Texas A&M still in but we are not close to tourney???

[Lord McBuckethead]

Hell, schedule Duke, UNC, Texas, Baylor, FSU, Georgetown, UCLA, Oregon, all in the same season. Play them all on the road. 3-5 with that schedule is better than 8-0 with our schedule this year I guess.

[Bulldog1]

Hell, schedule Duke, UNC, Texas, Baylor, FSU, Georgetown, UCLA, Oregon, all in the same season. Play them all on the road. 3-5 with that schedule is better than 8-0 with our schedule this year I guess.

I know you’re joking, but we’d be a lock right now with that schedule

[smootness]

3-5 with that schedule is better than 8-0 with our schedule this year I guess.

Correct. Yes, absolutely.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

Everything I'm seeing regarding the Big 12 / SEC Challenge is that the Top 10 SEC teams from the previous season get in. Where are ya'll seeing that the selection criteria changed?

http://www.secsports.com/article/194...-match-ups-set

2nd paragraph

[Johnson85]

I don't really see it as a penalty, though. They're trying to weigh resumes. And the fact that our OOC schedule was insanely weak means our resume is considerably weaker.

Our resume indicates we should at least be right on the bubble. Nothing in our OOC indicates we aren't a tournament team, and our conference schedule indicates we are basically towards the bottom of the tournament field if you are looking to put the best teams in.

We're out because even though our conference games are a sufficient sample to show that we are a tournament quality team (if on the lower end of the at large bid quality), we are firmly out as of now because we are being punished for scheduling a ridiculously easy OOC. Not because we lost games OOC, but because we played bad teams.

And again, I'm ok with that, I just think the penalty should be lesser for a team that wasn't just ducking competition, but actually had a lot of uncertainty to address. Also, separately, for the RPI formula itself, I think RPI penalty should be cut off at some point; a top 25 team's game against a 225 RPI team shouldn't be treated any differently than a top 25 team's game against a 300 RPI team. A cupcake is a cupcake and you shouldn't make it unduly hard for the worst cupcakes to get people to play them).

[smootness]

Our resume indicates we should at least be right on the bubble. Nothing in our OOC indicates we aren't a tournament team, and our conference schedule indicates we are basically towards the bottom of the tournament field if you are looking to put the best teams in.

We're out because even though our conference games are a sufficient sample to show that we are a tournament quality team (if on the lower end of the at large bid quality), we are firmly out as of now because we are being punished for scheduling a ridiculously easy OOC. Not because we lost games OOC, but because we played bad teams.

And again, I'm ok with that, I just think the penalty should be lesser for a team that wasn't just ducking competition, but actually had a lot of uncertainty to address. Also, separately, for the RPI formula itself, I think RPI penalty should be cut off at some point; a top 25 team's game against a 225 RPI team shouldn't be treated any differently than a top 25 team's game against a 300 RPI team. A cupcake is a cupcake and you shouldn't make it unduly hard for the worst cupcakes to get people to play them).

It's all about your resume. We have a 9-9 SEC record and a bunch of wins against crappy teams in the OOC. That's not a very good resume, which is why we're currently not in.

It's not a penalty in the sense that the committee is going to say, 'Well, they would otherwise be in based on resume, but since they scheduled poorly in the OOC, let's leave them out.' So there's not an opportunity for them to even ask, 'How much do we penalize them here?' Instead, it's, 'That resume is not as good as this resume because they have only even played __ # of teams above __ in the RPI and have only beaten __ # of teams above __ in the RPI.' So, sure, in a sense our poor OOC schedule is a penalty. But it was us penalizing ourselves by having that schedule, not the committee penalizing us. So there's no way for them to penalize us less than they are, we did that to ourselves. They are just evaluating resumes, and ours isn't great...which is pretty easy to see objectively by looking at our RPI.

If you think the committee should evaluate resumes differently, that's fine. But the bottom line is that they have an evaluation criteria (which admittedly is not always clear), and that is how they evaluate. If you were looking at another team that is 68th in the RPI with that weak an OOC schedule, it would be pretty easy for us all to dismiss them and say, 'They didn't schedule well enough, therefore their resume isn't good enough.' But it's us, so we try to look at it as more than what it is - a simple evaluation of resume.

I mean, we had people on here claiming that we had a great shot to get in because the SEC was an '8 big league' and we were one of the top 8. Well, the SEC is not an '8 bid league'...until the point at which they actually get 8 teams in. The projections have had us fall to 7 bids recently. Why? Because they evaluate resumes individually. There is no such thing as a set number of bids for a league, just like there is no such thing as the committee 'penalizing' a team for a weak OOC schedule. It just keeps you from having a stronger resume, which hurts you when it comes time to evaluate resumes.

[Johnson85]

It's all about your resume. We have a 9-9 SEC record and a bunch of wins against crappy teams in the OOC. That's not a very good resume, which is why we're currently not in.

It's not a penalty in the sense that the committee is going to say, 'Well, they would otherwise be in based on resume, but since they scheduled poorly in the OOC, let's leave them out.' So there's not an opportunity for them to even ask, 'How much do we penalize them here?' Instead, it's, 'That resume is not as good as this resume because they have only even played __ # of teams above __ in the RPI and have only beaten __ # of teams above __ in the RPI.' So, sure, in a sense our poor OOC schedule is a penalty. But it was us penalizing ourselves by having that schedule, not the committee penalizing us. So there's no way for them to penalize us less than they are, we did that to ourselves. They are just evaluating resumes, and ours isn't great...which is pretty easy to see objectively by looking at our RPI.

If you think the committee should evaluate resumes differently, that's fine. But the bottom line is that they have an evaluation criteria (which admittedly is not always clear), and that is how they evaluate. If you were looking at another team that is 68th in the RPI with that weak an OOC schedule, it would be pretty easy for us all to dismiss them and say, 'They didn't schedule well enough, therefore their resume isn't good enough.' But it's us, so we try to look at it as more than what it is - a simple evaluation of resume.

I mean, we had people on here claiming that we had a great shot to get in because the SEC was an '8 big league' and we were one of the top 8. Well, the SEC is not an '8 bid league'...until the point at which they actually get 8 teams in. The projections have had us fall to 7 bids recently. Why? Because they evaluate resumes individually. There is no such thing as a set number of bids for a league, just like there is no such thing as the committee 'penalizing' a team for a weak OOC schedule. It just keeps you from having a stronger resume, which hurts you when it comes time to evaluate resumes.

It's somewhat semantics, but you can't penalize anybody for anything if you take the criteria as given. If the criteria was wins against ACC opponents, you're not penalizing teams not in the ACC, you're just applying the criteria.

I am starting from the assumption that generally the goal is to put the best teams in the tournament once the automatic bids are accounted for.

18 games against this year's SEC is a sufficient sample to prove that somebody is a tournament team. If we had played the 14 worst RPI teams in the country at home and gone undefeated and then gone 11-7 in the SEC, we would have proven in those 18 SEC games that we should be in based on our performance in those 18 games, but we might not be guaranteed a spot because we played bad OOC teams and as a result our RPI would be hammered. Not for losing bad OOC teams, but for playing them. That seems to fairly be called a penalty to me.

[smootness]

It's somewhat semantics, but you can't penalize anybody for anything if you take the criteria as given. If the criteria was wins against ACC opponents, you're not penalizing teams not in the ACC, you're just applying the criteria.

I am starting from the assumption that generally the goal is to put the best teams in the tournament once the automatic bids are accounted for.

18 games against this year's SEC is a sufficient sample to prove that somebody is a tournament team. If we had played the 14 worst RPI teams in the country at home and gone undefeated and then gone 11-7 in the SEC, we would have proven in those 18 SEC games that we should be in based on our performance in those 18 games, but we might not be guaranteed a spot because we played bad OOC teams and as a result our RPI would be hammered. Not for losing bad OOC teams, but for playing them. That seems to fairly be called a penalty to me.

It's best resumes, not best teams. Still subjective, but more objective than just 'best teams'. But it's obviously resumes they are comparing.

So if you know the criteria (resume, RPI, SOS, good wins, road wins, etc, all that) and you put yourself at a disadvantage according to that criteria, they're not penalizing you. You're penalizing yourself.

The bottom line is, everyone knows RPI is important going in. So you can't look back and cry foul because they should look at things other than RPI. You already know that going in. If you ignore RPI, that's on you.

[RougeDawg]

I don't really see it as a penalty, though. They're trying to weigh resumes. And the fact that our OOC schedule was insanely weak means our resume is considerably weaker.

During our OM game I believe, the compares our resume to a team that was a lock. We had more quality wins than the other team and similar SOS. The announcers said Lunardi was ridiculous for having them a lock and us on next four out.

[Johnson85]

It's best resumes, not best teams. Still subjective, but more objective than just 'best teams'. But it's obviously resumes they are comparing.

So if you know the criteria (resume, RPI, SOS, good wins, road wins, etc, all that) and you put yourself at a disadvantage according to that criteria, they're not penalizing you. You're penalizing yourself.

The bottom line is, everyone knows RPI is important going in. So you can't look back and cry foul because they should look at things other than RPI. You already know that going in. If you ignore RPI, that's on you.

Best resumes is subjective if you're not trying to put the best teams in. Is an undefeated resume against weak competition better than a 500 record against good competition? If you're not trying to pick the best teams, there's no non-arbitrary way to answer that.

And nobody's crying foul I don't think over the emphasis on SOS. I agree with it. But that doesn't mean it's can't reasonably be labeled a penalty just because the NCAA emphasizes SOS. That's like saying a technical for calling a time-out you don't have isn't a penalty because you're told about the rule before hand.

[smootness]

During our OM game I believe, the compares our resume to a team that was a lock. We had more quality wins than the other team and similar SOS. The announcers said Lunardi was ridiculous for having them a lock and us on next four out.

Do you remember who it was? It's impossible to try to discuss otherwise. The only teams I see anywhere near 'lock' status in his current projection that might fit that description are Kansas St. and Houston. Kansas St's SOS is actually 75 to our 92, and while they only have two wins slightly better than our best, they do now have 5 top 50 wins to our 4. Houston's SOS is 89, but they have 6 top 50 wins to our 4. Still, doesn't seem too drastically different from ours at this point, yet they're a 6 seed. So what gives? Well, they beat #7 and #14 and only have 6 total losses, to our 10.

I just don't know what people think is happening. This is the same criteria that is used every year, and our resume isn't good enough. I've said for a while it wouldn't be good enough unless we really finished impressively. We didn't. This is not some kind of campaign against MSU or severe penalty against us because of our OOC schedule. Based on our OOC and conference record, we have lost too many games and haven't beaten enough good teams. Period.

[smootness]

Best resumes is subjective if you're not trying to put the best teams in. Is an undefeated resume against weak competition better than a 500 record against good competition? If you're not trying to pick the best teams, there's no non-arbitrary way to answer that.

And nobody's crying foul I don't think over the emphasis on SOS. I agree with it. But that doesn't mean it's can't reasonably be labeled a penalty just because the NCAA emphasizes SOS. That's like saying a technical for calling a time-out you don't have isn't a penalty because you're told about the rule before hand.

That's fine, you can call it a penalty if you want. But if we're sitting here crying about being penalized for it, then to use your analogy, it would be like calling a TO you don't have, getting a technical for it, and then saying, 'Hey! That's not fair, we shouldn't be penalized for that!'

Regardless of what terms you use, the bottom line is that our resume isn't good enough. It isn't some extraordinary rationale the committee is going to have to use to keep us out. We would be out any year, with any name on the front of our uni's.

[Johnson85]

That's fine, you can call it a penalty if you want. But if we're sitting here crying about being penalized for it, then to use your analogy, it would be like calling a TO you don't have, getting a technical for it, and then saying, 'Hey! That's not fair, we shouldn't be penalized for that!'

Again, nobody is crying foul (or at least I'm not and I don't think most people are). Just because something is a penalty doesn't mean it's not fair.

Regardless of what terms you use, the bottom line is that our resume isn't good enough. It isn't some extraordinary rationale the committee is going to have to use to keep us out. We would be out any year, with any name on the front of our uni's.

I agree based on our resume right now. 9-9 in the SEC shows we are bubble quality; it doesn't show that we are a team that should have been a lock. I think had we won against UT and LSU and finished 11-7 in the SEC (and in the top 4 i believe?), us not being a lock would have been having too much of a penalty for playing a weak OOC schedule.

As it is, I think if we beat UT, it would be harsh but understandable to keep us out. We'd have a strong finish to show we are a tournament quality team, but it's not such an unequivocal case that our OOC schedule putting us out would be ridiculous.
If we got to the SEC tourney championship and lost and didn't get in, I think that would be placing too much emphasis on OOC and not enough on the body of work. That'd be basically 12-10 in our SEC games, a strong finish, and while UT (and potentially florida) would be our only really good wins, we'd have a lot of solid wins and a good record against tournament quality teams. Would really have to see the other at large teams to know whether that'd be ridiculous, but it seems like it's be off kilter based on what teams people are saying will make it.

All of that assumes the later tournament games even count for the committee. I seem to remember one year (maybe the year we lost to UK in the championship) where one of the committee members basically acknowledged that they wouldn't be able to get done in time if they tried to include all the semifinal games in their deliberations.

[smootness]

Fair enough, you haven't claimed it isn't fair or questioned how we're out right now. But plenty of people, including the OP, have done exactly that and wondered either how we could be out or at least how we could be out when ____ is in. And it's fairly simple to figure out.