B12 Thread

[jontaejones]

Bobby Hurley is still a giant douchebag. During the postgame presser, he complained about the "constant relentless chatter" coming from UA players during the game. He essentially blamed his tantrum on trash talk during a rivalry game.

No doubt the Hurley brothers are going to take the slightest slight and make it intensely personal.

I guess that's how you make it to the league being a 6 foot non athletic white guard

 

[Mr.Hockey]

That ejection on Toppin

Is no doubt the worst call in the history of sports. Zero hyperbole.

Everyone involved in it should be instantly fired. Possibly investigated and arrested

And I have money on Houston.

 

[Deep Creek]

That ejection on Toppin

Is no doubt the worst call in the history of sports. Zero hyperbole.

Everyone involved in it should be instantly fired. Possibly investigated and arrested

And I have money on Houston.

I just saw the end of the game. What the hell happened to him and McCasland? That’s not really like him.

 

[Mr.Hockey]

I just saw the end of the game. What the hell happened to him and McCasland? That’s not really like him.

Look it up

Was a horrendous ejection

McCasland got ejected going ballistic at the call

 

[Deep Creek]

Look it up

Was a horrendous ejection

McCasland got ejected going ballistic at the call

I finally saw it. That's iffy at best.

 

[fordman84]

That ejection on Toppin

Is no doubt the worst call in the history of sports. Zero hyperbole.

Everyone involved in it should be instantly fired. Possibly investigated and arrested

And I have money on Houston.

Watched that one live, and even the announcement was shady! It was like the ref was looking for a reason to help the home team. Just a very nonchalant "flagrant two and ejected" and then went back to put the ball in play.

That entire crew and the replay officials should all be fired immediately.

 

[fordman84]

I finally saw it. That's iffy at best.

Yeah he made contact with the groin, but it is conceivably a basketball move. I could see it being called a flagrant 1, but a F2? No way.

 

[Deep Creek]

K-State is the best team in the conference…at least right now. On a heater.

 

[ericd7633]

K-State is the best team in the conference…at least right now. On a heater.

It's crazy. 6 wins in a row and 3 elite wins in that timeframe. Playing themselves into the tournament conversation.

 

[Deep Creek]

It's crazy. 6 wins in a row and 3 elite wins in that timeframe. Playing themselves into the tournament conversation.

Yep. And those six wins followed six losses in a row as part of a 1-6 conference start.

Big 12 is pretty even again. Just not near as good as in the past.

 

[fordman84]

Why is the Big12 getting so propped up in the polls? Look at the top 10 teams, the only teams that have quad 2 losses are:
Houston (5-1)
Iowa St (3-1)
Texas Tech (2-2)

as a bonus Kansas is at #11 and is 5-1 in quad 2. Not a single other school in the top 10 has lost a Q2 game. Houston and TxTech are feasting on Q3 and Q4 teams. The NET math must be wrong, Houston hasn't played a tough schedule and is ranked 3 in NET?

 

[Deep Creek]

Why is the Big12 getting so propped up in the polls? Look at the top 10 teams, the only teams that have quad 2 losses are:
Houston (5-1)
Iowa St (3-1)
Texas Tech (2-2)

as a bonus Kansas is at #11 and is 5-1 in quad 2. Not a single other school in the top 10 has lost a Q2 game. Houston and TxTech are feasting on Q3 and Q4 teams. The NET math must be wrong, Houston hasn't played a tough schedule and is ranked 3 in NET?

View attachment 132385

I don't understand NET/Quads so I can't comment on that part.

I watch quite a bit of Big 12 hoops because of my daughter's season tickets perk at TCU. Not counting TV games, I've seen TCU, Texas Tech, Kansas, BYU, Utah, Colorado, West Virginia and Oklahoma State in person. It is obvious the conference is getting a ratings boost because of success in previous years/reputation. Par for the course with pollsters all the time in several sports. IMO the conference isn't near as good as they have been the past five years. That ain't to say some of them can't get on a roll and make a run in March. Like Kansas. OOC wins over Sparty and Duke earlier in the season. Unless Sparty and Duke are overrated as well. Or maybe I'm just being too critical but they didn't handle a pretty "meh" team in TCU very well until the end of the game.

 

[ericd7633]

Why is the Big12 getting so propped up in the polls? Look at the top 10 teams, the only teams that have quad 2 losses are:
Houston (5-1)
Iowa St (3-1)
Texas Tech (2-2)

as a bonus Kansas is at #11 and is 5-1 in quad 2. Not a single other school in the top 10 has lost a Q2 game. Houston and TxTech are feasting on Q3 and Q4 teams. The NET math must be wrong, Houston hasn't played a tough schedule and is ranked 3 in NET?

View attachment 132385

I wouldn't necessarily say the B12 is being propped up. There just aren't a lot of other options to be in the top 10, outside A&M.

But the NET is just a sorting tool used by the committee. Your ranking doesn't equate to where you'll be seeded. For example it's better to have beaten Houston, then to actually be ranked 3rd like Houston is. As for why those specific teams are that highly ranked in the NET, it really comes down to how efficient they've been in all their games. Specifically, Texas Tech they have 5 losses by a combined 20 points. Houston has 4 losses by a combined 14 points I think it is. And from an overall efficiency standpoint they've been slightly better than A&M has. But like I said, this doesn't equate to seeding, just used as a sorting tool. If the field were selected today A&M would be higher on the S Curve than both, and I'd say by probably 5/6 spots over Texas Tech.

 

[ericd7633]

Here's a good explainer on the NET @fordman84

 

[fordman84]

View attachment 132389


Here's a good explainer on the NET @fordman84

No I get that, but I'm still saying the system is broken. I think it is the WAB that screws it all up. Compare Houston vs Alabama for instance (sorry for formatting)

Rank|Previous|Team|Conference|Record|Road|Neutral|WAB|Q1|Q2|Q3|Q4

3

3

Houston

Big 12

20-4

6-0

1-3

9

5-3

5-1

5-0

5-0

6

6

Alabama

SEC

21-3

8-1

3-1

2

8-3

7-0

4-0

2-0

Bama has the better overall record, call it toss up for road record (two more wins, but a loss), better neutral record, better Q1, better Q2, worse Q3, and worse Q4.

So other than WAB, where Houston has 9 somehow to Bama's 2, looking at the two records you would never say Houston has the better resume than Alabama.

 

[ericd7633]

No I get that, but I'm still saying the system is broken. I think it is the WAB that screws it all up. Compare Houston vs Alabama for instance (sorry for formatting)

Rank|Previous|Team|Conference|Record|Road|Neutral|WAB|Q1|Q2|Q3|Q4

3

3

Houston

Big 12

20-4

6-0

1-3

9

5-3

5-1

5-0

5-0

6

6

Alabama

SEC

21-3

8-1

3-1

2

8-3

7-0

4-0

2-0

Bama has the better overall record, call it toss up for road record (two more wins, but a loss), better neutral record, better Q1, better Q2, worse Q3, and worse Q4.

So other than WAB, where Houston has 9 somehow to Bama's 2, looking at the two records you would never say Houston has the better resume than Alabama.

Houston doesn't have the better resume. It's the predictive metrics that are making Houston having a higher NET than Bama. WAB means Wins Above Bubble, which is a results based metric. Which makes sense why Bama would be #2 as they would most definitely be in line for a #1 seed, and #9 for Houston makes sense because they'd be on #3 seed line as of today, at least IMO. That's why I'm saying the NET is a sorting tool, not necessarily who has the best resume. That's why in this instance it's better to have beaten Houston, then being Houston themselves. It's not the end all be all metric.

 

[fordman84]

Houston doesn't have the better resume. It's the predictive metrics that are making Houston having a higher NET than Bama. WAB means Wins Above Bubble, which is a results based metric. Which makes sense why Bama would be #2 as they would most definitely be in line for a #1 seed, and #9 for Houston makes sense because they'd be on #3 seed line as of today, at least IMO. That's why I'm saying the NET is a sorting tool, not necessarily who has the best resume. That's why in this instance it's better to have beaten Houston, then being Houston themselves. It's not the end all be all metric.

Ah I see, WAB is a ranking not a cumulative count. Then I have no clue why Houston is #3 and Bama #6. I guess the predictive part of the equation.

 

[ericd7633]

Ah I see, WAB is a ranking not a cumulative count. Then I have no clue why Houston is #3 and Bama #6. I guess the predictive part of the equation.

WAB is similar to what SOR would be in a football sense, only just slightly different. Houston is #3 in the NET essentially because they are significantly better defensively than Bama is, at least for now, which is negatively impacts their overall efficiency metrics. Houston has beaten Q3 and Q4 teams by an avg of 34 points, which is ridiculous and probably the best in the sport (maybe behind Auburn without looking). That can be one flaw in the system, in that it is rewarding a team like Houston for destroying the worst in D1, and not having the type of wins that a Bama does. But that's why they have the results based metrics on the team sheets, along with SOR and KPI. And in terms of seeding near the top, the committee will always take who has the better wins, as opposed to has better predictives.

 

[jontaejones]

WAB is similar to what SOR would be in a football sense, only just slightly different. Houston is #3 in the NET essentially because they are significantly better defensively than Bama is, at least for now, which is negatively impacts their overall efficiency metrics. Houston has beaten Q3 and Q4 teams by an avg of 34 points, which is ridiculous and probably the best in the sport (maybe behind Auburn without looking). That can be one flaw in the system, in that it is rewarding a team like Houston for destroying the worst in D1, and not having the type of wins that a Bama does. But that's why they have the results based metrics on the team sheets, along with SOR and KPI. And in terms of seeding near the top, the committee will always take who has the better wins, as opposed to has better predictives.

Yea Houston as a program tends to always have high metrics. They use their athleticism and D system to demolish weaker teams.

But on a neutral court, it's hard for them to score with hot teams, and you always run into a hot team in March.

Conversely, as a conference, the Big East tends to have higher seeds than their metrics. Their KenPom is always relatively low.

Predictive metrics are pretty good at who can win the whole enchilada, but any number of hot teams can win any game or make the final 4

 

[antone112]

This has got to be a nickname. Right?