6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

" 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.

---

The problem is that you are looking at every other team and saying "if this happens, they are in trouble" and looking at Cal and saying "if this happens, Cal has a shot". It isn't an equal way to look at it. Flip that analysis and say "If this happens, Cal is in trouble" and look at every other team and say "if this happens, they have a shot" and the prognosis looks worse.

For instance, you say fans of Santa Clara would have thought they would have been in trouble if they lost to SMC. (Moot point now). Maybe they would have been. However, they were NEVER going to fall below Cal. Better record. Only lost to the top two teams in their conference. More than 20 spots ahead in NET. 37 spots ahead in KenPom. We have lost to two losing teams in conference in the last 3 games. Arguing that Santa Clara would be in trouble while arguing that Cal has a shot does not reconcile. There is one team that you seemed to be arguing we had a chance to surpass that we never had a chance to surpass.

We are not in today. There are likely to be a couple bid stealers. There almost always are. That'll push us down a spot or two or three. Is it possible that enough teams lose ahead of us to get us in without beating Duke? Yes. 20%-30%? In my opinion, not close to that. Too many things need to happen

And, we start with about a 50% chance of losing to FSU.

---

There is no doubt that Cal needs a lot of help. And that the only thing they have any control over is their own game. Which as you say is 50/50.

I also agree that Santa Clara was ahead of Cal. And likely were in win or lose last night. They were not a bid stealer.

Bid stealers will matter. And yes that would really harm Cal's chance which are slim to start with. If there are even 2 bid stealers Cal is in even deeper peril than they are currently. Which is deep.

Teams like Indiana and Auburn are in that category as well. And then you have the 4 ACC teams that are very similar. SMU, Stanford, VaTech and Cal. NC State has faded down the stretch and if they lose again they could join this group. Cal has a possible edge over Stanford and SMU as they won head to head. Stanford twice and finished 1 game ahead in the standings. VaTech beat Cal and has slightly better metrics, but finished behind them in the standings. They say standings should not matter for selection but if you are considering teams from the same conference I find it hard to believe they play no role.

The predictive metrics are definitely a negative for Cal. They fare a bit better in the resume metrics.

A lot needs to happen. But there is a path however precarious. Beat FSU and hope for losses elsewhere.
JMO but VCU, Indiana, SMU, Stanford, Auburn, New Mexico, SDSU and maybe VaTech need to take losses early. And there are other teams that could play there way on to the bubble. Like Cincy, Seton Hall or even Oklahoma. Oklahoma has the same record as Auburn have won 4 straight and beat Auburn head to head.

Do I think Cal gets in. No. Too much needs to happen. But I do think there is a small but precarious path. But lets beat FSU and see what else happens.

They Cal this March Madness. There is a reason they do.

---

I pretty much agree with everything you said. My point was first that IMO it is not 20%-30% as Onebear believes. Which is fine, but those who don't agree are not being negabears, and frankly, barsad does not deserve that description. He has been very positive for 3 years. I think he is excited for the NIT.

And I truly applaud Onebear for being excited for any possibility, but as I said there is more than one way to fan. Looking at long odds and saying you'll get more interested in the case that we get a few steps closer and increase those odds to something that seems more realistic is a reasonable way to be a fan and is not being negative for negativity's sake. You can be excited without banging on other Cal fans.

Onebearofpower said:

---

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.

---

Sometimes ignore is helpful

HoopDreams said:

---

Step 1 to make Dance

These 3 teams lose today:

SMU, Stanford & Virginia Tech

---

It's crazy that these are the three ACC tourney games. The league that we're in.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Step 1 to make Dance

These 3 teams lose today:

SMU, Stanford & Virginia Tech

---

It's crazy that these are the three ACC tourney games. The league that we're in.

---

But I think it gives us a good benchmark (both on and off the court)

We do not have to be Duke or NC (and this wasn't always true - in the Pac 12 we sorta _DID_ need to field a top 3 team some years).

We DO need to be in the next tier. Competitive both on and off with UVA, Syracuse, Clemson, NCState. There will be lots of jumbled outcomes there. Some of these years before the next great shuffling we may be in the top of that group, some years toward the bottom. It is a sport with a fine line between winning and losing at this level.

And we SHOULD be competitive with THESE schools' NIL. While better histories with BB, they all play in SMALL media markets and /or second fiddle in those markets. If we are not then I am tired of people being glib or snide toward posters here. It is time to look within the entire fundraising apparatus if a school like syracuse is significantly outraising us for AD $$$....and if structural broken it might be time for team drop down to come back from the ice age because being uncompetitive in fundraising against Syracuse or NC State is a sign of unseriousness and an inability to compete..

Our weak SOS and NET ratings deny us any chance of dancing, unless miracuously we win the ACC tournament (ant that ain't happening)

Harky4 said:

---

Our weak SOS and NET ratings deny us any chance of dancing, unless miracuously we win the ACC tournament (ant that ain't happening)

---

If you think we need to win the ACC tourney I don't know what to tell you.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

" 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.

---

The problem is that you are looking at every other team and saying "if this happens, they are in trouble" and looking at Cal and saying "if this happens, Cal has a shot". It isn't an equal way to look at it. Flip that analysis and say "If this happens, Cal is in trouble" and look at every other team and say "if this happens, they have a shot" and the prognosis looks worse.

For instance, you say fans of Santa Clara would have thought they would have been in trouble if they lost to SMC. (Moot point now). Maybe they would have been. However, they were NEVER going to fall below Cal. Better record. Only lost to the top two teams in their conference. More than 20 spots ahead in NET. 37 spots ahead in KenPom. We have lost to two losing teams in conference in the last 3 games. Arguing that Santa Clara would be in trouble while arguing that Cal has a shot does not reconcile. There is one team that you seemed to be arguing we had a chance to surpass that we never had a chance to surpass.

We are not in today. There are likely to be a couple bid stealers. There almost always are. That'll push us down a spot or two or three. Is it possible that enough teams lose ahead of us to get us in without beating Duke? Yes. 20%-30%? In my opinion, not close to that. Too many things need to happen

And, we start with about a 50% chance of losing to FSU.

---

Dude there are like 20 teams that if they lose their fans wouldn't be comfortable with their chances. Santa is likely in because they won but they hadn't beaten anyone and they still had only beat the same team twice and lost to them once. They have a loss to a bottom 50 team in the country. They only have three conference losses because they play Oregon state every week. Not saying they aren't a good team but that's a pretty misleading way to put it. You could say that about any low major conference.

You don't have to believe me but if things pan out the wrong way that doesn't mean you're right that we have virtually no chance. 20 percent is wrong 80 percent of the time. Let's just see what happens this week because there is so very much that still needs to play out.

Onebearofpower said:

---

Harky4 said:

---

Our weak SOS and NET ratings deny us any chance of dancing, unless miracuously we win the ACC tournament (ant that ain't happening)

---

If you think we need to win the ACC tourney I don't know what to tell you.

---

Beating Florida State clearly isn't enough, and given the Bears' computer rankings (#50 in WAB, #64 in NET, #71 in KenPom) and the number of teams Cal would need to move past in the computer rankings, beating Duke will be just enough to get the Bears into the "first four out" range, unless every bubble team ahead of Cal suffers a bad loss in their conference tournament.

Pitt has just beaten our biggest rival at the buzzer. Demarco Minor the absolute legend.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

" 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.

---

The problem is that you are looking at every other team and saying "if this happens, they are in trouble" and looking at Cal and saying "if this happens, Cal has a shot". It isn't an equal way to look at it. Flip that analysis and say "If this happens, Cal is in trouble" and look at every other team and say "if this happens, they have a shot" and the prognosis looks worse.

For instance, you say fans of Santa Clara would have thought they would have been in trouble if they lost to SMC. (Moot point now). Maybe they would have been. However, they were NEVER going to fall below Cal. Better record. Only lost to the top two teams in their conference. More than 20 spots ahead in NET. 37 spots ahead in KenPom. We have lost to two losing teams in conference in the last 3 games. Arguing that Santa Clara would be in trouble while arguing that Cal has a shot does not reconcile. There is one team that you seemed to be arguing we had a chance to surpass that we never had a chance to surpass.

We are not in today. There are likely to be a couple bid stealers. There almost always are. That'll push us down a spot or two or three. Is it possible that enough teams lose ahead of us to get us in without beating Duke? Yes. 20%-30%? In my opinion, not close to that. Too many things need to happen

And, we start with about a 50% chance of losing to FSU.

---

Dude there are like 20 teams that if they lose their fans wouldn't be comfortable with their chances. Santa is likely in because they won but they hadn't beaten anyone and they still had only beat the same team twice and lost to them once. They have a loss to a bottom 50 team in the country. They only have three conference losses because they play Oregon state every week. Not saying they aren't a good team but that's a pretty misleading way to put it. You could say that about any low major conference.

You don't have to believe me but if things pan out the wrong way that doesn't mean you're right that we have virtually no chance. 20 percent is wrong 80 percent of the time. Let's just see what happens this week because there is so very much that still needs to play out.

---

I believe the discussion was about how Cal gets in, not how many teams have neurotic fans. I think Santa Clara was in either way, but if you don't realize their resume was way better than ours and we were never getting in ahead of them, we'll, that is why I didn't take your argument seriously. You are going through every potential bubble team and as long as you find one data point you think cuts Cal's way, you think Cal can get ahead of them. You say they didn't beat anyone and had such a bad loss, a yet overall they are 37 places ahead of us on KenPom. That doesn't compute. You are looking at their record compared to ours with monumental bear goggles. There is and was zero chance Cal gets in ahead of Santa Clara.

---

Keep thinking that way but I assure you talk is going to shift a lot after today especially with the Pitt win.

There are X at large spots we don't need to have a better resume than all of them to get a bid. KenPom is a predictive historically used more for seeding than selection. Resume metrics historically have been used for selection.

But continue to doubt March and I assure you you will be proven wrong game after game and so will KenPom.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

" 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.

---

The problem is that you are looking at every other team and saying "if this happens, they are in trouble" and looking at Cal and saying "if this happens, Cal has a shot". It isn't an equal way to look at it. Flip that analysis and say "If this happens, Cal is in trouble" and look at every other team and say "if this happens, they have a shot" and the prognosis looks worse.

For instance, you say fans of Santa Clara would have thought they would have been in trouble if they lost to SMC. (Moot point now). Maybe they would have been. However, they were NEVER going to fall below Cal. Better record. Only lost to the top two teams in their conference. More than 20 spots ahead in NET. 37 spots ahead in KenPom. We have lost to two losing teams in conference in the last 3 games. Arguing that Santa Clara would be in trouble while arguing that Cal has a shot does not reconcile. There is one team that you seemed to be arguing we had a chance to surpass that we never had a chance to surpass.

We are not in today. There are likely to be a couple bid stealers. There almost always are. That'll push us down a spot or two or three. Is it possible that enough teams lose ahead of us to get us in without beating Duke? Yes. 20%-30%? In my opinion, not close to that. Too many things need to happen

And, we start with about a 50% chance of losing to FSU.

---

Dude there are like 20 teams that if they lose their fans wouldn't be comfortable with their chances. Santa is likely in because they won but they hadn't beaten anyone and they still had only beat the same team twice and lost to them once. They have a loss to a bottom 50 team in the country. They only have three conference losses because they play Oregon state every week. Not saying they aren't a good team but that's a pretty misleading way to put it. You could say that about any low major conference.

You don't have to believe me but if things pan out the wrong way that doesn't mean you're right that we have virtually no chance. 20 percent is wrong 80 percent of the time. Let's just see what happens this week because there is so very much that still needs to play out.

---

I knew you were going to pull exactly this. Hey guys. I'm totally right and even if I'm wrong I'm right. But if you're wrong you're wrong.

---

All I have done is advocate for our team and try to give our fans hope that it isn't a lottery odds scenario as you seem to think it is.

What I said can never be proven wrong or right. I'm claiming a percentage not a selection. If Cal makes it it doesn't even mean my percentage was right. Can't you just enjoy March without trying to qualify everyone? You think something is unrealistic, fine that's your prerogative.

Harky4 said:

---

Our weak SOS and NET ratings deny us any chance of dancing, unless miracuously we win the ACC tournament (ant that ain't happening)

---

Exactly. And every bracketoligist agrees with this.

HKBear97! said:

---

Harky4 said:

---

Our weak SOS and NET ratings deny us any chance of dancing, unless miracuously we win the ACC tournament (ant that ain't happening)

---

Exactly. And every bracketoligist agrees with this.

---

I am not sure that is what they are saying. I think they are saying we are out now and predicting we will ultimately be out because if we don't lose to FSU they expect we will certainly lose to Duke and our metrics will still not be "at large worthy."

I think a big end of the season upset win over Duke could very well elevate us over the other bubble teams.

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

It is not what Cal fans on this board would say, it is what the Committee is going to look at. And yes, I think we have more "good wins" which is reflected in our 4 Quad 1 wins to their 2. However, their 6-2 Quad 2 record is better than our 2-3.

What really sets 25-7 Santa Clara above 20-10 Cal, besides the win totals, is they are #37 in NET and #38 in Ken Pom versus our #64 in NET and #71 in Ken Pom. They look like a Tournament team just on that basis. The Committee is not likely going further than that. We are looking for reasons to put Cal in, and you may well convince ALL Cal fans that we DESERVE to be in over Santa Clara, but then just be prepared to feel like "Cal got screwed again."

The metrics just are not working in our favor, at least compared to a team like Santa Clara. To overcome them I think we need a huge upset win over Duke. That will hopefully cause the Committee to look at our other big wins and see us as a team that can get hot and beat good teams, worthy of inclusion.

calumnus said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

It is not what Cal fans on this board would say, it is what the Committee is going to look at. And yes, I think we have more "good wins" which is reflected in our 4 Quad 1 wins to their 2. However, their 6-2 Quad 2 record is better than our 2-3.

What really sets 25-7 Santa Clara above 20-10 Cal, besides the win totals, is they are #37 in NET and #38 in Ken Pom versus our #64 in NET and #71 in Ken Pom. They look like a Tournament team just on that basis. The Committee is not likely going further than that. We are looking for reasons to put Cal in, and you may well convince ALL Cal fans that we DESERVE to be in over Santa Clara, but then just be prepared to feel like "Cal got screwed again."

The metrics just are not working in our favor, at least compared to a team like Santa Clara. To overcome them I think we need a huge upset win over Duke. That will hopefully cause the Committee to look at our other big wins and see us as a team that can get hot and beat good teams, worthy of inclusion.

---

NCAA tournament selection has always been about resume and predictives have determined seeding. Last year the top 37 at large eligible teams in WAB were selected aside from WVU who the committee claimed an injury as the reason for not being selected.

Onebearofpower said:

---

calumnus said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

It is not what Cal fans on this board would say, it is what the Committee is going to look at. And yes, I think we have more "good wins" which is reflected in our 4 Quad 1 wins to their 2. However, their 6-2 Quad 2 record is better than our 2-3.

What really sets 25-7 Santa Clara above 20-10 Cal, besides the win totals, is they are #37 in NET and #38 in Ken Pom versus our #64 in NET and #71 in Ken Pom. They look like a Tournament team just on that basis. The Committee is not likely going further than that. We are looking for reasons to put Cal in, and you may well convince ALL Cal fans that we DESERVE to be in over Santa Clara, but then just be prepared to feel like "Cal got screwed again."

The metrics just are not working in our favor, at least compared to a team like Santa Clara. To overcome them I think we need a huge upset win over Duke. That will hopefully cause the Committee to look at our other big wins and see us as a team that can get hot and beat good teams, worthy of inclusion.

---

NCAA tournament selection has always been about resume and predictives have determined seeding. Last year the top 37 at large eligible teams in WAB were selected aside from WVU who the committee claimed an injury as the reason for not being selected.

---

Total myth. It's about all of it. Always has been.

calumnus said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

It is not what Cal fans on this board would say, it is what the Committee is going to look at. And yes, I think we have more "good wins" which is reflected in our 4 Quad 1 wins to their 2. However, their 6-2 Quad 2 record is better than our 2-3.

What really sets 25-7 Santa Clara above 20-10 Cal, besides the win totals, is they are #37 in NET and #38 in Ken Pom versus our #64 in NET and #71 in Ken Pom. They look like a Tournament team just on that basis. The Committee is not likely going further than that. We are looking for reasons to put Cal in, and you may well convince ALL Cal fans that we DESERVE to be in over Santa Clara, but then just be prepared to feel like "Cal got screwed again."

The metrics just are not working in our favor, at least compared to a team like Santa Clara. To overcome them I think we need a huge upset win over Duke. That will hopefully cause the Committee to look at our other big wins and see us as a team that can get hot and beat good teams, worthy of inclusion.

---

The other thing they are not getting is that there is no way that Santa Clara would be so much higher in NET and KenPom if the other aspects of their resume were not better as well. They are taking a completely biased read of the two resumes and that is shown by their conclusion being massively different, not just a little different than the algorithms.

Santa Clara is also 14 spots higher in WAB, which I thought Onebear was putting more stock in. With a 2.27 WAB to our 0.04. I'm sorry, but all these metrics dramatically pointing to Santa Clara trump a Cal fan looking at our two schedules and saying "I think ours is better"

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

It is not what Cal fans on this board would say, it is what the Committee is going to look at. And yes, I think we have more "good wins" which is reflected in our 4 Quad 1 wins to their 2. However, their 6-2 Quad 2 record is better than our 2-3.

What really sets 25-7 Santa Clara above 20-10 Cal, besides the win totals, is they are #37 in NET and #38 in Ken Pom versus our #64 in NET and #71 in Ken Pom. They look like a Tournament team just on that basis. The Committee is not likely going further than that. We are looking for reasons to put Cal in, and you may well convince ALL Cal fans that we DESERVE to be in over Santa Clara, but then just be prepared to feel like "Cal got screwed again."

The metrics just are not working in our favor, at least compared to a team like Santa Clara. To overcome them I think we need a huge upset win over Duke. That will hopefully cause the Committee to look at our other big wins and see us as a team that can get hot and beat good teams, worthy of inclusion.

---

The other thing they are not getting is that there is no way that Santa Clara would be so much higher in NET and KenPom if the other aspects of their resume were not better as well. They are taking a completely biased read of the two resumes and that is shown by their conclusion being massively different, not just a little different than the algorithms.

Santa Clara is also 14 spots higher in WAB, which I thought Onebear was putting more stock in. With a 2.27 WAB to our 0.04. I'm sorry, but all these metrics dramatically pointing to Santa Clara trump a Cal fan looking at our two schedules and saying "I think ours is better"

---

100%, and a win over Florida State will not move the needle even if Santa Clara loses their next game. I'd be thrilled if we were wrong.

We need to go and beat Duke if we want to make the Tournament. Or make a run in the NIT and enjoy that.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

They have a harder schedule
They have a better record.
They were much better against Quad 2.
They have one really bad loss that you guys are harping on. Most teams can have a really bad night. No one thinks that makes them as bad as that. Definitely not the committee. Their worst loss is worse than our worst loss. And then we have a bunch more bad losses. Consistent bad losses is worse than one bad loss.
We chose not to challenge ourselves and instead racked up wins against awful opponents.

This is all captured by their significantly better NET and KenPom. You guys are looking at individual games through a subjective and massively biased lens and arguing against an objective, non-biased algorithm. The algorithm isn't the end all, but it is pretty good. If it were close, you might have a point. When it is like 30 points difference you do not.

There is zero chance that the committee would take the grief for leaving out a mid major from a good mid major conference with a 15-3 conference record and 30 points higher in KenPom to replace them with a 65-71 ranked also ran ACC team with a 9-9 record.

---

Cal is being punished for playing so many really weak non conference opponents. Santa Clara actually played more cupcakes overall than did Cal. Santa Clara played 18 quad 3 and quad 4 games. Cal played 15. Cal has more quad 1 wins but Santa Clara better in quad 2.

Cupcakes are cupcakes. All the better teams beat the Q3 and Q4 teams they play. I do think Santa Clara belongs in the tourney. I do not think the Cal argument is why Santa Clara and not Cal. But more why VCU who played 20 Q3 and Q4 teams and have 4 Q1 and Q2 wins combined. Or why is Stanford ahead of Cal with 3 Q3 losses before yesterday and had lost both games to Cal.

VCU is in a majority of bracketologists predictions. And Stanford was considered in by over 30 until last night.

Auburn, Indiana, Oklahoma and Texas all have a lot of losses. Same with Cincy. Cal has more Q1 wins than all but Texas. Texas also has a Q3 loss.

My concern is that playing Q1 and Q2 games seems to matter more than actually winning them. Cal has a thin resume but so do many of the teams they are supposedly in contention with. That is what the bubble is. A bunch of pretty good teams that finish mid in P4 leagues or play in a mid major like VCU does. VCU is 1-5 vs Q1. And beat nobody ranked higher than 49 in the NET. Cal has 4 wins better than that. VCU's best win is South Florida on a neutral court and played 20 Q3 and Q4 games.

Anyone make these numbers look however you want them to. Cal is on life support in regards to making the tourney. But I am concerned that these bracketologists favor a 15 loss Auburn team or had Stanford a team that Cal beat both times and had 3 Q3 losses above them. Or VCU in the field. CBS had both VCU and Stanford in the field as of yesterday.

I readily acknowledge Cal needs a lot of help to make the tourney and may need to beat Duke. But in comparison with many of the teams on the bubble it is actually pretty close.

The schedule is a problem. Cal needed to challenge themselves more. But they largely beat the teams they were supposed to outside of Pitt. And were as competitive or more so in Q1 games when looking at other bubble type teams.. Playing a bunch of Q1 games in conference and losing them (many by double digits) is being rewarded by the NET.

And can someone explain to me how Missouri is 60 in the NET. And Auburn is 40. Missouri is 10-11 in q1 and Q2 games. And beat Auburn head to head. Yet Auburn is 20 points ahead in the NET. Auburn is 7-14 in Q1 and Q2 but has a 20 point lead on Auburn in the NET. Missouri has no Q3 or Q4 losses and Auburn has 1.

6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

They have a harder schedule
They have a better record.
They were much better against Quad 2.
They have one really bad loss that you guys are harping on. Most teams can have a really bad night. No one thinks that makes them as bad as that. Definitely not the committee. Their worst loss is worse than our worst loss. And then we have a bunch more bad losses. Consistent bad losses is worse than one bad loss.
We chose not to challenge ourselves and instead racked up wins against awful opponents.

This is all captured by their significantly better NET and KenPom. You guys are looking at individual games through a subjective and massively biased lens and arguing against an objective, non-biased algorithm. The algorithm isn't the end all, but it is pretty good. If it were close, you might have a point. When it is like 30 points difference you do not.

There is zero chance that the committee would take the grief for leaving out a mid major from a good mid major conference with a 15-3 conference record and 30 points higher in KenPom to replace them with a 65-71 ranked also ran ACC team with a 9-9 record.

---

Cal is being punished for playing so many really weak non conference opponents. Santa Clara actually played more cupcakes overall than did Cal. Santa Clara played 18 quad 3 and quad 4 games. Cal played 15. Cal has more quad 1 wins but Santa Clara better in quad 2.

Cupcakes are cupcakes. All the better teams beat the Q3 and Q4 teams they play. I do think Santa Clara belongs in the tourney. I do not think the Cal argument is why Santa Clara and not Cal. But more why VCU who played 20 Q3 and Q4 teams and have 4 Q1 and Q2 wins combined. Or why is Stanford ahead of Cal with 3 Q3 losses before yesterday and had lost both games to Cal.

VCU is in a majority of bracketologists predictions. And Stanford was considered in by over 30 until last night.

Auburn, Indiana, Oklahoma and Texas all have a lot of losses. Same with Cincy. Cal has more Q1 wins than all but Texas. Texas also has a Q3 loss.

My concern is that playing Q1 and Q2 games seems to matter more than actually winning them. Cal has a thin resume but so do many of the teams they are supposedly in contention with. That is what the bubble is. A bunch of pretty good teams that finish mid in P4 leagues or play in a mid major like VCU does. VCU is 1-5 vs Q1. And beat nobody ranked higher than 49 in the NET. Cal has 4 wins better than that. VCU's best win is South Florida on a neutral court and played 20 Q3 and Q4 games.

Anyone make these numbers look however you want them to. Cal is on life support in regards to making the tourney. But I am concerned that these bracketologists favor a 15 loss Auburn team or had Stanford a team that Cal beat both times and had 3 Q3 losses above them. Or VCU in the field. CBS had both VCU and Stanford in the field as of yesterday.

I readily acknowledge Cal needs a lot of help to make the tourney and may need to beat Duke. But in comparison with many of the teams on the bubble it is actually pretty close.

The schedule is a problem. Cal needed to challenge themselves more. But they largely beat the teams they were supposed to outside of Pitt. And were as competitive or more so in Q1 games when looking at other bubble type teams.. Playing a bunch of Q1 games in conference and losing them (many by double digits) is being rewarded by the NET.

And can someone explain to me how Missouri is 60 in the NET. And Auburn is 40. Missouri is 10-11 in q1 and Q2 games. And beat Auburn head to head. Yet Auburn is 20 points ahead in the NET. Auburn is 7-14 in Q1 and Q2 but has a 20 point lead on Auburn in the NET. Missouri has no Q3 or Q4 losses and Auburn has 1.

---

And today they now show Cal as in playing VCU in Dayton. The point of all this is that different folks see these results and NET rankings etc differently.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

6956bear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

They have a harder schedule
They have a better record.
They were much better against Quad 2.
They have one really bad loss that you guys are harping on. Most teams can have a really bad night. No one thinks that makes them as bad as that. Definitely not the committee. Their worst loss is worse than our worst loss. And then we have a bunch more bad losses. Consistent bad losses is worse than one bad loss.
We chose not to challenge ourselves and instead racked up wins against awful opponents.

This is all captured by their significantly better NET and KenPom. You guys are looking at individual games through a subjective and massively biased lens and arguing against an objective, non-biased algorithm. The algorithm isn't the end all, but it is pretty good. If it were close, you might have a point. When it is like 30 points difference you do not.

There is zero chance that the committee would take the grief for leaving out a mid major from a good mid major conference with a 15-3 conference record and 30 points higher in KenPom to replace them with a 65-71 ranked also ran ACC team with a 9-9 record.

---

Cal is being punished for playing so many really weak non conference opponents. Santa Clara actually played more cupcakes overall than did Cal. Santa Clara played 18 quad 3 and quad 4 games. Cal played 15. Cal has more quad 1 wins but Santa Clara better in quad 2.

Cupcakes are cupcakes. All the better teams beat the Q3 and Q4 teams they play. I do think Santa Clara belongs in the tourney. I do not think the Cal argument is why Santa Clara and not Cal. But more why VCU who played 20 Q3 and Q4 teams and have 4 Q1 and Q2 wins combined. Or why is Stanford ahead of Cal with 3 Q3 losses before yesterday and had lost both games to Cal.

VCU is in a majority of bracketologists predictions. And Stanford was considered in by over 30 until last night.

Auburn, Indiana, Oklahoma and Texas all have a lot of losses. Same with Cincy. Cal has more Q1 wins than all but Texas. Texas also has a Q3 loss.

My concern is that playing Q1 and Q2 games seems to matter more than actually winning them. Cal has a thin resume but so do many of the teams they are supposedly in contention with. That is what the bubble is. A bunch of pretty good teams that finish mid in P4 leagues or play in a mid major like VCU does. VCU is 1-5 vs Q1. And beat nobody ranked higher than 49 in the NET. Cal has 4 wins better than that. VCU's best win is South Florida on a neutral court and played 20 Q3 and Q4 games.

Anyone make these numbers look however you want them to. Cal is on life support in regards to making the tourney. But I am concerned that these bracketologists favor a 15 loss Auburn team or had Stanford a team that Cal beat both times and had 3 Q3 losses above them. Or VCU in the field. CBS had both VCU and Stanford in the field as of yesterday.

I readily acknowledge Cal needs a lot of help to make the tourney and may need to beat Duke. But in comparison with many of the teams on the bubble it is actually pretty close.

The schedule is a problem. Cal needed to challenge themselves more. But they largely beat the teams they were supposed to outside of Pitt. And were as competitive or more so in Q1 games when looking at other bubble type teams.. Playing a bunch of Q1 games in conference and losing them (many by double digits) is being rewarded by the NET.

And can someone explain to me how Missouri is 60 in the NET. And Auburn is 40. Missouri is 10-11 in q1 and Q2 games. And beat Auburn head to head. Yet Auburn is 20 points ahead in the NET. Auburn is 7-14 in Q1 and Q2 but has a 20 point lead on Auburn in the NET. Missouri has no Q3 or Q4 losses and Auburn has 1.

---

And today they now show Cal as in playing VCU in Dayton. The point of all this is that different folks see these results and NET rankings etc differently.

---

As I said earlier in the season, the ridiculous nonconference schedule could really hurt us. If Cal had replaced every team on the schedule ranked below 250 with a team 50 points higher, they would have easily won all those games and I believe they would be on the comfortable part of the bubble right now. And there was no excuse playing Dominican.

---

I agree on Dominican. And sure not all Q4 teams are the same. But the reality is that the teams still in the discussion win these Q3 and Q4 games at or near 100%.

I guess I just am having trouble seeing how beating team 250 is that much better than beating team 300. Both are bad. If a Q3 loss is bad then what difference does your overall SOS matter?

I agree with you that the SOS is a big problem for Cal. I am just not as certain it should be as big a factor as it seems to be.

calumnus said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Harky4 said:

---

Our weak SOS and NET ratings deny us any chance of dancing, unless miracuously we win the ACC tournament (ant that ain't happening)

---

Exactly. And every bracketoligist agrees with this.

---

I am not sure that is what they are saying. I think they are saying we are out now and predicting we will ultimately be out because if we don't lose to FSU they expect we will certainly lose to Duke and our metrics will still not be "at large worthy."

I think a big end of the season upset win over Duke could very well elevate us over the other bubble teams.

---

Aside from CBS where Cal was listed as the first team out, every other bubble watch/bracketoligists completely removed Cal from their lists. Stumbling against Pitt and WF essentially sealed the deal. Even if Cal won those two games, they would still only be on the bubble. A win against FSU won't change anything. A win against Duke will only put them back in the bubble conversation. The committee still looks at the entire season and the weak SOS and NET rankings are an issue.

Beat FSU, and maybe get hot against a Duke team down two starters, then things might get interesting and Cal will be back in the conversation.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

6956bear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

vaderbear95 said:

---

What about Santa Clara's wins versus ours are you so impressed with BearlyCare? They beat one tourney team, St Mary's, twice. That's good.

But are those wins better than beating UNC, SMU, Miami, UCLA?

And yeah their early season SOS was better than ours, which has been hurting us. But of course they lost to an absolutely terrible team in Loyola-Chicago.

Santa Clara probably gets in w/ this second win over St Mary's. They're a pretty good team. But I would put our wins up against theirs.

---

They have a harder schedule
They have a better record.
They were much better against Quad 2.
They have one really bad loss that you guys are harping on. Most teams can have a really bad night. No one thinks that makes them as bad as that. Definitely not the committee. Their worst loss is worse than our worst loss. And then we have a bunch more bad losses. Consistent bad losses is worse than one bad loss.
We chose not to challenge ourselves and instead racked up wins against awful opponents.

This is all captured by their significantly better NET and KenPom. You guys are looking at individual games through a subjective and massively biased lens and arguing against an objective, non-biased algorithm. The algorithm isn't the end all, but it is pretty good. If it were close, you might have a point. When it is like 30 points difference you do not.

There is zero chance that the committee would take the grief for leaving out a mid major from a good mid major conference with a 15-3 conference record and 30 points higher in KenPom to replace them with a 65-71 ranked also ran ACC team with a 9-9 record.

---

Cal is being punished for playing so many really weak non conference opponents. Santa Clara actually played more cupcakes overall than did Cal. Santa Clara played 18 quad 3 and quad 4 games. Cal played 15. Cal has more quad 1 wins but Santa Clara better in quad 2.

Cupcakes are cupcakes. All the better teams beat the Q3 and Q4 teams they play. I do think Santa Clara belongs in the tourney. I do not think the Cal argument is why Santa Clara and not Cal. But more why VCU who played 20 Q3 and Q4 teams and have 4 Q1 and Q2 wins combined. Or why is Stanford ahead of Cal with 3 Q3 losses before yesterday and had lost both games to Cal.

VCU is in a majority of bracketologists predictions. And Stanford was considered in by over 30 until last night.

Auburn, Indiana, Oklahoma and Texas all have a lot of losses. Same with Cincy. Cal has more Q1 wins than all but Texas. Texas also has a Q3 loss.

My concern is that playing Q1 and Q2 games seems to matter more than actually winning them. Cal has a thin resume but so do many of the teams they are supposedly in contention with. That is what the bubble is. A bunch of pretty good teams that finish mid in P4 leagues or play in a mid major like VCU does. VCU is 1-5 vs Q1. And beat nobody ranked higher than 49 in the NET. Cal has 4 wins better than that. VCU's best win is South Florida on a neutral court and played 20 Q3 and Q4 games.

Anyone make these numbers look however you want them to. Cal is on life support in regards to making the tourney. But I am concerned that these bracketologists favor a 15 loss Auburn team or had Stanford a team that Cal beat both times and had 3 Q3 losses above them. Or VCU in the field. CBS had both VCU and Stanford in the field as of yesterday.

I readily acknowledge Cal needs a lot of help to make the tourney and may need to beat Duke. But in comparison with many of the teams on the bubble it is actually pretty close.

The schedule is a problem. Cal needed to challenge themselves more. But they largely beat the teams they were supposed to outside of Pitt. And were as competitive or more so in Q1 games when looking at other bubble type teams.. Playing a bunch of Q1 games in conference and losing them (many by double digits) is being rewarded by the NET.

And can someone explain to me how Missouri is 60 in the NET. And Auburn is 40. Missouri is 10-11 in q1 and Q2 games. And beat Auburn head to head. Yet Auburn is 20 points ahead in the NET. Auburn is 7-14 in Q1 and Q2 but has a 20 point lead on Auburn in the NET. Missouri has no Q3 or Q4 losses and Auburn has 1.

---

And today they now show Cal as in playing VCU in Dayton. The point of all this is that different folks see these results and NET rankings etc differently.

---

As I said earlier in the season, the ridiculous nonconference schedule could really hurt us. If Cal had replaced every team on the schedule ranked below 250 with a team 50 points higher, they would have easily won all those games and I believe they would be on the comfortable part of the bubble right now. And there was no excuse playing Dominican.

---

Those nonconference opponents were not just 50 points too low on average. It's 100 points or more. Replacing a #250 team with a #200 team, for a game played in Berkeley, would still have been a Quad 4 game.

Most of those "Quad 4" games should have been "Quad 2" in order to boost the resume sufficiently. Look at all the teams with at least 10 losses that are ahead of Cal in the NCAA NET rankings. Pretty much all of them have more Quad 1 and 2 games combined and more wins in those games.

The quad definitions are:

QUAD 1
Home: 1-30
Neutral: 1-50
Road: 1-75

QUAD 2
Home: 31-75
Neutral: 51-100
Road: 76-135

QUAD 3
Home: 76-160
Neutral: 101-200
Road: 136-240

QUAD 4
Home: 161-353
Neutral: 201-353
Road: 241-353

Which of our opponents is on the cusp of moving from Quad 1 to Quad 2 or vice versa? I noticed Pitt beat NC State (after they beat Furd) and Wake Forrest won their 1st round game? Any of our non-conference opponents moving around in the Quads?

(ooops - i read the wrong score about Pitt/NCSU!)

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

As I said earlier in the season, the ridiculous nonconference schedule could really hurt us. If Cal had replaced every team on the schedule ranked below 250 with a team 50 points higher, they would have easily won all those games and I believe they would be on the comfortable part of the bubble right now. And there was no excuse playing Dominican.

---

A Quad 4 centric non-conference schedule should never be repeated if we desire to compete with Quad 1 (and even the top Quad 2) teams in the post season's Big Dance.

MilleniaBear said:

---

Which of our opponents is on the cusp of moving from Quad 1 to Quad 2 or vice versa? I noticed Pitt beat NC State (after they beat Furd) and Wake Forrest won their 1st round game? Any of our non-conference opponents moving around in the Quads?

---

NC State beat Pitt this morning.