Xavier, Auburn, Clemson Lose Posbang

Submitted by Mercury Hayes on March 9th, 2018 at 9:20 PM

The three line may have gotten less crowded. Down goes Auburn, down goes Clemson. Projected 1-2 seed Xavier goes down.

Unfortunately, Tennessee won.

Comments

sum1valiant

March 9th, 2018 at 9:24 PM ^

I think the only one of these that directly effects us is the Auburn loss. Have to think the committee will recognize that they went 1-5 down the stretch.

sum1valiant

March 9th, 2018 at 10:30 PM ^

Cite a source, otherwise I'm calling bullshit. These are humans, doing human work. These people watch games and scores, and they know this is a different team since the Mclemore injury.
Also, if you've stated this a million times, you should probably stop saying it. Youre wrong, and it makes you sound stupid.

sum1valiant

March 9th, 2018 at 10:48 PM ^

Thanks for the ammo. Pulled this directly from your source.
"Now subjectively, committee members may look at it and say, `OK, this team really started playing well in February because a player became eligible or an injured player became healthy,' so that could come in."
Are you now suggesting that they will only consider players getting healthy, but not an injury that takes a player off a team?

AAB

March 9th, 2018 at 10:53 PM ^

The Committee will seed Auburn lower because it'll decide the injury makes it a fundamentally different team. It was "the Committee will see that they've gone 1-5 down the stretch."

Which is explicitly, expressly not how they do things. And Anfernee Mclemore is not Kenyon Martin.

sum1valiant

March 9th, 2018 at 11:00 PM ^

Pedantic. You provided the source as a direct response to a comment where I referenced the Mclemore injury. Furthermore, the skid started in the first game after he was injured. This was a team that had lost 2 games all year up until the injury, then lost 5 of 6 immediately after.

AAB

March 9th, 2018 at 11:07 PM ^

Went 2-3 after he went down (including a win over Alabama). 2-4 if you include the game where he got hurt. Which is a pretty thin reed for the Committee to hang it's hat on. Particularly when we're talking about a guy averaging like 7 and 5, not Kevin Durant.

gpsimms not to…

March 9th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^

but I would like to see some support (I doubt any exists) for your assertion that there is not correlation between a team's performance in its last 10 games and its performance in the tournament. It seems like these would obviously correlate.

Would you not expect to see a correlation between a team's performance throughout the entire regular season and its post season performance? Yes, we clearly would. So why would one think that the most recent 10 games are not important?

You are apparently right about the committee not using most recent 10 games as a metric for inclusion/exclusion, but you are obviously wrong to think that the performance in a team's most recent 10 games does not have any predictive value on tournament performance. 

Now, of course, if you are arguing whether the most recent 10 games is more important than the entire body of work, that is a different story.

WolverineInCinci

March 10th, 2018 at 12:55 AM ^

Not a fan of that article. He's using scatter plots to prove his point, but all the points in the scatter plot are stacked on top of each other on the 56 different spots of the grid. It's impossible to tell how many data points fall on each spot.

gpsimms not to…

March 10th, 2018 at 7:08 AM ^

I commented specifically on your assertion that "performance over the last 10 games does not correlate with tournament success."
If you define performance as W-L record, then sure, it's not that predictive. But your link answers its own questions in that regard. W-L record isn't *generally* predictive in the tournament anyway due to the wide range in SOS.

As always, we know it is sos-adjusted margin of victory that matters. So, to restate my claim: it is obviously true that adjusted MOV in that last 10 games is predictive of tournament success.

Finally, as mentioned elsewhere, those are some terrible scatter plots.

M-Dog

March 10th, 2018 at 2:57 PM ^

Well they should.  We are direct eveidence that teams can improve dramatically by March and that of course impacts how they play in the tournament.

What you do in March should matter more than what you do in December.

 

 

 

The Fugitive

March 9th, 2018 at 9:40 PM ^

Time zone, less travel time, more fans in attendance.

I think it would help that they already played a game at LCA and would have an idea of depth perception if they play there again.

I'm sure the team will make it out of the first weekend but I'd take all available advantages if possible.

LSAClassOf2000

March 9th, 2018 at 9:35 PM ^

The level of salt on Xavier twitter, which does exist in small and isolated pockets, I have discovered, is probably at what would be record level of salt for most teams. Probably a good thing they are not in that locker room right now as some of them would have, well, things to say about how that overtime went. 

Mr. Elbel

March 9th, 2018 at 9:46 PM ^

If UCLA can pull this out it would go a long way towards getting us a protected seed. Still might not be enough to keep us at LCA but I think we'll get it done regardless of where we play. Team is hungry.

San Diego Mick

March 9th, 2018 at 10:06 PM ^

As far as the layoff is concerned, we'll be playing an inferior opponent and even IF we come out rusty we should heat up by halftime and we're a really good 2nd half team!

 

Go Blue!!!

Hotel Putingrad

March 9th, 2018 at 10:16 PM ^

but the committee can send us anywhere with confidence in the attendance. Michigan fans travel. They'll put MSU in Detroit because that's the only site Sparties will watch their team en masse.