This team played decent in the second half of the season, would love to see them rewarded with a bid.
Anyone we should be rooting against this week?
Anyone we should be rooting against this week?
Is there any chance we get an at large bid next Sunday??
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
2-3% chance. Small enough that it's not worth the time to list out everyone we want to lose. In general, want teams that are already in to win all of the conference tournaments in the top 9-10 conferences.
Agree. But damn if OK can get in with losing about 13 of their last 15 games then we should be in.
Oklahoma without a doubt. And Florida St will be fine too unless chaos breaks out this week.
All games are treated equally. They were a potential 1 seed before the free fall, so they won enough games in 2017 to be ok.
I don’t buy this. It may be right, but it’s BS. That team is one of the worst in the country right now
How they get in is beyond me?
A
anon_vmuicqnzlyp3u
Guest
I would hate to tell you this but I would root for Pitt against ND. ND is on the bubble and losing to an 0-18 squad would most certainly knock them out
Lol...one of the "worst teams in the country"? Looking at Pomeroy (adjusted for home court), 9 of these 11 losses were to top 50 teams, and the other 2 to top 100 teams. During the stretch, they've also had home wins over Kansas, Baylor, and Kansas St. Heck, what's the worst loss they've had all season? I guess at Iowa State. We have 3 losses worse than that one alone.
It’s unfortunate that the Minnesota game was their last gasp before the big free fall. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a team drain as many difficult threes in one overtime as Minnesota did that night.
I don’t care who they lose to,a loss is a loss.
Why do you always Bring what we did or didn’t do up when talking about other teams Erial_Pitt
If the committee were allowed to use the "eye test" more, I think we'd have a better chance, but based on the criteria set forth with the on paper resumes, records vs. the quadrants and schedule strength, there just isn't enough meat on the bone for PSU to make a case if looking across the bubble.
Read the title of the thread then ask yourself that question again (or post #5, from BBrown)...
As for the concept of a "loss being a loss", I guess I was wrong in assuming that most sports fans had the capacity to understand that better teams are harder to beat...and thus, losing to a bunch of really good teams doesn't automatically make you "one of the worst teams in the country".
Last edited:
A loss is a loss is a loss is just not paying attention. It absolutely does matter the quality of the loss and the quality of the wins
The two biggest Penn State haters on this board.
The basketball program sucks
Chambers needs fired
St. Bonaventure, Texas, Oklahoma are better
Yadda yadda yadda with you two.
The basketball program sucks
Chambers needs fired
St. Bonaventure, Texas, Oklahoma are better
Yadda yadda yadda with you two.
Lol...try actually reading some of my posts.
In the past week, I've now been called both an apologist for Chambers and a Penn State hater that wants Chambers fired (and Pitt fan).
I'm sorry that you can't handle the fact that Oklahoma has a lot better resume than us this season.
Fun times.
In the past week, I've now been called both an apologist for Chambers and a Penn State hater that wants Chambers fired (and Pitt fan).
I'm sorry that you can't handle the fact that Oklahoma has a lot better resume than us this season.
Fun times.
To me, Rider turned out to be pretty decent and Wisconsin also recently knocked off Purdue. I think that it is way more important that we had most of our losses without either Reeves or Watkins. When all are available, we are a really tough out.
If we deserved a bid and didn't get in, I would be pissed, but we don't. Too many bad losses. Losing 4 of the last 6. Yes, there are reasons. Injuries, bad calls.... every bubble team has a million reasons. Still, I will not rule out a bid, but I put it at about a 2% chance.
lol @ saying Erial_Lion wants Chambers fired
I want him fired...and those 3 school have a better resume than us...whether or not they're better teams is something that is debatable but resumes aren't debatable...maybe Texas
St Bonaventure beat Rhode islsnd at home once.
I don’t care what RPI says. No way they have better wins then us.
Right now today on a neutral court we would wax the Bonnies.
Assumption not fact. RPI matters. Maybe we would be the Bonnies. Maybe we wouldn't. We use what we know and that's the resume. The Bonnies win that. We've proven we can beat Ohio State---very little other than that.
Beating a top 12 team 3x in one season is still 50x better then anything St Bonnie did.
Don’t understand how their resume is better playing in that conference?
Thankfully, the committee uses actual, quantifiable results. Not made up stuff like "we are 50 times better than that team".
I also laugh at how we're so quick to bring up Josh Reaves injury around here, but never mention injuries from other teams on the bubble. Like, people think that the committee will give us a pass on losing games without our 4th leading scorer, but then completely ignore that Jaylen Adams missed some of St Bonnie's worst performances? (guess it's probably because 95% of PSU basketball fans start paying attention in February and couldn't pick Jaylen Adams out of a 2 person lineup)
We have more than double their losses and their schedule isn't bad. In fact, their RPI is much better than ours. They beat Syracuse on the road. They beat Maryland. They won 12 in a row down the stretch. We lost 4 of the last 6. Their RPI is 21. Ours is 76. They have 7 wins against Q1 and Q2 teams. We have 5. When they go 24-6 against a 21 RPI, and we go 21-13 against a 76 RPI, there is no question who deserves the bid and it's not us.
that is also how i understand the committee thinking. the use the Q1-Q5 W's and L's. every analyst who knows the committee process has pointed to the Rider loss as very hard to overcome. then they point out Wisky. in the last few on the bubble, the analyst on the BIG show said the committee does us an eye test and also assesses the roster "condition" (i.e. has the team lost/gained players such that is it not the same team that represents the record).
The committee does assign each member a few conferences to watch more closely (for example Rasmussen was sitting next to Jim Nachtman at the scorer's table at Nebraska last Sunday, and was at MSG again last week). So they are supposed to keep tabs on roster "condition" and report those specifics to the rest of the committee. But when it comes to the "eye test", it just doesn't show up when you look at their historical work. Things like quality wins, non-conference SOS, RPI have always meant a lot more than how a team "looks".
Then again, our miniscule tourney hopes hang on the committee caring about things like the predictive metrics and how we look, so I'll need to hope that this group of 10 sees things differently.
if they were watching closely, everyone knows we are a much different team with Watkins in the lineup. not sure they would take that into effect.
Erial_Panther, just cause a few bracketologist has them has Next Four Out doesn't mean crap..
Like I said, if Bama, Texas, St Bonnie all lose their first tourney game, it's going to get interesting.
Unfortunately, need to add about 8 more things to your list before it starts to get "interesting".
Lol, because I understand bracketology and the fact that we have almost no shot, I'm once again a Pitt fan.
You're in good company, the other person on this site that's called me a Pitt fan is Bushwood (when he was having irrational rants about officials that were completely incorrect). Since you guys seem to both have the inability to look at things realistically, maybe you need the moniker "BushwoodNate".
Don't worry,,,,that's when you know you're right--when people start claiming you're not a Penn St fan
