menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: We're on the Bubble
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
Turney13
1/7/2022 8:35 AM
According to the most recent bracketology, we are a 12 seed which is the same as two of the last four in - and if you look at Belmont who is on the bubble it's because there their conferences AQ is UT Martin -- now I realize at-larges for the MAC are nearly impossible these days, but if OHIO manages to go 15-3 in the MAC and lose in the finals - I think they're in the discussion - which we haven't been in the discussion this late in the season since 2012.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketolo...
mail
FearLeon
1/7/2022 9:18 AM
Turney13 wrote:expand_more
According to the most recent bracketology, we are a 12 seed which is the same as two of the last four in - and if you look at Belmont who is on the bubble it's because there their conferences AQ is UT Martin -- now I realize at-larges for the MAC are nearly impossible these days, but if OHIO manages to go 15-3 in the MAC and lose in the finals - I think they're in the discussion - which we haven't been in the discussion this late in the season since 2012.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketolo...
15-3....we will not be in the discussion. Don't want to be Debby Downer, but it's reality. For us to be in discussion at 15-3, we needed to beat either Kentucky or LSU.

17-1 (not likely to happen) maybe gets us into a serious discussion on bracket day, but I don't think we'd be a lock for an at-large. Wasn't Belmont 26-4 and they stayed home last year?

Regardless, one game at a time. I remember in Oats last year at Buffalo, they got off to a great start and this at-large chatter started by UB fans and they went out next game I believe and lost at Northern Illinois and that was that.
Last Edited: 1/7/2022 9:24:13 AM by FearLeon
mail
person
Clown Ohio Fan
1/7/2022 9:45 AM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
According to the most recent bracketology, we are a 12 seed which is the same as two of the last four in - and if you look at Belmont who is on the bubble it's because there their conferences AQ is UT Martin -- now I realize at-larges for the MAC are nearly impossible these days, but if OHIO manages to go 15-3 in the MAC and lose in the finals - I think they're in the discussion - which we haven't been in the discussion this late in the season since 2012.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketolo...
15-3....we will not be in the discussion. Don't want to be Debby Downer, but it's reality. For us to be in discussion at 15-3, we needed to beat either Kentucky or LSU.

17-1 (not likely to happen) maybe gets us into a serious discussion on bracket day, but I don't think we'd be a lock for an at-large. Wasn't Belmont 26-4 and they stayed home last year?

Regardless, one game at a time. I remember in Oats last year at Buffalo, they got off to a great start and this at-large chatter started by UB fans and they went out next game I believe and lost at Northern Illinois and that was that.

Ohio alumnus here and former member. Have been checking out the board for over a decade but felt the need to respond to this.

I think you’re misremembering Oats final year at Buffalo. They were going to get an at-large even if they didn’t win the MAC. They finished 17th in the country and got a 6-seed.

They did lose to NIU but they were ranked for basically the entire season after defeating West Virginia, Syracuse, San Francisco and took down Arizona the year before in the NCAA Tournament. That team went 32-4. They were never a bubble team because they went 18-2 in MAC play and had great metrics.
Last Edited: 1/7/2022 9:54:31 AM by Clown Ohio Fan
mail
shabamon
1/7/2022 9:50 AM
Belmont absolutely has to be a Q1 win at the end of the year and we cannot afford any Q3 or 4 losses. Do that and win the MAC regular season and maybe we'd have a shot.
mail
person
Clown Ohio Fan
1/7/2022 9:53 AM
As far as this Ohio team, I think they’re good enough to enter the bubble conversation but lack the signature wins to actually get in even with a stellar MAC record.

I saw a good article here on resume ranking vs. quality ranking and how the committee looks at at-large teams. The Bobcats resume ranking is near top 50 but their quality ranking is around 100.

https://heatcheckcbb.com/bracketology-analyzing-impact-of... /

That’s going to hurt them in any conversation. They needed to upset one of either LSU or Kentucky. They gave them battles but couldn’t pull either off but it’s not the end of the world. Right now, OU is the best team in the MAC. We have a shot to get back to the NCAA Tournament but it’ll come down to Cleveland. Otherwise, I think NIT is a likely backup option.
Last Edited: 1/7/2022 9:55:54 AM by Clown Ohio Fan
mail
person
Victory
1/7/2022 11:04 AM
I like that analysis. I have always contended that this should be based 90% on strength of record. We don't put teams in the playoffs on other sports based on who Vegas thinks would win. We do it based on winning games. In college sports you create your own schedule so it should be how good is the win total with respect to the schedule. They are inseparable and we should look at neither as a separate entity. 20 years ago the committee did a better job with this. If we go 26-5 and beat Kentucky and lose to NIU I do not see how that is any different than going 26-5 against the same set of teams while not getting a top 25 win but also not taking a terrible loss. We got hung up of that and it killed nearly everyone's chances expect high majors. If there are 25 top 25 teams and they play 10 non-conference games each that means that the other 325 teams will play less than one top 25 team on their non-conference schedule on average. Boals made it clear that Ohio had tried to schedule every high-major and every top 25 team last year and until we lost Preston and Wilson nobody would play us. But that standard with fail for most teams having a chance from the start. It is a mathematical certainty. So quality wins cannot be the standard. SOR should be the standard.

I have always done my own analysis on that. It is interesting. My numbers for the teams that are probably better than their record indicates. UK is second.

Virginia Tech
Kentucky
Lamar
Northern Iowa
Tennessee Tech
Gardner-Webb
Bradley
Washington St.
Colgate
Longwood
Coppin St.
Wisconsin-Green Bay
Howard
Florida A&M
Kennesaw St.
Oregon St.
Memphis
Gonzaga
Northwestern
Wofford

Teams that are not as good as their record indicates. I have us in the high 30s in SOR but we are going to have to shoot better to maintain that.

Samford
Manhattan
Providence
Ohio
Colorado St.
Wisconsin
Central Arkansas
New Mexico St.
Minnesota
California Baptist
Iona
Miami (FL)
James Madison
Southern California
Butler
Iowa St.
Norfolk St.
Stony Brook
Army
Air Force
Last Edited: 1/7/2022 12:30:39 PM by Victory
mail
FearLeon
1/7/2022 11:22 AM
FormerMember wrote:expand_more
According to the most recent bracketology, we are a 12 seed which is the same as two of the last four in - and if you look at Belmont who is on the bubble it's because there their conferences AQ is UT Martin -- now I realize at-larges for the MAC are nearly impossible these days, but if OHIO manages to go 15-3 in the MAC and lose in the finals - I think they're in the discussion - which we haven't been in the discussion this late in the season since 2012.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketolo...
15-3....we will not be in the discussion. Don't want to be Debby Downer, but it's reality. For us to be in discussion at 15-3, we needed to beat either Kentucky or LSU.

17-1 (not likely to happen) maybe gets us into a serious discussion on bracket day, but I don't think we'd be a lock for an at-large. Wasn't Belmont 26-4 and they stayed home last year?

Regardless, one game at a time. I remember in Oats last year at Buffalo, they got off to a great start and this at-large chatter started by UB fans and they went out next game I believe and lost at Northern Illinois and that was that.

Ohio alumnus here and former member. Have been checking out the board for over a decade but felt the need to respond to this.

I think you’re misremembering Oats final year at Buffalo. They were going to get an at-large even if they didn’t win the MAC. They finished 17th in the country and got a 6-seed.

They did lose to NIU but they were ranked for basically the entire season after defeating West Virginia, Syracuse, San Francisco and took down Arizona the year before in the NCAA Tournament. That team went 32-4. They were never a bubble team because they went 18-2 in MAC play and had great metrics.
I get that, but that team had multiple signature wins and were in better position than Ohio could be with a similar record this year. We needed to beat Kentucky or LSU or have another solid win over a Belmont like team.
mail
person
Clown Ohio Fan
1/7/2022 11:38 AM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
According to the most recent bracketology, we are a 12 seed which is the same as two of the last four in - and if you look at Belmont who is on the bubble it's because there their conferences AQ is UT Martin -- now I realize at-larges for the MAC are nearly impossible these days, but if OHIO manages to go 15-3 in the MAC and lose in the finals - I think they're in the discussion - which we haven't been in the discussion this late in the season since 2012.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketolo...
15-3....we will not be in the discussion. Don't want to be Debby Downer, but it's reality. For us to be in discussion at 15-3, we needed to beat either Kentucky or LSU.

17-1 (not likely to happen) maybe gets us into a serious discussion on bracket day, but I don't think we'd be a lock for an at-large. Wasn't Belmont 26-4 and they stayed home last year?

Regardless, one game at a time. I remember in Oats last year at Buffalo, they got off to a great start and this at-large chatter started by UB fans and they went out next game I believe and lost at Northern Illinois and that was that.

Ohio alumnus here and former member. Have been checking out the board for over a decade but felt the need to respond to this.

I think you’re misremembering Oats final year at Buffalo. They were going to get an at-large even if they didn’t win the MAC. They finished 17th in the country and got a 6-seed.

They did lose to NIU but they were ranked for basically the entire season after defeating West Virginia, Syracuse, San Francisco and took down Arizona the year before in the NCAA Tournament. That team went 32-4. They were never a bubble team because they went 18-2 in MAC play and had great metrics.
I get that, but that team had multiple signature wins and were in better position than Ohio could be with a similar record this year. We needed to beat Kentucky or LSU or have another solid win over a Belmont like team.

Yep, I completely agree with that. Ohio would need to run the table to have any chance. They could possibly have a shot with one conference loss and losing in MAC Title but I don’t think most of us believe that’s a realistic possibility.
mail
FearLeon
1/7/2022 12:30 PM
FormerMember wrote:expand_more
According to the most recent bracketology, we are a 12 seed which is the same as two of the last four in - and if you look at Belmont who is on the bubble it's because there their conferences AQ is UT Martin -- now I realize at-larges for the MAC are nearly impossible these days, but if OHIO manages to go 15-3 in the MAC and lose in the finals - I think they're in the discussion - which we haven't been in the discussion this late in the season since 2012.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketolo...
15-3....we will not be in the discussion. Don't want to be Debby Downer, but it's reality. For us to be in discussion at 15-3, we needed to beat either Kentucky or LSU.

17-1 (not likely to happen) maybe gets us into a serious discussion on bracket day, but I don't think we'd be a lock for an at-large. Wasn't Belmont 26-4 and they stayed home last year?

Regardless, one game at a time. I remember in Oats last year at Buffalo, they got off to a great start and this at-large chatter started by UB fans and they went out next game I believe and lost at Northern Illinois and that was that.

Ohio alumnus here and former member. Have been checking out the board for over a decade but felt the need to respond to this.

I think you’re misremembering Oats final year at Buffalo. They were going to get an at-large even if they didn’t win the MAC. They finished 17th in the country and got a 6-seed.

They did lose to NIU but they were ranked for basically the entire season after defeating West Virginia, Syracuse, San Francisco and took down Arizona the year before in the NCAA Tournament. That team went 32-4. They were never a bubble team because they went 18-2 in MAC play and had great metrics.
I get that, but that team had multiple signature wins and were in better position than Ohio could be with a similar record this year. We needed to beat Kentucky or LSU or have another solid win over a Belmont like team.

Yep, I completely agree with that. Ohio would need to run the table to have any chance. They could possibly have a shot with one conference loss and losing in MAC Title but I don’t think most of us believe that’s a realistic possibility.
And with all that said, it sure is nice to actually be talking in January again about an Ohio basketball team and at-large chances. Thank you Jeff Boals.
mail
The Optimist
1/7/2022 12:39 PM
shabamon wrote:expand_more
Belmont absolutely has to be a Q1 win at the end of the year and we cannot afford any Q3 or 4 losses. Do that and win the MAC regular season and maybe we'd have a shot.
Agreed. Belmont is crucial. If they only lose one game or two games in conference and wind up looking like a decent seed for the tournament that'll be huge for us. Cleveland State winning the Horizon would also be helpful. They are 8-1 since we played them and their only loss was a very close game against OK State.

We cannot lose to CMU, WMU or NIU. A single road loss to any other MAC team would potentially be explainable. As always, the biggest thing for us is just continuing to win... We did enough in OOC that if we only lose one or two games in conference play we will at least be in the bubble discussion.
mail
OUVan
1/7/2022 1:58 PM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
Wasn't Belmont 26-4 and they stayed home last year?
They were but they played an unbelievably bad schedule. They had only 4 games against teams in KenPom's top 150 and they went 2-2 in those games. 3 of the 4 were against Morehead St (#134) and they went 1-2 in those games. We potentially will have 12 such games.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
1/7/2022 2:04 PM
Victory wrote:expand_more
In college sports you create your own schedule ...
Bullshit. P5 schools create their own schedule and handpick their opponents with help from ESPN. They play 80% of their noncon games at home.

We just do what we can.
Last Edited: 1/7/2022 2:04:50 PM by Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
greencat
1/7/2022 5:27 PM
OUVan wrote:expand_more
Wasn't Belmont 26-4 and they stayed home last year?
They were but they played an unbelievably bad schedule. They had only 4 games against teams in KenPom's top 150 and they went 2-2 in those games. 3 of the 4 were against Morehead St (#134) and they went 1-2 in those games. We potentially will have 12 such games.
Belmont had a blowout home loss to Samford and were blown out in the OVC tourney by Morehead State. 30 point wins over Edwardsville only get you so far.

Lucky for them, Loyola-Chicago is leaving the MVC as soon as they arrive, so they will keep having shots at automatic bids for years and years.
Last Edited: 1/7/2022 5:28:31 PM by greencat
mail
person
OUcat
1/7/2022 6:05 PM
The best MAC schedule of all time for NCAA Tournament purposes was the 2008 Kent State team. It was a No. 8 seed, definitely overrated (spanked by UNLV in first round) ... but seeded that high not by beating P5 teams in non-conference (I think they only played one) but by beating a slew of quality mid-majors mostly on the road, including St. Mary's in a mid-night bracketbuster game that ultimately got them ranked.

It was a relatively young team primarily with Fr-So-Jrs as I recall but the two keys were quality mid-major opponents, and winning on the road.

Sorry, did not take the time to post a link.

Here you go ....

https://kentstatesports.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedu...
Last Edited: 1/7/2022 6:11:13 PM by OUcat
mail
person
Victory
1/7/2022 6:16 PM
OUcat wrote:expand_more
The best MAC schedule of all time for NCAA Tournament purposes was the 2008 Kent State team. It was a No. 8 seed, definitely overrated (spanked by UNLV in first round) ... but seeded that high not by beating P5 teams in non-conference (I think they only played one) but by beating a slew of quality mid-majors mostly on the road, including St. Mary's in a mid-night bracketbuster game that ultimately got them ranked.

It was a relatively young team primarily with Fr-So-Jrs as I recall but the two keys were quality mid-major opponents, and winning on the road.

Sorry, did not take the time to post a link.

Here you go ....

https://kentstatesports.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_Kent_State_...

This was a MAC conference with respect from the committee. This year 13-3 in the MAC would not be considered as impressive.
mail
person
Victory
1/7/2022 6:22 PM
Victory wrote:expand_more
I like that analysis. I have always contended that this should be based 90% on strength of record. We don't put teams in the playoffs on other sports based on who Vegas thinks would win. We do it based on winning games. In college sports you create your own schedule so it should be how good is the win total with respect to the schedule. They are inseparable and we should look at neither as a separate entity. 20 years ago the committee did a better job with this. If we go 26-5 and beat Kentucky and lose to NIU I do not see how that is any different than going 26-5 against the same set of teams while not getting a top 25 win but also not taking a terrible loss. We got hung up of that and it killed nearly everyone's chances expect high majors. If there are 25 top 25 teams and they play 10 non-conference games each that means that the other 325 teams will play less than one top 25 team on their non-conference schedule on average. Boals made it clear that Ohio had tried to schedule every high-major and every top 25 team last year and until we lost Preston and Wilson nobody would play us. But that standard with fail for most teams having a chance from the start. It is a mathematical certainty. So quality wins cannot be the standard. SOR should be the standard.

I have always done my own analysis on that. It is interesting. My numbers for the teams that are probably better than their record indicates. UK is second.

Virginia Tech
Kentucky
Lamar
Northern Iowa
Tennessee Tech
Gardner-Webb
Bradley
Washington St.
Colgate
Longwood
Coppin St.
Wisconsin-Green Bay
Howard
Florida A&M
Kennesaw St.
Oregon St.
Memphis
Gonzaga
Northwestern
Wofford

Teams that are not as good as their record indicates. I have us in the high 30s in SOR but we are going to have to shoot better to maintain that.

Samford
Manhattan
Providence
Ohio
Colorado St.
Wisconsin
Central Arkansas
New Mexico St.
Minnesota
California Baptist
Iona
Miami (FL)
James Madison
Southern California
Butler
Iowa St.
Norfolk St.
Stony Brook
Army
Air Force
You can got to KenPom and sort by Luck and see the same sort of analysis. He agrees with me on who the three highest teams are but fortunately Ohio is not as high as fourth in luck in his rating.

https://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankLuck
mail
person
Victory
1/9/2022 12:15 PM
We are up to #24 in ESPN's SOR. That's the highest of any system that I know of. In some pure predictor power ratings we are still over 100.
Showing Messages: 1 - 17 of 17
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)