NET rankings
- Thread starter ADORAZ
- Start date
I've been citing a similar refrain to myself this week as well.
Let's win our remaining home games, including against mighty Nova, and get 1 - 2 road wins, get to the BET Final Game and maybe a 6 - 7 seed and better dance prospects lie ahead...
Let's win our remaining home games, including against mighty Nova, and get 1 - 2 road wins, get to the BET Final Game and maybe a 6 - 7 seed and better dance prospects lie ahead...
[quote="Adam" post=321137]Although our OOC worked out this year... hopefully we never repeat it. Couldn't even imagine the commentary had we gone 11-2 or 10-3. All these uninformed takes after going 12-1 are bad enough.[/quote]
It is not uninformed to say that the OOC schedule was very weak. It is unfortunate, though not uninformed, to omit the fact that STJ took care of business in the weak schedule rather than experience any bad losses.
It is not uninformed to say that the OOC schedule was very weak. It is unfortunate, though not uninformed, to omit the fact that STJ took care of business in the weak schedule rather than experience any bad losses.
jerseyshorejohnny
Well-known member
From The ATHLETIC:
St. John’s (17-6, 5-5 — NET: 39, SOS: 49): Well, well, well. Looks like St. John’s is not, in fact, a total nightmare of a disaster of a mess (a nightmesster? let’s workshop it) after all. As the Watch has covered, Jan. 27’s home loss to Georgetown sent at least a few reporters into apoplectic fits. The Red Storm are 2-1 since, with the two being wins at Creighton and Marquette and the one being a loss at Duke, which, duh. Shamorie Ponds and Co. could hit another valley or two before the season is over, but for the time being, the Johnnies remain on track to get back to the NCAA Tournament for the first time in Chris Mullins’ four-year tenure. Not too shabby, that.
St. John’s (17-6, 5-5 — NET: 39, SOS: 49): Well, well, well. Looks like St. John’s is not, in fact, a total nightmare of a disaster of a mess (a nightmesster? let’s workshop it) after all. As the Watch has covered, Jan. 27’s home loss to Georgetown sent at least a few reporters into apoplectic fits. The Red Storm are 2-1 since, with the two being wins at Creighton and Marquette and the one being a loss at Duke, which, duh. Shamorie Ponds and Co. could hit another valley or two before the season is over, but for the time being, the Johnnies remain on track to get back to the NCAA Tournament for the first time in Chris Mullins’ four-year tenure. Not too shabby, that.
[quote="jerseyshorejohnny" post=321150]From The ATHLETIC:
St. John’s (17-6, 5-5 — NET: 39, SOS: 49): Well, well, well. Looks like St. John’s is not, in fact, a total nightmare of a disaster of a mess (a nightmesster? let’s workshop it) after all. As the Watch has covered, Jan. 27’s home loss to Georgetown sent at least a few reporters into apoplectic fits. The Red Storm are 2-1 since, with the two being wins at Creighton and Marquette and the one being a loss at Duke, which, duh. Shamorie Ponds and Co. could hit another valley or two before the season is over, but for the time being, the Johnnies remain on track to get back to the NCAA Tournament for the first time in Chris Mullins’ four-year tenure. Not too shabby, that.[/quote]
That is why Coach preaches one game at a time and building very day. The program is moving in the right direction to be a consistent 20 win program or better each year. Lets get Providence tomorrow and take another small step forward.
St. John’s (17-6, 5-5 — NET: 39, SOS: 49): Well, well, well. Looks like St. John’s is not, in fact, a total nightmare of a disaster of a mess (a nightmesster? let’s workshop it) after all. As the Watch has covered, Jan. 27’s home loss to Georgetown sent at least a few reporters into apoplectic fits. The Red Storm are 2-1 since, with the two being wins at Creighton and Marquette and the one being a loss at Duke, which, duh. Shamorie Ponds and Co. could hit another valley or two before the season is over, but for the time being, the Johnnies remain on track to get back to the NCAA Tournament for the first time in Chris Mullins’ four-year tenure. Not too shabby, that.[/quote]
That is why Coach preaches one game at a time and building very day. The program is moving in the right direction to be a consistent 20 win program or better each year. Lets get Providence tomorrow and take another small step forward.
L J S A
Well-known member
[quote="Room112" post=321214]Some games of interest to us today:
Bowling Green vs. Toledo (Toledo ranked 56 in NET)[/quote]
I think Toledo can get in even without winning the conference. Posters have been saying bubble is weak this year, but I only really took a look at the standings last night. And after doing so, I've come to the conclusion that "weak" isn't a strong enough word.
If the committee is ever going to reward 25-win mid-majors that don't win their conference instead of majors that are .500 in conference and under 20 wins, this is the year.
Bowling Green vs. Toledo (Toledo ranked 56 in NET)[/quote]
I think Toledo can get in even without winning the conference. Posters have been saying bubble is weak this year, but I only really took a look at the standings last night. And after doing so, I've come to the conclusion that "weak" isn't a strong enough word.
If the committee is ever going to reward 25-win mid-majors that don't win their conference instead of majors that are .500 in conference and under 20 wins, this is the year.
[quote="L J S A" post=321546][quote="Room112" post=321214]Some games of interest to us today:
Bowling Green vs. Toledo (Toledo ranked 56 in NET)[/quote]
I think Toledo can get in even without winning the conference. Posters have been saying bubble is weak this year, but I only really took a look at the standings last night. And after doing so, I've come to the conclusion that "weak" isn't a strong enough word.
If the committee is ever going to reward 25-win mid-majors that don't win their conference instead of majors that are .500 in conference and under 20 wins, this is the year.[/quote]
All bubble teams need to root for Buffalo to win the MAC Tournament. If they don't, then one of those bubble teams are gone, automatically.
Bowling Green vs. Toledo (Toledo ranked 56 in NET)[/quote]
I think Toledo can get in even without winning the conference. Posters have been saying bubble is weak this year, but I only really took a look at the standings last night. And after doing so, I've come to the conclusion that "weak" isn't a strong enough word.
If the committee is ever going to reward 25-win mid-majors that don't win their conference instead of majors that are .500 in conference and under 20 wins, this is the year.[/quote]
All bubble teams need to root for Buffalo to win the MAC Tournament. If they don't, then one of those bubble teams are gone, automatically.
[quote="L J S A" post=321546][quote="Room112" post=321214]Some games of interest to us today:
Bowling Green vs. Toledo (Toledo ranked 56 in NET)[/quote]
I think Toledo can get in even without winning the conference. Posters have been saying bubble is weak this year, but I only really took a look at the standings last night. And after doing so, I've come to the conclusion that "weak" isn't a strong enough word.
If the committee is ever going to reward 25-win mid-majors that don't win their conference instead of majors that are .500 in conference and under 20 wins, this is the year.[/quote]
Still don't see it. Unless they beat Buffalo, they will end the year with no Quad 1 wins, and their SOS will be close to 150.
Bowling Green vs. Toledo (Toledo ranked 56 in NET)[/quote]
I think Toledo can get in even without winning the conference. Posters have been saying bubble is weak this year, but I only really took a look at the standings last night. And after doing so, I've come to the conclusion that "weak" isn't a strong enough word.
If the committee is ever going to reward 25-win mid-majors that don't win their conference instead of majors that are .500 in conference and under 20 wins, this is the year.[/quote]
Still don't see it. Unless they beat Buffalo, they will end the year with no Quad 1 wins, and their SOS will be close to 150.
SCHOOL W-L PCT. W-L PCT.
Villanova 10-1 0.909 19-5 0.792
Marquette 9-2 0.818 20-4 0.833
St. John's 5-6 0.455 17-7 0.708
Georgetown 5-6 0.455 15-9 0.625
Seton Hall 5-6 0.455 14-9 0.609
DePaul 5-6 0.455 13-9 0.591
Butler 5-6 0.455 14-10 0.583
Providence 4-7 0.364 14-10 0.583
Creighton 4-7 0.364 13-11 0.542
Xavier 3-8 0.273 11-13 0.45
Villanova 10-1 0.909 19-5 0.792
Marquette 9-2 0.818 20-4 0.833
St. John's 5-6 0.455 17-7 0.708
Georgetown 5-6 0.455 15-9 0.625
Seton Hall 5-6 0.455 14-9 0.609
DePaul 5-6 0.455 13-9 0.591
Butler 5-6 0.455 14-10 0.583
Providence 4-7 0.364 14-10 0.583
Creighton 4-7 0.364 13-11 0.542
Xavier 3-8 0.273 11-13 0.45
[quote="Paultzman" post=321702]SCHOOL W-L PCT. W-L PCT.
Villanova 10-1 0.909 19-5 0.792
Marquette 9-2 0.818 20-4 0.833
St. John's 5-6 0.455 17-7 0.708
Georgetown 5-6 0.455 15-9 0.625
Seton Hall 5-6 0.455 14-9 0.609
DePaul 5-6 0.455 13-9 0.591
Butler 5-6 0.455 14-10 0.583
Providence 4-7 0.364 14-10 0.583
Creighton 4-7 0.364 13-11 0.542
Xavier 3-8 0.273 11-13 0.45[/quote]
They list us third, because we have the best overall record, but I believe we would be the 7 seed, if the Big East Tournament started tomorrow.
Xavier, meanwhile, has now dropped 6 in a row. Chris Mack knew it was time to leave, because that team is having a really rough year. They play very hard on D, but they really struggle to score.
Villanova 10-1 0.909 19-5 0.792
Marquette 9-2 0.818 20-4 0.833
St. John's 5-6 0.455 17-7 0.708
Georgetown 5-6 0.455 15-9 0.625
Seton Hall 5-6 0.455 14-9 0.609
DePaul 5-6 0.455 13-9 0.591
Butler 5-6 0.455 14-10 0.583
Providence 4-7 0.364 14-10 0.583
Creighton 4-7 0.364 13-11 0.542
Xavier 3-8 0.273 11-13 0.45[/quote]
They list us third, because we have the best overall record, but I believe we would be the 7 seed, if the Big East Tournament started tomorrow.
Xavier, meanwhile, has now dropped 6 in a row. Chris Mack knew it was time to leave, because that team is having a really rough year. They play very hard on D, but they really struggle to score.
[quote="fordham96" post=321705]Xavier needs to be a sweep this year.[/quote]
They really do, but man they are a terrible matchup.
They really do, but man they are a terrible matchup.
[quote="Paultzman" post=321772]Zach B
St Johns falls to 49 in NET and loses a quad 1 win with Georgetown falling out of top 75. Providence, however, is a quad 1 chance on road now. #sjubb[/quote]
What no mention of Bowling Green, Rutgers and Georgia Tech as potential Quad 1 wins?
St Johns falls to 49 in NET and loses a quad 1 win with Georgetown falling out of top 75. Providence, however, is a quad 1 chance on road now. #sjubb[/quote]
What no mention of Bowling Green, Rutgers and Georgia Tech as potential Quad 1 wins?
9-9 gets us in, but it seems like this team collapses anytime our backs aren't up against the wall, so screw it. I'll mimic the irrational pessimism by some on this board in regards to our at large requirements... even if they are far higher than what is required of every other bubble team. Because, St. John's.
Team needs to finish 7-0 with 2 BET wins to Dance. Then maybe we play in Dayton. There's no hope, so go undefeated or cancel the season. Team is finished.
Hopefully that worked, I'll see you all on the other side.
Team needs to finish 7-0 with 2 BET wins to Dance. Then maybe we play in Dayton. There's no hope, so go undefeated or cancel the season. Team is finished.
Hopefully that worked, I'll see you all on the other side.
Last edited:
[quote="L J S A" post=321944]I see other posters complaining about Dayton -- I'd love to be in Dayton, mostly because it would force me for the first time to watch one of the Dayton games.[/quote]
If we play in Dayton, then there's a 50% chance we won't even be on the bracket everyone fills out. If that's the case then it'd be like not even making the Tournament.
Just my opinion, but playing in Dayton would suck and we'd need to win that game for it to be a successful season.
If we play in Dayton, then there's a 50% chance we won't even be on the bracket everyone fills out. If that's the case then it'd be like not even making the Tournament.
Just my opinion, but playing in Dayton would suck and we'd need to win that game for it to be a successful season.
[quote="Adam" post=321946][quote="L J S A" post=321944]I see other posters complaining about Dayton -- I'd love to be in Dayton, mostly because it would force me for the first time to watch one of the Dayton games.[/quote]
If we play in Dayton, then there's a 50% chance we won't even be on the bracket everyone fills out. If that's the case then it'd be like not even making the Tournament.
Just my opinion, but playing in Dayton would suck and we'd need to win that game for it to be a successful season.[/quote]
It sucks because, if you lose, your tournament experience is over before it even started.
If you win though, I think you're probably at an advantage in your Round of 64 game, because you've already had the "win or go home" experience. If you look back to 2011, when this format started, I think at least one of the Dayton winners (and I'm not counting the 16 seeds that win, because they face the 1, where the talent difference is just too great) has advanced past the Round of 64 every year. That's at least 50%.
If we play in Dayton, then there's a 50% chance we won't even be on the bracket everyone fills out. If that's the case then it'd be like not even making the Tournament.
Just my opinion, but playing in Dayton would suck and we'd need to win that game for it to be a successful season.[/quote]
It sucks because, if you lose, your tournament experience is over before it even started.
If you win though, I think you're probably at an advantage in your Round of 64 game, because you've already had the "win or go home" experience. If you look back to 2011, when this format started, I think at least one of the Dayton winners (and I'm not counting the 16 seeds that win, because they face the 1, where the talent difference is just too great) has advanced past the Round of 64 every year. That's at least 50%.