OT NCAA Bracketology: The case for/against Oklahoma
With most other major P5 conferences holding their tournaments this week, I bring forth the curious case OU basketball. I understand that they have a tough SOS (#3 I think) and play in a tough conference but I have to believe the Trae Young hype-train has carried this team as far as they can go.
Can anyone make a legit argument for a team that has lost 11! of it's last 15 games and just got bounced in the first round on the Big 12 tournament? They have a few decent wins from the non-conference but they are 18-13 overall and 8-10 in their own conference. With 3 more days for other teams to raise their stock to the committee, how do they get in?
If they take Oklahoma over Nebraska that’s some real bullshit right there
Nebraska is 2-9 in Quadrant 1 or 2 games. Oklahoma is 9-12. If Nebraska wins quad 1 or 2 games at the same rate with Oklahoma's schedule, they would be 4-17 in those games. Both lost to 1 Quad 3 team. You don't have to dig into it much further than that to realize OU definitely deserves the nod of Nebraska.
The other key is that the committee specifically says it is not a "what have you done for me lately" system. It's the whole season, and fortunately for Oklahoma, their bad two months happened to take place in probably the nation's best conference. The Big 12 could legitimately have 9 of their 10 teams in the tournament.
I thought the committee took into account recent play for bubble teams. Maybe I need to lay off the whisky...
I will add, if the committee decides to keep OU out because of recent poor play, then Michigan better get a 1 or 2 seed. I could be mistaken, but recent play was de-emphasized by the committee about a decade ago. If they've backtracked on that decision, then yeah, Oklahoma shouldn't receive a bid.
Penn State or any of the First 4/Next 4 Out teams would beat Oklahoma right now. Get away from Quadrants and stats - go to the "eye" test. Oklahoma sucks right now - in a big way, pure and simple. If there isn't a rule about losing 11 of your last 15 games disqualifying you from the tourney - there should be. If they get in - it is a disgrace...
IMO, the "eye" test shouldn't be considered by the selection committee. It's too subjective and no way the committee can watch enough games to be experts on all the teams in consideration for the tournament. Base it on their body of work, with a slight emphasis on late season play, and don't use garbage metrics like RPI or KPI, and use more mathematically sound rating metrics.
4-11 in their last 15. C’mon - do you really need to look at Quadrants and RPI at that point?
I agree the eye test shouldn't count, but if we're talking about what SHOULD count then quadrant lists are useless and arbitrary, most because of RPI. RPI currently has TCU as 20th, despite a 4-9 record against Q1 teams. This is because FIFTY PERCENT of RPI is determined by opponents winning percentage. This especially problematic in the Big 12 as many teams such as TCU and Okla. played pretty fucking easy non con schedules, which explains why conferences such as SEC and Big 12 have inflated values because they have found the sweet spot in RPI, to schedule teams not to trigger a penalty in RPI, but to have winning percentages high enough to make the conferences RPI better.
I agree on the Quadrants. I really just wish they used a better rating system and just took the top X number of teams, like they do in hockey. If you feel the need to look at things like record vs top 50 (or now quadrants), it just shows that your rating system sucks. And, of course, the quadrants are based on that same crappy rating system...
I don't think the eye test should be included, but recency does matter. You hear the committee often considers injuries during the year; hence why ND is getting a bump because Colson was out for most of the year. Ignoring that, they are a mediocre team.
But the OU we saw to start the year isn't what we see now. They are a mediocre team, and giving that team a spot because they won games in December isn't fair to teams that are playing well now.
[accidental duplicate post]
Nebraska has 22 wins and 13 in the big ten Oklahoma has 18 and 8. More wins have to balance out sometimes
It does sometimes, but not in this case. Just look at their resumes...
https://crashingthedance.com/teams/NEB
https://crashingthedance.com/teams/OKLA
It's not particularly close. Now if you want to argue that the metrics the NCAA uses to select a team are flawed, then you would be correct. Even then, it would be hard to take Nebraska over OU, unless you wanted to strongly emphasize late season play.
I get the "they have 13 big ten wins", but cmon, look who their wins were against in the Big Ten. They played Purdue, Michigan, Ohio St., Michigan St. all ONE TIME. Play 2 of those teams twice instead of Rutgers, Minnesota, or Wisconsin and no way they have 13 wins. They had just about the easiest Big Ten schedule you could get.
While I agree with you about Nebraska and their horrible strength of schedule, that exact same argument won't go against MSU when the selection committee decides their seeding. And that's why I fully expect them to get a higher seed than us. Because of Izzo. Nebraska's schedule and results probably deserves an NIT bid. But give that exact same resume to Izzo and it would be rewarded a 4 or 5 seed in the NCAA tournament.
Regarding Oklahoma, they have the Trae Young factor. Something tells me that the committee will NOT want a player with that much talent playing in the NIT. And they'll get a major boost from that despite losing every road game since New Year's Day.
OU imploded down the stretch but come on, Nebraska has one good win.
ESPN wants them to be a tournament team because of Young. Just like when they were pushing LSU a few years ago. They’re not a tournament team.
this be a case of CBS and Turner wanting them to be a part of the tournament? Why does ESPN care? It would seem they would want them for the NIT.
That's an interesting thought. Would ESPN rather have Trey Young in the tournament so they can talk about him when games aren't going on (even though they wouldn't profit when actual games take place)? Or would they rather have him in the NIT, where they would get the game, but likely wouldn't drum up a ton of interest regardless. I tend to think they would prefer the former.
Even if Oklahoma is playing, Trae Young is going the Christian McCaffrey route and sitting out meaningless games.
ESPN cares because people here are always looking for a reason to shit on the network or say the committee is corrupt, even without facts to back it up.
If they are going to politic it will be for a marginal SEC/ACC team.
I know this board loves to point ammo at ESPN for everything that's wrong in college sports (and sports, in general), and the majority of the time I just kinda laugh and think, "whatever, man." But I am genuinely curious about this one: In your mind, what role could ESPN possibly play in OU's acceptance to the tourney??? You think they are conspiring in some back-door discussions with Turner/CBS to admit Oklahoma?! Just because ESPN may "want" OU in - which, yeah, many fans do too because it'd be cool to see Young play on the big stage - it doesn't mean they have any influence over the decision.
No way does Oklahoma belong in the tourney. And the strength of that conference is way overblown.
There's no good faith argument for them to be in. Too many bad losses, too many losses in general. Like the Ben Simmons LSU team, they're incredibly one dimensional, and wholly dependant on one player. Young is an incredible talent and will be a great pro, but that can only carry you so far.
their resume is good enough. Played an extremely difficult schedule and went 9-12 against Q1+Q2 as someone else pointed out. They only have one Q3 or "bad" loss and that's the same number we have (and half of the teams projected to get top 4 seeds).
The thing about them is that they were excellent early in the season. No one was prepared for Trae Young, he scorched the nets, they beat Oregon, USC, Wichita State and TCU all away from home in the first half of the season.
Then Young came down to earth and teams figured him out and the've not been good. Are they a top 50 team right now? No. You are correct about that. They're not a very good team right now.
But the committee has stated it's a full season resume, which is going to get them in. They were a top 25 team for the first half of the season and even though they've been maybe a top 75 team since then, it averages out to good enough. The committee is going to reward them for playing great early in the season because they look at the whole resume.
They don't?
Oklahoma is exactly 0-10 away from their home court (neutral/away) this calendar year.
If 4-11 Oklahoma, that has won 0 meaningful games the last 2 months, gets in over a 13-5 B1G, regardless of SOS and Delaney's master unbalanced conference schedule plan...
Welp, I guess that would just be par for the course for the NCAA selection committee, wouldn't it?
Just for fun, I looked at their schedule. Their last win away from home was.....December 30. Yikes.
EDIT: Beaten to the punch by seconds!
Almost had it! Haha...
I don't post often, but when I do, I try to bring some stats to the table that stick out (0-10 Oklahoma, Michigan handing Maryland their worst home loss in 20 years on homecoming, KPI analysis, etc)
They should definitely get in!
As long as they face Michigan in the 1st or 2nd Round.
Team A
RPI 44
SOS 24
Q1 6-8
Q2 3-4
Q3 3-1
Team B
RPI 56
SOS 116
Q1 1-6
Q2 1-3
Q3 10-1
Team C
RPI 84
SOS 79
Q1 3-7
Q2 1-3
Q3 7-2
I'll bite.. Team A
Team A
Clearly you guys just want to see Trae Young play in the tournament.
Team A - Not even really close.
Team D
RPI 38
SOS 1
Q1 5-9
Q2 5-3
Q3 6-2
Team D vs Team A. Who are you picking?
OK, team D then. unless there are other factors, e.g. injuries, head to head A versus D, etc.
Team D is Vanderbilt 2017 who got in at 18-15 for a 9 seed. A is OU. B & C are Nebraska and Penn State just to compare how "unfair" it would be to put in Oklahoma over Nebraska
The case for: ESPN advertising
The case against: The team itself sucks
So I'm guessing they're in. Maybe a 6 seed or So? Gotta keep the boys in Bristol happy ya know.
But ESPN doesn't air the tourney.
on like 5 channels that will consistently talk about the tournament for the next month or so. In a way, they will be televising it in a more concise way through highlights and interviews.
While I'm sure there's some promising mid-major teams out there more deserving of press, Trae Young being the next Stephen Curry is all ESPN cares about.
Dem boys in Bristol be so happy that we all get to watch Trae on CBS/Turner
That’s the advantage of playing in a strong conference you get a bit of leeway with the record since almost any win is a good win. Had they lost to ISU to finish 7-11 in conference they would have been in trouble. I think they should be a 10 or 11 seed as things stand.
Go Texas, UCLA, LSU, and VCU. Maybe Tar Heels also. Let’s get a top 10 RPI.
Poor damn Trae Young. If he had anyone else on his team that could get their own shot, Oklahoma's probably a tournament team, but barring Young carrying them through the Big 12 tourney, they're NIT bound.
Uhhhh. They already lost
Well, they are already out of their own conference tournament, but I do agree with your first point - poor damn Trae Young indeed. Trying to get through the Big XII hoops season as a single-dimension, arguably single-player team is simply a tough ask, and Oklahoma is one of those teams that seems like they are a guy or two away from being in the tournament without question right now.
Dude was a 5 star, nobody made him go to shitty Oklahoma. You play for a bad team, probably not gonna have a good time
OK State, Bama, Marquette, or ND could get in over them. But I think one of those teams needs a win. Bama is on a similar slide.
I think maybe this year there are more spots than truly deserving teams. Arizona State, Bama, OK State, OK, Louisville, Baylor, and Texas all have NIT resumes. Several will get bids.