Beating a fringe top 50 KP team is an accomplishment. That’s why it is a Quad 1 win. Some fans think you should just roll the ball out and win these games easily but only the elite of the elite can do that on a regular basis.
Context for How Good Oklahoma Is
- Thread starter aceman509
- Start date
Yep. I had mention in the game thread. It's amazing how given the strength of the conference we have redefined what a good team is and what they aren't.
Yeah OU is towards the bottom of the SEC. They still might make the tournament.
We might finish 8th in the conference. Yet we are what 17th in the polls and in the convo for a 3 seed.
We need to get away from equating poor conference record with poor team. At least not this year.
I agree with you too. Missouri is a beast. The wildcard is our health going into each of those respective games
Yep. Simply being Auburn at home and Missouri on road.
In hindsight it may have been better if those games were flipped lol. We prob handle Missouri at home. This way we might drop both.
In the last 9 non-covid years Gonzaga has been to 9 sweet 16s, 5 elite 8s, and finished runner up twice. The computers were clearly right about Gonzaga and the public was wrong.
Just speculating that It’s probably about the same likelihood that we win one of two as it is that we drop both.
45% - Win one of two
45% - Lose both
10% - Win both
I wouldn't be surprised to see any of the top 14 SEC teams make it to the S16. Depends on the matchups. Is that enough to consider them all at least "good"? I have no problem with someone saying that.
LSU and SoCar are the only 2 bad teams in the SEC. I definitely think that's fair to say.
LSU and SoCar are the only 2 bad teams in the SEC. I definitely think that's fair to say.
South Carolina is 3 - 0 against the ACC, including a win over Clemson. They would probably be around .500 in conference play in the ACC.
I'd say that was as accurate a statement as can be made about the SEC this year. It would be a shame to see the conference fall flat on this face in March, but it won't surprise me if Kentucky is one of the last SEC teams left standing when it's all said and done.
LSU relatively speaking is a bad SEC team. They played in my opinion, the weakest non conference slate of all SEC teams to get to 11-2. Fools gold for them once conference play began.
South Carolina has got top be the best 1 win conference team in the country, but still relatively a bad SEC team. Their best win was over Clemson. Not bad. Nowhere near enough for the SEC this year, though. Earlier in the season, they hung tight with a lot of teams you would THINK they would've been crushed by, if they were truly terrible. Only towards the end of this year have they seemed to give up a little of their will to fight.
I still think since Arkansas has found life, they should be one of the last of the 14 teams to make it from the SEC this year. I'm firm on the SEC deserving 14 teams by the time the conference tournies finish. Anything less THIS YEAR is a slap in the face to the conference.
Cal's first 8 seasons here he went to 6 elite 8s, 4 final 4s, 2 championship games and won a title and more than half of those our numbers were much lower than the Zags run your talking about according to the computers. The computers are wrong often. Hell the Zags are number 8 in the computers right now and they aren't ranked or even an 8 seed in the tourney right now. Are the computers right about them this year? Seems whether they are good or bad they know how to play the computers game.
Not sure why people think you can "game" the systems here.
You either win the basketball game or you lose the basketball game. If it's a weak opponent that's ok but you better win by a large margin of score or else your computer metrics aren't going to show you are a good team.
Gonzaga is only an 8 seed because they have a crappy resume and the committee judges things on resume and not the computer metrics. That's all.
Are they a top 10 team? Maybe/maybe not. But I'm willing to bet they are wayyyyyyy better than your typical 8 seed.
And I'm not sure what determines whether something is "wrong" or not here.
1) If one is taking about March results, it's a small sample.
2) Say a team like Gonzaga gets a 8 seed or a 9 seed. They will still be the underdog in round 2 against the 1 seed. So if they lose in the second round does that mean the metrics were wrong and that seeding on resume was right? No not really because both the resume and the computer metrics would have them as underdogs in round 2.
My thing is if Gonzaga came up against say a 7 seed or a 6 seed or a 5 seed and maybe even some fours, they would be FAVORED in those games. That to me is a bit telling. It's not just the computers but rather Vegas and the betting community. And Vegas is usually pretty accurate.
You either win the basketball game or you lose the basketball game. If it's a weak opponent that's ok but you better win by a large margin of score or else your computer metrics aren't going to show you are a good team.
Gonzaga is only an 8 seed because they have a crappy resume and the committee judges things on resume and not the computer metrics. That's all.
Are they a top 10 team? Maybe/maybe not. But I'm willing to bet they are wayyyyyyy better than your typical 8 seed.
And I'm not sure what determines whether something is "wrong" or not here.
1) If one is taking about March results, it's a small sample.
2) Say a team like Gonzaga gets a 8 seed or a 9 seed. They will still be the underdog in round 2 against the 1 seed. So if they lose in the second round does that mean the metrics were wrong and that seeding on resume was right? No not really because both the resume and the computer metrics would have them as underdogs in round 2.
My thing is if Gonzaga came up against say a 7 seed or a 6 seed or a 5 seed and maybe even some fours, they would be FAVORED in those games. That to me is a bit telling. It's not just the computers but rather Vegas and the betting community. And Vegas is usually pretty accurate.
If we win 1, three seed is confirmed. That’s a big deal so I’d take 48% there
The idea that our metric numbers during Cal's first 8 years were worse than Gonzaga's have been the last 10 is simply not true. Both us and Gonzaga have had years in March where we over achieved what the computers implied, under achieved what the computers implied, and achieved pretty much exactly what the computers implied.
That is actually a perfect microcosm of how to actually interpret computer rankings. They aren't all powerful and perfect, if one team is ranked super high they obviously aren't guaranteed to beat teams ranked low. Its really just about probability of outcomes, and higher ranked teams have a higher probability of winning more games than lower ranked teams. In a sample size of 1 game or 1 tournament teams can way over achieve or under achieve due to the variance and luck. Over larger sample sizes it should even out.
Also the Massey Rating Composite has Gonzaga ranked 23rd currently, not 8th. The composite does include human rankings which can sort out some of the biases computers may have, which clearly you feel exist. Even still, its mostly computer weighted so the majority of computer rankings do have Gonzaga outside of the top 20 this season.
Thank you for agreeing with my point, that I stated in that post. You made it seem like you were agreeing with the numbers and eye test or context didn't matter. I believe we're actually on a similar train of thought. I also prefer Massey over any one specific metric, I don't actively keep up with any of them though and just see a few times through the year until the conference tournaments
