Big Ten is Suffering this year

Donate To GopherHole



Yeah but with MSU likely improving, Northwestern and Maryland returning a lot as well as us I like the chances that next year is the year they drop out of the top 4. that's not even talking about Purdue or Iowa
 

Holy Man said:
And a horrible no call in their direction. Carolina guy bowls over an Arkansas guy to give them a three point lead with about 1:30 to go. Refs have had a really bad tournament so far.
Click to expand...

The thing with that play is that even if you let the foul go, then it was an obvious and unmistakable travel. You can't ignore both. Just such a trash play at the key moment of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


KillmeNow said:
Most in here, if not all, are NOT saying Minnesota is/was better than Minnesota, although I suspect some believe they WERE before Springs went down. I'm one of those people.

But what we ARE saying, is that Minnesota's NCAA tourney Resume was BETTER than Wisconsin's, and why they got the #5 and Wisconsin only got an #8.

And there can not be any denying that Minnesota's NCAA tourney resume was better than Wisconsin's, and the NCAA Selection Committee apparently agreed, and it wasn't even close, a #5 to an #8.
Click to expand...

That is all I'm saying. If you are going to be captive to your narrative which is wrong. RPI is not a good way to determine seeds. It comes down to the difference in the records of the crappy teams that Minny played (200+rpi), vs. the crappy teams Wisconsin played (200+rpi) was better. The committee picked and chose what criteria was important to them. They for some reason chose to use RPI in seeding when its only real value is a a more general tool used to find a cut-off line on who is in the tourney and who is out. They mistakenly used RPI to determine seeds.
 

GopherHoopsFan said:
To this point, it made me very happy to watch Trice struggle mightily against Villanova's pressure. The future looks iffy in Madison...
Click to expand...

How many times have we said that in the last decade? Until they prove they don't have reinforcements on the bench when they lose seniors, I am not going to believe it. From afar, it looks like our two Minnesota kids going there are in a nice position to get a lot of playing time as freshmen next year, which is pretty rare at Wisconsin.
 

Both Gophers and Badgers should have been 6 seeds

Bigeddysprings said:
That is all I'm saying. If you are going to be captive to your narrative which is wrong. RPI is not a good way to determine seeds. It comes down to the difference in the records of the crappy teams that Minny played (200+rpi), vs. the crappy teams Wisconsin played (200+rpi) was better. The committee picked and chose what criteria was important to them. They for some reason chose to use RPI in seeding when its only real value is a a more general tool used to find a cut-off line on who is in the tourney and who is out. They mistakenly used RPI to determine seeds.
Click to expand...

I would agree the Gophers were 1 seed too high. I thought their resume was a rock-solid 6.

I also would agree the Badgers were seeded too low. A 6 would have been perfect, but certainly not worthy of 5.

In my opinion the reason the committee liked the Gophers' resume is really pretty simple. ... the quality of their road/neutral wins and their record vs. the field. The Gophers had 3 road wins (Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland) and 2 neutral-site wins (Vanderbilt, Michigan State) over NCAA qualifiers. 5 such wins is a significant number. The Badgers had 2 road wins (Marquette, Gophers) and 1 neutral-site win (Northwestern) over NCAA qualifiers.

The Gophers were 8-7 vs. the NCAA field, with 3 of those wins (yes, 1 was Mount Saint Mary's) coming in non-conference play. The Badgers were 6-7 vs. the NCAA field, with 1 (Marquette) coming in non-conference play.

The Gophers were 5-6 vs. B1G teams that qualified for the NCAA Tournament, while the Badgers were 5-5.

The reality is, the Gophers/Badgers resumes were eerily similar. Where the Badgers should have moved up (relative to the Gophers), obviously, is their sweep of the Gophers. I think both being 6 seeds would have made the most sense. But that's a moot point, it worked out well for the Badgers, not so well for the Gophers. In hindsight knowing the first-round pairings, I would have traded Middle Tennessee for Virginia Tech any day of the week.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom