That play was karmic retribution for an entire game of ??? reffing, I’m gonna need Michigan’s Purdue and OSU refs to be awful in favor of us to make up for that game.
And damn today is like the 5th time this season where there’s been an endless supply of fantastic games.
lol. I suppose there’s still a bit of a balance left 
Disgusting loss by KY tonight. 19 point swing. Missed FTs, missed dunk, brutal offensive possessions, Wenyen Gabriel with two absolutely disgusting stretches that matched pitiful play on defense and cluelessness of offense. Just a senseless loss to So Carolina.
They ran basically nothing the last 4 minutes of the game it was gross.
I love your use of the word disgusting 
A closer look at the box score and my god, how many fouls were called in that game.
Endless fouls, but honestly, the kids were fouling on both sides
I believe this is what the committee is gonna use to seed teams. The resume/quality metrics at the top is interesting.
Let me get this straight, they keep saying they’re going away from RPI, yet they introduce the average RPI win and loss metrics?
The committee probably doesn’t even know what half of those other top metrics are. I fully believe that.
I agree with Torvik that the average of averages is probably going to be heavily used.
Am I following correctly that you’re saying the average RPI win and loss will be weighed heavily? Or the average of the metrics in the top line?
Also, we’ll see just how heavily they use the other metrics introduced. If you remove those, Michigan MSU and should be seeded about the same if the season ended today.
If they use those metrics, MSU should be seeded a line or two higher.
I’m not even a homer, I hope they do use Kenpom, KPI, etc. if that means MSU gets Detroit and a higher seed, I’m ok with that.
I’m saying that the average of the two average rankings will be used most heavily.
So Michigan’s 20.67 is the average of the record based and predictive averages.
Personally, I think they should stick to resume/strength of record metrics for tournament seeding. The goal with tournament seeding isn’t to try and generate a perfect bracket with no upsets, it’s to reward teams for a good season.
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. I follow now.
Is that the goal? I’m never sure. And you have to know the goal to reach it. I’m not even sure I know what it SHOULD be. ND looked so good at the beginning of the season. So you leave them out because they won’t be good in the tourney? Are we scratching the surface and seeing if a player will be back? I don’t envy the committee, but I do wish that the criteria were clearly and fully–publically–established. Have they ever been? Maybe I just missed the conversation.
The problem there is teams like Wichita St. You know they’re talented but their conference just kills them most years.
If they can balance the strength of record with the new advanced analytics metrics, it’d be a win. I just have no faith the people in that room know half of what they’re talking about.
Well, ND is gonna play themselves out of the tourney anyway, haha.
Sure, but strength of record stats will stick look fondly on having a like a 2 loss season while playing in a weak conference (maybe not RPI quite as much). If MVC-era Wichita lost a bunch of games but still graded out top ten in predictive metrics, I don’t have an issue with punishing them or leaving them out. I value the predictive measurements a lot, but the whole point of basketball is to play and win the games. I’m not a fan of giving too much credit for style points in tournament seeds.
