(POST GAME) @Xavier, Wed., Feb. 16, 6:30p, CBSSN

[Knight]

Please get back on topic.

There are other threads where these posts would apply.

 

[JohnnyFan]

Great win and I agree there were several significant contributors.  I give my game ball to Joel Soriano who seems to have added some Big East toughness.  In addition to scoring, he rebounded well and did not allow any easy finished at the rim.  He's starting to grow on me.

Another observation is their bigs (especially Nunge) looked absolutely gassed in the second half.  Even Freemantle seemed to be bothered by the pace.  Good job, boys.

 

[Johnny Rapper]

I agree strongly with SJU85's post to the effect that one man's explanation is another man's excuse. Bottom line is to a large extent you are what your record is, but the season is not over yet.  

I partially agree with that.   But let's say you have two teams with identical records and played an identical schedule.   One team loses by an average of 2-6 points and plays 1 and 2 possession games.    The other team loses by an average of 25 points.   

Are they equal?   If they each are what there record is, they certainly aren't the same.

Perhaps in the eyes of the fan that closely follows the team but in the eyes of the general fan of the sport and those who select on selection Sunday, the record is the record and you are what your record says you are.  The only time score differentials are considered are with margins of victory over lower tier teams. 

 

[beast of the east]

Great win and I agree there were several significant contributors.  I give my game ball to Joel Soriano who seems to have added some Big East toughness.  In addition to scoring, he rebounded well and did not allow any easy finished at the rim.  He's starting to grow on me.

Another observation is their bigs (especially Nunge) looked absolutely gassed in the second half.  Even Freemantle seemed to be bothered by the pace.  Good job, boys.

Before the Villanova game Pressey spoke and said one of sju's goals was to play a 70 plus possession game. He said Villanova likes to play at around 52 possessions per game. There's a lot of reasons we like to play at that pace, but most teams hate it because they rush shots and turn the bc all over more, and get gassed.

Does anyone know if possessions are tracked in box scores?

 

[RedStormNC]

Beast -From team stats,  I guess you can add the field goals taken plus times you turned ball over to get total possessions?

[URL]https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/matchup/_/gameId/401373570[/URL]

 

[beast of the east]

Beast -From team stats,  I guess you can add the field goals taken plus times you turned ball over to get total possessions?

[URL]https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/matchup/_/gameId/401373570[/URL]

Well I'm not sure how offensive rebounds factors into that, if they count it as a new possession or not.   But you also have out of bounds tips, held balls, etc.    Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[MakingPlays]

I agree strongly with SJU85's post to the effect that one man's explanation is another man's excuse. Bottom line is to a large extent you are what your record is, but the season is not over yet.  

I partially agree with that.   But let's say you have two teams with identical records and played an identical schedule.   One team loses by an average of 2-6 points and plays 1 and 2 possession games.    The other team loses by an average of 25 points.   

Are they equal?   If they each are what there record is, they certainly aren't the same.

Perhaps in the eyes of the fan that closely follows the team but in the eyes of the general fan of the sport and those who select on selection Sunday, the record is the record and you are what your record says you are.  The only time score differentials are considered are with margins of victory over lower tier teams. 

That's actually incorrect, because the committee primarily uses NET to help with their selection and NET factors in a bunch of different factors, it isn't just the record is the record.  As Beast was alluding to, 2 teams can have a similar SOS and identical record but their NET can be completely different.  That's why you see teams sometimes that may not have the best record but are still in the field because they've been in a bunch of close games, their efficiency is good, and they've played well on the road/neutral court.  

Here's an article explaining how NET works.

[URL]https://www.ncaa.com/news/bask...06/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained[/URL]

"The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses."

 

 

[weathermannyc]

Great win and I agree there were several significant contributors.  I give my game ball to Joel Soriano who seems to have added some Big East toughness.  In addition to scoring, he rebounded well and did not allow any easy finished at the rim.  He's starting to grow on me.

Another observation is their bigs (especially Nunge) looked absolutely gassed in the second half.  Even Freemantle seemed to be bothered by the pace.  Good job, boys.

Before the Villanova game Pressey spoke and said one of sju's goals was to play a 70 plus possession game. He said Villanova likes to play at around 52 possessions per game. There's a lot of reasons we like to play at that pace, but most teams hate it because they rush shots and turn the bc all over more, and get gassed.

Does anyone know if possessions are tracked in box scores?

KenPom has this info.

He probably meant to say 62 possessions and not 52.  I don't think 52 is even possible with the shot clock unless both teams play four corners. 

Here are Villanova's possessions in BE games.  (SJU games in bold)

64, 66, 67, 59, 61, 62, 58, 61, 65, 58, 63, 71, 67, 77, 61, 72

They generally are able to keep the number of possessions lower at home.

 

[Johnny Rapper]

I agree strongly with SJU85's post to the effect that one man's explanation is another man's excuse. Bottom line is to a large extent you are what your record is, but the season is not over yet.  

I partially agree with that.   But let's say you have two teams with identical records and played an identical schedule.   One team loses by an average of 2-6 points and plays 1 and 2 possession games.    The other team loses by an average of 25 points.   

Are they equal?   If they each are what there record is, they certainly aren't the same.

Perhaps in the eyes of the fan that closely follows the team but in the eyes of the general fan of the sport and those who select on selection Sunday, the record is the record and you are what your record says you are.  The only time score differentials are considered are with margins of victory over lower tier teams. 

That's actually incorrect, because the committee primarily uses NET to help with their selection and NET factors in a bunch of different factors, it isn't just the record is the record.  As Beast was alluding to, 2 teams can have a similar SOS and identical record but their NET can be completely different.  That's why you see teams sometimes that may not have the best record but are still in the field because they've been in a bunch of close games, their efficiency is good, and they've played well on the road/neutral court.  

Here's an article explaining how NET works.

[URL]https://www.ncaa.com/news/bask...06/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained[/URL]

"The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses."


 

Had I known my response would be dissected, I would have elaborated a bit more. Beast's contention was that when one team loses by less then another, even though both are losses, the team that lost by less is usually the better team. In general that most often is true. However, my points were as follows. In the eyes of the general college basketball fan, no casual fan is going to look at a team with a poor or losing record and say "gee that team is really good, so what if they have a losing record?" To the general fan, you are what your record says you are.

I am most aware of the new NET configuration for ranking teams etc. however all the other aspects of evaluating a teams value aside from a their won loss record applies to teams that are in consideration for the tournament. I was referring to teams who posses a losing record. If a team has the toughest schedule in the country and has a losing record (even losing by 5 points or less) that team is not getting into the tournament. That can also apply to conference record. If you believe I'm incorrect then show me one team that ever made the dance with a losing record other then a team that won its conference tournament?

What I should have specified in my post was referring to teams with losing records, my mistake I assumed that would have been understood. 

 

[beast of the east]

I agree strongly with SJU85's post to the effect that one man's explanation is another man's excuse. Bottom line is to a large extent you are what your record is, but the season is not over yet.  

I partially agree with that.   But let's say you have two teams with identical records and played an identical schedule.   One team loses by an average of 2-6 points and plays 1 and 2 possession games.    The other team loses by an average of 25 points.   

Are they equal?   If they each are what there record is, they certainly aren't the same.

Perhaps in the eyes of the fan that closely follows the team but in the eyes of the general fan of the sport and those who select on selection Sunday, the record is the record and you are what your record says you are.  The only time score differentials are considered are with margins of victory over lower tier teams. 

That's actually incorrect, because the committee primarily uses NET to help with their selection and NET factors in a bunch of different factors, it isn't just the record is the record.  As Beast was alluding to, 2 teams can have a similar SOS and identical record but their NET can be completely different.  That's why you see teams sometimes that may not have the best record but are still in the field because they've been in a bunch of close games, their efficiency is good, and they've played well on the road/neutral court.  

Here's an article explaining how NET works.

[URL]https://www.ncaa.com/news/bask...06/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained[/URL]

"The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses."



 

Had I known my response would be dissected, I would have elaborated a bit more. Beast's contention was that when one team loses by less then another, even though both are losses, the team that lost by less is usually the better team. In general that most often is true. However, my points were as follows. In the eyes of the general college basketball fan, no casual fan is going to look at a team with a poor or losing record and say "gee that team is really good, so what if they have a losing record?" To the general fan, you are what your record says you are.

I am most aware of the new NET configuration for ranking teams etc. however all the other aspects of evaluating a teams value aside from a their won loss record applies to teams that are in consideration for the tournament. I was referring to teams who posses a losing record. If a team has the toughest schedule in the country and has a losing record (even losing by 5 points or less) that team is not getting into the tournament. That can also apply to conference record. If you believe I'm incorrect then show me one team that ever made the dance with a losing record other then a team that won its conference tournament?

What I should have specified in my post was referring to teams with losing records, my mistake I assumed that would have been understood. 

I want to first state, that this response is not intended to be contentious at all.

For the general fan, sitting through a thorough losing beat down is so debilitating that fans head for the exits with plenty of time on the clock and if a home game, you can hear a pin drop.

Close games that are losses have fans engaged from end to end, and honestly short of winning, is a great fan experience, and worth every penny and minute of your time invested.  

When your team is that bad, it's time to tear down and start over.

When it's that close you work hard at shoring up weaknesses, adding that marquee player and you can quickly go form losing squad to top of conference.

I really like our position and where we are headed.    I understand if you are less patient, and I can abolustely see why given our recent past.

 

[Knight]

Off topic.