Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
I watch a ton of college basketball. I follow MVC, SEC and Big 12. Watch all of Missouri State, most of Mizzou and quite a few of KU games. I can't help it you can't take honest criticism.
“Honest criticism.” Lol just like you were “honest” when you repeated ad nauseam that “Mizzou reneged on Mosley’s NIL deal!!!!111!” Even though everyone knew that wasn’t the case and Mizzou can’t make NIL deals anyway. You wanted so badly for that to be the case, as if it would somehow make SMSU more relevant. Lol. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mizzou_8541:
“Honest criticism.” Lol just like you were “honest” when you repeated ad nauseam that “Mizzou reneged on Mosley’s NIL deal!!!!111!” Even though everyone knew that wasn’t the case and Mizzou can’t make NIL deals anyway. You wanted so badly for that to be the case, as if it would somehow make SMSU more relevant. Lol.
My information came straight from a source with MoKan AAU program who is nails on information. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
Who gives a shit what Pomeroy says?
Rutgers was 35th in Pomeroy, Ok State was 38th, Oregon was 41. They didn't even make the tournament. The committee doesn't give a shit about Pomeroy or Sagarin rankings.
You'll have a high as shit Pomeroy if your in a shit conference, play a cupcake non-con and beat the shit out of teams.
Missouri has a SOS in the mid 30s to low 40s, so they played a good enough schedule even though the non con was relatively easy.
I don't care what some advanced stats says about the D, because that shouldn't have any bearing in seeding.
Which is a good thing for Mizzou, given they’d be in the last 4 in via either system.
They use Q1 as their top criteria. If a team doesn’t distinguish itself there - and Mizzou 2-6 record didnt - they have to move to other metrics. SOS was in the 50s as well via both systems.
TLDR: there’s no data point that would suggest a 5 seed. [Reply]
I don't get the head-to-head argument, either, since the committee put in a NC St. team that went 0-3 vs Clemson. All 3 losses were by double digits. Not saying Clemson deserved to be in (they had 2 bad Q4 losses and a shitty non-conference schedule), but point is that H2H doesn't mean much.
Granted, I think the selection process needs to be more subjective. Kansas being the #2 overall seed over Houston because they had more Q1 opportunities and Oklahoma St. missing because they didn't have as many Q1 wins relative to how many Q1 games they played is stupid logic. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
I don't get the head-to-head argument, either, since the committee put in a NC St. team that went 0-3 vs Clemson. All 3 losses were by double digits. Not saying Clemson deserved to be in (they had 2 bad Q4 losses and a shitty non-conference schedule), but point is that H2H doesn't mean much.
Granted, I think the selection process needs to be more subjective. Kansas being the #2 overall seed over Houston because they had more Q1 opportunities and Oklahoma St. missing because they didn't have as many Q1 wins relative to how many Q1 games they played is stupid logic.
You don't get the H2H argument when resumes are similar? [Reply]
Man. Utah State got a lot of whistles in that half because... they have awkward white dudes who flailed after regular contact.
The offensive foul on Kobe Brown was particularly bad to the eye, but I have no idea on the "correct" interpretation of that rule these days. To me, if you have a foot in the air and are moving, you are not capable of being in a legal guarding position while sliding with a driving offensive player, but... still [Reply]