How many wins will it take to dance?


#1
This was a big topic on the board last year and albeit being VERY early, we can revisit this in a few months...

#2

I think they’ll need 20 wins total (including the Big Ten Tourney), so I went with 19-11. I see a 10-2 non-conf paired with a 9-9 Big Ten slate being just good enough to sneak in. Our RPI and perception with the committee will really benefit from the strength of the Big Ten this season. At the same time, it’ll of course make it tougher to win 9 games in the Big Ten. Since many (including myself) think that the Big Ten will get 7 teams again, sitting in the middle of the pack will be good enough as long as we don’t tank the non-conf portion of the schedule.


#3

I said 19. 19 wins most likely means .500 in the toughest conference.


#4

Yeah, playing in the best conference really helps us out. Every win is a big win and it allows us to lose and still have a shot, not a lot of mid major teams can say that. getting to .500 would be huge.


#5

Here is the first look at the information on PSU from RPIForecast.com. Everything is using the Sagarin Predictor, and that currently has PSU pretty low (somewhere around 100 if I recall). Obviously it’s way too early to take too much from these numbers and they become more and more accurate as games are played (since right now Jeff Sagarin’s numbers mean a lot less than when they include actual games), but it can at least give you a glance at how much tougher our schedule is this season. Also note that this doesn’t include the second two games in Charleston since our opponents are unknown. Assuming that we can get by UNC-Wilmington, it should only help our RPI numbers.

Final Record Expected RPI Probability
24-4 2.0 0.01%
22-6 4.0 0.01%
21-7 13.9 0.12%
20-8 18.3 0.31%
19-9 25.5 1.12%
18-10 35.1 2.49%
17-11 45.8 5.08%
16-12 59.5 9.32%
15-13 73.6 14.30%
14-14 88.9 16.85%
13-15 106.5 16.77%
12-16 123.5 14.39%
11-17 141.9 9.92%
10-18 160.8 5.54%
9-19 177.7 2.47%
8-20 200.0 0.99%
7-21 220.1 0.25%
6-22 245.0 0.04%
5-23 252.0 0.01%


#6
[quote="JakkL, post:3, topic:215"]I said 19. 19 wins most likely means .500 in the toughest conference.[/quote]

Yeah, playing in the best conference really helps us out. Every win is a big win and it allows us to lose and still have a shot, not a lot of mid major teams can say that. getting to .500 would be huge.

I say we get in with 18 wins. An 8-10 Big 10 team this year will probably have an RPI around 45-50 and while it isn’t a sure thing, I think this is the one year where we could get in to the tourney…even if we do drop an extra game in the B10 schedule.

That being said, I think by the time the year is done you’re looking at a 20-12 season for our nits and a trip to the dance. Why? Because of our depth. Three of our players have been together for 3 years, and everyone who was around last year will only get better. When Edwards comes back I think we go 10 deep, with two big men who can score off of the bench.


#7

A lot more than Tubby! :slight_smile: Sad… BUT… true.


#8

RPI of 42 vs 70 and a SOS of 35 vs 90 played more of a factor than spilt milk


#9

If we land at about the same place on the bubble this year, does the committee reward us for better scheduling, all else being equal?

Of course, even at 9-9 in conference we’ll need a big win or two, but I guess that’s almost a given if we can go .500 in conference. And, of course, no bad losses either.

One last thought. I hope we make it. I read some of the player’s comments about being “done with” the NIT. Personally, I don’t see making the NCAA’s this year as a make-or-break deal, but if not this year, then next year for sure it’s GOT to happen. I guess a lot of it will be determined by how well we improve over the course of this season.


#10

I said 19-11, but I think that needs to include at least 9-9 in conference, winning the first two in Charleston, and we need to win at least 1 in the BigTen Tournament.


#11
A lot more than Tubby! :) Sad.......... BUT.......... true.

RPI of 42 vs 70 and a SOS of 35 vs 90 played more of a factor than spilt milk

If not cleaned properly “spilt milk” can linger and really smell.
Of course, I believe the BigTen11 should have been the PRIMARY criteria. With a capital primary! No secondary criteria needed!
But , alas, people believe the selection committee used RPI and SOS. They were “used” alright. “Used” as excuses.

Question, IF the RPI and SOS and Conference records were REVERSED would the almighty committee have chose PSU over the marketable Tubby?

By the way, one of web sites I go to every morning (after this site, of course) is the ESPN homepage. This morning at about 5:45 a.m. guess who’s picture I was looking at? You got it…Tubby!


#12

[quote=“tundra, post:11, topic:215”]If not cleaned properly “spilt milk” can linger and really smell.
Of course, I believe the BigTen11 should have been the PRIMARY criteria. With a capital primary! No secondary criteria needed!

Question, IF the RPI and SOS and Conference records were REVERSED would the almighty committee have chose PSU over the marketable Tubby? [/quote]

Then let’s eliminate the NonCon schedule and only play within conference.

If there was that large of a difference in our favor, yes, we would have gone.

Either let it go or call Oliver Stone. Tubby Smith did not cost us a trip to teh dance.

by the way, that picture of Tubby that you’re complaining about is in reference to Forde’s article on looking at the past ten years in college basketball, including the Kentucky roller coaster. If ED is run out of town after multiple BigTen championships, several Elite Eight teams and one national championship, would you be saying that it wouldn’t be worth featuring in a ten year retrospective piece?


#13

Depends on how you define the bubble.

We were out of the Dance, so the same place on the bubble, by definition, means we are out of the Dance again.

If you mean, we have the same record, then we are in.
If you mean, we have the same RPI, then we are out.


#14

So wait - in all seriousness, homerism and optimism aside… let’s be real for a second…

There are people on here who believe this is a tournament-worthy team this season? I mean like, you’d be willing to make a large bet on that? Not just a feeling, or a hope, but something you’d put hard earned cash behind saying we’ll make the tournament?

I’m just curious, because I think this is a “rebuilding” type year where we take a step backwards from the NIT and near-tournament bid and I thought that was the general consensus of the team.

We could be in for some really disappointed posters if this is the case…


#15

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:14, topic:215”]So wait - in all seriousness, homerism and optimism aside… let’s be real for a second…

There are people on here who believe this is a tournament-worthy team this season? I mean like, you’d be willing to make a large bet on that? Not just a feeling, or a hope, but something you’d put hard earned cash behind saying we’ll make the tournament?

I’m just curious, because I think this is a “rebuilding” type year where we take a step backwards from the NIT and near-tournament bid and I thought that was the general consensus of the team.

We could be in for some really disappointed posters if this is the case…[/quote]I don’t think this team has the depth or inside presence to get them into the dance. I do think they will make huge steps as the year goes on. I’m thinking another NIT run is in store for this year. I hope I’m wrong ;D


#16

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:14, topic:215”]So wait - in all seriousness, homerism and optimism aside… let’s be real for a second…

There are people on here who believe this is a tournament-worthy team this season? I mean like, you’d be willing to make a large bet on that? Not just a feeling, or a hope, but something you’d put hard earned cash behind saying we’ll make the tournament?

I’m just curious, because I think this is a “rebuilding” type year where we take a step backwards from the NIT and near-tournament bid and I thought that was the general consensus of the team.

We could be in for some really disappointed posters if this is the case…[/quote]

The question was, “what will it take?” not “what will their record be?”

Two very different subjects.


#17

Lar, I’d be interested in hearing what you went with? Do you think 19-11 will do the trick?


#18

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:14, topic:215”]So wait - in all seriousness, homerism and optimism aside… let’s be real for a second…

There are people on here who believe this is a tournament-worthy team this season? I mean like, you’d be willing to make a large bet on that? Not just a feeling, or a hope, but something you’d put hard earned cash behind saying we’ll make the tournament?

I’m just curious, because I think this is a “rebuilding” type year where we take a step backwards from the NIT and near-tournament bid and I thought that was the general consensus of the team.

We could be in for some really disappointed posters if this is the case…[/quote]

I’d put $10 on it (all my meager college money at the moment :-\ ) mainly because I will never, ever count out a Talor Battle team. I think this team knows how to win basketball games, and that is something many people here have failed to recognize. You forget that our first 7 players in our rotation were all here last year. Maybe they didn’t play major minutes at first, but by the NIT Chris Babb was getting major minutes and producing. Talor is Talor. DJ Jackson dropped 14 on Florida and put up double digits two times in a row in the B10 tournament.

We may have lost starters, but for the first time ever we have a core group of players who know what it takes to win basketball games and have a post season run. For all that Cornley has done here (and his impact is immeasurable), last year was the first time he showed us that he knew how to win. These are the numbers during our NIT run last year? It might surprise you…

In order of PPG starting with George Mason (our starting 5 this year)
Battle: 24, 16, 14, 16, 12
Jones: 11, 14, 3, 17, 6
Jackson: 4(25 minutes played), 7(31 minutes played), 14(27 minutes played), 0(15 minutes played), 10 (19 minutes played, 4 rebounds)
Babb: 11 (27 minutes played), 13 (20 minutes played), 0 (7 minutes played), 2 (15 minutes played), 0 (6 minutes played)
Brooks: 13 (29 minutes played), 6(27 minutes played), 0 (9 minutes played), 0 (8 minutes played), 4 (15 minutes played, 4 rebounds)

In the games where we did not have Jamelle (coincidentally, games where Brooks and Babb got major minutes) Brooks averaged a little over 9 points, and Babb averaged 12 points. Jones averaged double digits throughout the run. Jackson put up two double digit games…and averaged a little over 8 points in games where he got more than 19 minutes. Basically, when these guys had the minutes a starters would usually see (> 15 minutes) they produced. When they didn’t (= < 15) they did not. Can they do that throughout a big10 season? We do not know. However, I know that if we have a team where Brooks is averaging 9 points, Jackson averages 8 points, Babb is averaging 12 with Talor and Jones both in double digits…this is not just a tourney team, but a tourney team which could make a run.

I do not think it is fair to judge this as a rebuilding year when no one in our rotation is a freshman (save for Frazier) and everyone on this team has been on the court together for over a year.


#19

No - probably 21.

Only one Big Six team made the tournament with fewer than 20 wins last year (Arizona #34 SOS), and only two made it with 20 (Michigan #12 SOS - and Maryland #18 SOS). I suspect this year will be similar and our strength of schedule won’t be near the above three.


#20
[quote="frats, post:17, topic:215"]Lar, I'd be interested in hearing what you went with? Do you think 19-11 will do the trick?[/quote]

No - probably 21.

Only one Big Six team made the tournament with fewer than 20 wins last year (Arizona #34 SOS), and only two made it with 20 (Michigan #12 SOS - and Maryland #18 SOS). I suspect this year will be similar and our strength of schedule won’t be near the above three.

I should have qualified that my 19-11 prediction would also include a win in the Big Ten Tourney, putting us at 20-12 overall (10-2 non conf, 9-9 Big Ten, and 1-1 BTT). Things will obviously become more clear in the weeks and months to come, but I really think it will do the trick this year. Looking at the very early Sagarin Predictor/RPIForecast, it gives us a strength of schedule of 23rd (excluding the second and third games in Charleston). I don’t know if it will end up quite that high, but the combination of few dogs in the non-conference with the strength of the Big Ten should certainly put us in the top 50 at worst.