How we have a chance to make it into a possible bubble spot

[xfan'17]

I know it is highly improbable, but if we win out then thats three total wins against top 25 teams and I'm pretty sure umass is top thirty. If we could've pulled that win off vs. vcu it would've helped the cause tremendously

[nuts4xu]

Oh my lord....you are on drugs if you think this team is that close to the bubble. We need to win the A-10 tourney to earn an NCAA tourney bid.

Period.

[xfan'17]

I'm just saying it'd be three wins against top 25 teams. I know the only way we are gonna get in is if we win the a10 tourney which isn't looking to good either

[surfxu]

This is a FUBR year. I'm not just talking about Xavier, I'm talking about college basketball in general. I will jump on and say that if somehow Xavier wins out and wins a couple games in the A10 tourney that MAYBE there's enough to generate bubble conversation and sneak in. But the bigger issue is that outside of the top 10 there is not a whole lot sepparating #11 through #150 in college basketball this year. In my opinion, there's not very good basketball across the board this year. I've watched a couple hundred games this year, and it seems to me that that the talent level is back to about circa 1980. There are certainly individual exceptions to that, but I'm talking as a tem in general. Maybe the defense is just THAT much better.

[GetUp5]

I'm just saying it'd be three wins against top 25 teams. I know the only way we are gonna get in is if we win the a10 tourney which isn't looking to good either

Title of Thread: How we have a chance to make it into a possible bubble spot.

[GetUp5]

If we would have won the game vs VCU we'd be sitting at 17-10 (9-4) with wins over VCU, Butler, Temple and Memphis. On the bubble worthy.

As it is, I agree, we're far off right now, but you win vs. UMass, SLU and @Butler and it's a different story. 19-11 (11-5) with wins over VCU, Butler x2, SLU, Temple and Memphis? That's a hell of a lot better resume than the bubble teams.

Shoot I think if you win 2 of the 3 and are at 18-12 (10-6) and win 2 games in Brooklyn that you're at least in the discussion.

[D-West & PO-Z]

We are 4-2 against the top 50 RPI. Really wish we would have hung on to beat VCU and be at 5-1. We have two for sure more shots at top 50 in SLU and Butler. UMASS is currently #52 I think but could jump up. The problem is we are 0-4 vs 51-100 and we have 4 101-150 losses and 1 150+ loss.

[aceylone7777]

Oh my lord....you are on drugs if you think this team is that close to the bubble. We need to win the A-10 tourney to earn an NCAA tourney bid.

Period.

This. The computer numbers are just too low...we're still all the way down at 88 even after the Memphis win.

EDIT: RPI, obviously.

[xubrew]

This is a FUBR year. I'm not just talking about Xavier, I'm talking about college basketball in general. I will jump on and say that if somehow Xavier wins out and wins a couple games in the A10 tourney that MAYBE there's enough to generate bubble conversation and sneak in. But the bigger issue is that outside of the top 10 there is not a whole lot sepparating #11 through #150 in college basketball this year. In my opinion, there's not very good basketball across the board this year. I've watched a couple hundred games this year, and it seems to me that that the talent level is back to about circa 1980. There are certainly individual exceptions to that, but I'm talking as a tem in general. Maybe the defense is just THAT much better.

It's a sign of the times, I think. Much of what was exclusive to the major programs fifteen years ago is no longer exclusive to just them. Fifteen years ago satellite TV wasn't nearly as commonplace as it is now. Now, everyone is on TV. I believe there are well over a thousand games that are either on TV or steamed over the internet. It may be more than that now. So, players who are given the choice of being role players at major programs, or stars at mid-major programs are opting to be stars at mid-major programs.

In 2002, which was Matta's first year, only two teams from outside the Big Six conferences wore white in the first round. Xavier was one of them. The year before there were zero. None. There wasn't a single team that was seeded 9th or better. That was typical. Now, you see Gonzaga possibly getting a #1 seed, and other programs that are in the rankings and looking to earn good seeds.

The gaps have definitely closed some. I don't think it's necessarily bad for the game.


....and getting back to the original post, X's only way in is the automatic bid. The polls may have Memphis in the top 25, but the committee won't. We haven't been all that good away from home either.

[smileyy]

The computer numbers are just too low...we're still all the way down at 88 even after the Memphis win.


And its not like that win helped peripheral numbers like offensive and defensive efficiency. Unless you want to glorify "Opponent FT%"

[msj61]

According to RPI Forecast:

- If we win out and win 2 in the tourney (21-12), our RPI would be 46.1. With 7 or 8 quality wins, I'd be pretty upset if we're not in the tournament.

- Win 2 and lose 1, then win 2 in the tourney (20-13) and the RPI is 59. 59 is usually out, but I think we'd be in the bubble discussion w/ all those quality wins.

- Unfortunately, the most likely scenario would be to go 1-2 and then 1-1 in the tourney. This would put us at 84.2.

EDIT: Woops, just saw the other thread w/ this info.

[XUFan09]

And its not like that win helped peripheral numbers like offensive and defensive efficiency. Unless you want to glorify "Opponent FT%"

Yup. Instead of losing 65 to 64, as Kenpom predicted, we won 64 to 62. Not exactly earth shattering, as indicated by only moving from 85th to 83rd.

[Grylls]

I think Xavier is closer to the bubble than most think. I mean, freaking Indiana State is still on the next four out.. X still has a chance to work themselves into an at-large. Will it happen? Probably not but X always seems to win the A-10 tourny when they have to.

[PMI]

I think Xavier is closer to the bubble than most think. I mean, freaking Indiana State is still on the next four out.. X still has a chance to work themselves into an at-large. Will it happen? Probably not but X always seems to win the A-10 tourny when they have to.

I agree. It's unlikely, but this is a really, really weak bubble year, and frankly, the committee is going to all but guessing with the last several spots. There's possibly never been as much parody (read: mediocrity) in college basketball as there is this year. If we win out and lose in the A10 finals, which I'm by no means counting on, we are absolutely being talked about in the selection room at the very least.

[kmcrawfo]

I think Xavier is closer to the bubble than most think. I mean, freaking Indiana State is still on the next four out.. X still has a chance to work themselves into an at-large. Will it happen? Probably not but X always seems to win the A-10 tourny when they have to.

If Xavier were to win out and make it to the A10 Finals, they would likely be in.... Regardless of the outcome of that final game.

[Grylls]

If Xavier were to win out and make it to the A10 Finals, they would likely be in.... Regardless of the outcome of that final game.

I agree, it'll be tough to leave out a team that, in this scenario, would have like 7-8 top 50 wins and a top 50 RPI. It also helps that a lot of bubble teams are currently sucking tonight.

[waggy]

My vague recollections of past fields, is that conference tourneys have had little bearing on at-large selections. In other words committees have leaned toward regular season resumes, and getting on a run but ultimately failing to win the tourney has resulted in no bid. I can't back this up with a shred of real evidence though. X needs to go 3-0 and get a bye.

[GIMMFD]

My vague recollections of past fields, is that conference tourneys have had little bearing on at-large selections. In other words committees have leaned toward regular season resumes, and getting on a run but ultimately failing to win the tourney has resulted in no bid. I can't back this up with a shred of real evidence though. X needs to go 3-0 and get a bye.

I thought that last year, our conference tourney run was what booked our ticket to the big dance? I mean, I may just be spitballing, but that's what the general feel on the forum was right?

[xubrew]

My vague recollections of past fields, is that conference tourneys have had little bearing on at-large selections. In other words committees have leaned toward regular season resumes, and getting on a run but ultimately failing to win the tourney has resulted in no bid. I can't back this up with a shred of real evidence though. X needs to go 3-0 and get a bye.

The conference tournament games definitely matter, but not as much as the media typically makes it look like.

I won't get entirely into how it works, but there are 31 conferences. They'll start off by voting 37 teams into the field. This basically happens the first night in the middle of the week before the conference tournaments even start. So, for the first 37, it's based entirely on the regular season. Every time one of those 37 teams wins a conference tournament, they'll vote an additional team in. So, if you're on the bubble and win some big games in the conference tourney, it definitely helps.

[aceylone7777]

If teams keep falling apart, we have a shot. Never thought I'd say that.

[Xavier]

I agree. It's unlikely, but this is a really, really weak bubble year, and frankly, the committee is going to all but guessing with the last several spots. There's possibly never been as much parody (read: mediocrity) in college basketball as there is this year. If we win out and lose in the A10 finals, which I'm by no means counting on, we are absolutely being talked about in the selection room at the very least.

I am not disagreeing with this. However, every year fans always say "The bubble is really weak this year" "can't remember a bubble being this weak" "it will be hard to find deserving teams". In other words- the bubble has been extremely bad for awhile and thank God the tournament didn't expand more than 68. It isn't an unusual year in terms of the bubble.

[Grylls]

I am not disagreeing with this. However, every year fans always say "The bubble is really weak this year" "can't remember a bubble being this weak" "it will be hard to find deserving teams". In other words- the bubble has been extremely bad for awhile and thank God the tournament didn't expand more than 68. It isn't an unusual year in terms of the bubble.

Yeah I think Iona got an at-large bid last season..Now that's weak.

[xavierj]

You know what is depressing? Xavier is 16 points away from being 22-5 and 22 points away from being 23-4 and ranked in the top 15. What could have been.

[xubrew]

You know what is depressing? Xavier is 16 points away from being 22-5 and 22 points away from being 23-4 and ranked in the top 15. What could have been.


We're also 17 pts away from being 11-16.

It's frustrating, but the same is true for a lot of teams. Dayton, as bad as they are, is 16pts away from being 21-6.

[PMI]

I am not disagreeing with this. However, every year fans always say "The bubble is really weak this year" "can't remember a bubble being this weak" "it will be hard to find deserving teams". In other words- the bubble has been extremely bad for awhile and thank God the tournament didn't expand more than 68. It isn't an unusual year in terms of the bubble.

It seems that way, but it's really only been the past 2-3 years. But even so, this year really IS the worst we've seen. John Feinstein had some really good points about it on the radio today actually, about how historically mediocre and unpredictable this year has been. Again, that's not to say that it helps us that much, because we are basically at the mercy of more than just our own results most likely, but if there's a year that we could be this down and still have a chance, this is it.

And brew is totally obsessed with dayton.

[XUFan09]

We're also 17 pts away from being 11-16.

It's frustrating, but the same is true for a lot of teams. Dayton, as bad as they are, is 16pts away from being 21-6.

Dayton's situation has more to do with bad luck (Literally among the top 10 worst in the country per Kenpom) and, you know, being Dayton.

Here's a nugget. You know who's the luckiest team in the country by a good margin according to Kenpom statistics? Charlotte. Let's just blame the loss to them on that, okay? I feel better that way...

[PM Thor]

Oh my lord....you are on drugs if you think this team is that close to the bubble. We need to win the A-10 tourney to earn an NCAA tourney bid.

Period.

This. And to throw in the random saying...Like A Bose!

I HATE dayton

[X-band '01]

Playing UMass, SLU and Butler can only help the SOS, but Xavier has to win all 3 of those games. The VCU loss took away any margin of error that Xavier had.

Depending on their draw in Brooklyn, Xavier could get a couple more chances at some high SOS games. Or they could get the melon humpers in Round 1.

[Fireball]

I think we have a chance to pick 4 more top-50 RPI wins win games against Butler and SLU coming up and then in the A-10 tournament. If we have 8 top 50 RPI wins, then we're a bubble team, despite the 5 sub-100 RPI losses.

I'm not saying that gets us in, but it at least gets us consideration. Basically, though, we can't lose again until the A-10 tournament final or there's no way that we get serious at-large consideration.

[xubrew]

It seems that way, but it's really only been the past 2-3 years. But even so, this year really IS the worst we've seen. John Feinstein had some really good points about it on the radio today actually, about how historically mediocre and unpredictable this year has been. Again, that's not to say that it helps us that much, because we are basically at the mercy of more than just our own results most likely, but if there's a year that we could be this down and still have a chance, this is it.

It's actually not. Feinstein, and everyone else who is saying that, is comparing the way things look now to the way things looked like at the end of the season. If you were to go back prior to the end of the season, like t February 28th, you'd see pretty much the same thing. That's what people don't realize. Team's profiles will get stronger between now and the end. A lot of teams seeded #10th or worse picked up notable wins in their conference tournaments.

....and as far as being obsessed with Dayton, I'm more fascinated with the quote from Bull Durham when he explains the difference between a .300 hitter and .250 hitter than anything else. I'm only half kidding. It really makes you (or at least me) think. I could have used Illinois State as an example, but no one really knows or cares who they are, so it wouldn't have hit home. But, they're about 18 points away from being 22-8 with two wins over ranked teams and solidly in the field. You can look at almost any team and say that, because every team plays games that are close. They win some of them, and lose some of them. The good wins win more close games than they lose.

[PMI]

It's actually not. Feinstein, and everyone else who is saying that, is comparing the way things look now to the way things looked like at the end of the season. If you were to go back prior to the end of the season, like t February 28th, you'd see pretty much the same thing. That's what people don't realize. Team's profiles will get stronger between now and the end. A lot of teams seeded #10th or worse picked up notable wins in their conference tournaments.

....and as far as being obsessed with Dayton, I'm more fascinated with the quote from Bull Durham when he explains the difference between a .300 hitter and .250 hitter than anything else. I'm only half kidding. It really makes you (or at least me) think. I could have used Illinois State as an example, but no one really knows or cares who they are, so it wouldn't have hit home. But, they're about 18 points away from being 22-8 with two wins over ranked teams and solidly in the field. You can look at almost any team and say that, because every team plays games that are close. They win some of them, and lose some of them. The good wins win more close games than they lose.

Actually, he made full mention of the fact that things will change between now and then and was using the relative times of the year compared to previous years. I wish I could link the interview because he had some really good, well-thought-out points, but a good portion of it focused on the parody compared to years past as well as some of the ridiculous final scores we've seen across the board this year. We lost to a Vanderbilt team that lost to Marist something like 50-33. I understand that teams will play themselves in and out between now and Selection Sunday as they do every year, and some at-large berths will be stolen by teams like Xavier who will win their conference tournaments (I can dream) but I'd like to hear a case against Feinstein's theory that there is more parody this year than ever, because he presented a great one and it's something that I think we've been seeing all year. Hell, how many different #1s have we had this year? I know that doesn't really prove anything in and of itself, but it is a reflection on the unprecedented madness of the clusterfuck that is the 2012-13 college basketball season. Hell, TCU beat Kansas, one of the few "good" teams. It was one of the most unlikely upsets in the history of the game, according to the stat guys.

I'm with you on most of the second paragraph, even though you truly are obsessed with dayton. OK, I'll clarify, your alter ego, udzima is obsessed with dayton. But yes, there are lots of close games in D1 basketball, which I think fortifies the idea that there's lots of parody. Bottom line is, good teams find a way to win more of them than they lose. I don't really like the dayton example because they've been losing those kinds of games for 30 years. It's what they do and it's not exclusive to this crazy year in college hoops for them. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as saying, "every team plays close games and you win some and lose some." Good teams win far more of them than they lose, and this year in particular, there are fewer good teams and more mediocre teams that really could win or lose just about any game.

[GoMuskies]

there is more parody this year than ever

In tough times, people turn to humor. And these are tough times!

[PMI]

In tough times, people turn to humor. And these are tough times!

Haha, whoops. I'll stick to it though. There have been some pretty hysterically mediocre teams this year.

[xubrew]

Actually, he made full mention of the fact that things will change between now and then and was using the relative times of the year compared to previous years. I wish I could link the interview because he had some really good, well-thought-out points, but a good portion of it focused on the parody compared to years past as well as some of the ridiculous final scores we've seen across the board this year. We lost to a Vanderbilt team that lost to Marist something like 50-33. I understand that teams will play themselves in and out between now and Selection Sunday as they do every year, and some at-large berths will be stolen by teams like Xavier who will win their conference tournaments (I can dream) but I'd like to hear a case against Feinstein's theory that there is more parody this year than ever, because he presented a great one and it's something that I think we've been seeing all year. Hell, how many different #1s have we had this year? I know that doesn't really prove anything in and of itself, but it is a reflection on the unprecedented madness of the clusterfuck that is the 2012-13 college basketball season. Hell, TCU beat Kansas, one of the few "good" teams. It was one of the most unlikely upsets in the history of the game, according to the stat guys.

I'm with you on most of the second paragraph, even though you truly are obsessed with dayton. OK, I'll clarify, your alter ego, udzima is obsessed with dayton. But yes, there are lots of close games in D1 basketball, which I think fortifies the idea that there's lots of parody. Bottom line is, good teams find a way to win more of them than they lose. I don't really like the dayton example because they've been losing those kinds of games for 30 years. It's what they do and it's not exclusive to this crazy year in college hoops for them. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as saying, "every team plays close games and you win some and lose some." Good teams win far more of them than they lose, and this year in particular, there are fewer good teams and more mediocre teams that really could win or lose just about any game.

Definitely link that interview if you can find it again.

I agree that there is more parity (I make that same mistake with parody, so don't feel bad). I posted something yesterday about how in 2001 no one from outside the major conferences earned a seed better than #9, and how only two non major conference teams were the better seeded team the year after that. The good players are looking at a much wider variety of teams than they used to, and there is more parity.

My only thing is that when the season ends, the teams that are on the bubble won't appear to be any worse (at least on paper) than what we're used to seeing. Conference tournaments kind of force the issue. In a win and advance format, it will oftentimes force bubble teams to play against other bubble teams, or offer them the opportunity to play against solid teams. The ones that do well will suddenly have resumes that don't make you hold your nose and want to vomit.

Again, I haven't heard the interview, but I do think teams like Belmont, Middle Tennessee, Akron, Lousiana Tech (although I'm not quite as big on them) and even Bucknell (to an extent) are as good or better than many of the teams that are on the bubble. The thing is, I felt that way last year as well in regards to teams like Middle Tennessee, Drexel and Oral Roberts. None made it in, but I thought they were better than some of the teams that did. I think the only difference is that this year, some of those teams look a little better on paper. I don't know if that necessarily means they're any better on the court, though. Akron and Middle Tennessee were very good last year as well. I think both of them would have stomped all over Cal, yet Cal somehow got in.

[PMI]

I checked the 106.7 The Fan website and the interview wasn't up there as of now, but I'll keep an eye out for it. Feinstein can be a little too stuck in his place on some things, but he's usually pretty damn knowledgable about college basketball and has been covering it for a hundred years. I've had a couple really great conversations with him about college hoops and Xavier, and the guy has forgotten more about the game than I'll ever know. Not to say he's always right (I rightfully gave him shit for picking Troy over David West's 3 seeded team in 2003.)

[xavierj]

We're also 17 pts away from being 11-16.

It's frustrating, but the same is true for a lot of teams. Dayton, as bad as they are, is 16pts away from being 21-6.

I understand that but xavier also lost 6 games after leading by 10 or more points in the 2nd half. That is even more depressing. I would be surprised if they didn't lead the country in blowing huge 2nd half leads.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I understand that but xavier also lost 6 games after leading by 10 or more points in the 2nd half. That is even more depressing. I would be surprised if they didn't lead the country in blowing huge 2nd half leads.

Well Xavier did lead the country by 10 games but blew it in the second half of the season. :)