OU a 12 seed per espn

[Max Power]

You are honestly trying to make the case that a team that went 6-12 in conference could make the tournament. This is a very strange hill to die on, and I'm guessing the only reason you're making the argument at all is because you know as well as I that this team isn't winning 3 more games so there is no way for you to be proven wrong.

I'm not sure 6-12 should earn a NIT bid, much less a NCAA bid

 

[SoonerBounce13]

100% yes

100% no.

All things the same but no trae young? OU isn't getting in

 

[61sooner]

Will OU even endup with a winning or even record to get into the NIT?

 

[Sooner81]

No way this team is getting in LOL. Wish we had a Trae this year, he’s the only thing that saved last years team.

 

[opsooner]

The only magic number left is the number 1. Will we win 1 more game?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelM]

100% no.

All things the same but no trae young? OU isn't getting in

Technically that isn't revisionist since a lot of people here were saying it at the time, but that doesn't make it less wrong. OU was 23rd in RPI with 6 good wins and no bad losses.

This year's team, meanwhile, has 3 good wins (Wofford, Florida, @NW). It's very much an uphill struggle to squeak in.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Technically that isn't revisionist since a lot of people here were saying it at the time, but that doesn't make it less wrong. OU was 23rd in RPI with 6 good wins and no bad losses.

This year's team, meanwhile, has 3 good wins (Wofford, Florida, @NW). It's very much an uphill struggle to squeak in.

https://herosports.com/ncaa-tournament/college-basketball-net-rankings-ahah

We have 8 wins against quads one and two, which compares favorably to many/most bubble teams. We obviously don't match the resumes of top teams, but if the conversation is simply getting in, our resume isn't as bad as many other teams. And the far right column matters -- we didn't play a single game against a quadrant four opponent.

None of it will mean anything if we continue to circle the drain, but for those who actually want to understand why we are still in the mix, this is a good place to start.

 

[NY Soonerfan]

https://herosports.com/ncaa-tournament/college-basketball-net-rankings-ahah

We have 8 wins against quads one and two, which compares favorably to many/most bubble teams. We obviously don't match the resumes of top teams, but if the conversation is simply getting in, our resume isn't as bad as many other teams. And the far right column matters -- we didn't play a single game against a quadrant four opponent.

None of it will mean anything if we continue to circle the drain, but for those who actually want to understand why we are still in the mix, this is a good place to start.

This is very well said. I think the point most people are missing is this projection is for TODAY and based on a season's worth of work; when viewed against a lot of bubble teams our resume isn't terrible and is probably better than most. And conference records are a tad overrated, when judged against the ENTIRE body of work.

Of course, we all know we're winning one, maybe two more games tops, and all of this will be completely moot and irrelevant come Selection Sunday...but right now, on February 12, the seeding makes perfect sense.

 

[soonermom1000]

we should beat W VA and Lose to : KS, IA ST, TCU, K-ST, TX

 

[BoulderSooner]

also of note that "recent play" ie last 10 12 whatever is not a criteria

also of note is the conf record is also not a criteria for the committee

 

[SoonerBounce13]

also of note that "recent play" ie last 10 12 whatever is not a criteria

also of note is the conf record is also not a criteria for the committee

they both should be imo.

I think if you had two team with the exact same schedule but one wins their first half of games and then loses the second half and the other team did the opposite, which team if the better team?

I think there is a strong argument to say that the team that is on the winning streak is the better team.

 

[WichitaSooner]

they both should be imo.

I think if you had two team with the exact same schedule but one wins their first half of games and then loses the second half and the other team did the opposite, which team if the better team?

I think there is a strong argument to say that the team that is on the winning streak is the better team.

Disagree. If you and I play a round of golf and both shoot the same score, does one of us get extra credit for being the guy with the better score on the back nine? Of course not. Hotter doesn't mean better.

As for conference record, it's hard to fairly consider that since some conferences are far better than others. And even within most leagues, teams don't play identical conference schedules. Plus, why are league games necessarily a better indicator of how good a team is? When KU and UK play in late January, a win in that game is clearly more impressive than a league win over a team at the bottom of their respective leagues. Also, if you overemphasize league record, that isn't much of an incentive for teams to play a good nonconference schedule. There is no perfect way to select the field, but I think most of the criteria make sense.

 

[WTSooner]

they both should be imo.

I think if you had two team with the exact same schedule but one wins their first half of games and then loses the second half and the other team did the opposite, which team if the better team?

I think there is a strong argument to say that the team that is on the winning streak is the better team.

Agreed. I think it should matter in a sport that spans about 5 months. Teams can get better. Teams can get worse.

 

[mict085]

they both should be imo.

I think if you had two team with the exact same schedule but one wins their first half of games and then loses the second half and the other team did the opposite, which team if the better team?

I think there is a strong argument to say that the team that is on the winning streak is the better team.

Completely disagree. If the first half of the season doesn’t matter, then why count wins/losses? The whole season should matter, not just the last 10

 

[WTSooner]

Completely disagree. If the first half of the season doesn’t matter, then why count wins/losses? The whole season should matter, not just the last 10

Nobody says it doesn't matter. But how a team is playing down the stretch should matter too, and in cases where teams have similar records or resumes, give me the team that has had the recent success over the team that has been flailing around for 2-3 months.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Nobody says it doesn't matter. But how a team is playing down the stretch should matter too, and in cases where teams have similar records or resumes, give me the team that has had the recent success over the team that has been flailing around for 2-3 months.

i don't disagree that is should matter ...


but the FACT is that it is not part of the selection criteria

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Completely disagree. If the first half of the season doesn’t matter, then why count wins/losses? The whole season should matter, not just the last 10

It's not that it doesn't matter but if you were given those two teams, which one would you rather play? The team that has lost 10 games in a row or the team that has won tens games in a row? And why?

 

[WichitaSooner]

It's not that it doesn't matter but if you were given those two teams, which one would you rather play? The team that has lost 10 games in a row or the team that has won tens games in a row? And why?

First off, I don't think you can find any examples this extreme -- in reality, when you are looking at bubble teams, it is more like one team finished 3-7 and the other 7-3. And in those kind of situations, I would rather play whichever team my team matched up better with. I honestly don't think there is much, if any, correlation between how a team finishes the regular season and how they do in the tourney. (Although I don't always remember this when filling out a bracket!)

 

[NY Soonerfan]

I think it should matter how you're playing late a bit more than how you play early, maybe 60-40 or something like that. Especially in this day and age of CBB, when tons of teams are filled with young rosters and have constant turnover, the adjustment time can be substantial, and therefore (in theory) you should be a better team late in the season than early in the season.

This clearly doesn't penetrate the polar vortex that is the Oklahoma men's basketball team (sorry, couldn't resist), but, I'd think most programs with young rosters and/or ones with an influx of new players will be better teams come March, as opposed to November-December. Villanova would be the prime example this year, with Kentucky in the mix too.

But, back to the original premise, no, it doesn't matter anymore, nor does conference record. Which is why we would have been a mortal lock at 7-11, though that ship long ago sailed.

 

[sperry]

Again: last year we were one of the last 5-8 teams in the tourney. This year's team would have had a significantly worse resume had they gone 7-11 in conference, unless you had put together some implausible scenario where after starting 3-7 our remaining 4 wins all happened to come against good teams.


The idea that we would have been a "mortal lock" at 7-11 is patently absurd.