Bubble Watch catch all ..

[skyvue]

Also, there's a wide range in Q1 games. OU played eight conference games against two No. 1 seeds and a No. 3 seed that spent much of the season in the top 10; they also played a No. 2 seed in Auburn. I seriously doubt any of the other bubble teams did the same. I know Rutgers didn't.

 

[MJSooner]

How many other teams played that many Q1 games? (Honest question, I don't know the answer.)

Most Big XII teams had 14-17 games vs. Q1 opponents, as most of the league games were in Q1 or Q2. The most I believe I came across earlier today was 18 Q1 games by Tennessee. Kentucky I think had 16.

Interestingly, Texas was 5-10 in Q1 games, but had a better overall record and certainly more hype. IMO, Beard underachieved big-time with that roster this year.

 

[TINY]

Rutgers NET is right there with West Virginia and KSU. Must mean they suck, too.

Hah exactly, Wichita. Rutgers getting in was just a bad call by the committee.

Also, there's a wide range in Q1 games. OU played eight conference games against two No. 1 seeds and a No. 3 seed that spent much of the season in the top 10; they also played a No. 2 seed in Auburn. I seriously doubt any of the other bubble teams did the same. I know Rutgers didn't.

Absolutely true, Sky. This is a point that the metrics and especially kenpom measures better than the net and classic “eye test”. There are different levels of quad 1 and quad 2 teams within their quads. We played 7 or 8 top quartile quad 1 opponents this year at least.

 

[MercedeSooner]

Most Big XII teams had 14-17 games vs. Q1 opponents, as most of the league games were in Q1 or Q2. The most I believe I came across earlier today was 18 Q1 games by Tennessee. Kentucky I think had 16.

Interestingly, Texas was 5-10 in Q1 games, but had a better overall record and certainly more hype. IMO, Beard underachieved big-time with that roster this year.

I did not get the roster construction that Beard was able to achieve with the high level transfers that all were in similar positions. These guys were throwing away PT and stats for some hype and I assume $.

Definitely underachieved a ton with the amount of talent they had on the roster, especially considering he was running a senior backcourt out there. OU coulda used 1 of those guys like Bishop, Disu, Mitchell badly.

 

[TINY]

It’s crazy to me that ou gets penalized so much for losing games against top 10 teams. We played at least 9 games against top 10 teams (bu/tech x 3, ku x 2, auburn). We played a lot of those games tough and won several. Most teams in lesser conferences didn’t even play 1 game as difficult as those. It is so bogus to miss out of tourney to teams with garbage ass schedules that ou would have mopped the floor with.

 

[WichitaSooner]

It’s crazy to me that ou gets penalized so much for losing games against top 10 teams. We played at least 9 games against top 10 teams (bu/tech x 3, ku x 2, auburn). We played a lot of those games tough and won several. Most teams in lesser conferences didn’t even play 1 game as difficult as those. It is so bogus to miss out of tourney to teams with garbage ass schedules that ou would have mopped the floor with.

I think the committee has a tough job. I think they got it wrong on OU … the metrics say we should be in. But some teams from mid-major conferences don’t get the chance to play a lot of the big boys, and it’s tough to know how they would do if they had that chance. That said, the teams that edged us out for those final spots were mainly from power conferences that just weren’t very good this year. I think ND didn’t accomplish much outside of one big win. We had three wins against really good opponents.

One thing we can all hopefully agree on: Duke losing last night gives us one more reason to dislike Coach K and that program.

 

[OUSKINS]

I think the committee has a tough job. I think they got it wrong on OU … the metrics say we should be in. But some teams from mid-major conferences don’t get the chance to play a lot of the big boys, and it’s tough to know how they would do if they had that chance. That said, the teams that edged us out for those final spots were mainly from power conferences that just weren’t very good this year. I think ND didn’t accomplish much outside of one big win. We had three wins against really good opponents.

One thing we can all hopefully agree on: Duke losing last night gives us one more reason to dislike Coach K and that program.

Actually I’m glad Duke lost now because then we would have found out that the Richmond game bumped us out. And then I’d be going over that game in my head for the next year in addition to the 5-6 OU games decided on the final possession.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Actually I’m glad Duke lost now because then we would have found out that the Richmond game bumped us out. And then I’d be going over that game in my head for the next year in addition to the 5-6 OU games decided on the final possession.

Good point. Geez Davidson made a mess of that. I kept pleading for them to stop fouling, but it’s like the OU late-game stink infected them. You’re right, though; I can’t imagine how mad I’d be if Dayton had gotten the final spot instead of us.

Speaking of going over our close losses, for some reason the one I’m currently obsessing over is the Utah State game. Up six around the 4 minute mark, we had three straight possessions where Tanner, Mo, and Harkless took threes very early in the shot clock, followed by a careless turnover. Moser looked like he was ready to explode, and the only positive I took away from the game was the hope that we would learn a tough lesson in valuing possessions. For whatever reason, that lesson never really sunk in. We finished 331st in the nation in turnovers.

 

[TarheelstateSooner]

Good point. Geez Davidson made a mess of that. I kept pleading for them to stop fouling, but it’s like the OU late-game stink infected them. You’re right, though; I can’t imagine how mad I’d be if Dayton had gotten the final spot instead of us.

Speaking of going over our close losses, for some reason the one I’m currently obsessing over is the Utah State game. Up six around the 4 minute mark, we had three straight possessions where Tanner, Mo, and Harkless took threes very early in the shot clock, followed by a careless turnover. Moser looked like he was ready to explode, and the only positive I took away from the game was the hope that we would learn a tough lesson in valuing possessions. For whatever reason, that lesson never really sunk in. We finished 331st in the nation in turnovers.

I was there in dirty Myrtle for that one. Wasn't very happy. Will say cheap drinks though. 4 dollar beers. That helped.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Disagree



None of them are over .500 overall. If 5 of your 7 league wins are these guys, you didn't do enough.

league wins are no more important than a game in nov and December

 

[ICTSooner2]

Disagree



None of them are over .500 overall. If 5 of your 7 league wins are these guys, you didn't do enough.



Rutgers got rewarded for going 12-8 in the Big 10... OU went 7-11 in their league. Overall similar records, but they did way better in their league than OU did in the Big 12 and beat more good teams. The Rutgers thing is a no brainer.

They beat the following NCAA Tournament Teams:
Michigan (11 seed)
Purdue (3 seed)
Iowa (5 seed)
Michigan State (7 seed)
Ohio State (7 seed)
Wisconsin (3 seed)
Illinois (4 seed)
Indiana (12 seed)

OU beat the following NCAA Tournament Teams:
Baylor (1 seed)
Arkansas (4 seed)
Texas Tech (3 seed)
Iowa State (11 seed)

That's it.... So Rutgers finished 12-8 in a tough league, and beat double the amount of NCAA Tournament teams that OU did.

There may be other teams that we could compare to us and we’d objectively have to admit they are more worthy, but Rutgers is far from a no-brainer of being that team.

Their non-con losses were to Lafayette (net ranking 319!), UMass and DePaul. Their best non-con win was Clemson.

They did have some good wins in conference, but the fact that their record against the bottom of their conference (Nebraska, Minnesota, Penn St, Maryland and NW) was 4-4 should have also been looked at and netted against their good wins.

As someone pointed out above, Rutgers NET was below KSU. Why have the NET if they are not going to use it to provide some standardization of selection criteria? It’s supposed to measure performance of the whole season. Not saying it should be the only thing but certainly should be utilized more for the last 4 spots.

One thing that both Rutgers and Notre Dame enjoyed this year to help their win totals is the fact that they got 8 and 11 games against “trash” teams to inflate those totals. Out of their 22 wins overall, ND went 10-1 against NC St, Pitt, GA tech, BC, Louisville and Clemson. In the Big 12 you don’t get those opportunities in the same quantity - I guess WV was that lone opportunity this year yet they were #78 in the NET (one spot below Rutgers).

Both ND and Rutgers had less deserving metrics than OU. I guess OU needed one more win somewhere along the way for the eye test but did more than both of these teams if you judge the season as a whole.

 

[WichitaSooner]

There may be other teams that we could compare to us and we’d objectively have to admit they are more worthy, but Rutgers is far from a no-brainer of being that team.

Their non-con losses were to Lafayette (net ranking 319!), UMass and DePaul. Their best non-con win was Clemson.

They did have some good wins in conference, but the fact that their record against the bottom of their conference (Nebraska, Minnesota, Penn St, Maryland and NW) was 4-4 should have also been looked at and netted against their good wins.

As someone pointed out above, Rutgers NET was below KSU. Why have the NET if they are not going to use it to provide some standardization of selection criteria? It’s supposed to measure performance of the whole season. Not saying it should be the only thing but certainly should be utilized more for the last 4 spots.

One thing that both Rutgers and Notre Dame enjoyed this year to help their win totals is the fact that they got 8 and 11 games against “trash” teams to inflate those totals. Out of their 22 wins overall, ND went 10-1 against NC St, Pitt, GA tech, BC, Louisville and Clemson. In the Big 12 you don’t get those opportunities in the same quantity - I guess WV was that lone opportunity this year yet they were #78 in the NET (one spot below Rutgers).

Both ND and Rutgers had less deserving metrics than OU. I guess OU needed one more win somewhere along the way for the eye test but did more than both of these teams if you judge the season as a whole.

Very well said. I hope at some point, a member of the media will ask the committee chair to compare OU to those two teams, plus Michigan. Michigan is relevant based on the similarity of their record, both overall and against Q1/2.

 

[TINY]

Disagree



None of them are over .500 overall. If 5 of your 7 league wins are these guys, you didn't do enough.



Rutgers got rewarded for going 12-8 in the Big 10... OU went 7-11 in their league. Overall similar records, but they did way better in their league than OU did in the Big 12 and beat more good teams. The Rutgers thing is a no brainer.

They beat the following NCAA Tournament Teams:
Michigan (11 seed)
Purdue (3 seed)
Iowa (5 seed)
Michigan State (7 seed)
Ohio State (7 seed)
Wisconsin (3 seed)
Illinois (4 seed)
Indiana (12 seed)

OU beat the following NCAA Tournament Teams:
Baylor (1 seed)
Arkansas (4 seed)
Texas Tech (3 seed)
Iowa State (11 seed)

That's it.... So Rutgers finished 12-8 in a tough league, and beat double the amount of NCAA Tournament teams that OU did.

Worst at large selection of all time confirmed.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BiggerTen/status/1503170482543239175?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1503170482543239175%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

 

[thebigabd]

Anytime I see fans talking about KenPom, NET, SOS, etc I just think.... "those are loser metrics"... Not that the person talking about them is a loser, but it just means you aren't winning enough games and trying to justify your worth for the NCAA Tournament. Winning teams (which we haven't been in a long time, we've been on the fringe for years) have to go to these kinds of metrics because their case just isn't clear cut.

Using Rutgers as an example.... the bottom line is, they beat double the amount of NCAA Tournament teams that OU did, and finished 12-8 in their league... Regardless of NET, KenPOM, SOS, and all those other attempts to justify value, that's the bottom line.

To make OU comparable to Rutgers, OU would have had to do the following:

OU beat the following NCAA Tournament Teams:
Baylor (1 seed)
Arkansas (4 seed)
Texas Tech (3 seed)
Iowa State (11 seed)
TCU (9 seed)
Texas (6 seed)
Iowa State again (11 seed)
TCU again (9 seed)

Rutgers average NCAA seed that the beat was 6.5.... The above scenario puts OU in that same range with Rutgers... But look at how much better OU would have to do to MATCH what Auburn did in terms of number of NCAA Tournament teams they beat.

If OU does those things, you are talking about a 5-7 seed probably.

Rutgers got a crap seed because of their non-con performance, but they got rewarded for beating 8 NCAA Tournament (to OU's 4) and for finishing 12-8 in their league.

It's fair.

 

[allday92]

Anytime I see fans talking about KenPom, NET, SOS, etc I just think.... "those are loser metrics"... Not that the person talking about them is a loser, but it just means you aren't winning enough games and trying to justify your worth for the NCAA Tournament. Winning teams (which we haven't been in a long time, we've been on the fringe for years) have to go to these kinds of metrics because their case just isn't clear cut.

Using Rutgers as an example.... the bottom line is, they beat double the amount of NCAA Tournament teams that OU did, and finished 12-8 in their league... Regardless of NET, KenPOM, SOS, and all those other attempts to justify value, that's the bottom line.

To make OU comparable to Rutgers, OU would have had to do the following:

OU beat the following NCAA Tournament Teams:
Baylor (1 seed)
Arkansas (4 seed)
Texas Tech (3 seed)
Iowa State (11 seed)
TCU (9 seed)
Texas (6 seed)
Iowa State again (11 seed)
TCU again (9 seed)

Rutgers average NCAA seed that the beat was 6.5.... The above scenario puts OU in that same range with Rutgers... But look at how much better OU would have to do to MATCH what Auburn did in terms of number of NCAA Tournament teams they beat.

If OU does those things, you are talking about a 5-7 seed probably.

Rutgers got a crap seed because of their non-con performance, but they got rewarded for beating 8 NCAA Tournament (to OU's 4) and for finishing 12-8 in their league.

It's fair.

None of your arguments make sense. If Rutgers and OU were in the same conference, sure, you'd have a point. The Big 10 was the 4th best conference this year by RPI. You need advanced metrics, KenPom, NET to be able to accurately compare teams across different conferences who have different schedules. What's to say OU doesn't have a better record against the tournament teams Rutger's played?

 

[OrlandoSooner]

Rutgers is the easy one to point to due to their schedule and their losses to lower rated teams. They have a strange resume. Anytime there is a level of subjectivity, there will be disagreement.

I told my buddies 3 weeks ago that OU was good enough to be in the tourney, but hadn't been able to close out games and that would cost us. At that time I was OK with it, because I expected the Harkless injury to make us worse and we hadn't been playing great.

What stings today is the fact that we ended the season with a streak of wins, but more importantly to me, looked much better overall. I'm more disappointed today than I would have expected 3 weeks ago.

 

[cowboysooner]

Reasonable minds can differ on this issue. I guess I side with Big on this one. The way I feel about it, and always have, is that if you are on the bubble then you just get what you get and don't have a complaint. We put ourselves at the mercy of the committee, and they have a tough job.

All in all, I am pleased with Moser and the team for the first year and am optimistic that we are going in the right direction. So, onward to the NIT.

Speaking of the NIT, i am all in for playing and don't agree with anyone that says we shouldn't play. More games just means a few more practices, but more than that, it means tournament experiance that is hard to come by.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Rutgers is the easy one to point to due to their schedule and their losses to lower rated teams. They have a strange resume. Anytime there is a level of subjectivity, there will be disagreement.

I told my buddies 3 weeks ago that OU was good enough to be in the tourney, but hadn't been able to close out games and that would cost us. At that time I was OK with it, because I expected the Harkless injury to make us worse and we hadn't been playing great.

What stings today is the fact that we ended the season with a streak of wins, but more importantly to me, looked much better overall. I'm more disappointed today than I would have expected 3 weeks ago.

Yeah, after the game at Tech, in particular, we seemed so far away from a bid that I no longer had any expectations. The last two weeks changed that.

As for Harkless, I certainly am not glad he got hurt, but there is little doubt we played much better offensively without him. We can only hope that he learned the necessary lesson from this season and comes back next year with a better understanding of his strengths and weaknesses. I hope he can improve his handles and passing, but those will never be strengths. Just make the simple plays. don't try to do too much, and make a fair percentage of open shots. Combine that with great defense, and you have a very helpful player.

 

[ICTSooner2]

Anytime I see fans talking about KenPom, NET, SOS, etc I just think.... "those are loser metrics"... Not that the person talking about them is a loser, but it just means you aren't winning enough games and trying to justify your worth for the NCAA Tournament. Winning teams (which we haven't been in a long time, we've been on the fringe for years) have to go to these kinds of metrics because their case just isn't clear cut.

Using Rutgers as an example.... the bottom line is, they beat double the amount of NCAA Tournament teams that OU did, and finished 12-8 in their league... Regardless of NET, KenPOM, SOS, and all those other attempts to justify value, that's the bottom line.

To make OU comparable to Rutgers, OU would have had to do the following:

OU beat the following NCAA Tournament Teams:
Baylor (1 seed)
Arkansas (4 seed)
Texas Tech (3 seed)
Iowa State (11 seed)
TCU (9 seed)
Texas (6 seed)
Iowa State again (11 seed)
TCU again (9 seed)

Rutgers average NCAA seed that the beat was 6.5.... The above scenario puts OU in that same range with Rutgers... But look at how much better OU would have to do to MATCH what Auburn did in terms of number of NCAA Tournament teams they beat.

If OU does those things, you are talking about a 5-7 seed probably.

Rutgers got a crap seed because of their non-con performance, but they got rewarded for beating 8 NCAA Tournament (to OU's 4) and for finishing 12-8 in their league.

It's fair.

NET is the objective way to rank teams - not merely picking out good wins and ignoring bad losses.

We had the same number of wins as Rutgers. Say OU beat TCU (2), TX and ISU to get those NCAA tourney team wins that you are valuing above everything else. OU could have offset this additional wins with a loss against WV and KSU, as well as a loss to UTSA (comparable to Lafayette) and maybe Florida and still made the tournament with 18 wins? I would question our inclusion into the tournament with that resume.

Edit: question that just came to me after hitting submit - if we beat ISU again, are they in the field thus taking 2 wins away from tournament teams?

 

[skyvue]

Rutgers got a crap seed because of their non-con performance, but they got rewarded for beating 8 NCAA Tournament (to OU's 4) and for finishing 12-8 in their league.

It's fair.

Here are some cherries you opted not to pick.

OU played just four conference games against teams with a sub .500 record. They were 4-0 against those teams.

Rutgers got to play twice as many such games, but they only went 4-4.

OU played seven conference games against teams that are seeded three or higher in the tourney, nearly twice as many as Rutgers (which played no team that is seeded higher than a 3) and Rutgers played twice as many conference teams with a sub .500 season record as OU.

So Rutgers had an easier task in conference than did OU. The Big 10 got a number of teams in the tourney that likely would not have made it in if they'd played in the Big 12: Ohio State, Michigan (who was certainly no more deserving than OU of a bid) and certainly Indiana and Rutgers.

You can pooh-pooh metrics all you like but the NET is the one the committee uses, and Rutgers has a historically low NET ranking for an at-large team. And it's not just for their non-conference losses. It's for the overall strength of their conference, which was good but not great, and for their four losses to Big 10 teams with losing records.