|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 29, 2015 18:12:10 GMT -5
top 100 isn't the ONLY cut-off, but it helps DIFFERENTIATE what a team has done, it also shows if a team (like Oregon) can win games I'm giving Oregon credit - but basically they have 3 good wins among a BUNCH of opportunities Oregon was 2-3 against teams 51-100, why in hades that so special? Long Beach was 5-1 against teams 51-100 - Long Beach proved they could be good teams more often than Oregon did - look at W-L % for each team top 50 & top 100 yeah, so Oregon got that ONE top 25 win when they had NINE chances, LB had 3 chances and yeah they went 0-3 but they also beat two teams in the top 30, so that is more than Oregon beat if you look closely Oregon is very very marginal - sorry to burst your bubble, but congrats on getting in - sheesh Dude, everyone knew Oregon was on the bubble, that's not a surprise. But unlike the Beach they did enough to get in. Once again, why is 51-100 important? Beach went 4-1 vs 80-100. Beating (most of the time) a bunch of teams who aren't even close to good enough to merit at-large consideration doesn't DIFFERENTIATE anything. lol - Oregon (or other teams) did 'enough' - lol, enough what?? yeah they beat UCLA all of a sudden 80 becomes your differentiator in what is a good team esepecially with RPI - bunch of crud - dude you went 2-3 against 51-100, you beat two bubble teams one in Colorado (incidently a fellow western team like Oregon & LB that gets devalued by RPI) so you had one 'lock' win against UCLA, versus LB had 2 against 'lock' teams San Diego & LMU - you make it sound like Oregon did 'so much' more or 'enough' when it's just not the case how many tourney teams did Oregon beat?? UCLA & ASU maybe, UTSA? basically hanging your hat on one really good win - look at the teams 40-60, mostly at most 1 win versus RPI top 25, so yeah top 100 is a differentiator as well, and in this case LB statistically did more LB went 2-3 versus top 50, versus Oregon at 2-9, even if we don't count or throw away the UW, USC, Stan matches, then Oregon went 2-3 against the rest like LB, so yes top 100 is a differentiator then, if played (like Oregon) played 10 matches against the top 50, yeah, statistically they were likely to win a couple, but they only played 5 hey, I'm not trying to discount or bag on Oregon, but to suggest they have some major difference or are really 'better' than LB when you look at their nitty-gritty (unlike the NCAA), that's just bogus
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 29, 2015 18:12:51 GMT -5
Utah is Utes (as in the Indian tribe - somehow not considered racist in this day and age) It's not derogatory if you have the support of the tribe in question, and IIRC they do.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 29, 2015 18:24:38 GMT -5
Dude, everyone knew Oregon was on the bubble, that's not a surprise. But unlike the Beach they did enough to get in. Once again, why is 51-100 important? Beach went 4-1 vs 80-100. Beating (most of the time) a bunch of teams who aren't even close to good enough to merit at-large consideration doesn't DIFFERENTIATE anything. lol - Oregon (or other teams) did 'enough' - lol, enough what?? yeah they beat UCLA all of a sudden 80 becomes your differentiator in what is a good team esepecially with RPI - bunch of crud - dude you went 2-3 against 51-100, you beat two bubble teams one in Colorado (incidently a fellow western team like Oregon & LB that gets devalued by RPI) so you had one 'lock' win against UCLA, versus LB had 2 against 'lock' teams San Diego & LMU - you make it sound like Oregon did 'so much' more or 'enough' when it's just not the case how many tourney teams did Oregon beat?? UCLA & ASU maybe, UTSA? basically hanging your hat on one really good win - look at the teams 40-60, mostly at most 1 win versus RPI top 25, so yeah top 100 is a differentiator as well, and in this case LB statistically did more LB went 2-3 versus top 50, versus Oregon at 2-9, even if we don't count or throw away the UW, USC, Stan matches, then Oregon went 2-3 against the rest like LB, so yes top 100 is a differentiator then, if played (like Oregon) played 10 matches against the top 50, yeah, statistically they were likely to win a couple, but they only played 5 hey, I'm not trying to discount or bag on Oregon, but to suggest they have some major difference or are really 'better' than LB when you look at their nitty-gritty (unlike the NCAA), that's just bogus You seem utterly incapable of differentiating between the degree of difficulties here, so I'll just leave you to look at Pablo, or even your beloved Massey ratings (which has Oregon as a Top 25 team and the Beach as.. well... not) and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 29, 2015 19:01:42 GMT -5
lol - Oregon (or other teams) did 'enough' - lol, enough what?? yeah they beat UCLA all of a sudden 80 becomes your differentiator in what is a good team esepecially with RPI - bunch of crud - dude you went 2-3 against 51-100, you beat two bubble teams one in Colorado (incidently a fellow western team like Oregon & LB that gets devalued by RPI) so you had one 'lock' win against UCLA, versus LB had 2 against 'lock' teams San Diego & LMU - you make it sound like Oregon did 'so much' more or 'enough' when it's just not the case how many tourney teams did Oregon beat?? UCLA & ASU maybe, UTSA? basically hanging your hat on one really good win - look at the teams 40-60, mostly at most 1 win versus RPI top 25, so yeah top 100 is a differentiator as well, and in this case LB statistically did more LB went 2-3 versus top 50, versus Oregon at 2-9, even if we don't count or throw away the UW, USC, Stan matches, then Oregon went 2-3 against the rest like LB, so yes top 100 is a differentiator then, if played (like Oregon) played 10 matches against the top 50, yeah, statistically they were likely to win a couple, but they only played 5 hey, I'm not trying to discount or bag on Oregon, but to suggest they have some major difference or are really 'better' than LB when you look at their nitty-gritty (unlike the NCAA), that's just bogus You seem utterly incapable of differentiating between the degree of difficulties here, so I'll just leave you to look at Pablo, or even your beloved Massey ratings (which has Oregon as a Top 25 team and the Beach as.. well... not) and be done with it. lol, that doesn't address what I've posted, I love it when posters have to resort to the 'insult' card. so go grab a mirror, dude - I understand Oregon's schedule fully the distinction that Oregon having 12 of their 16 wins outside the top 100 doesn't say much, yeah they have a UCLA win, other than that it's pretty week, and debatable (because of the LB winning in top 100/50 versus Oregon that Oregon is a more 'deserving' team so given you are quoting Massey, then I guess you agree LB is a NCAA quality team - lol
|
|
|
Post by Upfrontvb on Nov 29, 2015 19:08:16 GMT -5
My 2 cents. None of them. But if I had to chose, based on conference play, I would choose Oregon because they had a .500 conference season. They went 10-10 with a lose and win against UCLA and a lose to Arizona. They had an easy pre conference with only quality games to Florida and Nebraska which they lost. Arizona went 9-11 with a lose and a win to UCLA but they did beat Oregon. They had an easy pre conference with loses to Texas and Ohio. ASU went 8-12 with only a quality win against Standford. Pre conference was easy only quality win was against CSU.
I believe other teams in the smaller conferences with winning records could beat any of these teams. They just wont get the opportunity based on RPIs.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Nov 29, 2015 19:35:21 GMT -5
I may be overly impressed by late season performance, but, on that basis, Oregon is the obvious pick. For the same reason, Nebraska and Wisconsin look very well placed for success in the tourney--all a matter of matchups.
|
|
|
Post by timduckforlife on Nov 29, 2015 20:07:22 GMT -5
I'd definitely say ASU is out of that. Oregon beat them pretty handily at the end, and even before, ever since they lost Macy Gardener, their year was pretty much over, sadly. She was just a massive massive part of their offense that can't be replaced.
edit: though looking at the modified rpi, if correct, Arizona has the lowest rpi and ASU the highest. It's a crap shot really, I do think the Ducks are playing the best of the bunch atm
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Nov 29, 2015 21:17:36 GMT -5
Arizona's in!
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Nov 29, 2015 21:26:12 GMT -5
ASU's in! Oregon too!
|
|
|
Post by chatchu-off moksri on Nov 29, 2015 21:26:30 GMT -5
wow they all made it
|
|
|
Post by rtael on Nov 29, 2015 21:33:56 GMT -5
And Colorado didn't. I am dis gus ted.
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Nov 29, 2015 21:37:52 GMT -5
Oregon gets rewarded by round one against Wisconsin. Arizona St gets rewarded by round one against Florida State Arizona gets Western Kentucky, and despite the RPI, I think Arizona has the best chance for an upset.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Nov 29, 2015 21:39:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 29, 2015 21:56:40 GMT -5
And Colorado didn't. I am dis gus ted. I've argued for a few years now (and people always find reasons excuses why it won't work, but there should be a rule that in conferences with full-or-near-round-robin play, no team can be seeded ahead of a team that finished ahead of them in conference. I try to see the other side of the argument, which has been well expressed multiple times here. And while I might understand the argument that you could jump one team in conference. Heck, if I was sufficiently partaking of all herbal substances that were legal in the state of Washington, I might even understand two teams jumping over a team they were behind in conference. But three? Three?!!! That really cheapens the conference play.
|
|
|
Post by herdmentality on Nov 29, 2015 21:56:37 GMT -5
TrojanSC predicted Kritza would be pissed Monday. He was wrong. She's pissed Sunday night. Colorado had a nice team.
|
|