bobinator said:

---

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.

---

There was also bias to the smaller guys too. They looked after the non power conference schools big time this year. San Fran beat Davidson, BYU, BYU again, UAB. And they were a no brainer in?

That's the "win a lot of games" part of it. They liked teams with really good records.

San Francisco doesn't bother me much, the metrics back them up. Wyoming I have beef with.

bobinator said:

---

That's the "win a lot of games" part of it. They liked teams with really good records.

San Francisco doesn't bother me much, the metrics back them up. Wyoming I have beef with.

---

The metrics back them up because the NET is HORRIBLE. Look at their schedule alone. Tell me that team belongs in the NCAA tournament at all, much less a 10 seed.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/2539

You can hate the NET if you want but they're backed up by the others also. Their predictive metrics average is an impressive 28.3 (BPI, KenPom, Sagarin) and their resume rank is 40.3. Not as high as their NET, but still good and light years better than Wyoming's 81.3 predictive ranking, though Wyoming's resume-based rank was a lot better at 46.

San Fran is getting rewarded by the computers for losing to Gonzaga 3 times and losing to St Mary's twice.

That's not how the computers work, you know that. Your efficiency is weighted by the strength of schedule. If they were just crushing the awful teams and getting their ass beat by the good ones it would show up.

San Francisco had a road win over BYU and neutral site wins over UAB, Fresno, and Davidson in the regular season.

They've been good all season.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It will help throw off the person that thinks we are the same person.

I give them credit for beating BYU and Davidson. Nice wins. Beating Fresno is beating Ole Miss at best.

San Fran's resume is average.

I'm just a pretty big fan of the efficiency metrics because it takes a lot of the inherent bias out of it. There's some flaws, but overall I think they're a good way to judge teams.

That's why it annoys me so much that Rutgers got in. Rutgers getting in only makes sense if you're just completely ignoring the metrics and looking at their big wins, which is a really stupid way of looking at teams.

It's funny that Buzz talked about the NET a few months back and how he thought it has serious issues. This was long before we were even on the bubble.

I don't like that they don't publish the NET values. We know what ingredients are in there but we don't know how much they're weighted because you can't reverse engineer it.

But KenPom or Torvik's 'T-Rank' are more open. There's usually not a ton of variance between the three though.

Where the NET is going to have trouble though, and there's room for a debate here over whether this should matter or not, is when external factors impact a team for an extended amount of time. For example, an injured player or a suspension. Should they really take that into account or not?

I don't remember Buzz talking about that though, you remember when that was?

So not only we're we punished for playing Abilene Christian type teams, we were also punished for not crushing them? Or am I interpreting this wrong?

The close calls vs. ACU, Butler, Oregon State, Georgia, and Mizzou were double-whammys?

I would like to see proof the committee did anything other than look at overall records, and name recognition, and buddy consideration.

Buzz's data models are light years beyond anything they used, I believe is obvious.

Let this year be a lesson to all the College Football playoffs need to be like BB people. Doesn't matter what you do to the system when you still have stupid biased people making the decisions.

Sort of. I wouldn't say it's a "double whammy" it's just a whammy. Though again, how exactly the NET calculation works is unclear.

But in KenPom and TRank, yes. Playing poorly against bad teams is bad, even if you ultimately win. Playing well against good teams is good, even if you ultimately lose.

In a small sample set this would be pretty problematic because of the luck factor (like in college football), but in college basketball there's significantly more data.

Fairview20 said:

---

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.

---

This. More regional home-and-home matchups would be great. These games would strengthen the schedule and draw fan interest. No one wants to go to venues like Dickies arena, play the games on campus. I will travel to away games in Texas if it's on another school's campus. I'm not wasting my money at lifeless venues like Dickies Arena or Toyota Center.

Again. We were penalized because we got the NIL figured out in football.

Quote:

---

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

---

ding ding ding ding ding ding

We had Kentucky on the ropes at Reed and poor ball handling and slow D cost us. We needed to win a game like that when we had in our reach.

Aggies should schedule tournaments during the holiday season. During the years of Shelby Metcalf, the Aggies played in several tournaments during late November through December. I recall some years which A&M had a tournament almost every weekend for the month of December. They won some tournament championships in some years. Tournament play also conditions the team for post season tournaments such as the SEC tournament, the NCAA, and the NIT . Anyone who has followed Aggie basketball knows that Metcalf was referred to as the King of the Tournaments because the Aggies competed in 2, 3, or 4 during the Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Years cycle. I recall listening to game broadcasts over KRLD many years when they played in tournaments.

I recall one in particular when the Aggies played in Seattle against San Francisco U. and Seattle University. A&M won the tournament. This was during the time of Ronny Peret, Billy Bob Barnett, et al

Also what happened to the Shelby Metcalf Tournament. It was scheduled only one time when BCG was the coach. I'd like to see the Athletic Department bring it back someday.

That's stupid

I don't think the committee gives a damn about who the 11, 12, 13, 14 15 seeds are, They think "Hell, there are 68 teams in this thing, how can someone ***** about not making it out of 68 teams". Socialism at it's best.

agtrevino07 said:

---

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.

---

But those other conferences either schedule 20 games or play a full conference schedule.

I think the committee should take a look at the finish in conference. If a team finishes below .500 in all conference games, they shouldn't be one of the 36 at large teams.

There's a lot of ways to end up on the bubble. Having a good out of conference schedules helps you get off the bubble.

AggieHoopsGuy said:

---

Fairview20 said:

---

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.

---

This. More regional home-and-home matchups would be great. These games would strengthen the schedule and draw fan interest. No one wants to go to venues like Dickies arena, play the games on campus. I will travel to away games in Texas if it's on another school's campus. I'm not wasting my money at lifeless venues like Dickies Arena or Toyota Center.

---

College basketball has a regular season problem that often gets blamed on the NCAA tournament, and maybe that is most the blame, but coaches and ADs scheduling crap games at home and going to neutral sites for more competitive teams does nothing to boost interest in college basketball as college football is wrapping up.

People blaming our non-conference SOS are way off base. We had a better SOS out of conference than both Tech and Texas for example. On paper Wisconsin, Butler, ND, TCU, and @Oregon St is good enough when you add in the SEC schedule. That's just an excuse as to one of the reasons "why" we were left out. The schedulers can't control that Oregon St would only win like 5 games a year removed from the elite 8.

Jimbo hiked his leg on ND just last month and the committee has a bunch of ND with significant ND ties. It was personal bias not SOS.