Onebearofpower said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Realistically, the only way Cal gets invited to the Dance is if Cal somehow goes on a run and wins the ACC Championship (or at the very least loses a close championship game in OT).

So that means Cal's likely to be NIT-bound. Before the season, I had hoped that Cal would do well enough just to make the NIT. Now it looks like Cal might not just make the NIT but be a fairly low seed. That's better than I had hoped.

While I am disappointed that Cal (likely) won't participate in March Madness this year, I'm still impressed with Madsen's progress. Hopefully, he'll build on this and get Cal an invite next year.

Go Bears!

---

No we don't what the hell are you talking about. If we beat Duke we will be in for sure.

---

You are absolutely dreaming.

---

Please tell me what teams are in over us on the bubble, including the likely Auburn loss in the making. And you can give their resume best wins and worst losses. Because I don't see a world unless it is the very unlikely world of 4 bid stealers or something or every other bubble team going on a crazy run, that an already bubble team like Cal wins 23 games and beats the Number one team in the nation and isn't in. Name me another bubble team you would say isn't in if they beat Duke in their conference tournament after beating Florida State.

---

The dreaming part had to do with "beating" Duke, not what if we beat Duke. Different scenarios. Nice dream though

pic.twitter.com/uu4yC8sO5x

— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) March 8, 2026

Onebearofpower said:

---

What the hell are you talking about every single expert other than Lunardi(and even him) had us in the mix coming into today. Some had us in some had us out.

---

Better check your bracketologist columnists today, can't find a single one that says we're in unless we have a deep ACC tourney run. Can we at least all agree that there is a 100% chance that we lose to Duke, Onebear, or are you still living in that alternate reality?
We had a good run this year, sad that it didn't extend to the end of the season, but I am really hopeful for an NIT Final Four spot, depending on how that bracket shakes out.

Onebearofpower said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Realistically, the only way Cal gets invited to the Dance is if Cal somehow goes on a run and wins the ACC Championship (or at the very least loses a close championship game in OT).

So that means Cal's likely to be NIT-bound. Before the season, I had hoped that Cal would do well enough just to make the NIT. Now it looks like Cal might not just make the NIT but be a fairly low seed. That's better than I had hoped.

While I am disappointed that Cal (likely) won't participate in March Madness this year, I'm still impressed with Madsen's progress. Hopefully, he'll build on this and get Cal an invite next year.

Go Bears!

---

No we don't what the hell are you talking about. If we beat Duke we will be in for sure.

---

You are absolutely dreaming.

---

Please tell me what teams are in over us on the bubble, including the likely Auburn loss in the making. And you can give their resume best wins and worst losses. Because I don't see a world unless it is the very unlikely world of 4 bid stealers or something or every other bubble team going on a crazy run, that an already bubble team like Cal wins 23 games and beats the Number one team in the nation and isn't in. Name me another bubble team you would say isn't in if they beat Duke in their conference tournament after beating Florida State.

---

I remember when I was roughly 10 years old and the Oakland A's would be like 30 games out and someone would report (incorrectly) that they were "mathematically" out of it, and I would get hopping mad and demonstrate that they were not in fact mathematically out of it with long arguments. Did I mention I was 10 years old?

Just a digression that is completely irrelevant to this thread. Don't know what made me think of that.

calumnus said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

What are people smoking on this thread? No Duke win, no Madness, plan for the NIT Final Four.

---

Respectfully you have no idea what you are talking about. Look at it from the perspective of all the other bubble teams and how you think they are feeling. You know they have to take the 68 teams still right? If you are so sure name me all the teams on the bubble that you think no matter if they lose in the first game of their tourney, are still above us in Resume if we beat FSU?

---

I guess we'll come back here in 8 days and find out if I know what I 'm talking about (and every other expert who makes a living doing bracketology). I will sing your praises as a bracket predicting genius and declare that I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'll do it happily because Cal will be in and none of this chatter will mean much.

---

What the hell are you talking about every single expert other than Lunardi(and even him) had us in the mix coming into today. Some had us in some had us out. Does that mean that every other bubble team is just not in the mix now because they all lost too?? No it doesn't. But you won't give me teams and their resumes because you don't actually wanna have a real debate about it you just wanna say it's over.

---

Let's be clear: if we beat FSU but lose to Duke do you think we: A) still have a good chance or B) have almost no chance?

---

Why not just answer my question? I already wrote out virtually every teams resume. I think we still have a good chance but I would have do a lot of complex math to actually find out what the statistics are on it based on everyone's chance of winning etc. Or ask me after all the games are over then I will have a better answer but right now it is pretty hard to say without calculating the odds of it. For example if you asked me before today what I thought if we lost today, I would have said we are probably going to need to win 2 games in the ACC tourney but I wasn't assuming that every single bubble team was going to lose and some really badly.

So I ask again, what teams on the bubble do you think that no matter if they lose in the first game of their tourney, are still above us in Resume if we beat FSU?

---

I asked a simple A or B question.

Your question does not seem very relevant. It is not any one team that will keep us out so picking them is not necessary. I am sure there are multiple teams that will still be ahead of us even if they lose and we beat FSU, but importantly there will be plenty who will win and stay ahead of us.

You listed 21 teams? Assuming every team has a 50/50 chance of winning their next game (the odds are probably higher), the chance that we win and the other 21 teams lose would be (.5)^22 or .00002%, essentially zero. The most likely result is at least 10 or 11 win and then 5 or more go to win another game.

Beating FSU is almost certainly not going to be enough to get us in. It is really going to come down to beating Duke. That would be the end of the season statement that we belong, that we have a chance of making a run.
We could still get screwed by the Committee, but that is our path.

---

The funny thing is the scenario you are listing with the 10 or 11 teams winning, is not far off from what I have already previously stated that we need. We don't need all 21 teams to lose, we just need enough teams to lose that we moved up past them. It also isn't a 50 percent chance that a team that wins wins again because they are moving up their bracket.

I am asking how many teams you have above us and then I can calculate what the odds are that there are X teams that lose earlier than we do. It is a lot more complex than .5^22. But you don't wanna answer that for whatever reason. There are 27-29 locks right now which leaves ten at large spots meaning you don't have to deviate to far from your "10 or 11" to have teams drop and it just depends on how many spots we have to climb.

Apologies to your experience as a (formerly Oakland) As fan. Are you seriously comparing being 30 games out in baseball to Cal's resume vs the other bubble teams here? Have you looked at the above lengthy post regarding those resumes?

We definitely hurt our chances by not winning yesterday but our resume still stands up in that group. We are not remotely "mathematically" out, and it is not a 10 year old hoping beyond hope that the impossible happens. Is having a 20% chance a 10 year old doing that? A 10% chance? Obviously those things happen less often than not, but they still happen - a lot.

Will we get in? Who knows - it is certainly in doubt. We didn't go to the Rose Bowl in 2004 w/ Rodgers because of Mack Brown's politicking. Public perception can potentially matter, which usually seems to hurt us, but who knows what goes on in the committee, and now that we are in an "east coast" conference instead of the PAC.

barsad said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

What the hell are you talking about every single expert other than Lunardi(and even him) had us in the mix coming into today. Some had us in some had us out.

---

Better check your bracketologist columnists today, can't find a single one that says we're in unless we have a deep ACC tourney run. Can we at least all agree that there is a 100% chance that we lose to Duke, Onebear, or are you still living in that alternate reality?
We had a good run this year, sad that it didn't extend to the end of the season, but I am really hopeful for an NIT Final Four spot, depending on how that bracket shakes out.

---

Overall, the season exceeded expectations - so much more enjoyable when meaningful games are still being played all the way through. Unfortunately, the end has been disappointing considering the schedule. Based on recent play, hard to see them making a deep NIT run unless they get some very favorable match-ups.

Just got to chime in here, it isn't actually a 100% chance we would lose to Duke - but it's pretty damn close to that.

barsad said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

What the hell are you talking about every single expert other than Lunardi(and even him) had us in the mix coming into today. Some had us in some had us out.

---

Better check your bracketologist columnists today, can't find a single one that says we're in unless we have a deep ACC tourney run. Can we at least all agree that there is a 100% chance that we lose to Duke, Onebear, or are you still living in that alternate reality?
We had a good run this year, sad that it didn't extend to the end of the season, but I am really hopeful for an NIT Final Four spot, depending on how that bracket shakes out.

---

No obviously not. Why do you even watch the games if you think there is a solid 0 percent chance of winning. The last time we played them it was a 4 point game with 10 minutes left and we didn't even shoot the ball well. I think we have somewhere around a 3 percent chance to win but that isn't nothing, if that is nothing to you you haven't watched a day of sports in your life.

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

barsad said:

---

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

---

There are multiple ways to be a fan. One of many ways is to believe 100% until every last shred of a chance is gone. Nothing wrong with that.

Another of many ways is to modulate hope based on the odds and as those odds decrease, accept what they imply. Nothing wrong with that either.

But he desperately wants everyone to accept his analysis and way of looking at it. It seems to be a buzzkill for him that not everyone will.

He literally just said He thinks we have a 3% chance of beating Duke. I can go with that. So our chances are something less than 3%. We have to get to Duke by beating FSU. Then other things need to go right to get us in. That is a pretty heavy parlay. I don't know that anyone tremendously disagrees with his analysis. Just the meaning of it. Okay, so we've got like a 1% chance of making the tournament. I think many fans would like to get those odds higher before they start getting excited and reading long analysis to demonstrate we have a 1% chance. He really wants us to read his analysis and say "so you say there's a chance!"

I know there is a chance. I'd say for many, let's get passed FSU first before we remotely consider it. For others, maybe get us into the second half of the Duke game still in striking distance before we start considering it. He wants to consider all the possibilities now no matter how improbable. That's fine. He's just not accepting that not everyone fans that way.

This comes down to seeing the glass as 99% empty or 1% full. The problem really isn't that you are a buzzkill. The problem is his need for you to be as invested in this 1% chance as he is. And that is what I was comparing my 10 year old self to. I've been both kind of fans. At some point your level of excitement has to be cut off from your ability to get others to be just as excited by extremely low probability outcomes.

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

---

How am I sucking the joy out of it when you are just telling us we are gonna lose the whole time. I am just trying to show how it isn't over and there is a lot still to come this week in terms of shifting the bubble. You are just saying it's over and we have no chance to win or make the tourney. How is that joyful in anyway?

---

You are sucking the joy out of it for him by basically calling him a bad fan for not being excited by the prospects of somewhere between a 0 and 3% chance of making a tournament where we have an extremely high likelihood of losing within 2 games. He has emotionally moved on to being excited about the NIT. He can always move back if the improbable happens. Can you accept that and still be excited yourself?

Of course there is a chance. I used to always joke going into the PAC-10 tournament that we were 9 games away from a national championship. There's a chance until there isn't. Not everyone needs to bring 4th and goal against #1 USC energy to every situation. I think it's great that this gets you excited, but it has to be okay for others to have an emotional response commensurate with a realistic view of the odds that you seem to agree with.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

---

How am I sucking the joy out of it when you are just telling us we are gonna lose the whole time. I am just trying to show how it isn't over and there is a lot still to come this week in terms of shifting the bubble. You are just saying it's over and we have no chance to win or make the tourney. How is that joyful in anyway?

---

You are sucking the joy out of it for him by basically calling him a bad fan for not being excited by the prospects of somewhere between a 0 and 3% chance of making a tournament where we have an extremely high likelihood of losing within 2 games. He has emotionally moved on to being excited about the NIT. He can always move back if the improbable happens. Can you accept that and still be excited yourself?

Of course there is a chance. I used to always joke going into the PAC-10 tournament that we were 9 games away from a national championship. There's a chance until there isn't. Not everyone needs to bring 4th and goal against #1 USC energy to every situation. I think it's great that this gets you excited, but it has to be okay for others to have an emotional response commensurate with a realistic view of the odds that you seem to agree with.

---

I'm not sure what you mean, I have been called delusional and a dreamer for saying we can still make it. I said 20-30 percent not 3 percent. I said it was maybe a 3 percent chance that we beat Duke, but we do not have to beat Duke to make the NCAA tournament. We are right on the bubble and we may only need a few teams to underperform in their tournaments to make it.

I'm sorry but that example is nothing like this current situation, we aren't a team that needs the auto bid, we are a team considered by many to be one of the top two teams out right now with a very important week left to play. He can feel that way and be emotionally moved on but he doesn't have to ruin it for the rest of us by saying "I'm not sure what you are all smoking" when the reality is if we beat FSU we have a punchers chance to make the tournament because the bubble has played horrifically recently and many of them have tough upcoming matchups and/or landmines in their tourneys that could really hurt their chances.

The thing is people always feel like if their team isn't in, right at the current moment their chance is basically zero but the reality is that nobody actually knows where exactly each team resume is seen by the committee is against another. That's why these bracketologists miss multiple teams every year because it is a crapshoot.

If you had to bet right now would you bet 100 thousand dollars that CAL wouldn't make the tourney right now if the season ended today? I wouldn't. They probably are a spot or two out but who knows they might not be. There could be a 20-30 percent chance the committee likes our resume more than Auburn or any one of the other bubble teams.

Let me leave you with this since maybe the visual will help:


If you are a committee and you are deciding between these 6 teams at the bottom of last 4 and the first 4 out and comparing their resumes, would you really take :
SMU who has 19 wins and lost their last 4 games including a head to head against us

20-11 Stanford who has 1 more quad one win than us but has losses to Seattle, UNLV, and Notre Dame all at home. And is a team we beat twice this year, at home and on the road.

OR

17-14 Oklahoma who has another loss coming and at one point lost 9 games in a row this season, two to non top 100 teams and has only really 2 wins against tournament locks.

Over our CAL team with 4 quad 1 wins and head to head wins over two of these teams. Maybe you would but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that it isn't a toss up and I didn't even mention VCU who hasn't beaten a single tournament at large team all year.

---

Why does it bother you that people don't agree with your characterization of the state of play? They've heard your argument several times. They simply don't agree. You seem to think they don't understand and if you just repeat the same argument one more time, they will see the light. We all understand your argument. The thing that makes you like ten year old me is the desperate need for everyone to think your team has as good a chance that you think they do. A lot of us think you are being overly optimistic. You should be able to handle that

---

Because nobody that thinks I'm being overly optimistic is actually willing to name the teams they think are think are over us and why, which leads me to believe some are just being negative for the sake of being negative. The point of the thread is to discuss the topic so I'm not really sure why it's so bad for me to ask for explanation of the opposite opinion. It's one thing if someone doesn't want to do so but then don't say I'm a dreamer or I'm delusional, if you don't have a good reason or argument just to bring negativity or pessimism.

6956bear said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

---

How am I sucking the joy out of it when you are just telling us we are gonna lose the whole time. I am just trying to show how it isn't over and there is a lot still to come this week in terms of shifting the bubble. You are just saying it's over and we have no chance to win or make the tourney. How is that joyful in anyway?

---

You are sucking the joy out of it for him by basically calling him a bad fan for not being excited by the prospects of somewhere between a 0 and 3% chance of making a tournament where we have an extremely high likelihood of losing within 2 games. He has emotionally moved on to being excited about the NIT. He can always move back if the improbable happens. Can you accept that and still be excited yourself?

Of course there is a chance. I used to always joke going into the PAC-10 tournament that we were 9 games away from a national championship. There's a chance until there isn't. Not everyone needs to bring 4th and goal against #1 USC energy to every situation. I think it's great that this gets you excited, but it has to be okay for others to have an emotional response commensurate with a realistic view of the odds that you seem to agree with.

---

I'm not sure what you mean, I have been called delusional and a dreamer for saying we can still make it. I said 20-30 percent not 3 percent. I said it was maybe a 3 percent chance that we beat Duke, but we do not have to beat Duke to make the NCAA tournament. We are right on the bubble and we may only need a few teams to underperform in their tournaments to make it.

I'm sorry but that example is nothing like this current situation, we aren't a team that needs the auto bid, we are a team considered by many to be one of the top two teams out right now with a very important week left to play. He can feel that way and be emotionally moved on but he doesn't have to ruin it for the rest of us by saying "I'm not sure what you are all smoking" when the reality is if we beat FSU we have a punchers chance to make the tournament because the bubble has played horrifically recently and many of them have tough upcoming matchups and/or landmines in their tourneys that could really hurt their chances.

The thing is people always feel like if their team isn't in, right at the current moment their chance is basically zero but the reality is that nobody actually knows where exactly each team resume is seen by the committee is against another. That's why these bracketologists miss multiple teams every year because it is a crapshoot.

If you had to bet right now would you bet 100 thousand dollars that CAL wouldn't make the tourney right now if the season ended today? I wouldn't. They probably are a spot or two out but who knows they might not be. There could be a 20-30 percent chance the committee likes our resume more than Auburn or any one of the other bubble teams.

Let me leave you with this since maybe the visual will help:


If you are a committee and you are deciding between these 6 teams at the bottom of last 4 and the first 4 out and comparing their resumes, would you really take :
SMU who has 19 wins and lost their last 4 games including a head to head against us

20-11 Stanford who has 1 more quad one win than us but has losses to Seattle, UNLV, and Notre Dame all at home. And is a team we beat twice this year, at home and on the road.

OR

17-14 Oklahoma who has another loss coming and at one point lost 9 games in a row this season, two to non top 100 teams and has only really 2 wins against tournament locks.

Over our CAL team with 4 quad 1 wins and head to head wins over two of these teams. Maybe you would but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that it isn't a toss up and I didn't even mention VCU who hasn't beaten a single tournament at large team all year.

---

Looks like you are using the CBS bracketology here. They have always had Cal rated above most of the other bracketologists.

I agree with some of your points. My big concern for Cal is just how valuable the committee views Quad 1 wins, NET rankings, WAB rankings, head to head and conference standings. For Cal head to head and conference standings are a possible edge. Particularly head to head.

When you look at the totality of the various metrics Cal faces an uphill battle. Not an impossible one but an uphill one. If this is how the committee views the bracket today (Big if) then yes a Cal win over FSU and a couple of key losses and Cal could sneak in.

For this bubble scenario you have laid out to come to fruition you will likely need 3 potential bid stealing conference tourneys to all go to the conference regular season champs. The MAC, A-10 and MWC have the potential to take away 3 bids if Miami (OH), St. Louis and Utah St do not win their tourneys. UNM making the final in MWC could also take away a bid. And VCU needs to get beat early in the A-10. Miami is getting in so they need to win their tourney.

SMU plays Syracuse tomorrow. Syracuse looks like they have thrown in the towel. But if they win it would be a big hurt for SMU. Stanford plays Pitt. Right now their earlier win vs Pitt and Cal's loss to same are about the only real differences in their record. But Cal did beat Stanford twice. Stanford losing to Pitt and a Cal win over FSU should (no guarantee) elevate them above Stanford.

There has been a lot of losses among the bubble teams these past 2 weeks. For Cal to have any real shot they need that to continue. And beat FSU.

What is really hard to know is how valuable the committee really views the NET. If they weight it heavily Cal will need at least 2 wins. And just how valuable they view the predictive metrics. Cal trails both Stanford and SMU in the KenPom, BPI and Torvik rankings. SMU has a large lead in all 3 but it would be interesting to see how they fair in the past 2 weeks since BJ Edwards got hurt. They have lost everygame since and I have no idea of his availability going forward.

---

I appreciate your response this is what I've wanted to discuss is the resumes and the metrics. I used CBS because it more closely aligns with the majority of the bracket matrix bracketologists but it actually looks nice because the are a professional company. I'm not gonna use ESPN because Joe Lunardi keeps doing crazy stuff against what he says he will do and somehow still has Auburn in his bracket after they were dismantled.

I agree that we have worse metrics than many of these teams however metrics usually are taken into account more for seeding and resume more for selection. I think if we beat FSU our WAB will be around .5 which will pass a few people especially if they lose. WAB and Q1 have been the most telling metrics of a team being selected since introduced.

I'm not sure how you feel on Indiana or New Mexico or Auburn or Cincinnati SCU VCU but I think we have our argument against many of them since they each have a different resume some with less bad losses but no tournament at large wins VCU and some with more Q1s Stanford but two more Q3 losses.

I think you are right about the NET. I'm not sure exactly how they will use it, I know last year they took SDSU and they were net 59.

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

---

How am I sucking the joy out of it when you are just telling us we are gonna lose the whole time. I am just trying to show how it isn't over and there is a lot still to come this week in terms of shifting the bubble. You are just saying it's over and we have no chance to win or make the tourney. How is that joyful in anyway?

---

You are sucking the joy out of it for him by basically calling him a bad fan for not being excited by the prospects of somewhere between a 0 and 3% chance of making a tournament where we have an extremely high likelihood of losing within 2 games. He has emotionally moved on to being excited about the NIT. He can always move back if the improbable happens. Can you accept that and still be excited yourself?

Of course there is a chance. I used to always joke going into the PAC-10 tournament that we were 9 games away from a national championship. There's a chance until there isn't. Not everyone needs to bring 4th and goal against #1 USC energy to every situation. I think it's great that this gets you excited, but it has to be okay for others to have an emotional response commensurate with a realistic view of the odds that you seem to agree with.

---

I'm not sure what you mean, I have been called delusional and a dreamer for saying we can still make it. I said 20-30 percent not 3 percent. I said it was maybe a 3 percent chance that we beat Duke, but we do not have to beat Duke to make the NCAA tournament. We are right on the bubble and we may only need a few teams to underperform in their tournaments to make it.

I'm sorry but that example is nothing like this current situation, we aren't a team that needs the auto bid, we are a team considered by many to be one of the top two teams out right now with a very important week left to play. He can feel that way and be emotionally moved on but he doesn't have to ruin it for the rest of us by saying "I'm not sure what you are all smoking" when the reality is if we beat FSU we have a punchers chance to make the tournament because the bubble has played horrifically recently and many of them have tough upcoming matchups and/or landmines in their tourneys that could really hurt their chances.

The thing is people always feel like if their team isn't in, right at the current moment their chance is basically zero but the reality is that nobody actually knows where exactly each team resume is seen by the committee is against another. That's why these bracketologists miss multiple teams every year because it is a crapshoot.

If you had to bet right now would you bet 100 thousand dollars that CAL wouldn't make the tourney right now if the season ended today? I wouldn't. They probably are a spot or two out but who knows they might not be. There could be a 20-30 percent chance the committee likes our resume more than Auburn or any one of the other bubble teams.

Let me leave you with this since maybe the visual will help:


If you are a committee and you are deciding between these 6 teams at the bottom of last 4 and the first 4 out and comparing their resumes, would you really take :
SMU who has 19 wins and lost their last 4 games including a head to head against us

20-11 Stanford who has 1 more quad one win than us but has losses to Seattle, UNLV, and Notre Dame all at home. And is a team we beat twice this year, at home and on the road.

OR

17-14 Oklahoma who has another loss coming and at one point lost 9 games in a row this season, two to non top 100 teams and has only really 2 wins against tournament locks.

Over our CAL team with 4 quad 1 wins and head to head wins over two of these teams. Maybe you would but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that it isn't a toss up and I didn't even mention VCU who hasn't beaten a single tournament at large team all year.

---

Why does it bother you that people don't agree with your characterization of the state of play? They've heard your argument several times. They simply don't agree. You seem to think they don't understand and if you just repeat the same argument one more time, they will see the light. We all understand your argument. The thing that makes you like ten year old me is the desperate need for everyone to think your team has as good a chance that you think they do. A lot of us think you are being overly optimistic. You should be able to handle that

---

Because nobody that thinks I'm being overly optimistic is actually willing to name the teams they think are think are over us and why, which leads me to believe some are just being negative for the sake of being negative. The point of the thread is to discuss the topic so I'm not really sure why it's so bad for me to ask for explanation of the opposite opinion. It's one thing if someone doesn't want to do so but then don't say I'm a dreamer or I'm delusional, if you don't have a good reason or argument just to bring negativity or pessimism.

---

Look. People don't need to answer your interrogations to have a different opinion from you . I was trying to have tact. Let me be blunt. I don't think your arguments are worth my time. We don't need to respond to everyone that has a different argument and walk through every single team's resume since you obviously won't accept an argument different from yours anyway. That doesn't make people negative for negativity's sake. Your problem is you think your argument is so effing brilliant that everyone who disagrees has to either be stupid or deliberately negative. Believe it or not, some people might not be persuaded by your effing brilliance. That is why barsad said you are sucking the joy out of this place because you are stomping around like a two year old - yes I've demoted you - insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

Dude if they aren't worth your time we don't need you to look down on us by constantly comparing us to children lol. My argument is that we have a serious chance to make the tournament not to argue everyone's resume. Anyone can make an argument for every resume within reason that's why it's a crapshoot. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of this particular discussion. I'm not saying someone should be able to back up their argument if they are gonna call someone delusional.

You raise some good points/considerations 6956. A couple of my takes:

Agree it would be one blow if Miami (OH) doesn't win their conference. They are in and should be in no matter what.

If I were a committee member, Stanford's resume would have to be a decent size step above ours to put them in above us given that we beat them twice. And I don't think their resume exceeds ours right now - at minimum not enough to overcome the two head to head losses. Obviously, I could be "wrong" but that's how I feel about it.

Onebearofpower said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

---

How am I sucking the joy out of it when you are just telling us we are gonna lose the whole time. I am just trying to show how it isn't over and there is a lot still to come this week in terms of shifting the bubble. You are just saying it's over and we have no chance to win or make the tourney. How is that joyful in anyway?

---

You are sucking the joy out of it for him by basically calling him a bad fan for not being excited by the prospects of somewhere between a 0 and 3% chance of making a tournament where we have an extremely high likelihood of losing within 2 games. He has emotionally moved on to being excited about the NIT. He can always move back if the improbable happens. Can you accept that and still be excited yourself?

Of course there is a chance. I used to always joke going into the PAC-10 tournament that we were 9 games away from a national championship. There's a chance until there isn't. Not everyone needs to bring 4th and goal against #1 USC energy to every situation. I think it's great that this gets you excited, but it has to be okay for others to have an emotional response commensurate with a realistic view of the odds that you seem to agree with.

---

I'm not sure what you mean, I have been called delusional and a dreamer for saying we can still make it. I said 20-30 percent not 3 percent. I said it was maybe a 3 percent chance that we beat Duke, but we do not have to beat Duke to make the NCAA tournament. We are right on the bubble and we may only need a few teams to underperform in their tournaments to make it.

I'm sorry but that example is nothing like this current situation, we aren't a team that needs the auto bid, we are a team considered by many to be one of the top two teams out right now with a very important week left to play. He can feel that way and be emotionally moved on but he doesn't have to ruin it for the rest of us by saying "I'm not sure what you are all smoking" when the reality is if we beat FSU we have a punchers chance to make the tournament because the bubble has played horrifically recently and many of them have tough upcoming matchups and/or landmines in their tourneys that could really hurt their chances.

The thing is people always feel like if their team isn't in, right at the current moment their chance is basically zero but the reality is that nobody actually knows where exactly each team resume is seen by the committee is against another. That's why these bracketologists miss multiple teams every year because it is a crapshoot.

If you had to bet right now would you bet 100 thousand dollars that CAL wouldn't make the tourney right now if the season ended today? I wouldn't. They probably are a spot or two out but who knows they might not be. There could be a 20-30 percent chance the committee likes our resume more than Auburn or any one of the other bubble teams.

Let me leave you with this since maybe the visual will help:


If you are a committee and you are deciding between these 6 teams at the bottom of last 4 and the first 4 out and comparing their resumes, would you really take :
SMU who has 19 wins and lost their last 4 games including a head to head against us

20-11 Stanford who has 1 more quad one win than us but has losses to Seattle, UNLV, and Notre Dame all at home. And is a team we beat twice this year, at home and on the road.

OR

17-14 Oklahoma who has another loss coming and at one point lost 9 games in a row this season, two to non top 100 teams and has only really 2 wins against tournament locks.

Over our CAL team with 4 quad 1 wins and head to head wins over two of these teams. Maybe you would but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that it isn't a toss up and I didn't even mention VCU who hasn't beaten a single tournament at large team all year.

---

Looks like you are using the CBS bracketology here. They have always had Cal rated above most of the other bracketologists.

I agree with some of your points. My big concern for Cal is just how valuable the committee views Quad 1 wins, NET rankings, WAB rankings, head to head and conference standings. For Cal head to head and conference standings are a possible edge. Particularly head to head.

When you look at the totality of the various metrics Cal faces an uphill battle. Not an impossible one but an uphill one. If this is how the committee views the bracket today (Big if) then yes a Cal win over FSU and a couple of key losses and Cal could sneak in.

For this bubble scenario you have laid out to come to fruition you will likely need 3 potential bid stealing conference tourneys to all go to the conference regular season champs. The MAC, A-10 and MWC have the potential to take away 3 bids if Miami (OH), St. Louis and Utah St do not win their tourneys. UNM making the final in MWC could also take away a bid. And VCU needs to get beat early in the A-10. Miami is getting in so they need to win their tourney.

SMU plays Syracuse tomorrow. Syracuse looks like they have thrown in the towel. But if they win it would be a big hurt for SMU. Stanford plays Pitt. Right now their earlier win vs Pitt and Cal's loss to same are about the only real differences in their record. But Cal did beat Stanford twice. Stanford losing to Pitt and a Cal win over FSU should (no guarantee) elevate them above Stanford.

There has been a lot of losses among the bubble teams these past 2 weeks. For Cal to have any real shot they need that to continue. And beat FSU.

What is really hard to know is how valuable the committee really views the NET. If they weight it heavily Cal will need at least 2 wins. And just how valuable they view the predictive metrics. Cal trails both Stanford and SMU in the KenPom, BPI and Torvik rankings. SMU has a large lead in all 3 but it would be interesting to see how they fair in the past 2 weeks since BJ Edwards got hurt. They have lost everygame since and I have no idea of his availability going forward.

---

I appreciate your response this is what I've wanted to discuss is the resumes and the metrics. I used CBS because it more closely aligns with the majority of the bracket matrix bracketologists but it actually looks nice because the are a professional company. I'm not gonna use ESPN because Joe Lunardi keeps doing crazy stuff against what he says he will do and somehow still has Auburn in his bracket after they were dismantled.

I agree that we have worse metrics than many of these teams however metrics usually are taken into account more for seeding and resume more for selection. I think if we beat FSU our WAB will be around .5 which will pass a few people especially if they lose. WAB and Q1 have been the most telling metrics of a team being selected since introduced.

I'm not sure how you feel on Indiana or New Mexico or Auburn or Cincinnati SCU VCU but I think we have our argument against many of them since they each have a different resume some with less bad losses but no tournament at large wins VCU and some with more Q1s Stanford but two more Q3 losses.

I think you are right about the NET. I'm not sure exactly how they will use it, I know last year they took SDSU and they were net 59.

---

The selection process has a distinct format. The first thing Cal must do is beat FSU. They have to make the committees inital list of teams under consideration. If they make that list they (likely with a win vs FSU) then resumes can be compared as they prepare the final at large selections.

The committee members are to list 37 teams they believe are worthy of an at large berth. This will also include several teams that likely will be AQs after conference tourneys as this list is prepared prior to Saturday. There are 37 at large berths hence the number.

There likely will be more than 37 listed teams as it is beyond unlikely that every committee member sees the 37 the same way. Then the committee will put together an under consideration list. You want to be on this list though you can be added later if circumstances warrant. like a deep run in a conference tourney if not on the inital list.

This list will get pared down by forming groups of 8. The top 4 are added to the at large list. The others go back into the pool. There will be situations where a team or teams are very close (same # of votes) and then the real disection occurs. The final teams added are likely to be among a small group. Cal needs to make that group. Then things like head to head, conference standings etc may take on an added importance.

Cal has a problem with some metrics. They are unlikely to add any more Q1 wins as FSU is a Q2 and Duke would be a prohibitive favorite. So WAB becomes a possible good metric. If SMU and Stanford lose for example. Stanford and SMU losses in round 1 of ACCT would be a problem for both. Bad loss for either. Stanford another Q3 and SMU another Q2 but also 5th in a row. If Q1 wins and WAB matter then they have a shot when compared to some teams. VCU as you note has no wins against teams in the field today. And just 2 Q1 wins overall. But no bad losses. Which way will the committee go with them.

Cal sits ahead of Cincy, Oklahoma, Seton Hall, New Mexico and SDSU in WAB ratings today. They need to stay there. Indiana and Auburn are close though and another loss could find them dropping behind Cal. A Duke loss by Cal should not hurt their metrics much if any but a win would be enormous. And just playing them gives them an artificial boost in NET rankings.

The bubble is soft as evidenced by Auburn, Indiana, Cincy and Oklahoma still getting consideration by the bracketologists. So Cal needs a combination of an FSU win and several key losses in conference tourneys by other bubble teams. The earlier the better. And of course the AQs from the MAC, MWC and A10 to be the regular season champs.

Not impossible but again about a 20% chance as was shown on Saturday. A lot will need to go right. Starting with a win over FSU.

Wow, if I didn't know any better, I would think that both onebearofpower and 6956bear have already personally served on the NCAA Selection Committee very recently! And I wish to clarify - I am NOT being sarcastic, the two of them are providing us with some really good stuff.

Yeah I agree with everything you said. I definitely think Cal will make the in consideration group. It is also worth noting that we want USF and Dayton to lose unless Dayton is taking out VCU because they both sit on the literal border of Q1/2. Yeah I'm not too worried about Auburn I think they are in some serious trouble considering they are essentially 16-16 so they are gonna have to win multiple games prob at least 3. Indiana I think has also played really poorly so it's really hard to say where they are. Stanford prob needs to win at least two games since I don't think the Pitt game will move them up much in WAB. SMU hard to say. NC State also is in the mix they don't have a great resume either and have played awfully also. Maybe VT needs 2 wins?

Onebearofpower said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

barsad said:

---

Why does every post from you have to contain an insult of some kind? This is just friendly banter about basketball… but thanks for finding new ways to suck the joy out of these Forums.

---

How am I sucking the joy out of it when you are just telling us we are gonna lose the whole time. I am just trying to show how it isn't over and there is a lot still to come this week in terms of shifting the bubble. You are just saying it's over and we have no chance to win or make the tourney. How is that joyful in anyway?

---

You are sucking the joy out of it for him by basically calling him a bad fan for not being excited by the prospects of somewhere between a 0 and 3% chance of making a tournament where we have an extremely high likelihood of losing within 2 games. He has emotionally moved on to being excited about the NIT. He can always move back if the improbable happens. Can you accept that and still be excited yourself?

Of course there is a chance. I used to always joke going into the PAC-10 tournament that we were 9 games away from a national championship. There's a chance until there isn't. Not everyone needs to bring 4th and goal against #1 USC energy to every situation. I think it's great that this gets you excited, but it has to be okay for others to have an emotional response commensurate with a realistic view of the odds that you seem to agree with.

---

I'm not sure what you mean, I have been called delusional and a dreamer for saying we can still make it. I said 20-30 percent not 3 percent. I said it was maybe a 3 percent chance that we beat Duke, but we do not have to beat Duke to make the NCAA tournament. We are right on the bubble and we may only need a few teams to underperform in their tournaments to make it.

I'm sorry but that example is nothing like this current situation, we aren't a team that needs the auto bid, we are a team considered by many to be one of the top two teams out right now with a very important week left to play. He can feel that way and be emotionally moved on but he doesn't have to ruin it for the rest of us by saying "I'm not sure what you are all smoking" when the reality is if we beat FSU we have a punchers chance to make the tournament because the bubble has played horrifically recently and many of them have tough upcoming matchups and/or landmines in their tourneys that could really hurt their chances.

The thing is people always feel like if their team isn't in, right at the current moment their chance is basically zero but the reality is that nobody actually knows where exactly each team resume is seen by the committee is against another. That's why these bracketologists miss multiple teams every year because it is a crapshoot.

If you had to bet right now would you bet 100 thousand dollars that CAL wouldn't make the tourney right now if the season ended today? I wouldn't. They probably are a spot or two out but who knows they might not be. There could be a 20-30 percent chance the committee likes our resume more than Auburn or any one of the other bubble teams.

Let me leave you with this since maybe the visual will help:


If you are a committee and you are deciding between these 6 teams at the bottom of last 4 and the first 4 out and comparing their resumes, would you really take :
SMU who has 19 wins and lost their last 4 games including a head to head against us

20-11 Stanford who has 1 more quad one win than us but has losses to Seattle, UNLV, and Notre Dame all at home. And is a team we beat twice this year, at home and on the road.

OR

17-14 Oklahoma who has another loss coming and at one point lost 9 games in a row this season, two to non top 100 teams and has only really 2 wins against tournament locks.

Over our CAL team with 4 quad 1 wins and head to head wins over two of these teams. Maybe you would but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that it isn't a toss up and I didn't even mention VCU who hasn't beaten a single tournament at large team all year.

---

Looks like you are using the CBS bracketology here. They have always had Cal rated above most of the other bracketologists.

I agree with some of your points. My big concern for Cal is just how valuable the committee views Quad 1 wins, NET rankings, WAB rankings, head to head and conference standings. For Cal head to head and conference standings are a possible edge. Particularly head to head.

When you look at the totality of the various metrics Cal faces an uphill battle. Not an impossible one but an uphill one. If this is how the committee views the bracket today (Big if) then yes a Cal win over FSU and a couple of key losses and Cal could sneak in.

For this bubble scenario you have laid out to come to fruition you will likely need 3 potential bid stealing conference tourneys to all go to the conference regular season champs. The MAC, A-10 and MWC have the potential to take away 3 bids if Miami (OH), St. Louis and Utah St do not win their tourneys. UNM making the final in MWC could also take away a bid. And VCU needs to get beat early in the A-10. Miami is getting in so they need to win their tourney.

SMU plays Syracuse tomorrow. Syracuse looks like they have thrown in the towel. But if they win it would be a big hurt for SMU. Stanford plays Pitt. Right now their earlier win vs Pitt and Cal's loss to same are about the only real differences in their record. But Cal did beat Stanford twice. Stanford losing to Pitt and a Cal win over FSU should (no guarantee) elevate them above Stanford.

There has been a lot of losses among the bubble teams these past 2 weeks. For Cal to have any real shot they need that to continue. And beat FSU.

What is really hard to know is how valuable the committee really views the NET. If they weight it heavily Cal will need at least 2 wins. And just how valuable they view the predictive metrics. Cal trails both Stanford and SMU in the KenPom, BPI and Torvik rankings. SMU has a large lead in all 3 but it would be interesting to see how they fair in the past 2 weeks since BJ Edwards got hurt. They have lost everygame since and I have no idea of his availability going forward.

---

I appreciate your response this is what I've wanted to discuss is the resumes and the metrics. I used CBS because it more closely aligns with the majority of the bracket matrix bracketologists but it actually looks nice because the are a professional company. I'm not gonna use ESPN because Joe Lunardi keeps doing crazy stuff against what he says he will do and somehow still has Auburn in his bracket after they were dismantled.

I agree that we have worse metrics than many of these teams however metrics usually are taken into account more for seeding and resume more for selection. I think if we beat FSU our WAB will be around .5 which will pass a few people especially if they lose. WAB and Q1 have been the most telling metrics of a team being selected since introduced.

I'm not sure how you feel on Indiana or New Mexico or Auburn or Cincinnati SCU VCU but I think we have our argument against many of them since they each have a different resume some with less bad losses but no tournament at large wins VCU and some with more Q1s Stanford but two more Q3 losses.

I think you are right about the NET. I'm not sure exactly how they will use it, I know last year they took SDSU and they were net 59.

---

San Diego State was #51 in Ken Pom last year. Cal is #71. We are currently #65 in NET. Nobody has us in at this point. Nobody. Beating FSU will not move that needle much. There will almost certainly still be 37 teams the Committee picks for at large spots ahead of us if we just beat FSU. I don't need to tell you which teams it will be, we are competing against the field. There most likely will be a bid stealer or more, but don't ask me to predict who.

First round losses in conference tournaments don't typically hurt teams much, unless it is a really bad loss. San Diego State lost their first round game to Boise State in the MWC Tournament last year and still got selected.

I just think it is prohibitively unlikely that we get in by just beating FSU. We are not a "name" school. Bearinsider basketball board is not the Committee. You don't need to convince us. The Committee is not looking for reasons to include us. They will most likely use our metrics to exclude us. Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if you are right and we get in with another bad loss to Duke.

The bottom line: I am pretty certain we need to beat Duke and make a statement to get in. Otherwise we are in the NIT, which, if everyone plays and we make a deep run, would not be a bad result.

" we are competing against the field" That is right we are competing against the field and the bubble is very different this year as the 10 seed line and down is still not locked to make the field. You don't have to name anybody, but if you don't name anyone you're not making much of a point because I assure you fans of teams like SCU are definitely saying "we need to beat SMC tonight or else we are in trouble". You can say R1 losses don't matter but if Stanford or VT lose to Pitt and Wake respectively I'm not sure their fans are gonna feel to great about their chances. Same goes for SMU, NC State, NMU, Indiana, Auburn, and VCU.

SDSU was able to lose in R1 of their conf tournament because all of the other bubble teams, Indiana, Xavier, WVU, OSU. UNC, SMU and BSU were the only other teams to win and BSU only ended up bubble because they went to the MW title game and UNC to the semis. It worked out for them but only because the other results did as well.

My one takeaway from this discussion is that, as I had thought, we might have had a decent shot had we won one of the two recent games we lost (Pitt or Wake), plus winning our first game in the conference tournament.

Very unfortunate that we didn't take care of business there.

We need to beat Florida State and Duke to have a shot, but also need these ACC teams to lose, all of which play in the first round on Tuesday:

Stanford
SMU
Virginia Tech