Lunardi- this doesn't make sense

[TuscaloosaTiger 281]

13 minutes ago, Viper said:

Yes.

They beat two tournament teams in their non-conference schedule. We beat none. 

A loss is a loss no matter whether they are a tournament team or not. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

6 minutes ago, TuscaloosaTiger said:

A loss is a loss no matter whether they are a tournament team or not. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

 

Edited March 18 by JuscAUse!

[e808 3,026]

47 minutes ago, TuscaloosaTiger said:

A loss is a loss no matter whether they are a tournament team or not. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

A loss to Purdue or UConn isn’t the same as a loss to App State. If that’s the case imagine if Auburn had lost to Alabama State or AAMU

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

1 hour ago, Viper said:

So what do you make of the graphic on the CBS show yesterday of all-time records of lower seeds in Round 1 vs their higher seeds? 

And are you are this opposed against the committee seeding criteria every year? Or just this year because it happened to our team?

You like to debate & drag conversations out don't you my man?  I'm gonna go with my last 2 statements & shut it down. Long debates are just not for me.  See you on the next topic.   Peace out✌

[Viper 3,132]

1 hour ago, JuscAUse! said:

The Big East got totally screwed and nobody has more reason to bitch than UCONN. 4 tournament champs on the same region. 

Further proof that winning your conference tournament means little to nothing to the committee.

Hope folks remember this next time we win the SEC instead of making "AU got hosed" the leading story.

[Viper 3,132]

1 hour ago, TuscaloosaTiger said:

A loss is a loss no matter whether they are a tournament team or not. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

A loss against a CBB powerhouse does not carry the same weight as a loss against a CFB powerhouse.

You can disagree all you want, but those are the facts.

If some of you will stop viewing this the same way the CFB committee views the CFB season and conference championship weekend, you'll feel a sense of clarity.

[Viper 3,132]

18 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

You like to debate & drag conversations out don't you my man?  I'm gonna go with my last 2 statements & shut it down. Long debates are just not for me.  See you on the next topic.   Peace out✌

I try to get folks to see sports without their team's colored glasses on.

Here's the graphic I'm referring to...as you can see...they get it right more often than they get it wrong...and in sequential fashion...

[TuscaloosaTiger 281]

44 minutes ago, e808 said:

A loss to Purdue or UConn isn’t the same as a loss to App State. If that’s the case imagine if Auburn had lost to Alabama State or AAMU

So I should feel better about the loss to UTk or UK this season than the loss to App St? I don't.

[Viper 3,132]

11 minutes ago, TuscaloosaTiger said:

So I should feel better about the loss to UTk or UK this season than the loss to App St? I don't.

None of the losses should feel better. However, the loss at TN hurt us the most as it pertains to seeding. Again, that could have vaulted us from #15 to #12. In fact, it alone would have climbed the ladder higher than beating SC, MSU & FL combined for the SEC Championship.

Edited March 19 by Viper

[arktiger1975 516]

1 hour ago, Viper said:

Further proof that winning your conference tournament means little to nothing to the committee.

Hope folks remember this next time we win the SEC instead of making "AU got hosed" the leading story.

I'd still rather win the SEC tournament!

[arktiger1975 516]

12 hours ago, TAYLORKEETON said:

Hypothetically 

 

How do we match up with UConn? Don't know much about them 

They beat us in the late 80's in the Great Alaska Shootout, we beat them up there and at Auburn arena earlier in Bruce's tenure, and they beat us in that aforementioned tournament in OT a couple of years ago. So series is 2-2, I think.

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

21 minutes ago, Viper said:

None of the losses should feel better. However, the loss at TN hurt us the most as it pertains to seeding. Again, that could have vaulted us from #15 to #12. In fact, it alone would have climbed the ladder higher than beating SC, MSU & FL combined for the SEC Championship.

I listened to the tournament chairman or whatever on XM radio in an interview Sunday night. He said everything you say when defending some picks, and totally dumped quad wins and losses and different ratings when they didn't fit the narrative. As this show was out of NYC, it was mainly about the Big East compared to the Mountain West. He was squirming quite a bit then but used different ratings to justify the MW getting six teams in when the BE got 3. But he made no sense at all when explaining leaving Indiana State out. It seems he just switched metrics at will to justify this team or that. I did like that Chris Russo and the Judge thought that AU got hosed with the regional site and seeding. I doubt they have orange and blue glasses. Anyway, to advance you gotta beat great teams. We'll see what happens. 

[Viper 3,132]

1 hour ago, JuscAUse! said:

I listened to the tournament chairman or whatever on XM radio in an interview Sunday night. He said everything you say when defending some picks, and totally dumped quad wins and losses and different ratings when they didn't fit the narrative. As this show was out of NYC, it was mainly about the Big East compared to the Mountain West. He was squirming quite a bit then but used different ratings to justify the MW getting six teams in when the BE got 3. But he made no sense at all when explaining leaving Indiana State out. It seems he just switched metrics at will to justify this team or that. I did like that Chris Russo and the Judge thought that AU got hosed with the regional site and seeding. I doubt they have orange and blue glasses. Anyway, to advance you gotta beat great teams. We'll see what happens. 

Because he wants to be human and say AU looks like a better team than a 4-seed down the stretch, but he can't because the metrics and math don't allow it.

[thewhiz7 273]

1 hour ago, Viper said:

Because he wants to be human and say AU looks like a better team than a 4-seed down the stretch, but he can't because the metrics and math don't allow it.

I think that is where things are coming apart. When you include the entire years worth of work a 4 seed looks about right. 

 

However, since SC game on and especially since the UK game we look like a top team that nobody wants to see. 

Once you take out the SEC tournament and include loss at Bama, Ms St, App St, UTk and UK at home you can see why we did not climb the ladder.  Should the tournament matter? In the years we do well yes, and the ones we don't, no. 😂

[Viper 3,132]

47 minutes ago, thewhiz7 said:

I think that is where things are coming apart. When you include the entire years worth of work a 4 seed looks about right. 

 

However, since SC game on and especially since the UK game we look like a top team that nobody wants to see. 

Once you take out the SEC tournament and include loss at Bama, Ms St, App St, UTk and UK at home you can see why we did not climb the ladder.  Should the tournament matter? In the years we do well yes, and the ones we don't, no. 😂

I'll continue to beat the same drum. The CBB committee has stuck and will always stick to Quad 1 true road games holding priority and causing the largest jump in their rankings/seedings.

If you can't beat a Quad 1 in your conference on the road, or even in a non-conference neutral game, you will remain a 4-seed at best.

Everything else that you accomplish is next to meaningless.

[AUFightingSoldiers 685]

11 hours ago, JuscAUse! said:

I listened to the tournament chairman or whatever on XM radio in an interview Sunday night. He said everything you say when defending some picks, and totally dumped quad wins and losses and different ratings when they didn't fit the narrative. As this show was out of NYC, it was mainly about the Big East compared to the Mountain West. He was squirming quite a bit then but used different ratings to justify the MW getting six teams in when the BE got 3. But he made no sense at all when explaining leaving Indiana State out. It seems he just switched metrics at will to justify this team or that. I did like that Chris Russo and the Judge thought that AU got hosed with the regional site and seeding. I doubt they have orange and blue glasses. Anyway, to advance you gotta beat great teams. We'll see what happens. 

I'm not sure if you're talking about the Chris Russo interview or not, but the inconsistent reasoning is my complaint. Don't say Illinois and Iowa State moved up a line after winning their conference tournament and then stumble your way through an excuse when asked why it didn't matter for Auburn. Then he gave the excuse of Auburn being the only one to beat a lower seed for the tournament championship. He got called out about Wisconsin being a lower seed than Illinois and went quiet again. He also had no answer when asked why neutral site games (no NCAA tournament game is a true home or true road game) aren't weighed heavily. If you're not going to weigh things equally for all teams and ignore criteria that should matter, just don't go on live national radio shows and try to make excuses for it. 

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

10 hours ago, Viper said:

Because he wants to be human and say AU looks like a better team than a 4-seed down the stretch, but he can't because the metrics and math don't allow it.

Forgive me. I'm older and was tired when I posted and didn't make myself clear. The AU mention on the program was an aside. The point I was attempting to make was that all these people with no O-B glasses were totally confused with the way he jumped from the #Net number when it suited him and seemed to abandon them when it didn't. Then it was all about the quad wins and losses, until neither made sense, and then he mentioned body of work, which sounded remarkably like "eye test" to some of us. I thought #net rankings were about the body of work. Historically, you are 100% correct when it comes to AU. But they were discussing the process this year, and how the things that mattered in the past, especially with seeding and the Big East teams, seemed to be ignored this year. 

Whatever, no team looks unbeatable, and many teams look like they can beat any other one given day. Can't wait for tip off to see what happens.

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

36 minutes ago, AUFightingSoldiers said:

I'm not sure if you're talking about the Chris Russo interview or not, but the inconsistent reasoning is my complaint. Don't say Illinois and Iowa State moved up a line after winning their conference tournament and then stumble your way through an excuse when asked why it didn't matter for Auburn. Then he gave the excuse of Auburn being the only one to beat a lower seed for the tournament championship. He got called out about Wisconsin being a lower seed than Illinois and went quiet again. He also had no answer when asked why neutral site games (no NCAA tournament game is a true home or true road game) aren't weighed heavily. If you're not going to weigh things equally for all teams and ignore criteria that should matter, just don't go on live national radio shows and try to make excuses for it. 

Exactly one of the points I failed to make, and it was the Russo show. I listen to them to get away from the SEC bias and hear what other parts of the country are saying. 

O/T but it's always funny to me that the biggest critics of AU sports are AU fans and Bammers, while people with a national view are highly complimentary of BP and even HF at this point. 

[arktiger1975 516]

2 hours ago, AUFightingSoldiers said:

I'm not sure if you're talking about the Chris Russo interview or not, but the inconsistent reasoning is my complaint. Don't say Illinois and Iowa State moved up a line after winning their conference tournament and then stumble your way through an excuse when asked why it didn't matter for Auburn. Then he gave the excuse of Auburn being the only one to beat a lower seed for the tournament championship. He got called out about Wisconsin being a lower seed than Illinois and went quiet again. He also had no answer when asked why neutral site games (no NCAA tournament game is a true home or true road game) aren't weighed heavily. If you're not going to weigh things equally for all teams and ignore criteria that should matter, just don't go on live national radio shows and try to make excuses for it. 

And every team we beat in the SEC tournament is in the NCAA tournament as an 8 seed or higher. 

[Viper 3,132]

4 hours ago, JuscAUse! said:

Forgive me. I'm older and was tired when I posted and didn't make myself clear. The AU mention on the program was an aside. The point I was attempting to make was that all these people with no O-B glasses were totally confused with the way he jumped from the #Net number when it suited him and seemed to abandon them when it didn't. Then it was all about the quad wins and losses, until neither made sense, and then he mentioned body of work, which sounded remarkably like "eye test" to some of us. I thought #net rankings were about the body of work. Historically, you are 100% correct when it comes to AU. But they were discussing the process this year, and how the things that mattered in the past, especially with seeding and the Big East teams, seemed to be ignored this year. 

Whatever, no team looks unbeatable, and many teams look like they can beat any other one given day. Can't wait for tip off to see what happens.

He is simply a puppet and their metrics software is the master.

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

6 hours ago, Viper said:

He is simply a puppet and their metrics software is the master.

Well. One more time. I heard two coaches today , one who had won multiple titles, say that panicking when 5 teams that weren't supposed to win conference titles and giving NO credit to the teams like UCONN ( and AU ) who DID win a championship was just stupid. Also that what the Committee did this year was NOT following history, but with AU , I don't know. Coach also said the seeding was awful for those reasons. And they weren't discussing AU but teams all over the country. But we're not really discussing anything. You're right and all those others are wrong. War Eagle anyway. If we win, it just looks better, I guess. 

[Viper 3,132]

4 hours ago, JuscAUse! said:

what the Committee did this year was NOT following history

He's wrong. Conference Tournament Titles have never meant much, if at all.

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

7 hours ago, Viper said:

He's wrong. Conference Tournament Titles have never meant much, if at all.

You mean "they" are wrong and you are right. Even if two of them are former college coaches and the others are sports media who've covered college basketball for decades. Most are in there 50s and 60s. 

Doesn't matter. You're gonna believe whatever and I am, too. 

 

[Viper 3,132]

51 minutes ago, JuscAUse! said:

You mean "they" are wrong and you are right. Even if two of them are former college coaches and the others are sports media who've covered college basketball for decades. Most are in there 50s and 60s. 

Doesn't matter. You're gonna believe whatever and I am, too. 

Sorry, couldn’t tell if you meant that one of the coaches you heard said that “what the Committee did this year was NOT following history” or if you meant that you were saying that.