Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum
Sign in to follow this  
BrooklynBull

Men's Seeding in Cleveland

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

Wofford wins their QF game by 29. We need to start building momentum toward Saturday and beyond!

VMI. VMI. Their record is 11-21. The SoCon has four teams with winning records. Everyone else was a whipping boy. Very top heavy league.

I’m so sick of Wofford and their stylish victories. The MAC is hands down a tougher conference than the SoCon. 

We’ve won 9 straight games. Won them in several different types of styles/play and fashions. I’ll say we already have momentum. Go Bulls! 

Yes winning blowouts would be nice. Especially the opening game. That way we can rest starters and get the frosh exposure. But it’s now officially survive and advance time. Just win baby. Winning like we have imo prepares us better for the adversities of tournament play than always winning in blowout fashion. 

Wofford is a nice mid major story. Probably going to get a 7 seed. But I think they are over rated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, skrabukes said:

Well, obviously we all would love 9 blowouts at this point. At the same time, I'd gladly settle for 9 nail biters where UB ends up with more than their opponent. They all count the same. If they play like they did prior to BG's first timeout yesterday, they would blow anyone out! Man, they were fired up.

They don't all count the same, maybe they did for the 2005 UB team. Nate Oats will tell you himself its about efficient and possession quality. 

Also, Wofford is a great case study again that you don't only win "nailbiters"  against bad teams. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kevin said:

They don't all count the same, maybe they did for the 2005 UB team. Nate Oats will tell you himself its about efficient and possession quality. 

Also, Wofford is a great case study again that you don't only win "nailbiters"  against bad teams. 

Ok, they all don't count the same. I guess in your world we could win the next 3 by 50 and lose the 4th game by 1. That would be better than winning the next 9 by 1, sure. I'm sure Nate would prefer the 1st path over the 2nd...not in a million years buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kevin said:

They don't all count the same, maybe they did for the 2005 UB team. Nate Oats will tell you himself its about efficient and possession quality. 

Also, Wofford is a great case study again that you don't only win "nailbiters"  against bad teams. 

It’s all about perception. To the casual eye yes a blowout will look better than a solid hard fought 8 point road victory. The net caps scoring margin at 10. So a 50 point win counts the same as a 10 point win. And is there really a difference from a 9 point win to a 10 point win. That’s splitting hairs. If the committee does what they are supposed to and that’s watch actual games they will see that our league was tougher top to bottom and we faced more adversity than say a Wofford. 

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-08-22/net-rankings-what-know-about-college-basketballs-new-tool

Edited by DooleyBull06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, skrabukes said:

Ok, they all don't count the same. I guess in your world we could win the next 3 by 50 and lose the 4th game by 1. That would be better than winning the next 9 by 1, sure. I'm sure Nate would prefer the 1st path over the 2nd...not in a million years buddy.

lol, ok, good comparison. 

Nate would prefer to win and win big and efficiently. No one is saying 40+, but I am saying 18-20 where possible, especially against bad teams.

Ask him sometime about how important it is to actually win with metrics. He'll gladly talk to you about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kevin said:

lol, ok, good comparison. 

Nate would prefer to win and win big and efficiently. No one is saying 40+, but I am saying 18-20 where possible, especially against bad teams.

Ask him sometime about how important it is to actually win with metrics. He'll gladly talk to you about it. 

Dude, this is playoff time. Nobody gives a damn about style at this time, including Nate. Again, if you think he would prefer to win the next 3 by 18-20 and lose the 4th game by 1, versus win 9 straight by 1, you're on drugs. 

I know what metrics are. This isn't the regular season, this is the end. Style means 0 at this point. It's all about winning games now. Nobody remembers how much the champion won by, just that they won. Get a clue. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kevin said:

lol, ok, good comparison. 

Nate would prefer to win and win big and efficiently. No one is saying 40+, but I am saying 18-20 where possible, especially against bad teams.

Ask him sometime about how important it is to actually win with metrics. He'll gladly talk to you about it. 

Additionally, what "bad teams" are we playing now? Quarterfinals? Akron is 115 NET, Miami is 142. VMI who you referenced as your original comparison is 305. When was the last time we played a team with a 300+ NET? Wofford's conference has 4 teams with 270+ Net, MAC has 1 at 274, the next lowest is 170. How's that for "metrics"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, skrabukes said:

Dude, this is playoff time. Nobody gives a damn about style at this time, including Nate. Again, if you think he would prefer to win the next 3 by 18-20 and lose the 4th game by 1, versus win 9 straight by 1, you're on drugs. 

I know what metrics are. This isn't the regular season, this is the end. Style means 0 at this point. It's all about winning games now. Nobody remembers how much the champion won by, just that they won. Get a clue. 

Eh, with all due respect, yes, he wants to win out no matter what but he also wants to improve their NCAA seeding, and to do that they need both impressive wins and wins that improve their NET, etc. He's said it numerous times in interviews over the last few days

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s important to note that this is the first season the net will be implemented and used in selecting the field of 68. So we will see how the committee applies it. Your guess is as good as mine. And even Oats doesn’t know. But yes he does bang the drum about efficiency. So we will se how things shake if both us and Wofford win our tourneys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BrazenBull said:

Eh, with all due respect, yes, he wants to win out no matter what but he also wants to improve their NCAA seeding, and to do that they need both impressive wins and wins that improve their NET, etc. He's said it numerous times in interviews over the last few days

Obviously everyone would want to win with blowouts. In the end, our seed and NET isn't going to change drastically at this point, unless we lose. We are expected to win. We have 31 games of "metrics", so the percentage of growth or loss isn't huge, unless we were to lose. Yep, our kenpom rank fell 4 spots after a "non stylish" win on Tuesday. How much did it really fall though? 0.25 or so points? There are 5 teams within +/- 0.5 points  of UB. Even with "stylish" wins, are we going to go up more than 0.5 at this point? We could win 3 games, in ugly manner, and not drop more than 1 spot (out of 353 teams). If the teams above us lose, they could fall beneath us. 

I think we win the next 3 in reasonable fashion, just as I've thought we'd win out after our BG loss.  

Regardless,  just win baby. That's the only thing that matters now. Whether it's 1 or 100, i couldn't care less. Win, win, win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skrabukes said:

Dude, this is playoff time. Nobody gives a damn about style at this time, including Nate. Again, if you think he would prefer to win the next 3 by 18-20 and lose the 4th game by 1, versus win 9 straight by 1, you're on drugs. 

I know what metrics are. This isn't the regular season, this is the end. Style means 0 at this point. It's all about winning games now. Nobody remembers how much the champion won by, just that they won. Get a clue. 

Keep going to the well, huh? When in the world is anyone advocating losing anything by 1?

This isn't the regular season? You didn't care during the regular season either, so that's useless to bring up. 

I think you've also mentioned about us coaching the team? Many people are telling you that Oats (the coach) cares about this. He references his seed, efficiencies, and needing to win more on O/D every single opportunity. I'm not sure what else to tell you. 

They are currently playing this tournament for their seed (for the first time ever). They've already qualified to be at minimum a 7 seed in the NCAA tournament. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skrabukes said:

...  If they play like they did prior to BG's first timeout yesterday, they would blow anyone out! Man, they were fired up.

True, but I also like their usual starting lineup, and 6/7 th men, entering to continue the fight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Keep going to the well, huh? When in the world is anyone advocating losing anything by 1?

This isn't the regular season? You didn't care during the regular season either, so that's useless to bring up. 

I think you've also mentioned about us coaching the team? Many people are telling you that Oats (the coach) cares about this. He references his seed, efficiencies, and needing to win more on O/D every single opportunity. I'm not sure what else to tell you. 

They are currently playing this tournament for their seed (for the first time ever). They've already qualified to be at minimum a 7 seed in the NCAA tournament. 

I've never once stated that Nate doesn't care about it, nor that he's mentioned it being important. He's talked about it often. No s*** it's important, or was up until this point. Now it's win or go home time. This team has stated goals of winning the MAC and advancing as far as possible beyond that. I'm certain they are more concerned with wins at this point than style.

You're the one that brings up Wofford winning big over awful teams. It must be nice to play against those types of teams that have 270+ NET ratings in league to raise your style points.  UB has won their last 9 games by an average of around 15 points,  including 5 by double digits. The lowest NET of any of those teams was 170 and included several quad 1 and quad 2 games. Wofford has won by more in their last 9 overall, but have played against 4 - 270+ NET teams, of course they're going to win by more. UB only got to play against WMU (the 270+ MAC team) once, and it was on the road, while Woffard got home and home with 4 teams of similar ilk. Maybe we should've scheduled Mars Hill,  Carver College or Kentucky Christian (Wofford's great opponents in non-league) so that we could've inflated our numbers like you wanted. Yes, they also played Kansas, S. Carolina, Oklahoma and UNC.  They went 1-3 in those games, with a -7 average margin. UB had Marquette, SU, and San Francisco as their 4 strongest opponents in non-league, with a 3-1 record with a positive overall margin. Which group of 4 are stronger? Clearly Wofford's, but one team had a winning mark, while the other had a losing one. The MAC is clearly listed as a stronger ranking conference than the Southern Conf. In the end, both teams are excellent, and have had remarkable seasons. You nor I will be the ones deciding what # they receive in the tournament. Regardless of the #, you need to win games against the best of the best at that point, not "bad teams". 

I'm not sure why you're putting words into my mouth either. I've never once said that it wasn't important to win big and/or produce good numbers offensively/defensively. I did however get annoyed with people (you included) when they continually talk more negatively than positively about the players/team when they aren't doing as well as you feel they should be playing, even though the team is 28-3. This is UB's best team ever, and I'm sorry that you weren't around when the teams were awful so that you could appreciate this one, including the quality people that the coaches and players are, a little more. I've forever wanted them to score every possession and want them to stop the opponent from doing so every possession, but then again, I'm realistic in knowing that isn't going to happen. The other team is made up of D-1 players who are trying to score and defend as well. I've played enough sports in my life to know that. I'm sure that you've played and coached sports at the highest of levels and can teach me what's important and what isn't. Obviously I don't know.

No matter how our opinions differ, we both (along with everyone else on this platform) want to see UB have their best success over the next several weeks. Let's hope that they can rake in win after win (and no I don't care about metrics or style at this point). Additionally, I hope that the UB fans will make their way to Cleveland in droves, starting with Thursday's game. At minimum, they need to get there by Friday evening's game to support this worthy group. There aren't many more opportunities to watch these guys together, and every one will be relished by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kevin said:

I just think it should reseed after campus games. That's my only change that teams who earned top seeds deserve. 

Why so realistic/reasonable?  This is a fan board.  I also think head coaches should be allowed to carry machetes.  But they can only use them once.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yussi1870 said:

We deserve a double bye.

In years like this, I agree. The one year when there were 6-7 teams within 1 game, I would disagree. Both the current format and old format have pros and cons, depending on how the teams stack up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MillenniumBull said:

Why so realistic/reasonable?  This is a fan board.  I also think head coaches should be allowed to carry machetes.  But they can only use them once.  

I mean I'd take the double bye all day. 

I was just stating at least reseed. Mid Major conferences need to protect the top of the conference. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skrabukes said:

. Both the current format and old format have pros and cons, depending on how the teams stack up.

The double bye was great but I think the current format honestly is pretty fair. It looks more balanced in general visually. Go win 3 more games... helps CJ get scoring record as well :)

Some conferences, like the WCC have some crazy weird looking brackets like 8 seed needs to win 4 games to get to final. Gonzaga needs  1.

I might actually be able to make the Thursday game. I like the noon time. You could in theory be back in Buffalo 7 or sooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xDerekRx said:

The double bye was great but I think the current format honestly is pretty fair. It looks more balanced in general visually. Go win 3 more games... helps CJ get scoring record as well 🙂

Some conferences, like the WCC have some crazy weird looking brackets like 8 seed needs to win 4 games to get to final. Gonzaga needs  1.

I might actually be able to make the Thursday game. I like the noon time. You could in theory be back in Buffalo 7 or sooner

WCC specifically changed their tournament to keep Gonzaga from going to the Mountain West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WCC Tournament is certainly shaping up nicely for Gonzaga and St. Mary's with the double bye. 7 and 8 seeds both winning their way to the semifinals where they will (most likely) get killed. Definitely some early madness going on in the conference tournaments, though. MVC championship tomorrow will be 5 vs. 6, guess Loyola used up all their magic last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol everyone got really mad about wanting the team to play well and have momentum going into the tournament...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

Lol everyone got really mad about wanting the team to play well and have momentum going into the tournament...

Who? Where? I want in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...