See "All Things Championship Week" . ...

Donate To GopherHole
WilliamsArenaGuy said:
I think that is his exact point. That many teams take time to gel now with the way things are, not just the Gophers.
Click to expand...

The way I interpreted his post (in combination with the post previous to the one I quoted) was the Gophers specifically needed to play the non-conference schedule they put together because of the new players on the team. They needed to have success early on to prepare for the conference season. I guess that is one approach. But then it becomes difficult to try to shoehorn the Gophers into the tournament when you have the 361st out of 362 ranked schedule.
 

Dakota2 said:
We have many threads here wondering about what ifs and the tournament. The simple fact is the tournament selection committee uses a lazy and idiotic methodology in selection.

Computer data is bullshiit. You can't compare a team's strength in March with a game played in November, especially now that most teams have new transfer players every year and need ten games to feel things out.

The debate here is not whether the Gophers make the tournament; they won't barring the auto bid via winning the BTT. A better debate is whether the NCAA Tournament will remain a joke ordered by computer data or a test of the best teams.
Click to expand...

Even if you throw the non-conference out the Gophers are:

0-4 against the 3 locks in the B1G for the NCAA tournament.
3-4 against the other 4 B1G bubble teams, with all 3 wins coming at home.
Their only wins away from home all season is at last place Michigan, and tied for the final WW spot Penn St.

So tell me again how the computer data is a joke and the Gophers deserve to be in the tournament based on that resume?
 

Dakota2 said:
We have many threads here wondering about what ifs and the tournament. The simple fact is the tournament selection committee uses a lazy and idiotic methodology in selection.

Computer data is bullshiit. You can't compare a team's strength in March with a game played in November, especially now that most teams have new transfer players every year and need ten games to feel things out.

The debate here is not whether the Gophers make the tournament; they won't barring the auto bid via winning the BTT. A better debate is whether the NCAA Tournament will remain a joke ordered by computer data or a test of the best teams.
Click to expand...

Do you not want them to include 33% of the data? I'd also be curious as to what your methodology would be for selecting who you think are the "best teams"
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Even if you throw the non-conference out the Gophers are:

0-4 against the 3 locks in the B1G for the NCAA tournament.
3-4 against the other 4 B1G bubble teams, with all 3 wins coming at home.
Their only wins away from home all season is at last place Michigan, and tied for the final WW spot Penn St.

So tell me again how the computer data is a joke and the Gophers deserve to be in the tournament based on that resume?
Click to expand...
Ben hater.
 



mnsportsgeek said:
What does MSU have to do to keep the streak alive in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Keep coach Izzo employed. They are an automatic if they are close IMO and can and will leapfrog teams when it comes down to it.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Fair point.

My main point was, when you play a non-conference schedule like the Gophers did, you want (need) as many "signature win" opportunites as possible within your conference schedule.
Click to expand...
Correct and the Gophers just didn't really have any or at least many good wins in conference.

But as it pertains to the noncon schedule, I will say that playing a cupcake with frosting on top or just a cupcake with sprinkles makes no difference IMO. All are cupcakes. Mid majors that finish in the bottom half or their conference vs teams that finish middle are both bad teams that should easily be beaten by power 5 teams.
 

SHGopher said:
This is a great snippet of information for interpreting the season, for context, I think.

Also, gives great feedback for the choices made for opponents in non-conference games.

One path is to punt during non-conference with useless easy games, and another path is to schedule harder but beatable teams where you may lose.
Click to expand...
Michigan State has proven time and again that it doesn't matter if you beat good teams in non-conference. Just that you schedule them and steal 1 maybe 2 of them.
 

Dakota2 said:
We have many threads here wondering about what ifs and the tournament. The simple fact is the tournament selection committee uses a lazy and idiotic methodology in selection.

Computer data is bullshiit. You can't compare a team's strength in March with a game played in November, especially now that most teams have new transfer players every year and need ten games to feel things out.

The debate here is not whether the Gophers make the tournament; they won't barring the auto bid via winning the BTT. A better debate is whether the NCAA Tournament will remain a joke ordered by computer data or a test of the best teams.
Click to expand...
Let me tell you that as a parent of a college athelete, it isn't just the NCAA men's basketball selection committee. It is like this in every sport at every level in college. I honestly don't know how else they would do it.
Point is, if you want to be in ANY NCAA tourney at the end of the year, you have to schedule good teams. If your conference doesn't have any, then you need to schedule them in the non-con.
 



Honest question: Is it really ALL about computers now?

Is there no eye-test or reasoning or anything else considered now?

Like if we win the last 2 games, plus 2 B1G Tourney games...would the selection committee leapfrog a team over us that we just beat on a neutral court? Or would they choose Northwestern over us...if we both finish 11-9 and we just beat them on their home court and advanced farther than them in the B1G Tourney?

Would they take the time to see that these teams didn't do anything impressive either in the non-conference? Or do they simply look at the numbers the computer spits out?
 

Yes. Put it this way. Ohio State has a better chance to get in the dance than we do.

It's mainly because we didn't beat anyone. We haven't. Nebraska, NWern, MSU. That is it. Playing them(Purdue, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois) tough doesn't get you anywhere.
 

EasyThere Pilgrim said:
Honest question: Is it really ALL about computers now?

Is there no eye test or reasoning or anything else considered now?

Like if we win the last 2 games, plus 2 B1G Tourney games...would the selection committee leapfrog a team over us that we just beat on a neutral court? Or would they choose Northwestern over us...if we both finish 11-9 and we just beat them on their home court and advanced farther than them in the B1G Tourney?

Would they take the time to see that these teams didn't do anything impressive either in the non-conference? Or do they simply look at the numbers the computer spits out?
Click to expand...

No.

Yes.

That's false. NW beat Dayton. Nebraska won @KSU, Iowa beat Seton Hall, MSU beat Baylor, Indiana State and Butler. All those are Q1 or Q2 wins. Our best win is Maine(Q4).

For everyone complaining about the selection process, do any of you have a better idea? How would you determine who the "best teams" are?
 

I have no expectations of making the big dance. I said, when the schedule was announced, that the staff, obviously, had no hope for going to the tournament. Playing .500 ball in the B18 was a pleasant surprise, but not near enough to make up for an historically bad non-con lineup. The staff didn’t believe enough in the team to build a respectable schedule. At least we have a shot at the NIT, which I didn’t believe was possible after the Missouri debacle. We’ll know if the staff has aspirations next year if our non-conference schedule isn’t littered with 300+ NET teams.
 
Last edited:




SelectionSunday said:
Home wins over Gophers (if they drop to 75 or lower) would go from Quad 3 to Quad 2, right? Isn't Quad 1 home win NET of 1-30?

Excellent point either way. ... very beneficial for those teams if Gophers finish strong.
Click to expand...

Yes, my bad, I guess it is mostly Iowa pulling for Minnesota. I should have said their win at Williams would add a Quad 1 to their resume. The OSU win in Columbus isn't a factor for them as Quad 1 opp.

I got it mixed around. I'll edit, thanks!
 

tjgopher said:
Yes, my bad, I guess it is mostly Iowa pulling for Minnesota. I should have said their win at Williams would add a Quad 1 to their resume. The OSU win in Columbus isn't a factor for them as Quad 1 opp.

I got it mixed around. I'll edit, thanks!
Click to expand...
No biggie, I knew what you meant.
 

SS - For the newbies on here, would love for you to recap your selection success the last 10 -12 years, i.e, 67 out 68, etc. I know some people question why we're not on the bubble, but your success rate (comparable to Palm, etc), will maybe stop folks from questioning the idea that MN is on the outside looking in, and they are not even frosting the glass.
 

TNGophfan said:
SS - For the newbies on here, would love for you to recap your selection success the last 10 -12 years, i.e, 67 out 68, etc. I know some people question why we're not on the bubble, but your success rate (comparable to Palm, etc), will maybe stop folks from questioning the idea that MN is on the outside looking in, and they are not even frosting the glass.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you asking! Here's a breakdown how I've done since I started doing this in 1991-92 season. Please note, my percentages (at the end) count only the at-larges. ... I don't count the automatic qualifiers, those are freebies!

Also, in 2010-11 season I started tracking how I've done vs. Palm & Lunardi. Those numbers are below, as well. I'm 6 behind Palm & 4 behind Lunardi, but I'm the only one who has been perfect twice since that time!

I've missed 2 each of the last two seasons. I would say that's about my average. I know I'm disappointed when I miss more than 2, and pleased when I miss 1 or none. The last time I missed 4 (worst performance) was 1997-98 season.

Projecting the At-Large Qualifiers (1991-92 through 2022-23)
1991-92: 33/34
1992-93: 31/34
1993-94: 30/34
1994-95: 30/34
1995-96: 33/34
1996-97: 31/34
1997-98: 30/34
1998-99: 31/34
1999-00: 32/34
2000-01: 34/34 (perfect)
2001-02: 33/34
2002-03: 33/34
2003-04: 31/34
2004-05: 32/34
2005-06: 31/34
2006-07: 32/34
2007-08: 33/34
2008-09: 34/34 (perfect)
2009-10: 33/34
2010-11: 35/37
2011-12: 36/37
2012-13: 36/37
2013-14: 36/36 (perfect)
2014-15: 33/36
2015-16: 32/36
2016-17: 36/36 (perfect)
2017-18: 33/36
2018-19: 34/36
2019-20: The Corona-2020
2020-21: 36/37
2021-22: 34/36
2022-23: 34/36
TOTALS: 1022/1082 (94.5%)

Buzz King Since Field Expanded to 68: 415/436 (95.2%)

Jerry Palm Since Field Expanded to 68
2010-11: 35/37
2011-12: 35/37
2012-13: 36/37
2013-14: 35/36
2014-15: 35/36
2015-16: 34/36
2016-17: 36/36 (perfect)
2017-18: 35/36
2018-19: 35/36
2019-20: The Corona-2020
2020-21: 35/37
2021-22: 35/36
2022-23: 35/36
TOTALS: 421/436 (96.6%)

Joe Lunardi Since Field Expanded to 68
2010-11: 34/37
2011-12: 36/37
2012-13: 37/37 (perfect)
2013-14: 35/36
2014-15: 34/36
2015-16: 33/36
2016-17: 35/36
2017-18: 34/36
2018-19: 35/36
2019-20: The Corona-2020
2020-21: 36/37
2021-22: 35/36
2022-23: 35/36
TOTALS: 419/436 (96.1%)
 

SelectionSunday said:
I appreciate you asking! Here's a breakdown how I've done since I started doing this in 1991-92 season. Please note, my percentages (at the end) count only the at-larges. ... I don't count the automatic qualifiers, those are freebies!

Also, in 2010-11 season I started tracking how I've done vs. Palm & Lunardi. Those numbers are below, as well. I'm 6 behind Palm & 4 behind Lunardi, but I'm the only one who has been perfect twice since that time!

I've missed 2 each of the last two seasons. I would say that's about my average. I know I'm disappointed when I miss more than 2, and pleased when I miss 1 or none. The last time I missed 4 (worst performance) was 1997-98 season.

Projecting the At-Large Qualifiers (1991-92 through 2022-23)
1991-92: 33/34
1992-93: 31/34
1993-94: 30/34
1994-95: 30/34
1995-96: 33/34
1996-97: 31/34
1997-98: 30/34
1998-99: 31/34
1999-00: 32/34
2000-01: 34/34 (perfect)
2001-02: 33/34
2002-03: 33/34
2003-04: 31/34
2004-05: 32/34
2005-06: 31/34
2006-07: 32/34
2007-08: 33/34
2008-09: 34/34 (perfect)
2009-10: 33/34
2010-11: 35/37
2011-12: 36/37
2012-13: 36/37
2013-14: 36/36 (perfect)
2014-15: 33/36
2015-16: 32/36
2016-17: 36/36 (perfect)
2017-18: 33/36
2018-19: 34/36
2019-20: The Corona-2020
2020-21: 36/37
2021-22: 34/36
2022-23: 34/36
TOTALS: 1022/1082 (94.5%)

Buzz King Since Field Expanded to 68: 415/436 (95.2%)

Jerry Palm Since Field Expanded to 68
2010-11: 35/37
2011-12: 35/37
2012-13: 36/37
2013-14: 35/36
2014-15: 35/36
2015-16: 34/36
2016-17: 36/36 (perfect)
2017-18: 35/36
2018-19: 35/36
2019-20: The Corona-2020
2020-21: 35/37
2021-22: 35/36
2022-23: 35/36
TOTALS: 421/436 (96.6%)

Joe Lunardi Since Field Expanded to 68
2010-11: 34/37
2011-12: 36/37
2012-13: 37/37 (perfect)
2013-14: 35/36
2014-15: 34/36
2015-16: 33/36
2016-17: 35/36
2017-18: 34/36
2018-19: 35/36
2019-20: The Corona-2020
2020-21: 36/37
2021-22: 35/36
2022-23: 35/36
TOTALS: 419/436 (96.1%)
Click to expand...
👍
 

Gophers7633 said:
That's false. NW beat Dayton. Nebraska won @KSU, Iowa beat Seton Hall, MSU beat Baylor, Indiana State and Butler. All those are Q1 or Q2 wins. Our best win is Maine(Q4).

For everyone complaining about the selection process, do any of you have a better idea? How would you determine who the "best teams" are?
Click to expand...
I'd select teams like they used to.

The top criteria, usually, would be conference record. Plus how you're playing towards the end of the year. Certainly beating a team you're tied with on the road or neutral court would be a tie-break. Non-conference record would also be a tie-break...but would only warrant leapfrogging in extreme cases.

Certainly NOTHING listed in your post warrants leapfrogging. Even the good wins listed were all balanced more-than-enough by other losses.

That's how I'd do it. Like they used to.
 

EasyThere Pilgrim said:
I'd select teams like they used to.

The top criteria, usually, would be conference record. Plus how you're playing towards the end of the year. Certainly beating a team you're tied with on the road or neutral court would be a tie-break. Non-conference record would also be a tie-break...but would only warrant leapfrogging in extreme cases.

Certainly NOTHING listed in your post warrants leapfrogging. Even the good wins listed were all balanced more-than-enough by other losses.

That's how I'd do it. Like they used to.
Click to expand...

Conference record has never mattered. And rightfully so, especially when conference schedules are so unbalanced these days.

I don't think you understand how truly awful our OOC schedule was. We always we're going to need to get to 12 conference wins because of it.

All of this doesn't matter though because we just got run by off our home court by a team that stinks.
 

EasyThere Pilgrim said:
I'd select teams like they used to.

The top criteria, usually, would be conference record. Plus how you're playing towards the end of the year. Certainly beating a team you're tied with on the road or neutral court would be a tie-break. Non-conference record would also be a tie-break...but would only warrant leapfrogging in extreme cases.

Certainly NOTHING listed in your post warrants leapfrogging. Even the good wins listed were all balanced more-than-enough by other losses.

That's how I'd do it. Like they used to.
Click to expand...

Honest questions, because I am curious - Let's imagine the Gophs win at NW and finish 10-10. Which you seem to have establish meets your criteria for inclusion in the NCAAT. Conference record is basically all that matters, need to take teams in order of conference finish, I think I'm basically understanding you correctly.


Now let's say their schedule had been just a little different this year. Instead of Penn St. and NW twice (4-0 against them in this case), we got Purdue and Illinois twice. Two of our wins become losses without playing any better or worse, but now we're 8-12 instead of 10-10. You presumably would not believe they warrant inclusion in that scenario, is that correct? More importantly, do you believe the fundamental quality of the team would have changed simply because their SOS became more difficult? And, if the quality of the team would not have changed, how would you reconcile your reliance on the shifting context in this instance while simultaneously ignoring any and all context in your arguments over what constitutes the "best teams?"

Thank you for your consideration
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom