Will Buzz get the message he has to schedule better? And that early season tourney won't cut it. If you look at teams like Michigan they got in at 17/14 by playing a top ten schedule.

Rutgers had a non-con SOS in the 300's, managed to lose four of those games, and they got in.

The committee's message this year was pretty clear, all that mattered was winning big games, or a lot of games, in the regular season. Didn't matter who you lost to or when, just that you won big games or won a whole bunch of games.

So yes, more big win opportunities in non-conference would be nice, but we also need to win some big conference games.

bobinator said:

---

Rutgers had a non-con SOS in the 300's, managed to lose four of those games, and they got in.

The committee's message this year was pretty clear, all that mattered was winning big games, or a lot of games, in the regular season. Didn't matter who you lost to or when, just that you won big games or won a whole bunch of games.

So yes, more big win opportunities in non-conference would be nice, but we also need to win some big conference games.

---

You mean we should beat conference opponents like Arkansas and Alabama in the regular season?

And neutral game against Auburn and Arkansas…

I think OP is right though. Don't give the committee a reason to keep you out. Non-con SOS has long been a metric that the committee leans on when teams are close.

That being said , I don't think that's what kept us out. There were some other things going on that no one will ever admit.

Arkansas ended up with a net of 20 and Alabama with a NET of 30. Those are good wins, but those aren't huge wins. Rutgers had seven wins like those, it's why the committee overlooked everything else wrong with their resume.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is how selecting teams should work, but that's clearly the way this committee thought.

Playing bad games didn't matter, even losing bad games didn't matter, as long as you won some big ones.

solution to the problem....just dont lose 8 conference games in a row. if you win 2 of them, ags would be dancing in the Big Show.

mustang1234 said:

---

solution to the problem....just dont lose 8 conference games in a row. if you win 2 of them, ags would be dancing in the Big Show.

---

Why should the order of the losses matter? What if we had still finished 9-9, with the exact same results, but the games went W-L-W-L-W-L, etc.? Does that mean we had a better season if the losses had been spread out instead of grouped together?

Look last years schedule was bad. And next years isn't getting help from the mid major like tourney.

Next year we'll get to play in the SEC-B12 Challenge thing. Our tourney in Myrtle Beach is weak, so we'll have to find a way to either a.) schedule some good OOC games in December or b.) win 11+ SEC games in the regular season.

One thing that killed us this year was Oregon State being so, so, so, so bad. They were a Sweet 16 team last year, for heaven's sake. Making a road trip out there probably looked great on the schedule when the season started. Who knew the Beavers would only win 3 games all season long?

mustang1234 said:

---

solution to the problem....just dont lose 8 conference games in a row. if you win 2 of them, ags would be dancing in the Big Show.

---

So if we would have lost 6, won 1 and then lost 2, instead of losing 8 and then winning 1, we would have made it? Really?

Luke The Drifter said:

---

mustang1234 said:

---

solution to the problem....just dont lose 8 conference games in a row. if you win 2 of them, ags would be dancing in the Big Show.

---

Why should the order of the losses matter? What if we had still finished 9-9, with the exact same results, but the games went W-L-W-L-W-L, etc.? Does that mean we had a better season if the losses had been spread out instead of grouped together?

---

That's where the 8 straight loss argument makes no sense.

We didn't make it because the committee had the tournament slotted before the conference tournaments. It's not that hard to figure out.

While I agree generally that our non-conference SOS should be better, it seems like the relevant metric should be our overall SOS which was around 70th - not great, certainly, but not eliminating by itself.

What exasperates me about the process and the concept of transparency is the committee members, in the limited interviews they gave, stressed "total body of work" as the primary consideration when comparing bubble teams; if that's truly the case, then SOS for just a portion of the schedule shouldn't matter, and neither should an 8-game losing streak amidst a 35 game season. Stressing "total body of work" and then pointing to individual pieces of that body of work is just changing your justification when it's convenient.

Yeah, that's the whole story this year. The conference tournaments just didn't matter, basically at all.

SEC needs to move to 20 game schedule. That is hurting SEC teams currently.

When Texas and OU join they're going to have to change the schedule anyway so that's a good time to do that.

aginlakeway said:

---

mustang1234 said:

---

solution to the problem....just dont lose 8 conference games in a row. if you win 2 of them, ags would be dancing in the Big Show.

---

So if we would have lost 6, won 1 and then lost 2, instead of losing 8 and then winning 1, we would have made it? Really?

---

It would have made a difference. Because we were lifeless during the latter part of that 8 game stretch. We became less than an afterthought. We had to miraculously play our way back INTO even being thought about at the very end of the season.

If you keep even a little balance, even a little life, you remain in the conversation, and in the minds of the committee. Regardless of how they are supposed to evaluate the whole body of work, it's obvious they had already written us off, and nothing short of an AQ was going to help us.

Big Ten gets all three bubbles in, at least one of them with no chance other than a deep conference tourney run (Indiana).

There's no data or explanation for what those mental midgets did.

cupofjoe04 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

mustang1234 said:

---

solution to the problem....just dont lose 8 conference games in a row. if you win 2 of them, ags would be dancing in the Big Show.

---

So if we would have lost 6, won 1 and then lost 2, instead of losing 8 and then winning 1, we would have made it? Really?

---

It would have made a difference. Because we were lifeless during the latter part of that 8 game stretch. We became less than an afterthought. We had to miraculously play our way back INTO even being thought about at the very end of the season.

If you keep even a little balance, even a little life, you remain in the conversation, and in the minds of the committee. Regardless of how they are supposed to evaluate the whole body of work, it's obvious they had already written us off, and nothing short of an AQ was going to help us.

---

How do you know this? How could anyone know what the committee may have done?

I've always thought it would be great to have a home/home with Texas, Baylor, Tech, or Houston in November/December. Obviously not all 4 every season, but I think playing 2 each year is realistic, and would be a fun game/s to go to each season. Pretty much what the baseball team has been doing with Texas the last few years.

Would boost attendance, and boost the SOS.

bobinator said:

---

When Texas and OU join they're going to have to change the schedule anyway so that's a good time to do that.

---

Why wait? Big Ten, ACC and Pac 12 are already playing 20 game schedules

Well if they're going to join in '25 maybe go ahead and do it. If they're joining in '23 then it might not be worth changing the formula just for next year, especially since most teams' schedules are probably already set.

But I agree they need to move to a 20 game schedule. It helped the ACC and Big Ten teams.

MarcAg said:

---

SEC needs to move to 20 game schedule. That is hurting SEC teams currently.

---

This is a great idea, but I'm sure Sankey is already on top of this. Lol.

I posted this elsewhere, I've seen the non d1 game come up in several places. I guess we should have just had no game instead of playing that one. I assume we scheduled it, so we didn't have to refund tickets to fans or try to work through the logistics of that issue. Oh well.

The non-D1 game didn't matter at all.

So, Rutgers had 7 of those.

You left out our other wins. Auburn, Arkansas a second time and Florida neutral court. Also, either Notre Dame is good or they're not, so that win has to count in some fashion or, logically, a spot should be open.

It was a weak committee that made poor decisions in the face of clear evidence. That's the whole story, and that's why we shouldn't let up until the committee formulation is completely over-hauled and the results are beholden to the committee's own defined metrics with a transparent, data driven, metrics report.

Rutgers non conf SOS 354...Iowa State 328...TCU 296...USC 289...Indiana 321... Texas 341... And...Texas a&m 314... Every p5 team schedule cup cakes ..SEC conf schedule was tough enough.

I didn't leave out anything, I literally said the committee only counted the regular season.

bobinator said:

---

Arkansas ended up with a net of 20 and Alabama with a NET of 30. Those are good wins, but those aren't huge wins. Rutgers had seven wins like those, it's why the committee overlooked everything else wrong with their resume.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is how selecting teams should work, but that's clearly the way this committee thought.

Playing bad games didn't matter, even losing bad games didn't matter, as long as you won some big ones.

---

I think emphasis is on "the way this committee thought" These administrators are all over the map in knowledge, time spent, agendas, time spenrt. The position is a resume builder to some.

I think the biggest problem is next year we'll have a new committee, with new committee members, with a different set of standards, and everything teams do to overcome this year's committee "requirements" will be out the window when it comes to satisfying next year's committee "requirements."

It is amazing to me that an event with so much money on the line doesn't have a more well defined, highly educated group of folks serving on the committee. The CFP committee may not be great, but they are at least transparent with their Top 25 starting around the first of November. At least teams know where they stand, who needs to lose around them, and whether or not they're doing enough to be at the top of the list. With basketball (and baseball, for that matter), it's all smoke and mirrors.

The explanation for the Big 10 schools is that the Big 10 has a large college basketball fanbase. Those Big 10 schools are going to drive the tv ratings.

I actually think there's two possible reasons for this.

A) It's intentionally unclear so that teams and leagues don't try to game the system and stack their schedules in certain ways.

B) And this one is MUCH more likely, it just doesn't matter. They could put every at large team with a NET under 100 on a piece of paper and let a monkey pull them out and the ratings for the tournament are going to be the same. Whether the committee does an absolutely perfect job or an absolutely terrible job, it doesn't make a difference for the bottom line.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

I think the biggest problem is next year we'll have a new committee, with new committee members, with a different set of standards, and everything teams do to overcome this year's committee "requirements" will be out the window when it comes to satisfying next year's committee "requirements."

---

The committee will have 2 new members next year and all the rest will be the same.

MarcAg said:

---

Luke The Drifter said:

---

I think the biggest problem is next year we'll have a new committee, with new committee members, with a different set of standards, and everything teams do to overcome this year's committee "requirements" will be out the window when it comes to satisfying next year's committee "requirements."

---

The committee will have 2 new members next year and all the rest will be the same.

---

Good to know…although that does not guarantee the criteria won't drastically change.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

MarcAg said:

---

Luke The Drifter said:

---

I think the biggest problem is next year we'll have a new committee, with new committee members, with a different set of standards, and everything teams do to overcome this year's committee "requirements" will be out the window when it comes to satisfying next year's committee "requirements."

---

The committee will have 2 new members next year and all the rest will be the same.

---

Good to know…although that does not guarantee the criteria won't drastically change.

---

Especially when I don't think they even know what criteria they used.

I do think this year there was maybe a bias to historically good teams. Not only for those teams, but in the sense that if you beat those teams, you must also be pretty good, no matter if the data backed that up or not.