Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

When was the last time a coach was fired after leading his team to the Sweet Sixteen? Tubby Smith at Minnesota?

Looks like Tubby lost to Florida in the Round of 32 that year.

Does anyone know the answer to this? 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

No we don’t. We have no big men. Larry and Kent both suck. Mark and kaluma were great pick ups. Pope is so inconsistent it’s mind blowing. Our coach sucks at preparing and making in game adjustments and he can’t build a roster that makes sense because he doesn’t even have an identity to build around.

 

Right and despite the lack of big men I still think a number of coaches would have this team higher seeded and capable of winning 2 tournament games.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

Right and despite the lack of big men I still think a number of coaches would have this team higher seeded and capable of winning 2 tournament games.

Fair enough. I’ll agree with anything that revolves around RT blows ass.

Posted

some guy from the tourney committee just said on cbs, “away wins are critically important to the committee because the tourney is played at neutral sites.”

we won two regular season games vs tourney teams on the road (oklahoma and miss st) and two in the league tourney (vandy and a&m). 

Posted

The team I do not understand being seeded above us by Lunardi is San Diego State. They're #52 in NET, they only have 3 Q1 wins, they have a bad loss (Q3), and they're #47/#46 in predictive metrics the committee uses like Kenpom and T-Rank.

San Diego State played a much softer SOS, is lower in NET, has fewer Q1 wins, has a bad loss that we do not have, is ranked lower in the predictive metrics, and so on. There is zero reason San Diego State should get in the tournament over us. 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Derka said:

some guy from the tourney committee just said on cbs, “away wins are critically important to the committee because the tourney is played at neutral sites.”

 

That is, by definition of neutral site, retarded logic.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Rickylovesweed said:

The team I do not understand being seeded above us by Lunardi is San Diego State. They're #52 in NET, they only have 3 Q1 wins, they have a bad loss (Q3), and they're #47/#46 in predictive metrics the committee uses like Kenpom and T-Rank.

San Diego State played a much softer SOS, is lower in NET, has fewer Q1 wins, has a bad loss that we do not have, is ranked lower in the predictive metrics, and so on. There is zero reason San Diego State should get in the tournament over us. 

 

blind resume:

IMG_7003.thumb.jpeg.5c41567bcb6f44d0d8bf1ed441268343.jpeg

IMG_7004.thumb.jpeg.39190f00eaf272a0f972062b82f33f9a.jpeg

 

vs

 

IMG_7005.thumb.jpeg.562b4b28631a5fd5cb11eee5a41e64d3.jpeg

IMG_7006.thumb.jpeg.26293c66a84dc93dfe4528fdb3d78e32.jpeg

Posted
4 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

"This loss drops Texas to 7-11 vs Quad 1. UNC is 1-11. I don't understand why anyone would have the Heels ahead of the Longhorns no matter what happens vs Duke."

1900730244505469341.jpg.838fbbae195ae69973cf2f885da68520.jpg

1900730255045779477.thumb.webp.8811e43f97eb857054032c21728177d9.webp

 

Posted

Texas had to beat Tenn to make the tourney.  That team that everyone always says if they just win x game (and then they win that game (A&M) but go on to lose the next one) never makes the tourney.  Don't even watch the selection show.  It's not happening. 

Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

I mean, I wouldn’t be upset if we got left out for UNC. The committee should send a message about laughably bad non-conference schedules 

Leaving Texas out wouldn't send that message. 

If you replace our losses to UCONN and Ohio State, in non-conference, with scrubs we would clearly be in the tournament. If you want to incentivize teams to schedule tough in non-conference reward quality wins and don't care about teams having a couple more wins playing a much softer SOS (like UNC).

 

Posted
5 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

Also of note, no team in the NET era with at least 7 Quad one wins has ever missed the tournament.

We would be the first team in the NET era to miss the tournament with at least 7 quad one wins. 

That would be a fitting accomplishment to wind down the RT era. Those fucking losses to SC and OU were so pathetic, I honestly wont even be mad. If you are seriously arguing over whether or not you should squeeze into the last 4 of 68 teams, who the fuck cares?

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

His current bracket has CSU in twice lol 

Lunardi likes rape  meatball subs Colorado State.

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Blotto said:

That would be a fitting accomplishment to wind down the RT era. Those fucking losses to SC and OU were so pathetic, I honestly wont even be mad. If you are seriously arguing over whether or not you should squeeze into the last 4 of 68 teams, who the fuck cares?

Lunardi likes rape  meatball subs Colorado State.

If he really liked rape he would say it twice, instead of Colorado State.

If you are old enough, you have to click watch on youtube.

 

 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Blotto said:

That would be a fitting accomplishment to wind down the RT era. Those fucking losses to SC and OU were so pathetic, I honestly wont even be mad. If you are seriously arguing over whether or not you should squeeze into the last 4 of 68 teams, who the fuck cares?

Don’t forget getting swept by Arkansas and losing at home to UGa, all three of them blowouts. We had a chance to take care of this shit in the last 3 weeks…

  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Machinator said:

Are we sure Boise State is in as an at-large?

this is my question.  they are the last team in right now, correct?  I guess the theory is MW can't be a 1 bid league?

They are getting drilled also.

Edited by dcar00
Posted
1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

this is my question.  they are the last team in right now, correct?  I guess the theory is MW can't be a 1 bid league?

They are getting drilled also.

Mountain West is at minimum a four-bid league.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Machinator said:

Mountain West is at minimum a four-bid league.

ha.  I never even know who is in those leagues anymore...I guess the question is does BSU deserve to be in.

also WVU is 51 Net, and 19-13.  why are they in?  we are 39 Net with 7 Q1 wins.

I think we end up on the wrong side of the bubble because 14 of 16 teams in is ridiculous and OU is already in with a 6-12 record.

If you blindly look at our resume without the conf designation we should be ahead of others in the "bubble" last 4 byes, last 4 in, first 4 out

Posted
1 hour ago, perfectchaos007 said:

Chances of us getting a #1 seed in the NIT are very high. I'm not sure who makes the call if we opt out or not. CDC?

i can’t imagine tre not deciding to skip the NIT, and with him out i don’t see why the rest of our team of final-year mercenaries would want to participate in such a second rate tourney that none of them even want to be in in the first place.

Posted
3 hours ago, ATXbronco said:

Musings...

If Arch Manning had been a stud in basketball instead of football... we might have been calling him MArch Manning right about now..

If we get the call for the play-in, we should 100% start March Manning.  The marketing/NIL alone would be worth it.

image.jpeg.10eeb15a2d1b65e0a5746e04287b6288.jpeg

It's not like we're throwing away a chance at the nat'l championship.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Machinator said:

Are we sure Boise State is in as an at-large?

Boise State shouldn't get in over Texas. 

Behind us in NET, they have 2 bad losses (Q3 and Q4), only 3 Q1 wins compared to our 7, a much softer SOS, 10 losses in a non power conference, Texas has more combined Q1 and Q2 wins, and way behind us in the predictive metrics.

It's actually insane to me these type of comparisons are a debate. Outside of total wins, Boise State is behind Texas in every damn metric. 

 

Posted

I don't even care if Texas makes it but if UNC makes it that will be one of the biggest jokes ever. 

They have 1 win against an at-large caliber team all year and it was a 2 point win on neutral court with one of UCLA's best players banged up and at about 50%. Had UCLA been healthy, UNC would likely have 0 wins against at-large caliber teams.

It's wild there are people trying to justify UNC making the tournament. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
11 hours ago, MrX said:

Didn’t think MWC mattered - one total bid stolen from those two teams. 

I'll be shocked if all of Utah State, Boise State, and San Diego State make the tournament. 

I think it's more likely 2 of those teams miss the tournament than all 3 getting in. 

Posted

Crosspost since discussing here...

Some mentions on Bracketology...

Where is Texas for the NCAA tournament ?

  • ESPN -- Lunardi has the Longhorns in first four out with North Carolina, Boise State and Ohio State.

  • The Athletic -- According to Joe Rexrode, the Longhorns are seen as a "last four in" team. As such, they would play Indiana to find a final spot in the bracket. North Carolina is listed as a "first four out."

  • CBS Sports -- Jeremy Palm has the Longhorns missing the tournament because of the amount of losses. Sure, other teams made it in the tournament with records similar to the Longhorns at 19-15. Temple in 2016 did it with an 8-10 conference record. But that was before the quad system was introduced. Palm also has North Carolina missing the tournament.

  • Fox Sports -- Michael DeCourcy has the Longhorns as a "first four out" but the Tar Heels as a "last team in."

Posted
2 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

I don't even care if Texas makes it but if UNC makes it that will be one of the biggest jokes ever. 

They have 1 win against an at-large caliber team all year and it was a 2 point win on neutral court with one of UCLA's best players banged up and at about 50%. Had UCLA been healthy, UNC would likely have 0 wins against at-large caliber teams.

It's wild there are people trying to justify UNC making the tournament. 

AGREE... Tarheel bias on ESPN is nauseating

 

Posted
27 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

AGREE... Tarheel bias on ESPN is nauseating

 

T-Rank has UNC's tourney odds at 19.4% based on historical data and previous NCAA selections based on their resume. 

I don't get it all. I guess it's because of blue blood bias. 

 

  • Rage+1 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...