Selection Sunday with reactions

TEvans4Three said:
Hindsight, but overall SOS also matters.
Click to expand...
Not hindsight at all. Been known for years. We have had the discussion on this board many times over the years. Every coach has known how to work the noncon schedule for NET purposes for many years. When Moser put together our schedule, he know seven or eight teams would be near the bottom of the NET. I don’t know if he didn’t think we could handle a slightly tougher schedule, or if he had some other reason, but it’s a choice he made with full knowledge of how NET works. And coincidentally, the same approach is probably the one thing that will keep Iowa State from getting the last one seed.
 
Fanduel....

image
 
WichitaSooner said:
Not hindsight at all. Been known for years. We have had the discussion on this board many times over the years. Every coach has known how to work the noncon schedule for NET purposes for many years. When Moser put together our schedule, he know seven or eight teams would be near the bottom of the NET. I don’t know if he didn’t think we could handle a slightly tougher schedule, or if he had some other reason, but it’s a choice he made with full knowledge of how NET works. And coincidentally, the same approach is probably the one thing that will keep Iowa State from getting the last one seed.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is absolutely is hindsight. He was assigned one q1 based off of end of season results to help sway his opinion.

You can't say, 'welp should have scheduled more q1!' after the season when we had potential for 3 or 4 q1 games. The teams we played just didn't perform. Usc was a top 25 team at the time.

We have debated this ad nauseum, we know where we stand. But to schedule a tough as balls OOC with the gauntlet of big12 is just idiotic from a coaching standpoint unless you know you are a top15 team... We aren't.

You think an 18-14 OU team makes it in with an OOC loss to Purdue and Arizona? No. We wouldn't be a bubble team without the added wins.
 
OU deserves to be in ahead of FAU, for sure but we are trending in the wrong direction.
 
TEvans4Three said:
Yes, it is absolutely is hindsight. He was assigned one q1 based off of end of season results to help sway his opinion.

You can't say, 'welp should have scheduled more q1!' after the season when we had potential for 3 or 4 q1 games. The teams we played just didn't perform. Usc was a top 25 team at the time.

We have debated this ad nauseum, we know where we stand. But to schedule a tough as balls OOC with the gauntlet of big12 is just idiotic from a coaching standpoint unless you know you are a top15 team... We aren't.

You think an 18-14 OU team makes it in with an OOC loss to Purdue and Arizona? No. We wouldn't be a bubble team without the added wins.
Click to expand...
You can schedule Q1 games without scheduling top 15 teams. Pick any of those Q4 games at home against nobodies and convert a few of those to Q2 or bottom Q1 games. There is no defending the OOC scheduling practice that OU and others have adopted. If NET can be "gamed" that easily, it's not a very good measurement tool IMO.
 
TEvans4Three said:
Yes, it is absolutely is hindsight. He was assigned one q1 based off of end of season results to help sway his opinion.

You can't say, 'welp should have scheduled more q1!' after the season when we had potential for 3 or 4 q1 games. The teams we played just didn't perform. Usc was a top 25 team at the time.

We have debated this ad nauseum, we know where we stand. But to schedule a tough as balls OOC with the gauntlet of big12 is just idiotic from a coaching standpoint unless you know you are a top15 team... We aren't.

You think an 18-14 OU team makes it in with an OOC loss to Purdue and Arizona? No. We wouldn't be a bubble team without the added wins.
Click to expand...
Again, you continue to misrepresent the argument. I have never said we should have played a bunch of Q1 teams. We aren’t Kansas … we would get killed doing that. What we should have done is only play 4 Q4 games max. Replace the others with teams in the 150 to 200 range. You act like it’s a novel concept. It’s exactly what we did a few years ago. Follow the exact same blueprint that got us in the tournament comfortably a couple times despite less than impressive conference records.
 
stormspencer said:
Yes there always seems to be at least one surprise. My guess is that Seton Hall gets in (not St. John's) and A*M gets left out.
Click to expand...
When I looked at FAU more closely yesterday, I was surprised to see that they didn’t have as many impressive wins as I thought. Arizona is a huge win and obviously far exceeds anything we did in noncon, but man that had awful losses and not many other great wins. I’m sure there is a reason there NET is so high, but I haven’t looked into all the metrics to see what it is.
 
mict085 said:
OU deserves to be in ahead of FAU, for sure but we are trending in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

Truth is, we don’t know what direction we are trending. We know that ALL team in the discussion landed on more shaky ground once the bid thieves arrived, but we do NOT know where we were slotted to start.

If OU winds up in the field, but NOT in Dayton, it means like Wichita, myself, and others were 100% wrong and OU WAS indeed a lock all along. If they are out, then obviously we were right.

Gray area will be if they are in Dayton. The committee may or may not reveal exactly where they landed in that seeding. If it’s the last team in, then again; they were never a lock. If it’s the first team out of the bye, they honestly were probably virtually a lock all along and barely got bumped to Dayton with all of the upsets.
 
OUSKINS said:
Truth is, we don’t know what direction we are trending. We know that ALL team in the discussion landed on more shaky ground once the bid thieves arrived, but we do NOT know where we were slotted to start.

If OU winds up in the field, but NOT in Dayton, it means like Wichita, myself, and others were 100% wrong and OU WAS indeed a lock all along. If they are out, then obviously we were right.

Gray area will be if they are in Dayton. The committee may or may not reveal exactly where they landed in that seeding. If it’s the last team in, then again; they were never a lock. If it’s the first team out of the bye, they honestly were probably virtually a lock all along and barely got bumped to Dayton with all of the upsets.
Click to expand...
I think they always reveal the exact seed list, plus the first four out, during or shortly after the show, so we will know precisely where we fell. And you’re right, those of us on each side of the discussion will either look brilliant or foolish — nothing new for any of us lol.
 
WichitaSooner said:
Again, you continue to misrepresent the argument. I have never said we should have played a bunch of Q1 teams. We aren’t Kansas … we would get killed doing that. What we should have done is only play 4 Q4 games max. Replace the others with teams in the 150 to 200 range. You act like it’s a novel concept. It’s exactly what we did a few years ago. Follow the exact same blueprint that got us in the tournament comfortably a couple times despite less than impressive conference records.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can play 3 or so crap teams, but remove the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel teams like Ark-Pine Bluff and Mississippi Valley States from the schedule and replace them with so/so mid majors or decent lower majors. As an example this year, play more teams like Monmouth or Texas State in the non-con. And even more specifically, play teams that are more regional like UTA, Tarleton State, Wichita State, Tulsa, and Arkansas State. That's the type of scheduling that could potentially really improve our NET next year.

And in all fairness, no one anticipated that USC and Arkie would fall off of a cliff this year.....just bad luck that those teams ended up sucking.
 
Funny how 2 buckets separate us from edge of the bubble from a 7-8 seed. I personally won’t be surprised with any option although feel we are in. We left it up to nearly random chance. At least its exciting lol.
 
WichitaSooner said:
Again, you continue to misrepresent the argument. I have never said we should have played a bunch of Q1 teams. We aren’t Kansas … we would get killed doing that. What we should have done is only play 4 Q4 games max. Replace the others with teams in the 150 to 200 range. You act like it’s a novel concept. It’s exactly what we did a few years ago. Follow the exact same blueprint that got us in the tournament comfortably a couple times despite less than impressive conference records.
Click to expand...
Not misrepresenting, just going off of the previous quoted measure. It's hindsight.

I am all for less Q4 and more 100-200 level opponents. You won't have an argument from me there.

Its not a novel concept, but we have to manage it properly with our conf SOS.
 
TEvans4Three said:
Not misrepresenting, just going off of the previous quoted measure. It's hindsight.

I am all for less Q4 and more 100-200 level opponents. You won't have an argument from me there.

Its not a novel concept, but we have to manage it properly with our conf SOS.
Click to expand...
Huh? Previous quoted measure? I honestly don’t know what that means. My position has been consistent for two months on this. I never once said play a bunch of Q1 games. I said all along exactly what I said today. And I said it may cost us. That is not hindsight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Selection Show 2024
Replies
11
Views
430
jdizzle34
J
lexusooner
Thoughts on the off-season roster swap
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
O
Resume is Fine; Eye Test is Not
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
2K
WichitaSooner
W
CoachTalk
#12 Oklahoma vs Monmouth 2pm CST on ESPN+
2 3
Replies
59
Views
1K
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
J
Moser’s HS recruiting
Replies
18
Views
612
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
Back
Top