Latest bracketology.....

[daqman]

this is from todays Athletic bubble watch and IMHO is very accurate for this team

Like I've been saying. They're "just ok".

 

[Sooner04]

It's a shrug team.

We should be expected to win on the road against the 8th and 9th place teams in the conference. We should lead for more than two of the 80 minutes in those games. They weren't close. They were asskickings.

That's not impressive. That's sad.

 

[steverocks35]

Quote:
Oklahoma (14-7, 4-4; NET: 49, SOS: 52): A loss at Kansas State, a home win over OSU: Oklahoma continues to be the Platonic ideal of an average, unremarkable college basketball team. The Sooners don’t win games you don’t expect them to win, and they rarely lose games you don’t expect them to lose. They are neither offensively flowing nor defensively stout, nor are they bad on either end of the floor. They just … are. It’s honestly kind of impressive. Anyway, they’ll probably be a No. 10 seed

It's those rare losses against bad teams that hurt our seeding and the fans' sanity lol.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Quote:
Oklahoma (14-7, 4-4; NET: 49, SOS: 52): A loss at Kansas State, a home win over OSU: Oklahoma continues to be the Platonic ideal of an average, unremarkable college basketball team. The Sooners don’t win games you don’t expect them to win, and they rarely lose games you don’t expect them to lose. They are neither offensively flowing nor defensively stout, nor are they bad on either end of the floor. They just … are. It’s honestly kind of impressive. Anyway, they’ll probably be a No. 10 seed

It's those rare losses against bad teams that hurt our seeding and the fans' sanity lol.

we will have 0 bad losses this season

 

[steverocks35]

we will have 0 bad losses this season

Yeah I know, no official "bad losses" but getting stomped at Iowa State, losing to both Wichita State and Creighton, as well as losing at Kansas State, are games that a lot of people expected us to win that we lost. Are there any games most people expected us to lose that we won? Maybe at Texas, Oregon State, or Minnesota? Not sure.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Yeah I know, no official "bad losses" but getting stomped at Iowa State, losing to both Wichita State and Creighton, as well as losing at Kansas State, are games that a lot of people expected us to win that we lost. Are there any games most people expected us to lose that we won? Maybe at Texas, Oregon State, or Minnesota? Not sure.

wichita state was a 5 point favorite

creighton was a 3.5 point favorite

ksu was a 1 point favorite

iowa st was a 3.5 point favorite

 

[steverocks35]

wichita state was a 5 point favorite

creighton was a 3.5 point favorite

ksu was a 1 point favorite

iowa st was a 3.5 point favorite

Yes, I'm aware, notice I did not say we were favored in those games. Did you expect us to lose all those games? I realize Vegas is amazing at guessing the outcomes of sporting contests, but many people, fans here and pundits, expected us to win a lot of those.

 

[Sooner04]

we will have 0 bad losses this season

Are you guaranteeing a win in Stillwater? What if we finish 7th in the standings and lose our opening game in the conference tournament to the worst team in the league?

 

[BoulderSooner]

Are you guaranteeing a win in Stillwater? What if we finish 7th in the standings and lose our opening game in the conference tournament to the worst team in the league?

losing in stillwater would be a Q2 loss ie not a bad loss

osu is currently the losest net team at 83 a Neutral site loss to them would also be a Q2 loss Ie not a bad loss ..

so i don't have guarantee a win in either case

 

[Sooner04]

This new system rewards mediocrity. By this "metric" O-State could go 1-17 in league play, with the lone victory being over Oklahoma in Stillwater, and that would not be considered a bad loss for the Sooners.

I'm not sure my rational brain can come to grips with that. When I see my team go on the road to the cellar dwellers and get worked over like Farmer Arbuckle's mule then I call it a bad loss. Maybe the new math only allows it to be a poor performance, or a blown opportunity, but I just don't see how that can be classed as anything but a bad loss.

 

[BoulderSooner]

This new system rewards mediocrity. By this "metric" O-State could go 1-17 in league play, with the lone victory being over Oklahoma in Stillwater, and that would not be considered a bad loss for the Sooners.

I'm not sure my rational brain can come to grips with that. When I see my team go on the road to the cellar dwellers and get worked over like Farmer Arbuckle's mule then I call it a bad loss. Maybe the new math only allows it to be a poor performance, or a blown opportunity, but I just don't see how that can be classed as anything but a bad loss.

osu also beat houston who is a tourney team ..

the net and the quad system is a fully unbiased look at who you played and where you played win or lose ..


like it or not it is the system the ncaa selection committee uses

 

[Max Power]

osu also beat houston who is a tourney team ..

the net and the quad system is a fully unbiased look at who you played and where you played win or lose ..


like it or not it is the system the ncaa selection committee uses

I wouldn't say fully unbiased. It does reward being in a power 5 conference. But there is no system i can think of that wouldn't do that. You simply have more games against the best competition so less chances for bad losses, more chances for good wins.

 

[BoulderSooner]

I wouldn't say fully unbiased. It does reward being in a power 5 conference. But there is no system i can think of that wouldn't do that. You simply have more games against the best competition so less chances for bad losses, more chances for good wins.

it doesn't reward being in a power 5 in rewards good schedules ...

the acc might only get 3 teams in this year

the sec and pac have been very bad for several years (pac is rebounding)

 

[stormspencer]

I wouldn't say fully unbiased. It does reward being in a power 5 conference. But there is no system i can think of that wouldn't do that. You simply have more games against the best competition so less chances for bad losses, more chances for good wins.

You're correct to a degree. The NET ranking system does have its flaws. Like you said, it tends to skew favorably more towards the Power 5/6 conference teams simply because they are going to be playing a more quality conference slate.....i.e a better "strength of schedule".

But here is the piece you can control. Knowing this above, you can then shrewdly leverage your non-conference schedule. OU has been very savvy in this respect. They have limited the number of "really bad teams" in their non-conference portion. They have also scheduled neutral court, winnable type games as well. All the while, you have most of the other teams beating cupcakes at home in a majority of their 12/13 non-conference games.

Some may like and some may hate it, but this is the current system and the OU scheduling team is playing the system like a fiddle. OU will not have a "bad loss" this year.....even though they have looked pretty bad on several occasions.

 

[Max Power]

You're correct to a degree. The NET ranking system does have its flaws. Like you said, it tends to skew favorably more towards the Power 5/6 conference teams simply because they are going to be playing a more quality conference slate.....i.e a better "strength of schedule".

But here is the piece you can control. Knowing this above, you can then shrewdly leverage your non-conference schedule. OU has been very savvy in this respect. They have limited the number of "really bad teams" in their non-conference portion. They have also scheduled neutral court, winnable type games as well. All the while, you have most of the other teams beating cupcakes at home in a majority of their 12/13 non-conference games.

Some may like and some may hate it, but this is the current system and the OU scheduling team is playing the system like a fiddle. OU will not have a "bad loss" this year.....even though they have looked pretty bad on several occasions.

Not a single thing here I disagree with, and I am glad Joe C saw the change coming from his time on the committee and relayed that info to Lon and we scheduled accordingly.

 

[Hollisp]

Same arguments we had last year. It doesn’t “reward mediocrity.”
Amazing

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[WTSooner]

You're correct to a degree. The NET ranking system does have its flaws. Like you said, it tends to skew favorably more towards the Power 5/6 conference teams simply because they are going to be playing a more quality conference slate.....i.e a better "strength of schedule".

But here is the piece you can control. Knowing this above, you can then shrewdly leverage your non-conference schedule. OU has been very savvy in this respect. They have limited the number of "really bad teams" in their non-conference portion. They have also scheduled neutral court, winnable type games as well. All the while, you have most of the other teams beating cupcakes at home in a majority of their 12/13 non-conference games.

Some may like and some may hate it, but this is the current system and the OU scheduling team is playing the system like a fiddle. OU will not have a "bad loss" this year.....even though they have looked pretty bad on several occasions.

Agreed. This is what I've pointed out the last few seasons. OU has bumped up the bottom of our schedule a bit, but not to the point where we're playing teams that have a realistic shot at beating us. But they are games that "look better" on paper. It's smoke and mirrors, but as you said, it's the way the system is set up now.

 

[skyvue]

Agreed. This is what I've pointed out the last few seasons. OU has bumped up the bottom of our schedule a bit, but not to the point where we're playing teams that have a realistic shot at beating us. But they are games that "look better" on paper. It's smoke and mirrors, but as you said, it's the way the system is set up now.

We haven't "bumped it up a bit." We've played a top 20 (if not top 10) schedule year after year after year. The TV guys covering our games mention this frequently.

Here's the breakdown of teams we've played (or will play) this season, based on today's NET rankings:

Top 10 (6) -- 19%
Top 25 (8) -- 26%
Top 50 (13) -- 42%
Top 75 (19) -- 61%
Top 100 (26) -- 84%
Teams ranked 101-200 (2) -- 6%
Teams ranked 201-300 (2) -- 6%
Teams ranked 301-353 (1) -- 3%

That's not gaming the system, that's a tough schedule, plain and simple. Any Top 100 team is to be taken seriously or you're just asking for an upset -- and 84% of our opponents are currently in the Top 100.

 

[BoulderSooner]

back to a 9 seed on ESPN.com

 

[Max Power]

10 seed on bracketmatrix, 1 bracket has us out, one has us as a 7. reset are 8-12s with an average seed of 9.64.

Minnesota and Mississippi State are in the first four out. Would help us if one or both of them played their way in to give us another win or two over a tournament team. Can never have to many of those