore your trend line though I don’t think is accurate, the same as they also view if you have guys out. Biggest things is this resume has minimal wins vs tourney teams right now, a very weak SOS and a couple rough losses. And I agree with you it’s probably going to need more than 21 wins this year with how weak the big ten looks versus typical years and who we’ve had our games against (unsure if most things calculate your sos based on who you’ve played already vs your whole schedule, but games vs ill, Purdue, and at nw all may raise our NET just by virtue of adding better teams to our schedule)
Click to expand...

They’ve been pretty clear in the past the don’t factor in recent performance with more weight over november(assuming health). They talk about a lot of things once it’s revealed and the process. Next Saturday the 17th when they do the top 16 reveal they will go in depth on things too, not a direct comp since sorting teams 10-20 are way different resumes than bubble teams. But it shows the thought process.

Yes they take injuries in to account. But only if you lose games without a certain player.

They don’t ding teams for beating a good team short handed or losing to a team short handed.
 


MUgopher32 said:
They’ve been pretty clear in the past the don’t factor in recent performance with more weight over november(assuming health). They talk about a lot of things once it’s revealed and the process. Next Saturday the 17th when they do the top 16 reveal they will go in depth on things too, not a direct comp since sorting teams 10-20 are way different resumes than bubble teams. But it shows the thought process.

Yes they take injuries in to account. But only if you lose games without a certain player.

They don’t ding teams for beating a good team short handed or losing to a team short handed.
Click to expand...
yeah was not including to say we would get a bump or anything.

as far as they recent performance, they may say they don't but that's a part of the comps between very similar teams. Don't think it will at all expunge a Q4 loss with absence of some high quality wins, but if we're ending up the exact same as the bubble team next to us, I'd be willing to be the team with a more positive trend line gets the nod (this is again saying all other things are equal)
 

topos said:
I think, generally, we agree. We just have different viewpoints on how impactful the Missouri loss is.

However, I'd be willing to bet everything I have if the Gophers win @Purdue/Illinois/NW and finish 11-9; they are shoe-ins even without a win in the Big Ten tourney.

Beat Iowa on Sunday, and the avenues start opening up!
Click to expand...

21-11(11-9) won't really come close IMO, even if we do beat one of Purdue/NW/Illinois on the road. Just wouldn't have the number of quality wins.
 

Gophers7633 said:
21-11(11-9) won't really come close IMO, even if we do beat one of Purdue/NW/Illinois on the road. Just wouldn't have the number of quality wins.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant to beat them all (as MU laid out in their scenario). Edited for clarity.
 

At this point I think 21-10, 12-8 is the requirement to legitimately be in the at-large conversation heading to Target Center. Anything less than that and the Gophers will need to do work (win at least 2 vs. legit at-large contenders) at Target Center.

The reason I think 12-8 gives thems a legit shot is because it would mean they've picked up at least 2 more Quad 1 wins along the way, which would get them to 3, not a terrible number for a bubble team.

But even if one of these scenarios comes to fruition, so much working against them. The albatross that will be nearly impossible to escape is the non-conference strength of schedule. Not just the fact that it's one of the worst in all of college basketball (currently #361 of 362), but also in the only 2 games where the opponent could be considered "decent", they lost at home to an opponent currently winless in the SEC (Mizzou) and in the other one completely blown out (San Francisco).
 




SelectionSunday said:
At this point I think 21-10, 12-8 is the requirement to legitimately be in the at-large conversation heading to Target Center. Anything less than that and the Gophers will need to do work (win at least 2 vs. legit at-large contenders) at Target Center.

The reason I think 12-8 gives thems a legit shot is because it would mean they've picked up at least 2 more Quad 1 wins along the way, which would get them to 3, not a terrible number for a bubble team.

But even if one of these scenarios comes to fruition, so much working against them. The albatross that will be nearly impossible to escape is the non-conference strength of schedule. Not just the fact that it's one of the worst in all of college basketball (currently #361 of 362), but also in the only 2 games where the opponent could be considered "decent", they lost at home to an opponent currently winless in the SEC (Mizzou) and in the other one completely blown out (San Francisco).
Click to expand...

1707422102932.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 1707422069200.jpeg
    1707422069200.jpeg
    35.2 KB · Views: 0


upnorthkid said:
yeah was not including to say we would get a bump or anything.

as far as they recent performance, they may say they don't but that's a part of the comps between very similar teams. Don't think it will at all expunge a Q4 loss with absence of some high quality wins, but if we're ending up the exact same as the bubble team next to us, I'd be willing to be the team with a more positive trend line gets the nod (this is again saying all other things are equal)
Click to expand...
100% as a complete tiebreaker that would be a definitely thing that could help.

Committee has a lot of tiebreakers though based of scenarios, it could be head to head, how youre playing, best win, conference titles etc...

But overall they do look at everything. And bad losses in November still factor equally into the overall resume. Its why every bracketologist lists the quads and the breakdowns because those are used so heavily. Whether any of us like the quads, hate them, find some issues. They are there to break down a resume from Q1 wins, overall Q1/Q2 record, to Q3/4 losses. And a Q4 with Mizzou would look really bad when lumped with minimal wins(Q1 or top 50 any way you look) and a ghastlly abomination of a non SOS.

Still, its at least fun that we are in February and able to have these discussions in a season where nearly every talking head had the gophers going like 5-15 at best and finishing 13th at best.

Would love to see them find a way to finish 12-8 in league play and find out for real what does and doesnt hurt/help the resume.
 



Let’s say they play well enough to hold serve and finish top four in the Big Ten and get the double bye. Do you think the committee leaves the regular season #4 team out of the tournament? Even if they were to lose that quarterfinal game?
 

Outsider said:
Let’s say they play well enough to hold serve and finish top four in the Big Ten and get the double bye. Do you think the committee leaves the regular season #4 team out of the tournament? Even if they were to lose that quarterfinal game?
Click to expand...

Absolutely if top 4 is good enough to still have a record around what it currently is.

The big10 is only projected to get 6/14 teams in, so there wont be some huge bias.
 

Outsider said:
Let’s say they play well enough to hold serve and finish top four in the Big Ten and get the double bye. Do you think the committee leaves the regular season #4 team out of the tournament? Even if they were to lose that quarterfinal game?
Click to expand...

Yep. They did it to Nebraska in 2018.
 

Outsider said:
Let’s say they play well enough to hold serve and finish top four in the Big Ten and get the double bye. Do you think the committee leaves the regular season #4 team out of the tournament? Even if they were to lose that quarterfinal game?
Click to expand...
The Washington team that the Gophers beat in the 2012 NIT semi-final were the regular season Pac-12 champs. If the conference stinks, teams that finish toward the top can still get left out of the tournament. Most years the Big Ten is strong enough that that doesn't happen, but that's not the case this year.
 

Outsider said:
Let’s say they play well enough to hold serve and finish top four in the Big Ten and get the double bye. Do you think the committee leaves the regular season #4 team out of the tournament? Even if they were to lose that quarterfinal game?
Click to expand...
2005 Monson’s only year making the NCAA. Gophers were #5 seed in BTT, Indiana the #4 seed. Gophers beat Hoosiers in the quarterfinals.

It’s the year we got the infamous meltdown quote from Hoosiers coach Mike Davis after the loss to the Gophers when asked if he thought Hoosiers would get an at-large bid.

“We were the 4 seed in the Big Ten, man. The 4 seed. We were the 4 seed.”

Gophers got selected, Indiana did not.
 
Last edited:

SelectionSunday said:
2005 Monson’s only year making the NCAA. Gophers were #5 seed in BTT, Indiana the #4 seed. Gophers beat Hoosiers in the quarterfinals.

It’s the year we got the infamous quote from Hoosiers coach Mike Davis after the loss to the Gophers when asked if he thought Hoosiers would get an at-large bid.

“We were the 4 seed in the Big Ten, man. The 4 seed.”

Gophers got selected, Indiana did not.
Click to expand...
What was the go to analysis metric back then? I know RPI was all the rage in the 2010 decade.

Was it strictly just eye test and some high-level SOS? AP/Coaches polls?

Also worth noting, back then they only played 16 big ten games. Major conference teams could cram in a lot more cupcakes.

4th place in the big ten today is more impressive with 20 games. Nebraska finished 4th in 2018 but only played 18 big ten games. Indiana finished 4th in 2005 with16 big ten games.

I guess my point is, with a larger sample size of games, the final standings should be more reflective of who is deserving of post season consideration.
 

topos said:
What was the go to analysis metric back then? I know RPI was all the rage in the 2010 decade.

Was it strictly just eye test and some high-level SOS? AP/Coaches polls?

Also worth noting, back then they only played 16 big ten games. Major conference teams could cram in a lot more cupcakes.

4th place in the big ten today is more impressive with 20 games. Nebraska finished 4th in 2018 but only played 18 big ten games. Indiana finished 4th in 2005 with16 big ten games.

I guess my point is, with a larger sample size of games, the final standings should be more reflective of who is deserving of post season consideration.
Click to expand...
What I remember is the Gophers’ resume wasn’t that great, but they won their last 4 in the Big Ten to finish 10-6. Going into that game it felt like they needed a win to clinch a bid & they did it. One of the best games a Monson team played at a time they really needed it.
 
Last edited:

topos said:
What was the go to analysis metric back then? I know RPI was all the rage in the 2010 decade.

Was it strictly just eye test and some high-level SOS? AP/Coaches polls?

Also worth noting, back then they only played 16 big ten games. Major conference teams could cram in a lot more cupcakes.

4th place in the big ten today is more impressive with 20 games. Nebraska finished 4th in 2018 but only played 18 big ten games. Indiana finished 4th in 2005 with16 big ten games.

I guess my point is, with a larger sample size of games, the final standings should be more reflective of who is deserving of post season consideration.
Click to expand...

RPI was the main metric used to sort the teams. Then record against top 25, top 50 and top 100 competition. The quadrant system was introduced in the 2017/2018 season.

Conference record has never really mattered. It's the whole body of work. 16, 18, 20 conference games doesn't really matter. Especially given how unbalanced the conference schedules are. Just look at us this year with only playing Purdue, Illinois and Wisconsin all once, the clear top 3 teams in the league. My magic number has been for us to get to 23 wins to feel safe. So we need to pick off a couple road wins here. Which will be tough considering who they're against.
 





topos said:
What was the go to analysis metric back then? I know RPI was all the rage in the 2010 decade.

Was it strictly just eye test and some high-level SOS? AP/Coaches polls?

Also worth noting, back then they only played 16 big ten games. Major conference teams could cram in a lot more cupcakes.

4th place in the big ten today is more impressive with 20 games. Nebraska finished 4th in 2018 but only played 18 big ten games. Indiana finished 4th in 2005 with16 big ten games.

I guess my point is, with a larger sample size of games, the final standings should be more reflective of who is deserving of post season consideration.
Click to expand...

West Virginia went 7-11 in big 12 last year and got in.

The only thing that matters is the entire body of work and how strong your wins and losses are.

It’s why mid majors win 18 conference games all the time and don’t sniff the tournament.
 


Johnnyboy18 said:
Painter really defended Minnesota's schedule in his post game presser and said it had to be done because of all the newness.
Click to expand...
People in the know, understand/get the process.

When they interviewed Mason Gillis, the 4 who made 4 threes, on the court after the game and asked him about halftime adjustments, he said to the effect, thst it was different because they had never been behind af half this season at home.
 


Johnnyboy18 said:
Painter really defended Minnesota's schedule in his post game presser and said it had to be done because of all the newness.
Click to expand...

I can understand why it was done but I think the schedulers went a bit overboard in trying to ease in the team. We played 6 nonconference teams with NET rankings of 286 or below. If we swapped out 4 of those for teams ranked between 150 and 250, I believe we could have won all of them and would be in better NET position now. It's probably true that we wouldn't have known that some of those teams would be as weak as they turned out to be but at least a few (Bethune, Ark Pine Bluff, IUPUI) were easily guessable.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom