Should the committee look at our play before Jan. 1?
by Incipient_Senescence on Mar 8, 2010 2:38 PM EST
Email
PrintWhen Jan. 1 happened, we were all bemoaning how the selection committee would forget the beginning of our season and focus on what happened later. However, at this point, I wonder if we might not welcome that. Let's take a look:
Overall resume:
*23-7 (11-5)
*Average opp. RPI: 107
*Record vs. RPI top 50: 3-4
*Record vs. RPI top 100: 12-6
*Road/neutral record: 8-6 (4-6 4-5 vs. top 100)
*Top 25 wins: Kansas (1), Kentucky (3)
*Losses outside the top 100: USC (108)
Resume without Tyler Smith:
*13-5 (11-5)
*Average opp. RPI: 73
*Record vs. RPI top 50: 2-3
*Record vs. RPI top 100: 10-5
*Road/neutral record: 4-4 (3-4 vs. top 100)
*Top 25 wins: Kansas (1), Kentucky (3)
*Losses outside the top 100: none
Resume without Tyler Smith, but with Tatum, Williams*:
*5-1 (5-1)
*Average opp. RPI: 75
*Record vs. RPI top 50: 1-0
*Record vs. RPI top 100: 4-1
*Road/neutral record: 2-1 (2-1 vs. top 100)
*Top 25 wins: Kentucky (3)
*Losses outside the top 100: none
The way I see it, when we take out the Tyler Smith section of the season, our resume gets better. The winning percentage against the top 100 (.667) is identical, with wins over Memphis (46) and CofC (91) taken away along with a loss to Purdue (11). However, we come out way ahead in the top end/bottom end figures. Only one road/neutral top 100 win (Memphis, 46) disappears, our top 100 road/neutral winning percentage increases slightly (from .400 to .428), zero top 25 wins disappear, and our only bad loss (USC, 108) disappears.
When you place special emphasis on the games in which our full team is together, you get even better numbers: 2-1 in road/neutral top 100 games, 1-0 against the top 25, 4-1 against the top 100.
Who knows how this will end up affecting us. What I will say is that I hope the committee ignores what we did with Tyler Smith and focuses on the second half of the season, with special emphasis on recent performance. The way I see it, ruling out a blowout loss outside the top 100 (@USCw) more than makes up for ruling out a single top 100 road win (@Memphis) and a close loss (vs. Purdue). I don't know how much mileage we were expecting to get out of a loss anyways.
The general consensus is that our overall resume is worth the last 4 seed, with some still seeing us as a 5. If we lose to Ole Miss, I would not be surprised to see us drop to a 5, although we may still be the 4 in Kansas' region. The way I see it, our second half resume with special attention given to recent play with the full team should be enough for a high 4 or possibly even low 3. A loss to Ole Miss (who will be a tourney team if they beat us) would keep us at 4. Either way, I think a finals appearance with a win over Kentucky gets us strong consideration for a 3 seed.
Of course, a loss to LSU (RPI 222) would blow this all to hell, so let's not do that. Also, be rooting for Alabama (against USC) and Georgia (against Arkansas) in the SEC Tournament. Right now, they're ranked 98 and 99 in the RPI, account for one of our top 100 road wins, and don't contribute towards any bad losses. If they drop past 100, Georgia is suddenly a bad loss and Alabama is no longer a quality road win.
*Tatum's injury roughly coincided with the time that Williams was still out, so I didn't think it worth it to consider the team with only Goins (who is only a backup anyways) having returned. Tatum and Williams were re-integrated against Georgia, so that's where I started the "current team" resume.
FanPosts are most often submitted by users. The views and opinions expressed in FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by the editorial staff of Rocky Top Talk or SB Nation.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i think the committee weighs heavily the recent performance of teams and honestly the games we played with tyler only featured one opponent that is a lock to go to the tournament, and it’s against a team that is also very different now sans one of their best players – Robbie Hummel. Of course, it would be nice for them to overlook that loss at USC, and I think they won’t weigh that as heavily either.
They actually changed that this year
The committee is no longer supposed to weigh recent performance more heavily than overall performance. I probably should’ve included that in my post. So basically, having the committee overlook our early season just amounts to getting them to look at us the way they would’ve normally looked at us before this new rule. And like you said, I think it’d help us. We had a bad loss in that span and we didn’t beat any tourney teams (except for ETSU, who you didn’t count for obvious reasons).
by Incipient_Senescence on Mar 8, 2010 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
It's a great point
We’ve done enough good now that the selection committee will have a hard time looking at us as really being any worse without Tyler. And I think if we make it to Saturday and even put up a good fight against Kentucky, I don’t think we’ll go any further south than 4.
If they do still punish us for the loss to USC, I hope they also take into consideration how good the Trojans starting playing right around that time, before the wear and tear of the season got to them, with no postseason hope to help them snap out of it. To me, that’s one you can almost completely throw out now…though I’m not sure anyone on the committee is going to look at it that way.
The overall body of work is good enough, combined with our recent play…but this 5-1 run over our last six, combined with whatever we do in Nashville, should be what they weigh most heavily, because this is the stretch we’ve played with the team we’re going to use in March. If they do that, I think a 4 seed can be the basement instead of the ceiling.
should read
“I hope they also take into consideration how good the Trogans starting playing right around that time.” My bad.
Speaking of the Trogans, let's play "Whose Logo is This?"
Obviously it’s a Trogan logo, right? After all, anything that close to the sacred ‘SC’ would be a trademark infringement, especially if it happened to be from the same state. Right?
Agreed
Unless (heaven forbid) we lose to LSU, I think a 4 should be the basement, if the committee weighs more heavily the team being as it is now. And consecutive wins over LSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky would make us a 3. So hopefully they’re looking at it that way. And hopefully we can pull that off.
By the way, even if Georgia drops out of the top 100, I wonder how much it will count against us as a bad loss, considering that they also beat Illinois, Georgia Tech, Florida, and Vanderbilt at home. Will the committee notice that?
by Incipient_Senescence on Mar 8, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
The RPI and Sagarin's ELO_CHESS are good at ranking based on the body of work
and they have us at 13 and 18 respectively. Seeding based on that puts us in the 4-5 range. Like Dave Hooker’s article today points out, a win vs. LSU actually hurts us in those kind of rating systems, so if we can beat Ole Miss it will be interesting to see where we end up.
I think we are currently sitting on a 4 seed
If they did it based on pure seeding all the way through (seed the best 1 against the worst 4), which they never do, we would probably be in Syracuse’s bracket right now since we can’t play Kentucky in the Sweet 16.
As far as this weekend goes, if we get to Kentucky and then lose, we’re probably still a 4. If we win the whole thing, we’re probably a 3, as I think it’ll be very difficult for us to get into that 2 line. Getting to the final and losing means either a low 3 or a high 4. Losing in the quarters to Ole Miss means dropping to a 5. And losing to LSU means dropping all the way to a 6.
That’s the way I see it, anyway.
I think you're right
Unless they put special emphasis on the second half of the season and what this current team has done. If that is the case, I think even losing to Ole Miss will keep us at 4.
It’s hard not to be confident with the way this team has played recently though. I think we can beat Ole Miss and perhaps even Kentucky. In the tournament, I see this as a team that can threaten to move beyond the Sweet Sixteen if we can avoid matching up against Kansas or Syracuse.
by Incipient_Senescence on Mar 8, 2010 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
Here's the way my theoretical seeding looks..
Lose Thursday – 5 seed
Win Thursday – 4 seed
Win Friday – 4 seed (lock)
Win Saturday – 3 seed
Win Sunday – 3 seed (lock)
Even though we have a strong RPI and top 25 strength of schedule, we’ve got to get to Saturday to even have a chance at a 3 seed.
Location is a factor too
For instance, Lunardi’s bracket today has us in this West Region:
1 Duke
16 ETSU
8 Louisville
9 Northern Iowa
5 Baylor
12 Tiger High
4 Tennessee
13 San Diego State
That’s the most advantageous bracket for us I’ve seen, by far. Seeding matters, but who’s around you matters more. The 2008 team not only missed out on a 1 seed, but getting grouped with Butler (who was ranked 10th in the AP Poll but was a 7 seed) and then Louisville was a total nightmare. On the other hand, the draws UT got in 2006 and 2007 were unbelievably good – in ‘07 the Vols knew they could play with Ohio State, and would’ve gotten the Memphis team they beat by 18 points in the Elite Eight.
And in 2006, had the Vols beaten Wichita State in the second round, they would’ve played George Mason to get to the Elite Eight. It’s a separate post to talk about teams you do and don’t want to see…but if we can’t get a 3 seed, I’d love to make sure we’re on the top of the 4 line to get group with the mysterious fourth #1 seed.
And with Nova and Purdue on the other side
That’s the kind of bracket that has teams like Baylor and Tennessee thinking Final Four. I’d love to see something like this. Of course, being a 3 in a region with Duke (1) and Purdue (2) would be the best we can possibly hope for at this point. Let’s get some wins and then pray for a good draw.
by Incipient_Senescence on Mar 8, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
sorry i meant a bad matchup
not a bad bad. i will say though, that with the emergence of Brian Williams, it is a matchup that is better than it would have been before.
Baylor scares the tar out of me as a 5 seed.
Simulated Gameday Experience - just like the real thing, only we have smoke machines.
by Chris Pendley on Mar 8, 2010 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
I try not to get my hopes up...
because of what happened 2 years ago. I’ve never felt so cheated in my life… I just haven’t gotten over it yet…
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
I agree, I was scandalized
Especially when you consider UNC was the #1 overall seed, that meant we were the lowest #2…sigh…
That's why I'm not sure we should really be looking at the ranking of the four teams on each seed level.
They started paying attention to 1-4 for the top seeds a few years ago (they didn’t even used to do that), but I would say in most years they pay no attention to that whatsoever for the rest of the seeds. All they look at is getting everybody close to home. So they’re very likely not gonna rank the four seeds 13-16, they’re just gonna drop them all in there in whichever order makes the most sense for filling out the bracket. The top four seed (No. 13 overall) will get placed closest to home, but that’ll be it.
I remain convinced to this day that the committee had us as the “top” No. 2 seed (No. 5 overall) and thought they were doing us a favor a couple years ago. Rather than look at how balanced each bracket was, they placed North Carolina closest to home as the top No. 1 seed (Charlotte), then they placed us closest to home as the top No. 2 seed (Charlotte again) and then they put Louisville closest to home as the top No. 3 seed (Charlotte a third time). I don’t think it ever occurred to them that they weren’t protecting us (or UNC and Louisville, for that matter). In their minds they were, because they put us all at the closest possible regional site in relation to our campuses.
Now how we got so lucky as to have Butler (the No. 10 team in the AP poll that week) as our No. 7 seed…that one, I can’t explain.
I think this is accurate
And that the committee was astoundingly stupid not to see what was going on. Obviously, it’s pure speculation, but this is the only thing that makes sense.
by Incipient_Senescence on Mar 8, 2010 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
It's just hard for me to believe...
that they would be that stupid. I mean, aren’t they supposed to know a enough about basketball to know better than that?
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
I think conference politics has more to do with it than we like to imagine.
I’ve felt that the SEC reps in the panel discussion haven’t done a particularly good job of defending their conference’s interests over the last few years, with that #2 Tennessee selection being a prime example. In contrast, the Big Ten tends to get a more reasonable slate for their teams. (I’d guess that the Big East and ACC lobby better as well, but they – especially the Big East – have been sending so many teams that it limits the selection committee’s ability to move them around.)
According to Joe Lunardi
we are by no means firmly entrenched in that 4 spot. He has us as the worst 4 seed, with Temple right on our heels. I don’t expect Temple to win the A10 (I think Xavier will). But Gonzaga is right there, and if Baylor or Maryland make deep runs in their tournaments and we can’t get passed Kentucky, they could jump over us. Braket Matrix has Temple as a 3 seed, but I just can’t imagine them getting a high seed like that. The only win they can hang their hat on is a home win vs. Villanova, and that has looked worse as Villanova’s high ranking has mostly proved to be a product of their easy early season schedule.
UT/Zags second round?
I’ve seen several brackets put us in Spokane against the Zags (usually with us as the higher seed, assuming we both win first round games). I know we wouldn’t have too much room to complain considering we’d be a 4 seed, but this still seems really unfair to have the higher ranked team play a road game in the tourney.
So Sayth King Zach I
yeah it would
i actually like that matchup, but playing a road game makes it a lot harder. i hope that wouldn’t happen.
I'd be pleased playing the Gonzaga in the second round
…but not if we have to play them in Spokane. And really, I wouldn’t be happy about having to go to the West coast under any circumstances, especially in the first two rounds with the “pods” meant to keep teams closer to home.
So Sayth King Zach I
by kingofzachland on Mar 8, 2010 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
Gonzaga has been absolutely depantsed by St. Mary's in the WCC Championship
I would think this makes a 4/5 matchup in Spokane less likely.
I don't like the first/second round sites this year at all
With the Pac 10 being so dead, there’s an imbalance towards east coast teams. Each of the eight sites can host two separate pods, so when you break it down using Lunardi’s bracketology:
1 Kansas – Oklahoma City
1 Kentucky – Milwaukee
1 Syracuse – Buffalo
1 Duke – Jacksonville
2 Purdue – Milwaukee
2 Kansas State – Oklahoma City
2 West Virginia – Buffalo
2 Ohio State – Providence
3 Pittsburgh – Providence
3 Michigan State – New Orleans
3 New Mexico – San Jose
3 Villanova – Jacksonville
4 Tennessee – Spokane
4 Wisconsin – Spokane
4 BYU – San Jose
4 Vanderbilt – New Orleans
There are no top-tier teams who receive any benefit by playing in Spokane or San Jose. So as a result, the best option for a team like Villanova is Jacksonville, and that hurts everyone underneath them.
I would love it if they played in Spokane and i could get tix
RIP Steve McNair (1973 - 2009) Retire #9!
by Pride of the Southland on Mar 8, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
I'll watch for the Orange Dot
So Sayth King Zach I
by kingofzachland on Mar 8, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
I'm still shooting for Providence
It’s just a commuter rail ride away.
by Incipient_Senescence on Mar 8, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
So you're suggesting we should win the SEC and have somebody on the 3 line flame out early?
I could get on board with that…though I will be in Vegas watching the games, I’d much rather not have to play out West. It’s ok for me to be jetlagged sitting in the sports book…not so much for the guys playing the games.
Had the exact same thought
I already think Gonzaga would be a tough matchup for us. The Spokane games are technically sponsored by Washington State, but clearly, that would be a home game for Gonzaga. I desperately want to avoid that pairing.
not to mention what happened last time we ventured to west coast...
RIP Steve McNair (1973 - 2009) Retire #9!
by Pride of the Southland on Mar 8, 2010 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
Lost to Illinois State in the first round?
I was supposed to be in bed, but I huddled on the floor of my bedroom to listen to the game on the radio. I also remember hearing my dad scream/throw things in the basement…
I was thnking of the so cal game earlier this year, but this even more.
RIP Steve McNair (1973 - 2009) Retire #9!
by Pride of the Southland on Mar 8, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE ROCKY TOP TALK STORE
Animated Drive Charts
RTT Classics
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
