[quote="Marillac" post=311920]SH kills the argument of the weak schedule posters.
They've played Miami, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, Kentucky, St. John's, Xavier, Louisville, Hawaii, and St. Louis and they are only #46!!!!
We've played way less and we are #23.[/quote]
That appears to be the case concerning the NET metric and rankings. However, the committee is another thing all together. We will need to secure at least 3 Q1 wins and several more Q2 wins in order to receive an at-large. Last year, these teams failed to receive at-large bids.
Middle Tenn
23-7, 16-2 ConfUSA
RPI: 33 on selection sunday
USC
23-11, 12-6 PAC12
RPI: 34
Louisville
20-13, 9-9 ACC
RPI: 38
St. Mary's
28-5, 16-2 WCC
RPI: 40
I used RPI since that was last year's version of the NET rankings. That said, it does appear that the NET rankings value winning more than strength of schedule. But, that is only half of the equation. We still need to build a solid resume. The screw job last Sat, likely took away a Q1 win for us.
They've played Miami, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, Kentucky, St. John's, Xavier, Louisville, Hawaii, and St. Louis and they are only #46!!!!
We've played way less and we are #23.[/quote]
That appears to be the case concerning the NET metric and rankings. However, the committee is another thing all together. We will need to secure at least 3 Q1 wins and several more Q2 wins in order to receive an at-large. Last year, these teams failed to receive at-large bids.
Middle Tenn
23-7, 16-2 ConfUSA
RPI: 33 on selection sunday
USC
23-11, 12-6 PAC12
RPI: 34
Louisville
20-13, 9-9 ACC
RPI: 38
St. Mary's
28-5, 16-2 WCC
RPI: 40
I used RPI since that was last year's version of the NET rankings. That said, it does appear that the NET rankings value winning more than strength of schedule. But, that is only half of the equation. We still need to build a solid resume. The screw job last Sat, likely took away a Q1 win for us.