Cu vs usc

[whatthebuff]

Stolen from another board:

It's not so much that a 20-13 (8-8) team didn't make the field as it is that teams measurably worse than them did. Look at it.


Overall: Colorado 20-13, USC 19-14
vs. Top 25: Colorado 4-3, USC 2-3 (also note that Colorado's three top-25 losses were ALL to RPI #1 Kansas)
vs. Top 50: Colorado 6-7, USC 5-5
vs. Top 100: Colorado 8-10, USC 8-8
vs. Top 150: Colorado 10-13, USC 9-11
vs. sub-150: Colorado 10-0, USC 10-3


How do you justify putting USC in over Colorado? The Buffs played the tougher schedule and won just as well. Equal number of top 25 losses despite Colorado playing 7 games against them and USC only playing 5, and Colorado's were all to the #1 team. Far more top-50 teams played. Both had three losses in the 51-100 range and three in the 101-150 range, but USC also had 3 in the sub-150 range while Colorado had none. And you know what? The InsideRPI breaks it off at top 150/sub-150, but let's do it one more.


vs. Top 200: Colorado 12-13, USC 15-11

vs. sub-200: Colorado 8-0, USC 4-3


Now, you could take the fact that Colorado's barely changes relative to the vs. top 150 while USC jumps up from 9 wins to 15 as a sign that Colorado was fattening up on the truly weak...but it's almost the same numbers. Colorado played 8 games against sub-200 teams and won them all. USC played 7 and was barely .500....

I know, time to move on. But Seriously what the ****.

 

[JRK1212]

This doesent bother me nearly as much as the fact that Clemson and UAB didint have a single win against the RPI top 50. At least U$C had 5. Another interesting comparison is CU vs Michigain. The two have very similar profiles but I guess playing KU and Syracuse in out of conf (and losing both games) is the difference between being an 8 seed in the tourney and being in the NIT.

 

[Buffnik]

This doesent bother me nearly as much as the fact that Clemson and UAB didint have a single win against the RPI top 50. At least U$C had 5. Another interesting comparison is CU vs Michigain. The two have very similar profiles but I guess playing KU and Syracuse in out of conf (and losing both games) is the difference between being an 8 seed in the tourney and being in the NIT.

It bothers me from the inconsistent criteria standpoint. USC's selection points to quality wins and finishing strong being the most important factors. However, other selections point to other factors being more important. This is why I keep saying that not choosing CU could not have been an objective decision.