MSUMatt28 said:

Yeah, I think obviously the down Big Ten is working against us, only getting the better teams in the Big Ten once a piece and the fact that the worst teams on our non-conference schedule are REALLY bad.

But Xavier, Cincinnati, and Auburn really do not have much in the way of notable wins. Heck if we can move up to a 2 and get into a Region where Xavier is a 1, I'd take that all day long. Look at how many mediocre teams they've squeaked by all year, and they got an absolute gift by the refs in that game vs Creighton yesterday. It seems to be a common thing too where the Big East all get overseeded and then flame out in the NCAAs. I think they've learned how to game the RPI.

Click to expand...

I don't think any rational person would argue the B1G isn't down - it clearly is but aren't all the others too? The Big East isn't very strong beyond Villanova (if they really are) and the ACC is kind of upside down with dook and unc as the 3rd and 4th behind a team with no offense and a school w/ a good football team. As for the SEC, I think Auburn would be the 4th best team in the B1G and TN just a run of the mill B1G team. Six weeks ago all we heard was how strong and deep the Big 12 is, that chatter has died down significantly - and rightly so.

It's not just the B1G, college basketball in general doesn't have any dominant teams or conferences right now. It's the one saving grace for the frustrations we've suffered so far this season.

It seems the committee still relies too heavily on the RPI (even though every year they deny it). There we are getting hammered for all the reasons stated. I think it is fine for slotting teams, especially as you try to sort out the bubble teams, but is a completely faulty tool for comparing teams near the top. In all the other ranking systems (Sagarin, BPI, KenPom), we rank somewhere in the top 6. So it'll be interesting to see when it's all said and done what the committee gives the most weight to.

Does the committee take into consideration that we beat a top 5 Notre Dame team at full strength?

What hurts us is that our strength of schedule gets killed by playing too many of this 250+ RPI teams non conference. If we switch half of these teams(Stoney Brook, Southern Utah, Houston Baptist, Long Beach St, Cleveland St, Savanah St) with MAC level teams our SOS would be where we need it. Sadly, losing to a team like Duke is better than beating Long Beach State by 42 on the tournament resume.

gotime909 said:

What hurts us is that our strength of schedule gets killed by playing too many of this 250+ RPI teams non conference. If we switch half of these teams(Stoney Brook, Southern Utah, Houston Baptist, Long Beach St, Cleveland St, Savanah St) with MAC level teams our SOS would be where we need it. Sadly, losing to a team like Duke is better than beating Long Beach State by 42 on the tournament resume.

Click to expand...

That does hurt the RPI, but the committee should not be looking heavily at the RPI when sorting through the top teams as it's been proven to be a faulty tool for that purpose. And yet I think they rely on it now more heavily for that purpose than in the past (even though they deny it, how closely the seeds ending up lining up with it says otherwise).

But the weakness of the Big Ten along with us catching an easy conference schedule, thus leading to a lack of 50 top wins, is still the bigger issue.

MSUMatt28 said:

It seems the committee still relies too heavily on the RPI (even though every year they deny it). There we are getting hammered for all the reasons stated. I think it is fine for slotting teams, especially as you try to sort out the bubble teams, but is a completely faulty tool for comparing teams near the top. In all the other ranking systems (Sagarin, BPI, KenPom), we rank somewhere in the top 6. So it'll be interesting to see when it's all said and done what the committee gives the most weight to.

Click to expand...

I look at those RPIs and I fail to see much difference between our schedule and most of the schedules of the teams ahead of us. Granted we could sub a few MAC level teams in for some of the cupcakes, as gotime points out but it probably wouldn't change our record (shouldn't anyway). So if that's what separates Xavier, Clemson, RI & Aub from us, I lose all faith in the statistic. And frankly, I wouldn't upgrade all those games. I don't mind the absolute cupcakes during the holiday breaks. I hate those trap games when the students aren't around and their seats are filled with alumni and their kids. I have nothing against them, but the atmosphere is so different, and the team tends to play flat. We've had some pretty bad losses in those situations. Seriously, who wouldn't rather see Goins get 30 minutes against Houston Baptist rather than Valpo or Oakland while Ward rides the pine when there's a bunch of soccer moms and 10 year olds ringing the floor?

UNC has 7 losses, including one to us where we controlled them the whole game and they're a 2 and we're a 3. That's seriously flawed. The CBS piece I read was heralding these rankings because at this point last year 15 of the teams in top 16 ended up in the top 16 - of course it didn't say how accurate it was within the top 16 at this point (i.e. did last year's Michigan State end up with a 1 seed while last years RI got a 4?). This thing is horse shit - anyone can tell you who the top 16 teams are in no particular order with pretty reasonable accuracy.

It's not our fault we scheduled ND, NC, Duke, and UConn and 2 of them had major injuries and fell off the map. But we need to stop scheduling those total cupcakes that will end up killing our SOS, instead of scheduling the 320th ranked team, schedule the 120th ranked team and it will totally change our SOS. The Big Ten being down hurts us too.

We still have an opportunity for a 1 seed, but there is zero margin for error. Say we lose a game, but win the BTT, we'd end up 30-4 and likely ranked #1 or #2 in the polls, would we still get a 3 seed?

It's clear the committee doesn't care much about bad losses. Nova and Duke both lose to a horrible St. John's team and don't get punished. We have 3 losses, 2 to top 16 teams and 1 to a top 40 team.

Give me a #2 or #3 seed in the Midwest with Xavier as the #1 and we get to the Final 4 without a doubt. The thing this does though is puts a ton of pressure on us, we lose a road game here and don't win the BTT, we could be 29-5 and end up a 4 seed which would be ridiculous.

And think about the higher seeds, not fair to them to see MSU as a possible 4 in their bracket.

Spartanmack said:

you're right and it's a good point - Schilling on Haas was a good matchup. but why can't he put Ward or Jackson as a second big instead of Goins? 30 minutes for going vs a combined 24 for the other two shouldn't happen in big games like this. the foul trouble argument falls apart with schilling and even Carter getting some time.

what's the deal w/ Carter? is he just not what we hoped or is he not the same since the injury?

Click to expand...

Matchups, Ward couldn't guard Vincent Edwards. I thought JJ should have been in earlier, the majority of the time he was on the bench was when he only had 3 fouls. To be fair, Jackson did suck when he was in there, but I'd rather play him than Goins. Goins made that clutch jumper with about a minute left, he played good defense on Edwards who went 3-11 from the floor, but Goins had a few mistakes too like taking that 3 early in the shot clock. I'd like to see Carter a little more, liked what I saw earlier this year. He had an ankle injury but that was about 3-4 weeks ago, seems like Tillman is taking his minutes.

In the end, bench contributions were the difference, especially Schilling and McQuaid (Langford was on a milk carton for most of the game). Izzo decided to give Haas 2's as opposed to open 3's for other guys, Schilling was great at making sure that catch didn't happen too deep. Haas had a good game but he hit some tough shots, Izzo was fine with giving him tougher 2pt shots.

johnny2x2x said:

It's not our fault we scheduled ND, NC, Duke, and UConn and 2 of them had major injuries and fell off the map. But we need to stop scheduling those total cupcakes that will end up killing our SOS, instead of scheduling the 320th ranked team, schedule the 120th ranked team and it will totally change our SOS. The Big Ten being down hurts us too.

We still have an opportunity for a 1 seed, but there is zero margin for error. Say we lose a game, but win the BTT, we'd end up 30-4 and likely ranked #1 or #2 in the polls, would we still get a 3 seed?

It's clear the committee doesn't care much about bad losses. Nova and Duke both lose to a horrible St. John's team and don't get punished. We have 3 losses, 2 to top 16 teams and 1 to a top 40 team.

Give me a #2 or #3 seed in the Midwest with Xavier as the #1 and we get to the Final 4 without a doubt. The thing this does though is puts a ton of pressure on us, we lose a road game here and don't win the BTT, we could be 29-5 and end up a 4 seed which would be ridiculous.

And think about the higher seeds, not fair to them to see MSU as a possible 4 in their bracket.

Click to expand...

I could have understood a 2 but a 3 is a joke, 24-3 and 3-1 vs AP top 10 teams this year. The SOS is part of the argument, but once you start comparing resumes that falls apart. Kansas, Purdue, Texas Tech (seriously)?

Sbee said:

I could have understood a 2 but a 3 is a joke, 24-3 and 3-1 vs AP top 10 teams this year. The SOS is part of the argument, but once you start comparing resumes that falls apart. Kansas, Purdue, Texas Tech (seriously)?

Click to expand...

that's my point as well and what I was saying in post #66 - if SOS is what separates those teams (esp Auburn and Rhode Island) from us, that's a joke. if it's the case that we'd be a low 2 or even a 1 seed if we played the 120th team instead of the 220th team, there's something seriously wrong with how the RPI weights crappy and slightly crappier opponents.

I guess there are some scenarios where being the 2 or 3 in the right region could actually be beneficial, but isn't it just as likely that we'll get put in a region with one of the top 1 or 2 seeds? Unless the committee really blows it on most of the top 8, I'd prefer the lower seed (higher ranking).

Sbee said:

I could have understood a 2 but a 3 is a joke, 24-3 and 3-1 vs AP top 10 teams this year. The SOS is part of the argument, but once you start comparing resumes that falls apart. Kansas, Purdue, Texas Tech (seriously)?

Click to expand...

And we weren't even one of the top 2 3s, we were 11th overall. They invent some tiered system for wins and then stick to it. Under their system, our top 10 wins count the same as someone's top 75 wins if they were on the road. So beating Purdue is counted as the same as winning at Charleston, at Toledo, at Rider, or at Loyola Chicago.

I still think we'll finish strong and get a 2 seed, but if we stumble down the stretch, we could end up a 4 which would be a total joke.

johnny2x2x said:

And we weren't even one of the top 2 3s, we were 11th overall. They invent some tiered system for wins and then stick to it. Under their system, our top 10 wins count the same as someone's top 75 wins if they were on the road. So beating Purdue is counted as the same as winning at Charleston, at Toledo, at Rider, or at Loyola Chicago.

I still think we'll finish strong and get a 2 seed, but if we stumble down the stretch, we could end up a 4 which would be a total joke.

Click to expand...

if we win out in the regular season, a 2 is a joke. No big ten team has been better than 16-2 since the 2007 OSU team

Again, if they are seriously looking at RPI when determining the top 16 teams, then they have really gone backwards in how they evaluate teams. I believe the 2000 National Title team had an RPI near 20 for most of the year (again because even though their schedule was ridiculously hard they had a number of REALLY bad teams at the bottom, and 7 losses, 4 of them with Mateen out). It's also disingenuous for them to sit there every year and say how the RPI is only a small portion of the total resume, and then every year, the teams that make it are based mostly on the RPI, and now it would seem the top 16 seeds too.


I think there is too much of a "high tide raises all ships" approach to how they seed as well, which is again RPI based. You get enough teams in the conference with good RPI's (based on not scheduling REALLY crap teams, and then winning a few against some good teams), and then once they start playing each other they all go up even more, and you end up with numerous teams in the conference a couple of seed line higher than they should be. The same thing happens when a conference has a down year. Everyone ends up paying for it, and it's going to happen in the Big Ten this year.


That said, I fail to see what Auburn has done to merit such a high seed so far. They are first in the SEC, but haven't played a very difficult SEC schedule yet. They won at Tennessee...and that's pretty much it. Beat nobody out of conference. Lost at home to Texas A&M. Purdue's resume isn't much different than ours. Beat Arizona when Arizona had Alkins out and was struggling. Squeaked by Louisville at home who is now on the bubble (which is not as impressive as us routing a full strength Notre Dame), and has a bad loss to Western Kentucky. Cincinnati has fewer quality wins than MSU and they're a 2. Xavier has beaten basically Cincinnati and is about 6 points away from 4 bad losses. They could end up a #1 seed and I'd be seriously thinking about whether the 16 over 1 upset might finally happen.

MSU at #2 in today's AP Poll. Virginia lost at home to an unranked opponent and climbs to #1. OK, sure.

What you have is a set of the Press that wants to defend the Committee no matter what. MSU is one of the 3 best teams in the country, everyone knows that. Now you have writers who up until yesterday had never mentioned the word Quadrant citing Quadrant 1 or Quadrant 2 wins like they've been using it for years.

LOL, our own fucking writer, Graham Couch... Ohio State beats Purdue and Iowa last week, moves from 15 to 5th. MSU beats Iowa and Purdue last week, moves from 4th to 6th on his ballot.

LOL.

#1 in the Coaches Poll.

The committee might have a really odd decision on their hands if we win the rest of our games but because of upsets get an easy run in the Big Ten Tourney.

We could be 31-3 and #1 by a lot on both polls and not get a #1 seed because of the Quadrant system they set up for their seeding. Heck, it's feasible will still get a 3 seed if Ohio State and Purdue both lose early in the BTT.

johnny2x2x said:

LOL, our own fucking writer, Graham Couch... Ohio State beats Purdue and Iowa last week, moves from 15 to 5th. MSU beats Iowa and Purdue last week, moves from 4th to 6th on his ballot.

LOL.

Click to expand...

dropping MSU 2 spots doesn't make sense. As far as the comparison between the teams OSU and MSU beat last week...maybe he took into consideration that OSU beat Purdue on the road and MSU had them at home. And for Iowa, OSU beat them by 18 (at home) and MSU by 3 (on the road) but gave up 93 points.

tomdalton22 said:

dropping MSU 2 spots doesn't make sense. As far as the comparison between the teams OSU and MSU beat last week...maybe he took into consideration that OSU beat Purdue on the road and MSU had them at home. And for Iowa, OSU beat them by 18 (at home) and MSU by 3 (on the road) but gave up 93 points.

Click to expand...

why are you trying to make sense of something you said doesn't make sense? if it doesn't make sense, what difference does it make what he took into consideration?

johnny2x2x said:

LOL, our own fucking writer, Graham Couch... Ohio State beats Purdue and Iowa last week, moves from 15 to 5th. MSU beats Iowa and Purdue last week, moves from 4th to 6th on his ballot.

LOL.

Click to expand...

Graham couch is an ass, same guy who ripped Villanova earlier this year for losing at butler, since title contenders don?t do that in his eyes

johnny2x2x said:

#1 in the Coaches Poll.

The committee might have a really odd decision on their hands if we win the rest of our games but because of upsets get an easy run in the Big Ten Tourney.

We could be 31-3 and #1 by a lot on both polls and not get a #1 seed because of the Quadrant system they set up for their seeding. Heck, it's feasible will still get a 3 seed if Ohio State and Purdue both lose early in the BTT.

Click to expand...

If we win out I will damn near bet my life we are a 1 seed.