Bubble Watch catch all ..

[TINY]

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?

Exactly. The metrics don’t care what conference you play in. The committee clearly did care which conference you play in. The metrics don’t evaluate teams as “in the tournament field” or “not in the tournament”, because humans are doing the tournament selections and using extreme bias in some cases. The metrics evaluate each team based on its results, not “eye test”. The year’s committee did a very poor job, because they didn’t use the metrics like they had been since 1993. They let their own biases determine the field of teams.

 

[thebigabd]

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.

I am not picking cherries at all... In fact, my argument is inherently anti-cherry picking. I am saying once you are on the fringe (like OU is), then you have to start cherry picking metrics to try and build a case because you didn't do enough to be an obvious choice.

When you aren't an obvious choice.... it looks a lot better to be 12-8 in your league with 8 wins against NCAA Tournament teams than being 7-11 with 4 wins against NCAA Tournament teams. Regardless of NET, SOS, KenPOM, and how the team performed on games before 3pm on Saturdays, or weeknight games where the outside temp was between 33-45 degrees Fahrenheit, etc.

They beat double the amount of good teams than OU did, and finished 12-8 in a P5 league. It's not that difficult to see.

My point here is you guys are deep diving into the spreadsheets because OU doesn't have an obvious case like that.

 

[TINY]

I am not picking cherries at all... In fact, my argument is inherently anti-cherry picking. I am saying once you are on the fringe (like OU is), then you have to start cherry picking metrics to try and build a case because you didn't do enough to be an obvious choice.

When you aren't an obvious choice.... it looks a lot better to be 12-8 in your league with 8 wins against NCAA Tournament teams than being 7-11 with 4 wins against NCAA Tournament teams. Regardless of NET, SOS, KenPOM, and how the team performed on games before 3pm on Saturdays, or weeknight games where the outside temp was between 33-45 degrees Fahrenheit, etc.

They beat double the amount of good teams than OU did, and finished 12-8 in a P5 league. It's not that difficult to see.

My point here is you guys are deep diving into the spreadsheets because OU doesn't have an obvious case like that.

You are 100% cherry picking. You (or the committee) are saying that the record against a group of perceived tournament teams is the pivotal stat to look at to evaluate which bubble team is better. Why limit it to that single stat when The metrics have already baked all of this data in (as well as the rest of the statistical data from the season)? The metrics were telling us which teams are more deserving, but they were not valued much by this committee.

 

[skyvue]

My point here is you guys are deep diving into the spreadsheets because OU doesn't have an obvious case like that.

You're choosing your own metrics of preference, which is fine--most of us are guilty of it at times--but you rarely if ever cop to it.

Rutgers had much worse losses than OU did; you ignore that.

Rutgers played in an easier conference than OU did; that doesn't fit your argument, so you refuse to acknowledge it.

You cite wins over tourney teams as if all tourney teams are equal; you know they're not, but you persist anyway because it helps your argument.

That is cherry-picking.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I am not picking cherries at all... In fact, my argument is inherently anti-cherry picking. I am saying once you are on the fringe (like OU is), then you have to start cherry picking metrics to try and build a case because you didn't do enough to be an obvious choice.

When you aren't an obvious choice.... it looks a lot better to be 12-8 in your league with 8 wins against NCAA Tournament teams than being 7-11 with 4 wins against NCAA Tournament teams. Regardless of NET, SOS, KenPOM, and how the team performed on games before 3pm on Saturdays, or weeknight games where the outside temp was between 33-45 degrees Fahrenheit, etc.

They beat double the amount of good teams than OU did, and finished 12-8 in a P5 league. It's not that difficult to see.

My point here is you guys are deep diving into the spreadsheets because OU doesn't have an obvious case like that.

Of course people cite to various metrics. No one here is suggesting OU should have been a top 8 seed. The question is whether they belonged in the field, and the NET was designed precisely to sort teams with otherwise similar profiles.

 

[BoulderSooner]

They beat double the amount of good teams than OU did

this is not an accurate statement

 

[thebigabd]

You are 100% cherry picking. You (or the committee) are saying that the record against a group of perceived tournament teams is the pivotal stat to look at to evaluate which bubble team is better.

By "perceived" do you mean actual teams that actually made the NCAA Tournament? That is what I am citing. They beat 8 teams in the field, OU beat 4. Nothing perceived about it. They were 12-8 in a P5 league. OU was 7-11 in a P5 league. Nothing perceived about it.

Is that what you meant?

You're choosing your own metrics of preference, which is fine--most of us are guilty of it at times--but you rarely if ever cop to it.

Rutgers had much worse losses than OU did; you ignore that.

Rutgers played in an easier conference than OU did; that doesn't fit your argument, so you refuse to acknowledge it.

You cite wins over tourney teams as if all tourney teams are equal; you know they're not, but you persist anyway because it helps your argument.

That is cherry-picking.

I am not referencing metrics.... Even here, you bring up easier schedule, rankings of teams they beat, etc. I didn't bring those things up. I am simply stating the reason they are in is because they beat 8 NCAA Tournament teams and finished 12-8 in their league. Period. End of story. They had a better season than OU did, and they are in the field and OU isn't.

All the other "fringe metrics" don't matter. They had a more obvious case for inclusion because they had more good wins. OU didn't have an obvious case... Thus the need for fringe metrics to try and create one.

I certainly acknowledge they lost to some CRAP teams... a 10-20 Lafayette team. a 15-16 Depaul team.. a 15-18 UMASS team.

But OU lost to a 13-20 Butler team... to a 16-13 Utah State team... to a 15-15 Oklahoma State team.. and didn't beat 8 teams in the field of 68 like they did.

Is there a better example of a team that got in over OU than Rutgers? Because this Rutgers thing is cut and dry.

 

[allday92]

By "perceived" do you mean actual teams that actually made the NCAA Tournament? That is what I am citing. They beat 8 teams in the field, OU beat 4. Nothing perceived about it. They were 12-8 in a P5 league. OU was 7-11 in a P5 league. Nothing perceived about it.

Is that what you meant?



I am not referencing metrics.... Even here, you bring up easier schedule, rankings of teams they beat, etc. I didn't bring those things up. I am simply stating the reason they are in is because they beat 8 NCAA Tournament teams and finished 12-8 in their league. Period. End of story. They had a better season than OU did, and they are in the field and OU isn't.

All the other "fringe metrics" don't matter. They had a more obvious case for inclusion because they had more good wins. OU didn't have an obvious case... Thus the need for fringe metrics to try and create one.

I certainly acknowledge they lost to some CRAP teams... a 10-20 Lafayette team. a 15-16 Depaul team.. a 15-18 UMASS team.

But OU lost to a 13-20 Butler team... to a 16-13 Utah State team... to a 15-15 Oklahoma State team.. and didn't beat 8 teams in the field of 68 like they did.

Is there a better example of a team that got in over OU than Rutgers? Because this Rutgers thing is cut and dry.

What about Wyoming?

NET: OU (39)/Wyoming (50)
KenPom: OU (30)/Wyoming (58)
SOS: OU (4)/Wyoming (89)

Wins vs NCAA Tournament teams (your gold standard metric): OU (8)/Wyoming (3)

 

[WichitaSooner]

By "perceived" do you mean actual teams that actually made the NCAA Tournament? That is what I am citing. They beat 8 teams in the field, OU beat 4. Nothing perceived about it. They were 12-8 in a P5 league. OU was 7-11 in a P5 league. Nothing perceived about it.

Is that what you meant?



I am not referencing metrics.... Even here, you bring up easier schedule, rankings of teams they beat, etc. I didn't bring those things up. I am simply stating the reason they are in is because they beat 8 NCAA Tournament teams and finished 12-8 in their league. Period. End of story. They had a better season than OU did, and they are in the field and OU isn't.

All the other "fringe metrics" don't matter. They had a more obvious case for inclusion because they had more good wins. OU didn't have an obvious case... Thus the need for fringe metrics to try and create one.

I certainly acknowledge they lost to some CRAP teams... a 10-20 Lafayette team. a 15-16 Depaul team.. a 15-18 UMASS team.

But OU lost to a 13-20 Butler team... to a 16-13 Utah State team... to a 15-15 Oklahoma State team.. and didn't beat 8 teams in the field of 68 like they did.

Is there a better example of a team that got in over OU than Rutgers? Because this Rutgers thing is cut and dry.

You complain about metrics while citing things like conference record and conference affiliation … neither of which matter. Par for the course.

 

[ICTSooner2]

I certainly acknowledge they lost to some CRAP teams... a 10-20 Lafayette team. a 15-16 Depaul team.. a 15-18 UMASS team.

But OU lost to a 13-20 Butler team... to a 16-13 Utah State team... to a 15-15 Oklahoma State team.. and didn't beat 8 teams in the field of 68 like they did.

Is there a better example of a team that got in over OU than Rutgers? Because this Rutgers thing is cut and dry.

You put OSU in for us, but exclude Rutgers losses to:
14-17 Penn St
13-17 Minnesota
15-16 Northwestern
15-17 Maryland

Hardly cut and dry...

Soon enough we will get to reap the rewards of playing in a conference like the big 10 - top heavy (very tough at the top) and get to play Ole Miss, Mississippi St, Georgia, Missouri, Vanderbilt and South Carolina to help pad our win totals.

 

[TINY]

By "perceived" do you mean actual teams that actually made the NCAA Tournament? That is what I am citing. They beat 8 teams in the field, OU beat 4. Nothing perceived about it. They were 12-8 in a P5 league. OU was 7-11 in a P5 league. Nothing perceived about it.

Is that what you meant?

In other words the tournament field is the committee’s perception of what constitutes a worthy tournament team, but I don’t agree with their opinion in several cases. I think teams like ou and a&m should be tournament teams and many others agree with me. Xavier, Dayton have better resumes than Rutgers, as well. The committee used the eye ball test and picked 9 teams from the 4th toughest conference.

Another reason why your metric is not the most significant is because there are 32 AQs in the tournament field. A lot of those AQs probably wouldnt even win a single game in the big12.

The net, kenpom, rpi are just a much better way to evaluate teams with unequal schedules. The previous 27 or so committees agree with me.

 

[WTSooner]

Some of you need to realize there are a lot of parts to this. What ends up being the determining factor in comparing one set of teams, may not be the same factor that separates two others. Same argument gets made for the 4th CFP team every year. I hear people argue "that wasn't what was important last year." No. Different fact sets require different paths to evaluating teams.

OU certainly has some good, but we have plenty of bad. Our record. Our Big 12 record. Our Big 12 record against teams in the NCAA Tourney. They could have held losing Harkless against us. Point is, you can't just look at the same criteria across the board and get mad. It's the entire puzzle that matters. Sometimes both teams have the same piece A and piece B. Sometimes piece A is different. It's not the same path.

 

[thebigabd]

What about Wyoming?

NET: OU (39)/Wyoming (50)
KenPom: OU (30)/Wyoming (58)
SOS: OU (4)/Wyoming (89)

Wins vs NCAA Tournament teams (your gold standard metric): OU (8)/Wyoming (3)

OU did not win 8 games against NCAA Tournament teams. They won 4.

OU in over Wyoming is certainly a better case than Rutgers. They didn't win the MWC tournament. They only beat 2 or 3 NCAA Tournament teams...

The committee must think Wyoming is a better team. The metrics are designed to help them make the decision but clearly they aren't forced to comply with them.

I usually make this argument when its not OU we are talking about.. Usually talking about some other 17-14 USC kind of team that got in when a 28-4 mid major didn't get in. My personal preference is to always reward the 28-4 mid-major over the average P5 team. It's better for the tournament, in my opinion.

We will see what happens against Indiana... If they get trashed that pick won't look good... especially since OU lost a bunch of games against top 3 seeds by like 1 point.

 

[mict085]

TheBigabd is a strange OU fan. He’s always running down our recruiting and rarely gives props to the program. Yet, he always praises osu and others way more than OU. Not to mention all the juco players we should be signing and the Frank haith fiasco. What gives?

 

[152219]

Figured out a long time ago that those who poo-poo metrics are those that don't understand math.

 

[hoopsaustin]

TheBigabd is a strange OU fan. He’s always running down our recruiting and rarely gives props to the program. Yet, he always praises osu and others way more than OU. Not to mention all the juco players we should be signing and the Frank haith fiasco. What gives?

Just likes to be devil's advocate IMO. He means well, just a goober.

 

[dksooner]

Just likes to be devil's advocate IMO. He means well, just a goober.

Haha

 

[WichitaSooner]

So back on the topic of which bracketologists are most accurate. The matrix has a ranking system based on how many teams you correctly project out of the 68, plus how many you seed properly and how many you seed within one of their actual seed line. The vast majority end get all but a couple teams right, so what separates them is how many they seed correctly. This year, more than 150 sites beat Lunardi.

I’m not saying he’s bad, just that he isn’t the gold standard. He just has the biggest platform.

 

[thebigabd]

OU got totally screwed.... They should have been a lock! The NET, KenPOM, etc.. The schedule was insanely hard, and they beat 4 good teams.

 

[TINY]

So back on the topic of which bracketologists are most accurate. The matrix has a ranking system based on how many teams you correctly project out of the 68, plus how many you seed properly and how many you seed within one of their actual seed line. The vast majority end get all but a couple teams right, so what separates them is how many they seed correctly. This year, more than 150 sites beat Lunardi.

I’m not saying he’s bad, just that he isn’t the gold standard. He just has the biggest platform.

I’ll say it, he is pretty bad.