|
Post by heuschele on Mar 18, 2024 7:22:33 GMT -8
I think other teams are justified in their complaints. We finished in 5th place yet have by far the best seeding? I guess they really do value the OOC schedule difficulty but think that's a bit much. I would say they value the OOC games but more the net. Each seed is consistent or close to consistent with their net ranking. The net does not penalize close losses against good teams. I personally think that great teams find ways to win close games. However, the net is the current ranking system in favor by selection committee and it is an improvement on RPI. Because the Aztec conference losses, except NM, were close against good teams usually away (Boise home loss excepted) they did not negatively impact our net much. Net shows a #5, committee gave us a #5. I was expecting a #6 due to the number of losses. Go aztecs
|
|
|
Post by azteclou on Mar 18, 2024 7:33:56 GMT -8
I think other teams are justified in their complaints. We finished in 5th place yet have by far the best seeding? I guess they really do value the OOC schedule difficulty but think that's a bit much. People seem to forget that a few weeks ago the selection committee revealed the current One through Four seeds and SDSU was a Four. Not only were the Aztecs a 4 but they were the second seeded Four. That means the committee ranked SDSU as 14. That was the baseline. So the Aztecs lose at home to Boise and lose to NM in Final and it dropped the Aztecs from a 4 to a 5. Aztecs are now the overall 18 seed. It was never doom and gloom. In retrospect the Aztecs fell from 14 to 18 ( from Four to Five seed) because they lost a couple of games. Seems to me that had we beaten NM in final we most likely would have remained a Four.
|
|
|
Post by heuschele on Mar 18, 2024 7:51:45 GMT -8
I think other teams are justified in their complaints. We finished in 5th place yet have by far the best seeding? I guess they really do value the OOC schedule difficulty but think that's a bit much. People seem to forget that a few weeks ago the selection committee revealed the current One through Four seeds and SDSU was a Four. Not only were the Aztecs a 4 but they were the second seeded Four. That means the committee ranked SDSU as 14. That was the baseline. So the Aztecs lose at home to Boise and lose to NM in Final and it dropped the Aztecs from a 4 to a 5. Aztecs are now the overall 18 seed. It was never doom and gloom. In retrospect the Aztecs fell from 14 to 18 ( from Four to Five seed) because they lost a couple of games. Seems to me that had we beaten NM in final we most likely would have remained a Four. I believe the unlv loss was after the pre-season ranking release. 2-3 post release of that second and dropping only 4 spots (1 seed) is kind. Go aztecs
|
|
|
Post by azteclou on Mar 18, 2024 8:02:21 GMT -8
People seem to forget that a few weeks ago the selection committee revealed the current One through Four seeds and SDSU was a Four. Not only were the Aztecs a 4 but they were the second seeded Four. That means the committee ranked SDSU as 14. That was the baseline. So the Aztecs lose at home to Boise and lose to NM in Final and it dropped the Aztecs from a 4 to a 5. Aztecs are now the overall 18 seed. It was never doom and gloom. In retrospect the Aztecs fell from 14 to 18 ( from Four to Five seed) because they lost a couple of games. Seems to me that had we beaten NM in final we most likely would have remained a Four. I believe the unlv loss was after the pre-season ranking release. 2-3 post release of that second and dropping only 4 spots (1 seed) is kind. Go aztecs Good point. I didn’t even mention the loss to UNLV which just shows how much respect the Aztecs got from the committee. Again the Four was the baseline and there was some wiggle room for the Aztecs.
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Mar 18, 2024 8:30:40 GMT -8
USU had a better resume than us. 4-5 Q1, 4-1 Q2 > 4-9 Q1, 6-1 Q2.
The committee was very picky about NCSOS this year. They really wanted to punish teams who played weak OOC schedules this year. Unfortunately for MWC teams at elevation, it's really hard to put together a good OOC schedule. Good teams aren't willing to do a Home and Home in Logan.
USU fans have a right to be annoyed. They got screwed on their seed. CSU probably didn't deserve the playin game. Boise did, though it's only because of the bid thieves pushing the playin game down to the 10 seed. Nevada should have been a better seed too, but honestly their draw as a #10 is a very favorable draw -- Dayton is weaker than any of the #8/9 seeds, and they avoid a R32 against a #1 seed, so it worked out for them.
Teams shouldn't be punished because of lack of success in prior years as the OP seems to imply. Why should Sprinkle and co @ USU be punished for Odom's failures in the tournament? It's the 2024 Tournament, it has nothing to do with prior years. By that same logic we should have been given an 8 seed last year because prior to last year's run, we'd underperformed in March -- every single year we underperformed our expected win totals based on the seed we were, and we never beat a higher seed than us.
Regardless, what's the point in going to a fan board, and then complaining about their complaints? Did you expect all the fan boards to all say "welp golly gee we are lucky to even be in the tournament!"
|
|
|
Post by AzTuba85 on Mar 18, 2024 8:39:14 GMT -8
MWC plan to get as many seeds as possible diluted SDSU's seed. no reason for us to share the same seed as Gonzaga and St Mary's. not rooting for any of the Mountain Goat teams this year. When the MWC goes to a 20-game schedule, we'll have fewer opportunities for quality out of conference wins. We need the conference to be respected, because the vast majority of our games will be in conference now. It's put up or shut up time and that goes all the way to the commish...
|
|
|
Post by AzTuba85 on Mar 18, 2024 8:42:05 GMT -8
Boise is going crazy over there 10 seed and spot in the play in round. They think they should have been at least a 7 seed. I completely agree, they got the shaft. They should have been a 7 or 8 seed, and we should have been a 6 seed. Getting a 5 seed with our record in Q1 games is wild, and dare I say mostly due to our performance in the tournament last year. All that being said, I think the committee looked at the MW metrics, and record against P5 conferences, and said: "Okay, we will give you the 6 tournament slots that your conferences OOC record demands, but we want you to prove that you are actually better then the PAC12 and the ACC this year." Boise State vs. Colorado, Colorado State vs. Virginia in the play-in games. Time for the MW teams to show up and prove the metrics right. BYU not playing on Sunday's is the reason for our flip flop with their seeding position
|
|
|
Post by azman on Mar 18, 2024 8:51:48 GMT -8
I completely agree, they got the shaft. They should have been a 7 or 8 seed, and we should have been a 6 seed. Getting a 5 seed with our record in Q1 games is wild, and dare I say mostly due to our performance in the tournament last year. All that being said, I think the committee looked at the MW metrics, and record against P5 conferences, and said: "Okay, we will give you the 6 tournament slots that your conferences OOC record demands, but we want you to prove that you are actually better then the PAC12 and the ACC this year." Boise State vs. Colorado, Colorado State vs. Virginia in the play-in games. Time for the MW teams to show up and prove the metrics right. BYU not playing on Sunday's is the reason for our flip flop with their seeding position No, BYU fipped with Gonzaga
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 18, 2024 9:17:46 GMT -8
I think other teams are justified in their complaints. We finished in 5th place yet have by far the best seeding? I guess they really do value the OOC schedule difficulty but think that's a bit much. I would say they value the OOC games but more the net. Each seed is consistent or close to consistent with their net ranking. The net does not penalize close losses against good teams. I personally think that great teams find ways to win close games. However, the net is the current ranking system in favor by selection committee and it is an improvement on RPI. Because the Aztec conference losses, except NM, were close against good teams usually away (Boise home loss excepted) they did not negatively impact our net much. Net shows a #5, committee gave us a #5. I was expecting a #6 due to the number of losses. Go aztecs Yeah they really overvalue the NET and undervalue Q1 record imo
|
|
|
Post by sdsu1975 on Mar 18, 2024 9:19:19 GMT -8
We got a 5 seed because of last season's NCAA finals. Our conference members that are complaining need to STFU and win something.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Mar 18, 2024 10:12:09 GMT -8
the MW coaches have been told numerous times to try to schedule decent OOC games - especially games against quality games on the road or neutral site
SDSU - scheduled games with BYU - Grand Canyon - Zags - St Mary's so you reward teams that take on challenging games and teams that are playing in MM
SDSU has had to go through the same when it was selected to MM but had a bad seed or had to fly across the country
the selection group has said that it looks at a team's schedule - for NON P6 schools there could be a strong consideration at a team's OOC
SDSU might have gotten an easier first game but then it gets a good Auburn team - if both teams win their first game - followed by playing #1 UCONN - not the easiest of games
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2024 10:30:24 GMT -8
Boise is going crazy over there 10 seed and spot in the play in round. They think they should have been at least a 7 seed. And they are right.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 18, 2024 10:45:55 GMT -8
the MW coaches have been told numerous times to try to schedule decent OOC games - especially games against quality games on the road or neutral site SDSU - scheduled games with BYU - Grand Canyon - Zags - St Mary's so you reward teams that take on challenging games and teams that are playing in MM SDSU has had to go through the same when it was selected to MM but had a bad seed or had to fly across the country the selection group has said that it looks at a team's schedule - for NON P6 schools there could be a strong consideration at a team's OOC SDSU might have gotten an easier first game but then it gets a good Auburn team - if both teams win their first game - followed by playing #1 UCONN - not the easiest of games Auburn is overrated, but yeah facing UCONN is a difficult assignment.
|
|
|
Post by billypadre on Mar 18, 2024 10:58:41 GMT -8
Besides the Aztecs what MWC teams have done ANYTHING in the NCAA's? Didn't we go through this a few years ago when several MWC teams went to the tourney and got knocked out quick, I think State was the only team to win a game. Having said that, didn't high-seed Creighton play Colorado State early this year and get whupped? Didn't UNLV whip Creighton pretty good too? Purdue seems to lose in the 1st round every year yet they still get the high seed.
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Mar 18, 2024 11:10:15 GMT -8
We got a 5 seed because of last season's NCAA finals. Our conference members that are complaining need to STFU and win something. This. MWC teams outside of SDSU constantly disappoint in the tournament. I like SDSU to beat UAB and I think UNM also has a good chance to win. I expect the other 4 to lose.
|
|
|
Post by heuschele on Mar 18, 2024 11:19:35 GMT -8
Besides the Aztecs what MWC teams have done ANYTHING in the NCAA's? Didn't we go through this a few years ago when several MWC teams went to the tourney and got knocked out quick, I think State was the only team to win a game. Having said that, didn't high-seed Creighton play Colorado State early this year and get whupped? Didn't UNLV whip Creighton pretty good too? Purdue seems to lose in the 1st round every year yet they still get the high seed. past years’ performance should not impact this year’s seeding. In addition, if MWC teams are consistently seeded in bottom half of bracket, then they are likely to lose their first game. How many MWC teams besides sdsu have been ranked in upper half of the seeding in the last decade? Not many. I believe SDSU also lost their first game that year. Until last year, dutcher HC teams had always lost their initial game. Of course the great Flynn team did not get to play in ncaa tournament. It would have been a 2nd or 3rd seed, but that team never lost with their starting 5 and mensa was expected to be available for the ncaa tournament. Colorado state is good, but not deep enough to have good chance for deep run. Their seeding makes game 1 a challenge. Unlv was too inconsistent. They could get whooped by AFA but whoop creighton. Creighton is better than it displayed in those games. I think if conference wants better seeding, they have to schedule better OOC teams. This is tough if you are a Mtn school. No one wants to play at your site, so you can only get road games. Coming out with a good record is challenging.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Mar 18, 2024 11:32:42 GMT -8
People may not like what the committee did this tournament, but they have been consistent year after year. OOC SOS is very important and yes they do let last year's results influence this year's seeding. www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/non-conference-sos-by-otherSDSU 17 BOISE 32 CSU 39 UNLV 59 NEV 76 UNM 80 USU 87 If the MW wants those interconference Q1 games to matter, then they need to win in the tournament. I will also note that I actually think they were givensome favorable matchups and the focus is too much on the seeds. And the BE was given the same treatment as well.
|
|
|
Post by kozy on Mar 18, 2024 11:34:34 GMT -8
MWC plan to get as many seeds as possible diluted SDSU's seed. no reason for us to share the same seed as Gonzaga and St Mary's. not rooting for any of the Mountain Goat teams this year. When the MWC goes to a 20-game schedule, we'll have fewer opportunities for quality out of conference wins. We need the conference to be respected, because the vast majority of our games will be in conference now. SDSU was the only school to vote against the 20 game league schedule. If UNM did't beat us, they were headed home. The other teams played pancakes so they get what they cooked up during the season, nothing.
|
|
|
Post by aztecx on Mar 18, 2024 11:56:04 GMT -8
USU had a better resume than us. 4-5 Q1, 4-1 Q2 > 4-9 Q1, 6-1 Q2. The committee was very picky about NCSOS this year. They really wanted to punish teams who played weak OOC schedules this year. Unfortunately for MWC teams at elevation, it's really hard to put together a good OOC schedule. Good teams aren't willing to do a Home and Home in Logan. USU fans have a right to be annoyed. They got screwed on their seed. CSU probably didn't deserve the playin game. Boise did, though it's only because of the bid thieves pushing the playin game down to the 10 seed. Nevada should have been a better seed too, but honestly their draw as a #10 is a very favorable draw -- Dayton is weaker than any of the #8/9 seeds, and they avoid a R32 against a #1 seed, so it worked out for them. Teams shouldn't be punished because of lack of success in prior years as the OP seems to imply. Why should Sprinkle and co @ USU be punished for Odom's failures in the tournament? It's the 2024 Tournament, it has nothing to do with prior years. By that same logic we should have been given an 8 seed last year because prior to last year's run, we'd underperformed in March -- every single year we underperformed our expected win totals based on the seed we were, and we never beat a higher seed than us. Regardless, what's the point in going to a fan board, and then complaining about their complaints? Did you expect all the fan boards to all say "welp golly gee we are lucky to even be in the tournament!" They did not have a better resume. Net OCC was 198. Net 38. KenPom 48. Also, they missed Nev and unlv on the conference schedule.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 18, 2024 12:05:56 GMT -8
SDSU played 20 Q1/Q2 games. That is an absolute load for a non P6 conference team.
USU played 14.
|
|