6 OOC left

[mdchick]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

We don’t win the next 3, then it doesn’t matter what happens in conference. We will be playing for an NIT birth.

I wonder if practicing too hard and too fast on too quick of a time scale is causing us to be injury prone, and less energetic at the ends of games.

9 losses would be bubble zone, you have 10 losses with one to bowling green and playing in the American it’s not looking good

10 outside of bubble
9 bubble
8 in

[sedziobs]

I don't understand the point of playing good but not great teams at home. Teams in the 75-160 range are Q3 at home, which means they aren't a quality win and would be a bad loss. Drake, UNLV, Vermont, and Colgate are all in that category. I can see why Cronin didn't schedule good mid majors.

[TheLivingLegend]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

I don't understand the point of playing good but not great teams at home. Teams in the 75-160 range are Q3 at home, which means they aren't a quality win and would be a bad loss. Drake, UNLV, Vermont, and Colgate are all in that category. I can see why Cronin didn't schedule good mid majors.

Better prep for tournament...... If we get there.

[skyblade]

Originally Posted by TheLivingLegend

Better prep for tournament...... If we get there.

I'm not really convinced that is true. Having depth would be very useful for the tournament. But with all these close games (plus Brannen not putting in guys even when we are up big), we end up with a very short bench.

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

I don't understand the point of playing good but not great teams at home. Teams in the 75-160 range are Q3 at home, which means they aren't a quality win and would be a bad loss. Drake, UNLV, Vermont, and Colgate are all in that category. I can see why Cronin didn't schedule good mid majors.

do they not bump the sos? i always thoughts one of the reasons we were seeded a line or two lower than we thought was the ooc sos was so awful always.



you shouldn't really lose to 75-160 teams at home. if we beat colgate and sweep them this year, won't that help our resume a bit due to the boost in sos.



we'll need all the help we can get.

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by cincrulz11

do they not bump the sos? i always thoughts one of the reasons we were seeded a line or two lower than we thought was the ooc sos was so awful always.

you shouldn't really lose to 75-160 teams at home. if we beat colgate and sweep them this year, won't that help our resume a bit due to the boost in sos.

we'll need all the help we can get.

I don't think SOS really matters. It's all about quadrant records. To me, the limited benefits we might get from winning those games is outweighed by downside risk of losing.

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

I don't think SOS really matters. It's all about quadrant records. To me, the limited benefits we might get from winning those games is outweighed by downside risk of losing.

it is quadrants but doesn't it look better without a ton of quad 4's?



quad 3's aren't looked at favorable, but i think they're still a lot better than quad 4.




but we still really shouldn't be losing those games at home, and we haven't lost one yet.



i know the point you are making. with no value to either it doesn't make sense to risk harming yourself. but i gotta feel like theres a bit more value to the improvement of the team to play a bunch of teams that are ok over a bunch of teams that are horrendous.

[bearcat1518]

Originally Posted by cincrulz11

it is quadrants but doesn't it look better without a ton of quad 4's?



quad 3's aren't looked at favorable, but i think they're still a lot better than quad 4.




but we still really shouldn't be losing those games at home, and we haven't lost one yet.



i know the point you are making. with no value to either it doesn't make sense to risk harming yourself. but i gotta feel like theres a bit more value to the improvement of the team to play a bunch of teams that are ok over a bunch of teams that are horrendous.

Ugh....Quadrant wins are determined by RPI. And SOS is a factor in RPI...so of course SOS matters in all this! (Definition: The rating percentage index, commonly known as the RPI, is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule).

As an example, Vermont was a Quadrant 2 win last season! Scheduling easy wins over Quadrant 2 teams is hugely valuable compared to Quadrant 3 and 4.

[sedziobs]

The NCAA uses NET now. I'm not convinced any of the teams we've beaten are going to end up Q2 (maybe Vermont). And I'm also not convinced that a bunch of Q3 wins is any better than a bunch of Q4 wins. I seriously doubt the committee ever gets that deep into a resume.

[cincyguy13]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

I don't understand the point of playing good but not great teams at home. Teams in the 75-160 range are Q3 at home, which means they aren't a quality win and would be a bad loss. Drake, UNLV, Vermont, and Colgate are all in that category. I can see why Cronin didn't schedule good mid majors.

They are more interesting and they probably learn more. Personally, I can't stand watching us play the 300ish games. They are boring and I don't think anyone gets anything from them, except maybe confidence. Which I think would have helped this year. This is the one year some of those games may have help. Would have bought some time for everyone to buy in and get comfortable.