Bracketology Position 1.28.25

[NT80]

2 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Not to take the focus off the topic, but why in the fuuuuu has UNT not entered this realm. 

It has, since 1970.  In Ft. Worth, but part of the UNT System.   Also, a Law School, but part of UNT-Dallas.  

All detached, like the students in Denton.

https://www.unthsc.edu/

The University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth (HSC Fort Worth) began when the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine (TCOM) accepted its first students in 1970. Founders were D.D. Beyer, DO; George Luibel, DO; and Carl Everett, DO. The first class of doctors of osteopathic medicine graduated in 1974.

 

[DeepGreen]

2 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

Face it, athletics at big time places are funded by engineering, business, science, and medicine.

Bingo!!!!!

[NorthTexasWeLove]

6 minutes ago, NT80 said:

It has, since 1970.  In Ft. Worth, but part of the UNT System.   Also, a Law School, but part of UNT-Dallas.  

All detached, like the students in Denton.

https://www.unthsc.edu/

The University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth (HSC Fort Worth) began when the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine (TCOM) accepted its first students in 1970. Founders were D.D. Beyer, DO; George Luibel, DO; and Carl Everett, DO. The first class of doctors of osteopathic medicine graduated in 1974.

 

Need to bring that group home and get them a part of the UNT flagship campus. 

[NT80]

1 hour ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Because they won't even be .500 in league play. Which, in my opinion, should be one of the basic metrics of even being in consideration for an at large. 

And they may struggle to get to 20 wins, which is my second metric that should be met to be considered for an at large. 

We have 11 regular season games remaining.

Toughest games left are @ UAB, vs Tulane, @ USF, @ Temple.

We won't see Memphis again until the AAC Tourney.

[Censored by Laurie]

9 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Because they won't even be .500 in league play. Which, in my opinion, should be one of the basic metrics of even being in consideration for an at large. 

And they may struggle to get to 20 wins, which is my second metric that should be met to be considered for an at large. 

I'm all for getting as many mid-major programs in the tournament as possible, but I'm not for punishing a quality program for playing a brutal schedule...there's reason why metrics like NET and tiering wins with the Quad system are in place to try to determine quality deeper than just overall/conference record. 

those top 10 SEC schools are almost certainly in, save for some end of year collapse, and deservedly so...all ten are currently at .500 in the league, and if they finish that way they'd be right around 20 wins for the year...so even hitting your benchmarks. I'd say at least 3 of those schools have a legit chance at a national title. 

the SEC bubble teams:
 - Texas - 14-6, 3-4 SEC, NET 32, 3-5 Quad 1, 2 ranked wins, 5 upcoming ranked games
 - Georgia - 15-6, 3-5 SEC, NET 35, 2-6 Quad 1, 3 ranked wins, 7 upcoming ranked games
 - Oklahoma - 15-5, 2-5 SEC, NET 46, 4-4 Quad 1, 2 ranked wins, 9 upcoming ranked games

UNT - 15-4, 6-1 AAC, NET 45, 0-3 Quad 1, 0 ranked wins, maybe 1 upcoming ranked game

maybe if the bottom falls out at OU they'll get bounced out, but otherwise they're all deserving

[NorthTexasWeLove]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I'm all for getting as many mid-major programs in the tournament as possible, but I'm not for punishing a quality program for playing a brutal schedule...there's reason why metrics like NET and tiering wins with the Quad system are in place to try to determine quality deeper than just overall/conference record. 

those top 10 SEC schools are almost certainly in, save for some end of year collapse, and deservedly so...all ten are currently at .500 in the league, and if they finish that way they'd be right around 20 wins for the year...so even hitting your benchmarks. I'd say at least 3 of those schools have a legit chance at a national title. 

the SEC bubble teams:
 - Texas - 14-6, 3-4 SEC, NET 32, 3-5 Quad 1, 2 ranked wins, 5 upcoming ranked games
 - Georgia - 15-6, 3-5 SEC, NET 35, 2-6 Quad 1, 3 ranked wins, 7 upcoming ranked games
 - Oklahoma - 15-5, 2-5 SEC, NET 46, 4-4 Quad 1, 2 ranked wins, 9 upcoming ranked games

UNT - 15-4, 6-1 AAC, NET 45, 0-3 Quad 1, 0 ranked wins, maybe 1 upcoming ranked game

maybe if the bottom falls out at OU they'll get bounced out, but otherwise they're all deserving

And if both come true then they earned their bid.  

Mid majors have to be almost perfect in league play to sniff an at large. I think it's reasonable for high majors to have to at least play .500 ball in league play. There must be minimal metrics. Otherwise, at large bids for mid majors are very close to being banished. It's what they want, and they usually get what they want. 

[UNTLifer]

17 hours ago, golfingomez said:

yeah, i didn't realize how crazy it was until i looked at the SEC standings.

If anyone has a good argument why we should get into the tournament over the teams above the red line, i'm all ears. At best, the argument is we are equal to those teams... and guess who's going to win the discussion on that come tourney time

Because we can beat every damn one of them!

[GMG_Dallas]

12 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

And if both come true then they earned their bid.  

Mid majors have to be almost perfect in league play to sniff an at large. I think it's reasonable for high majors to have to at least play .500 ball in league play. There must be minimal metrics. Otherwise, at large bids for mid majors are very close to being banished. It's what they want, and they usually get what they want. 

I hear you overall but I don’t think this year's SEC is one to gripe about. All of their schools except South Carolina finished OOC play with no more than 2 losses. Tennessee, Florida, and Oklahoma finished OOC undefeated. I just can't justify leaving any of those teams out except for Arkansas and LSU who have been abysmal in league play.

[greenminer]

I think if there is so much weight on Quad record, there should be some kind of rule in place that everyone gets X opportunities to play Quad 1 games.

Frustrating as hell to be in our position, winning all the way to the end, with minimal-to-zero Quad 1 programs wanting to schedule us, then the committee holding it against us that we have no wins.  But please, let's reward a middle of the pack Major program that lucked into 2 more Quad 1 wins because they get 8+ opportunities and they caught a couple of them sleeping.

[MrAlien]

9 hours ago, greenminer said:

I think if there is so much weight on Quad record, there should be some kind of rule in place that everyone gets X opportunities to play Quad 1 games.

Frustrating as hell to be in our position, winning all the way to the end, with minimal-to-zero Quad 1 programs wanting to schedule us, then the committee holding it against us that we have no wins.  But please, let's reward a middle of the pack Major program that lucked into 2 more Quad 1 wins because they get 8+ opportunities and they caught a couple of them sleeping.

The problem is you just dont know which schools will be quad 1 schools when you schedule them.  The projections had UNT as 7th in the AAC, which would have put us at a Q2/Q3 school.

[BleedGreen4]

9 hours ago, greenminer said:

I think if there is so much weight on Quad record, there should be some kind of rule in place that everyone gets X opportunities to play Quad 1 games.

Frustrating as hell to be in our position, winning all the way to the end, with minimal-to-zero Quad 1 programs wanting to schedule us, then the committee holding it against us that we have no wins.  But please, let's reward a middle of the pack Major program that lucked into 2 more Quad 1 wins because they get 8+ opportunities and they caught a couple of them sleeping.

I don't think all of college basketball is out to get North Texas.  The argument that no one wants to play UNT does not hold water. An excellent opportunity for Quad 1 opportunities are MTEs.  We choose those.  We are typically one of the last teams in the NCAA to finalize our schedule.  Why? Uconn, Michigan, USC, Duke, etc all decline our attempts?  Take control of the schedule and Wayland Baptist, Texas Wesleyan, and Houston Christian would not be season highlights.  We could have increased our Quad numbers/record vs projected tournament teams, but we lost to McNeese, we lost to Utah State, we lost to High Point, and we lost to Memphis.  Non tournament teams lose to tournament teams.  Which teams have we defeated that are currently projected to be a tournament team? 16 wins vs non tournament teams and 0 wins vs tournament teams is not the argument you want to make to a selection committee.   

Control your own destiny and secure the AQ bid. Our current schedule/record is not tournament worthy. 

10 of the 16 teams in the SEC are ranked in the Top 25.  They are going to take losses because they have to play each other.  South Carolina/Arkansas to the AAC are 8-0 / 7-1 not 0-8.  Oklahoma/Texas/Georgia/Arkansas are 8-0.  Imagine playing 10 Top 25 ranked teams (some twice) in an 18 game conference schedule.  Brutal - absolutely brutal. We beat 11-9 (now 11-10) Wichita State on the road by 4.  Trade Wichita State for Florida who has an average margin of victory of +27 at home. I can really see UNT beating Alabama on the road and Auburn in the Pit.  Odd discussion re UNT vs the SEC.     

[NorthTexasWeLove]

4 minutes ago, BleedGreen4 said:

I don't think all of college basketball is out to get North Texas.  The argument that no one wants to play UNT does not hold water. An excellent opportunity for Quad 1 opportunities are MTEs.  We choose those.  We are typically one of the last teams in the NCAA to finalize our schedule.  Why? Uconn, Michigan, USC, Duke, etc all decline our attempts?  Take control of the schedule and Wayland Baptist, Texas Wesleyan, and Houston Christian would not be season highlights.  We could have increased our Quad numbers/record vs projected tournament teams, but we lost to McNeese, we lost to Utah State, we lost to High Point, and we lost to Memphis.  Non tournament teams lose to tournament teams.  Which teams have we defeated that are currently projected to be a tournament team? 16 wins vs non tournament teams and 0 wins vs tournament teams is not the argument you want to make to a selection committee.   

Control your own destiny and secure the AQ bid. Our current schedule/record is not tournament worthy. 

10 of the 16 teams in the SEC are ranked in the Top 25.  They are going to take losses because they have to play each other.  South Carolina/Arkansas to the AAC are 8-0 / 7-1 not 0-8.  Oklahoma/Texas/Georgia/Arkansas are 8-0.  Imagine playing 10 Top 25 ranked teams (some twice) in an 18 game conference schedule.  Brutal - absolutely brutal. We beat 11-9 (now 11-10) Wichita State on the road by 4.  Trade Wichita State for Florida who has an average margin of victory of +27 at home. I can really see UNT beating Alabama on the road and Auburn in the Pit.  Odd discussion re UNT vs the SEC.     

It's not an argument about SEC vs AAC. It's an argument that I don't give a shit about seeing 17-14 Arkansas or Georgia or Texas in the tourney. Piss on UNT in regard to this argument. For the sake of keeping some purity and sanity I will argue against the bottom 1/4 of the SEC even sniffing a tourney bid. It's a terrible precedent. 

But, in the defense of UNT, we went on the road to play very quality low majors in HP and Mcneese. This would be comparable to the likes of TCU or OU agreeing to come to The Pit and eating an L. Shit happens. 

[BleedGreen4]

11 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

It's not an argument about SEC vs AAC. It's an argument that I don't give a shit about seeing 17-14 Arkansas or Georgia or Texas in the tourney. Piss on UNT in regard to this argument. For the sake of keeping some purity and sanity I will argue against the bottom 1/4 of the SEC even sniffing a tourney bid. It's a terrible precedent. 

But, in the defense of UNT, we went on the road to play very quality low majors in HP and Mcneese. This would be comparable to the likes of TCU or OU agreeing to come to The Pit and eating an L. Shit happens. 

The discussion was UNT vs the SEC.  And you will not see a 17-14 Arkansas/Georgia/Texas team in the tournament.  The SEC will see to that as quality teams are just going to be grinded to mush in the blender known as their conference schedule.  There will be no bottom 1/4 of the SEC making the NCAA tournament.  The talk of 13 teams is just for social media engagement.  The true discussion is UNT as an At-Large vs a 10th/11th place SEC team as an At-Large. The 10th.11th place SEC teams have a much better "resume" and it won't be close.

I read "very quality low major" and thought TEMU.  😄        

[NorthTexasWeLove]

45 minutes ago, BleedGreen4 said:

The discussion was UNT vs the SEC.  And you will not see a 17-14 Arkansas/Georgia/Texas team in the tournament.  The SEC will see to that as quality teams are just going to be grinded to mush in the blender known as their conference schedule.  There will be no bottom 1/4 of the SEC making the NCAA tournament.  The talk of 13 teams is just for social media engagement.  The true discussion is UNT as an At-Large vs a 10th/11th place SEC team as an At-Large. The 10th.11th place SEC teams have a much better "resume" and it won't be close.

I read "very quality low major" and thought TEMU.  😄        

If a better resume is more losses vs better teams then that is a shit argument to make. But an argument they will make nonetheless. EX: They are trying to drag 1 win Arkansas into the fray. They are currently a part of the next 8 out. So, if they are to start upsetting people, they can fall squarely on the bubble and they will be around 17ish wins. 

At the end of the of it all, human element has to be taken completely out of the conversation or there will always be a built in angle to get the 17/18 win major conference team in over the 25+ mid major team. Winning your games has to start having more value than who you lose to. 

[CMJ]

It's also about who you beat, not just who you lose to.  That's why teams in the "name" conferences will usually get the benefit of the doubt.  If the ACC has 6 schools in the top 25 and the #7 place school gets three wins off of them and cleans the clock of the other schools, they're gonna get the nod more often than not even if their overall record is middling.

[greenminer]

6 hours ago, BleedGreen4 said:

I don't think all of college basketball is out to get North Texas.  The argument that no one wants to play UNT does not hold water. An excellent opportunity for Quad 1 opportunities are MTEs.  We choose those.  We are typically one of the last teams in the NCAA to finalize our schedule.  Why? Uconn, Michigan, USC, Duke, etc all decline our attempts?  Take control of the schedule and Wayland Baptist, Texas Wesleyan, and Houston Christian would not be season highlights.  We could have increased our Quad numbers/record vs projected tournament teams, but we lost to McNeese, we lost to Utah State, we lost to High Point, and we lost to Memphis.  Non tournament teams lose to tournament teams.  Which teams have we defeated that are currently projected to be a tournament team? 16 wins vs non tournament teams and 0 wins vs tournament teams is not the argument you want to make to a selection committee.   

Control your own destiny and secure the AQ bid. Our current schedule/record is not tournament worthy. 

10 of the 16 teams in the SEC are ranked in the Top 25.  They are going to take losses because they have to play each other.  South Carolina/Arkansas to the AAC are 8-0 / 7-1 not 0-8.  Oklahoma/Texas/Georgia/Arkansas are 8-0.  Imagine playing 10 Top 25 ranked teams (some twice) in an 18 game conference schedule.  Brutal - absolutely brutal. We beat 11-9 (now 11-10) Wichita State on the road by 4.  Trade Wichita State for Florida who has an average margin of victory of +27 at home. I can really see UNT beating Alabama on the road and Auburn in the Pit.  Odd discussion re UNT vs the SEC.     

I think there are some tourney and Q1 teams we could go 50/50 with.  That's why I think we need more opportunities.  It's not helping us, either, that the American is atrocious this year.

I'm not in the know on our scheduling timeline(s).  I don't eyeball or read into that stuff.  Just too much detail for me and my fandom lol

Edited 54 minutes ago by greenminer