Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, Derka said:

we are 19-15 with THE worst ooc schedule in major college basketball, ranking 280th in the country. meanwhile UNC is a 22-13 team with a top 3 ooc schedule.

ooc UNC played kansas, auburn, michigan state, alabama, ucla, and florida

read that again

ooc UNC played kansas, auburn, michigan state, alabama, ucla, and florida

Who gives a fuck?  UNC was 1-12 against Q1 teams.  We were 7-10.  Does that not tell you something?

Gah this argument is insane.  I don't give a damn if we get in but stop splitting a total body of work into conference and non-conference, it's stupid and illogical and oh so Texas.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

Let me counter my own point regarding Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 records:

If NET ranking is the primary indicator of a team's worth, then UNC should be in ahead of Texas (36 vs 39).  The NCAA hasn't said that NET is that metric, though.  They do tout quadrant performance, and in THAT world we have it all over UNC.  The problem with UNC is that they have a better record against a weaker schedule.  So be it.

EDIT:  for clarity, UNC played 5 more games against Q3/Q4 opponents, AND THEY EVEN LOST ONE OF THEM.  We lost none of our Q3/Q4 games, and it's a pretty fair assumption that we wouldn't have lost any of another 5.  What would Texas' record look like with 5 fewer Q1/Q2 games and 5 more more Q3/Q4 games?  A whole lot better, likely 24-10 or some such.  BUT, we can't make that swap, because the SEC is way tougher than the ACC so we get fucked if "noncon" matters.

Gah.  It's so simple but some of you don't seem to understand the logic.

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, MotownHorn said:

So instead they send the message that you get rewarded for scheduling good teams and losing to them?

It's not whether you win against good teams like we did, it's whether you simply play against good teams and get beat by them like UNC did?

when the committee is parsing through the respective records of true bubble teams, all of whom have suspect records and easy cases as to why they shouldn’t be let in, then yeah, who you schedule matters.

one of those posts above that showed record vs tourney teams showed that we had 20 opportunities to play against tourney teams, while the rest of the teams listed had like 10 games against tourney teams. unc wasn’t going to play a lot of tourney teams in their conference so they scheduled a bunch of final four contenders in their non con. Texas meanwhile did the exact opposite and sought the weakest non conference schedule possible, and ended the season with a 19-15 record and a .333% win percentage in conference play. 

i’ve seen you post that all we had to do was beat south carolina or georgia to not be on the bubble. i’d argue that replacing the SEVEN ooc teams ranked 228th or worse (an embarrassing FIVE of which were against teams ranked 308th or worse, FOUR of those being vs teams ranked 349th or worse) with teams ranked between 80-150 would have been more than enough to make the difference.

there’s a reason that UNC is 11 spots ahead of us in kenpom (33 vs 44). 22-13 with a brutal non conference schedule vs 19-15 with *the worst non conference schedule i have ever seen*. it’s not about rewarding unc, it’s about not rewarding Texas.

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Who gives a fuck?  UNC was 1-12 against Q1 teams.  We were 7-10.  Does that not tell you something?

Gah this argument is insane.  I don't give a damn if we get in but stop splitting a total body of work into conference and non-conference, it's stupid and illogical and oh so Texas.

UNC beat 1 at large team in 10 opportunities and it was a game where one of UCLA's best players was injured. They only won it by 2 points.

There's really no argument for UNC to make the tournament. Who cares if they played a tough non-conference schedule. They beat 1 good team all year with plenty of opportunities. It's a joke they're even in the discussion. 

 

Edited by Rickylovesweed
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

if y’all watched any tv at all yesterday then you’d have had a lot of your questions about unc answered. the committee people who were all over the various networks spoke ad nauseam about predictive metrics and specifically cited kenpom where again, unc is no.33 and we are no.44. analytics play a huge role in the selection process these days, and like it or not, unc’s metrics are better than ours, even though we played in a superior conference.

i mean what did we do that was so great? our amazing Q1 wins are a bunch of ugly ass home games vs the likes of a&m and missouri, two of our six conference wins paired with 12 league losses. that’s impressive? no.

it’s really really easy to just zone in on unc’s Q1 record and say, “they’re disqualified”, but you could easily do the same thing by saying, “texas won 33% of their league games, they’re out.” if you widen the scope a little bit you can see that why this is a discussion.

Posted

Some here, such as Derka and DD, are letting their wish to ensure RT is gone to color their bubble analysis. DD has in fact admitted to it. From purely a blind comparison, Texas is clearly ahead of other bubble teams.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
Just now, Derka said:

if y’all watched any tv at all yesterday then you’d have had a lot of your questions about unc answered. the committee people who were all over the various networks spoke ad nauseam about predictive metrics and specifically cited kenpom where again, unc is no.33 and we are no.44. analytics play a huge role in the selection process these days, and like it or not, unc’s metrics are better than ours, even though we played in a superior conference.

i mean what did we do that was so great? our amazing Q1 wins are a bunch of ugly ass home games vs the likes of a&m and missouri, two of our six conference wins paired with 12 league losses. that’s impressive? no.

it’s really really easy to just zone in on unc’s Q1 record and say, “they’re disqualified”, but you could easily do the same thing by saying, “texas won 33% of their league games, they’re out.” if you widen the scope a little bit you can see that why this is a discussion.

We beat 7 at large tournament teams and UNC beat 1. 

There's really no way to get beyond this argument. You cannot justify this disparity. Especially when the committee specifically says they prioritize Q1 wins. 

Just now, AeroHorn said:

Some here, such as Derka and DD, are letting their wish to ensure RT is gone to color their bubble analysis. DD has in fact admitted to it. From purely a blind comparison, Texas is clearly ahead of other bubble teams.

Bingo

Edited by Rickylovesweed
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, AeroHorn said:

Some here, such as Derka and DD, are letting their wish to ensure RT is gone to color their bubble analysis. DD has in fact admitted to it. From purely a blind comparison, Texas is clearly ahead of other bubble teams.

It’s very hard to say that definitively unless you’re on the committee. Bc they will do what they want, decide what is important this year and justify their decisions accordingly

Pancho already said it - it’s a new committee every year and you can’t just say bc they did X or focused on Y last time, they’ll do it again this year

Its a group of humans deciding 

Posted
24 minutes ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

I hate when Texas is on the bubble. Like if we get in we will do anything. We have the shittiest coach in the tourney. 

We might get one dub tho. 
and just being in dance fun. Even if we suck 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
11 minutes ago, Derka said:

it’s really really easy to just zone in on unc’s Q1 record and say, “they’re disqualified”, but you could easily do the same thing by saying, “texas won 33% of their league games, they’re out.” if you widen the scope a little bit you can see that why this is a discussion.

No, that's not logical.  If you want to bring conference winning % into the discussion, you must include strength of conference.  You aren't.  You are just so damned determined to be rid of RT (as am I) that you are tilting your arguments in favor of anything that might keep Texas out regardless of what the competing bubble teams did.

Posted

I think in a world where everything is equal Texas probably gets in based on resume. If I were the committee I just wouldn't want to send a 14th team from a conference that didn't play anyone OOC and who are propped up by winning 6 out of 18 of their conference games. Feels like a poor precedent. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

Some here, such as Derka and DD, are letting their wish to ensure RT is gone to color their bubble analysis. DD has in fact admitted to it. From purely a blind comparison, Texas is clearly ahead of other bubble teams.

nope. i just posted that yesterday, on national tv, we had multiple tourney committee people explaining to all of us that predictive metrics, including kenpom, are now heavily factored into their decisions to let teams into the tourney. that has nothing to do with me, my feelings on RT, none of it. 

you guys can yell at the clouds all day until you’re blue in the face, but as long as you continue to ignore the actual committee members and choose to be willfully ignorant then you’re just living in an echo chamber with zero desire to hear anything that doesn’t align with your own biased takes.

Posted
13 minutes ago, Teryor said:

I think in a world where everything is equal Texas probably gets in based on resume. If I were the committee I just wouldn't want to send a 14th team from a conference that didn't play anyone OOC and who are propped up by winning 6 out of 18 of their conference games. Feels like a poor precedent. 

That's probably the most succinct way to summarize the "subjective" perspective.  I don't necessarily disagree.

Posted
41 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

Some here, such as Derka and DD, are letting their wish to ensure RT is gone to color their bubble analysis. DD has in fact admitted to it. From purely a blind comparison, Texas is clearly ahead of other bubble teams.

Fair. Are you seeing analysts predicting Texas makes the tournament? I haven't seen or heard anything to that effect on the television box since we lost to Tennessee. Granted, it's mostly been ESPN.

Posted (edited)
Just now, David Dennison said:

Fair. Are you seeing analysts predicting Texas makes the tournament? I haven't seen or heard anything to that effect on the television box since we lost to Tennessee. Granted, it's mostly been ESPN.

Yeah, Jon Rothstein mocked the idea of UNC getting in over Texas a couple days ago. On CBS. 

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3540736/dont-you-dare-even-think-about-telling-jon-rothstein-unc-deserves-to-be-in-the-ncaa-tournament

Edited by Rickylovesweed
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, Rickylovesweed said:

It's impossible to predict these things with human bias but if there aren't any bid thieves today i'm going with San Diego State, Texas, and Xavier as the last 3 teams in some order. 

From your lips to Gods ears!

Posted
12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Fair. Are you seeing analysts predicting Texas makes the tournament? I haven't seen or heard anything to that effect on the television box since we lost to Tennessee. Granted, it's mostly been ESPN.

Josh Pastner did exactly that this morning on ESPN.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Rickylovesweed said:

VCU beat George Mason so only 1 more potential bubble thief. Need Memphis to beat UAB. 

Yes I think if Memphis holds then we are in as an 11 seed playing in Dayton 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

Who gets booted, Indiana or Xavier?

Any at large team that's only beaten 1 or 2 other at large teams should not make the tournament. 

As long as Indiana or UNC don't make the tournament, I'm good. They've beaten nobody all year. Put Texas, Boise State, San Diego State, or Xavier in the tournament. 

Posted (edited)

Out of 111 bracket predictions on Bracket Matrix, Texas is in 45% of them.

Bart Torvik similar resumes:

image.thumb.png.7c18adab73a83986ed78be616853f3de.png

Edited by Sal
Posted (edited)
Just now, shadow_operative2.0 said:

texasstrong12, we know your feelings on UNC only beating one at-large team. Quit repeating yourself. 

Nah, I'll keep discussing what I want to discuss. I'm sure you will keep trying to dictate what people say on an online forum though. At least you aren't going on your drunk tirades anymore. 

Edited by Rickylovesweed
Posted
4 hours ago, dcar00 said:

I don't disagree.  all we needed to do was beat South Carolina and we looked like complete dogshit.

Or Georgia.

Or Arkansas one of the two times.

Or Ole Miss in a winnable game.

Or @Vanderbilt in a winnable game.

I hope we make the tournament because I enjoy it more if the Horns are in it, even if for one game. I don’t think we will, and it’s completely our own doing…

Posted
On 3/13/2025 at 12:57 AM, ztejas said:

i.e. you're much more uninformed.

This isn't the 4 team CFP. They try and put the most deserving 68 in. 

Uninformed. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

Assuming there aren't any bid thieves today it's essentially 3 spots for 6 teams.

Q1 wins: 

Texas 7

Indiana 4

SDSU 3

Boise State 3

UNC 1

Xavier 1

Q1 + Q2 wins:

Texas 10

UNC 9

Indiana 9

Xavier 9

Boise State 8

SDSU 8

Q3 + Q4 losses (i.e. bad losses):

Texas 0

Indiana 0

Xavier 0

UNC 1

SDSU 1

Boise State 2

SoS per Kenpom and NET:

Texas #19, #16

Indiana #28, #34

UNC #42, #42

Xavier #59, #60

SDSU #62, #64

Boise State #78, #79

NET ranking:

UNC #36

Texas #39

Boise State #44

Xavier #45

SDSU #52

Indiana #54

We should be in over all of these teams. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The committee got it right. We were ranked ahead of all the bubble teams.

Still no clue how UNC got in but us getting is good enough. 

Posted
42 minutes ago, TxTower said:

How many times have we played Xavier in the tournament?

I remember Lance Blanks (RIP) going off in win vs Xavier 102-89

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

We beat 7 at large tournament teams and UNC beat 1. 

There's really no way to get beyond this argument. You cannot justify this disparity. Especially when the committee specifically says they prioritize Q1 wins. 

Bingo

But Texas didn't lose to better out of conference teams as UNC did.  That's the whole dipshit argument in a sentence.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Rickylovesweed said:

The committee got it right. We were ranked ahead of all the bubble teams.

Still no clue how UNC got in but us getting is good enough. 

I thought our Quad 2 record would be a big problem.  we had the most Q2 losses of any at large and the only one with a sub .500 record against Q2 I think.  maybe our NET ranking countered that.

Posted
Just now, dcar00 said:

I thought our Quad 2 record would be a big problem.  we had the most Q2 losses of any at large and the only one with a sub .500 record against Q2 I think.  maybe our NET ranking countered that.

That's because our Quad 2 losses weren't bad. 4 of those 5 losses were against tournament teams.

It's also another reason UNC should not have made the tournament. Everyone was hyping UNC's 8 Quad 2 wins and none of those were against tournament teams. 

  • Hook 'Em 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...