Oklahoma vs #21 Rice | Thu 12/5/19 530PM ET

[redbeard2008]

Owls "rice" the Sooners.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2019 19:22:47 GMT -5 horns1 said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:11:26 GMT -5 @fetchin said:

The big 12 is overated deserved only two bids.

Stop it. OU was #33 in RPI; Rice was #14. 

OU did what they needed to in the season to earn their bid.

Rpi inflated playing texas and baylor twice basically! Cal whopped them!a cal rice match would have been more competitive and fun.

[trojansc]

Dec 5, 2019 19:29:49 GMT -5 horns1 said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:27:20 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Your statement is true.

But, Oklahoma did only beat 1 T50 team -- splitting with Iowa State, who was falling but luckily stayed in the T50. They did however not lose to anyone worse than Iowa State (very very similar to South Carolina - but with a better RPI). If Oklahoma's RPI was in the 40s -- I think they would be a 50/50 in most years.

You have more metrics than I do. But, no team in the RPI Top 35 is getting left out of the tourney, right (assuming they have an overall winning record)?

I can't remember what exactly UNLV's RPI was in 2016, but I'm pretty sure it was around 33-35 and they were among the "last 2 in" according to the committee with a resume VERY similar to Oklahoma's.

I had Oklahoma listed as a lock because of the relative strength of the bubble (i.e South Dakota had a worse RPI and 0 T50 wins), so for this year, it was clear Oklahoma was in.

I'm still not saying Oklahoma wasn't deserving, but, they were a beneficiary of the RPI system. They earned the merits by the committee's measures, which is something we can't change. But I'm not sure how anyone can say Cal didn't have a better year.

[horns1]

Dec 5, 2019 19:36:02 GMT -5 @fetchin said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:22:47 GMT -5 horns1 said:

Stop it. OU was #33 in RPI; Rice was #14. 

OU did what they needed to in the season to earn their bid.

Rpi inflated playing texas and baylor twice basically! Cal whopped them!a cal rice match would have been more competitive and fun.

We'll never know.  OU wasn't responsible for Cal being left out.  Cal shouldn't have tanked in their last 10 matches.

[horns1]

Dec 5, 2019 19:36:04 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:29:49 GMT -5 horns1 said:

You have more metrics than I do. But, no team in the RPI Top 35 is getting left out of the tourney, right (assuming they have an overall winning record)?

I can't remember what exactly UNLV's RPI was in 2016, but I'm pretty sure it was around 33-35 and they were among the "last 2 in" according to the committee with a resume VERY similar to Oklahoma's.

I had Oklahoma listed as a lock because of the relative strength of the bubble (i.e South Dakota had a worse RPI and 0 T50 wins), so for this year, it was clear Oklahoma was in.

I'm still not saying Oklahoma wasn't deserving, but, they were a beneficiary of the RPI system. They earned the merits by the committee's measures, which is something we can't change. But I'm not sure how anyone can say Cal didn't have a better year.

But, they went 3-7 in their last 10 matches, right? That's part of the selection criteria.

[trojansc]

Dec 5, 2019 19:42:05 GMT -5 horns1 said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:36:04 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I can't remember what exactly UNLV's RPI was in 2016, but I'm pretty sure it was around 33-35 and they were among the "last 2 in" according to the committee with a resume VERY similar to Oklahoma's.

I had Oklahoma listed as a lock because of the relative strength of the bubble (i.e South Dakota had a worse RPI and 0 T50 wins), so for this year, it was clear Oklahoma was in.

I'm still not saying Oklahoma wasn't deserving, but, they were a beneficiary of the RPI system. They earned the merits by the committee's measures, which is something we can't change. But I'm not sure how anyone can say Cal didn't have a better year.

But, they went 3-7 in their last 10 matches, right? That's part of the selection criteria.

It's actually listed under Secondary criteria for determining at-large bids. That criteria is only supposed to come into play if teams are effectively tied in primary criteria. This is the inconsitency that frustrates people with the NCAA Committee. This time they chose to make a secondary criteria seem more important than even some primary criteria (such as Cal beating good teams in the non-conference AND have better wins in conference when compared to a team like VCU who is right next to them in RPI). That is very very strange.

And -- the committee has the listed RPI of each team they played in their Last 10 matches. If Cal played in the Big 12 or Atlantic 10 -- obviously their last 10 matches would have had a better record but against a weaker strength of schedule.

(and for the record - this has nothing to do with anti-big 12 bias or pro-pac-12 bias) I was a huge champion of Kansas State being royally screwed by the NCAA committee last year.

[horns1]

Dec 5, 2019 19:47:23 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:42:05 GMT -5 horns1 said:

But, they went 3-7 in their last 10 matches, right? That's part of the selection criteria.

It's actually listed under Secondary criteria for determining at-large bids. That criteria is only supposed to come into play if teams are effectively tied in primary criteria. This is the inconsitency that frustrates people with the NCAA Committee. This time they chose to make a secondary criteria seem more important than even some primary criteria (such as Cal beating good teams in the non-conference AND have better wins in conference when compared to a team like VCU who is right next to them in RPI). That is very very strange.

And -- the committee has the listed RPI of each team they played in their Last 10 matches. If Cal played in the Big 12 or Atlantic 10 -- obviously their last 10 matches would have had a better record but against a weaker strength of schedule.

(and for the record - this has nothing to do with anti-big 12 bias or pro-pac-12 bias) I was a huge champion of Kansas State being royally screwed by the NCAA committee last year.

I have always enjoyed your posts.  But, for you to call out a team as undeserving in favor of a team who did not make the field AFTER the first round match concludes is disappointing and very disrespectful to OU.  Expected better from you. If you want to say OU was undeserving, do it immediately after the bracket was released (maybe you did and I missed it).

As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

[trojansc]

Dec 5, 2019 20:05:25 GMT -5 horns1 said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:47:23 GMT -5 trojansc said:

It's actually listed under Secondary criteria for determining at-large bids. That criteria is only supposed to come into play if teams are effectively tied in primary criteria. This is the inconsitency that frustrates people with the NCAA Committee. This time they chose to make a secondary criteria seem more important than even some primary criteria (such as Cal beating good teams in the non-conference AND have better wins in conference when compared to a team like VCU who is right next to them in RPI). That is very very strange.

And -- the committee has the listed RPI of each team they played in their Last 10 matches. If Cal played in the Big 12 or Atlantic 10 -- obviously their last 10 matches would have had a better record but against a weaker strength of schedule.

(and for the record - this has nothing to do with anti-big 12 bias or pro-pac-12 bias) I was a huge champion of Kansas State being royally screwed by the NCAA committee last year.

I have always enjoyed your posts.  But, for you to call out a team as undeserving in favor of a team who did not make the field AFTER the first round match concludes is disappointing and very disrespectful to OU.  Expected better from you. If you want to say OU was undeserving, do it immediately after the bracket was released (maybe you did and I missed it).

As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean? Did you read the last post where it literally says I'm not saying Oklahoma was undeserving?     

You're so confusing my position here, and nowhere have I said Oklahoma shouldn't have made the tournament (even here, after the sweep!). Regardless of Cal, Oklahoma still had a better profile than so many teams below them and that's why I had Oklahoma as a LOCK. Where did I call out Oklahoma as undeserving? I just said that Cal's overall season was better, what does that have to do with meaning OU was undeserving?

[horns1]

Dec 5, 2019 20:21:29 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Dec 5, 2019 20:05:25 GMT -5 horns1 said:

I have always enjoyed your posts.  But, for you to call out a team as undeserving in favor of a team who did not make the field AFTER the first round match concludes is disappointing and very disrespectful to OU.  Expected better from you. If you want to say OU was undeserving, do it immediately after the bracket was released (maybe you did and I missed it).

As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean? Did you read the last post where it literally says I'm not saying Oklahoma was undeserving?     

You're so confusing my position here, and nowhere have I said Oklahoma shouldn't have made the tournament (even here, after the sweep!). Regardless of Cal, Oklahoma still had a better profile than so many teams below them and that's why I had Oklahoma as a LOCK. Where did I call out Oklahoma as undeserving? I just said that Cal's overall season was better, what does that have to do with meaning OU was undeserving?

Why you are even comparing OU to Cal in THIS thread is beyond me; it's irrelevant.  Yes, I know another poster brought up Cal initially, but you continued it by listing OU and Cal's wins as if that's supposed to prove Cal should be in over OU.  It's done; the bracket was finalized 5 days ago.

[trojansc]

Dec 5, 2019 20:27:13 GMT -5 horns1 said:

Dec 5, 2019 20:21:29 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean? Did you read the last post where it literally says I'm not saying Oklahoma was undeserving?     

You're so confusing my position here, and nowhere have I said Oklahoma shouldn't have made the tournament (even here, after the sweep!). Regardless of Cal, Oklahoma still had a better profile than so many teams below them and that's why I had Oklahoma as a LOCK. Where did I call out Oklahoma as undeserving? I just said that Cal's overall season was better, what does that have to do with meaning OU was undeserving?

Why you are even comparing OU to Cal in THIS thread is beyond me; it's irrelevant.  Yes, I know another poster brought up Cal initially, but you continued it by listing OU and Cal's wins as if that's supposed to prove Cal should be in over OU.  It's done; the bracket was finalized 5 days ago.

Okay I ask that you completely re-read this thread if you think that's my opinion. But I'll summarize what happened here to make it easier:

TWO other posters brought Cal up here with one saying they should have been in instead of Big 12 teams. I did NOT agree with that.

I quoted you and said your statement was TRUE and agreed that Oklahoma was deserving. But I listed Oklahoma and CAL's profiles because they brought them into the discussion. I argued that Oklahoma was a lock because of it being more deserving than teams below it, but that still didn't change my opinion of Cal's year.

I didn't create any narrative here - just gave the facts and answered questions you had. You created some own narrative that I never said. That's it.

And also because it hasn't been stated here enough -- Nicole Lennon and Rice are very good! They could very well win this subregional so even though they swept OU convincingly, it could say a lot more about Rice than Oklahoma here.

[horns1]

Dec 5, 2019 19:36:04 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Dec 5, 2019 19:29:49 GMT -5 horns1 said:

You have more metrics than I do. But, no team in the RPI Top 35 is getting left out of the tourney, right (assuming they have an overall winning record)?

I can't remember what exactly UNLV's RPI was in 2016, but I'm pretty sure it was around 33-35 and they were among the "last 2 in" according to the committee with a resume VERY similar to Oklahoma's.

I had Oklahoma listed as a lock because of the relative strength of the bubble (i.e South Dakota had a worse RPI and 0 T50 wins), so for this year, it was clear Oklahoma was in.

I'm still not saying Oklahoma wasn't deserving, but, they were a beneficiary of the RPI system. They earned the merits by the committee's measures, which is something we can't change. But I'm not sure how anyone can say Cal didn't have a better year.

You are right.  You did not say they were undeserving; my mistake.  You felt the need to give them some backhanded compliments, that's for sure, while continuing to pimp Cal.