Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Lets settle this now.

nova was weak. They barely beat Delaware.

Cluck U wrote:nova was weak. They barely beat Delaware.

Last I checked, Delaware had a great season and went to the NCAA tournament.

Prior to the tourney I would have ranked them around 10th and given them a 3 seed. Many peope had them ranked higher and they got a 2 seed. Not a huge difference, I'm okay with them getting a 2.

I can't say the same about the rest of the conference. Villanova could become the east coast version of Gonzaga. That's not a horrible fate.

Seahawks08 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:nova was weak. They barely beat Delaware.

Last I checked, Delaware had a great season and went to the NCAA tournament.

Delaware had a solid Low-Mid-Major year...with the help of a one year transfer. We relied on the athletic ability of three guards and the absence of any real conference competition.

Doubt we'll be dancing next year, but there's always a puncher's chance, right?

Anyway, nova wasn't very good this year.

BlueHen86 wrote:Prior to the tourney I would have ranked them around 10th and given them a 3 seed. Many peope had them ranked higher and they got a 2 seed. Not a huge difference, I'm okay with them getting a 2.

I can't say the same about the rest of the conference. Villanova could become the east coast version of Gonzaga. That's not a horrible fate.

Agreed.

I would have had Nova somewhere between 10-15. They scared the shit out of me when they got blasted by Creighton twice. Once I could excuse...twice I couldn't. I didn't have a problem with a 2 seed though I thought 3 was probably more accurate.

Having said that, I'm well on record with my thoughts on the new big east.

Is that a rhetorical question?

So you all are smarter than the Committee? You know they place teams based on resume right? And Nova's resume was a borderline 1 seed. I would love to see the teams you place ahead of Nova for that 2 seed so we can compare resumes.

Nova's resume:

28-4

Losses to Creighton x2, Cuse, and Seton Hall

Wins over Iowa, Kansas, St. Joes, Xavier x2, Providence x2, Delaware

SoS 32, RPI 6, BPI 6, Kenpom rank 6th

If anyone can find 8 resumes better than this, I will concede that Nova was overrated.

Seahawks08 wrote:So you all are smarter than the Committee? You know they place teams based on resume right? And Nova's resume was a borderline 1 seed. I would love to see the teams you place ahead of Nova for that 2 seed so we can compare resumes.

Nova's resume:

28-4

Losses to Creighton x2, Cuse, and Seton Hall

Wins over Iowa, Kansas, St. Joes, Xavier x2, Providence x2, Delaware

SoS 32, RPI 6, BPI 6, Kenpom rank 6th

If anyone can find 8 resumes better than this, I will concede that Nova was overrated.

So you're saying they just flat out choked?

So you're saying they just flat out choked?

Yes.

89Hen wrote:

Seahawks08 wrote:So you all are smarter than the Committee? You know they place teams based on resume right? And Nova's resume was a borderline 1 seed. I would love to see the teams you place ahead of Nova for that 2 seed so we can compare resumes.

Nova's resume:

28-4

Losses to Creighton x2, Cuse, and Seton Hall

Wins over Iowa, Kansas, St. Joes, Xavier x2, Providence x2, Delaware

SoS 32, RPI 6, BPI 6, Kenpom rank 6th

If anyone can find 8 resumes better than this, I will concede that Nova was overrated.

So you're saying they just flat out choked?

Their mid-major regular season schedule caught up to them come tourney time.

Seahawks08 wrote:So you all are smarter than the Committee? You know they place teams based on resume right? And Nova's resume was a borderline 1 seed. I would love to see the teams you place ahead of Nova for that 2 seed so we can compare resumes.

Nova's resume:

28-4

Losses to Creighton x2, Cuse, and Seton Hall

Wins over Iowa, Kansas, St. Joes, Xavier x2, Providence x2, Delaware

SoS 32, RPI 6, BPI 6, Kenpom rank 6th

If anyone can find 8 resumes better than this, I will concede that Nova was overrated.

No you won't. You will just make excuses and spin.

No you won't. You will just make excuses and spin.

Dodging the question I see. Typical.

Seahawks08 wrote:So you all are smarter than the Committee? You know they place teams based on resume right? And Nova's resume was a borderline 1 seed. I would love to see the teams you place ahead of Nova for that 2 seed so we can compare resumes.

Nova's resume:

28-4

Losses to Creighton x2, Cuse, and Seton Hall

Wins over Iowa, Kansas, St. Joes, Xavier x2, Providence x2, Delaware

SoS 32, RPI 6, BPI 6, Kenpom rank 6th

If anyone can find 8 resumes better than this, I will concede that Nova was overrated.

Florida
Wichita St
Virginia
Arizona
Louisville
Michigan
San Diego St
Syracuse

Start spinning.

Florida
Wichita St
Virginia
Arizona
Louisville
Michigan
San Diego St
Syracuse

Start spinning.

Eliminate the 1 seeds, those are obvious.

Louisville - SoS and RPI not high enough

Michigan - I can see the argument for them since their SoS was so high even though they have 8 losses. But they do have a good amount of quality wins. I'll give you this one.

SD. St. - Resume looks like Nova's resume when it comes to wins/losses, but their SoS is the downfall and there was no way they would get a 2 seed with it. RPI is also too high.

Cuse - 2 really bad losses automatically knocks them off the list. I think you are using name recognition rather than actually looking at their resume.

Fair enough?

Seahawks08 wrote:
Eliminate the 1 seeds, those are obvious.

Louisville - SoS and RPI not high enough

Michigan - I can see the argument for them since their SoS was so high even though they have 8 losses. But they do have a good amount of quality wins. I'll give you this one.

SD. St. - Resume looks like Nova's resume when it comes to wins/losses, but their SoS is the downfall and there was no way they would get a 2 seed with it. RPI is also too high.

Cuse - 2 really bad losses automatically knocks them off the list. I think you are using name recognition rather than actually looking at their resume.

Fair enough?

Louisville: 27-5 won AAC regular season (tie actually) and post season tourney. Their strong finish puts them ahead of 'Nova.

SD St: 29-4, won MWC regular season title, second in post season tourney. Has win at Kansas and against Creighton (a team that hammered Nova twice).

Syracuse: 27-5, has 16 point head-to-head win over 'Nova.
Two bad losses for them, one bad loss for Nova - advantage 'Nova, but it doesn't offset head-to-head 'Cuse win,
'Cuse also didn't get blown out like 'Nova did against Creighton (twice) - advantage 'Cuse.

I could also make a case for Duke and Michigan St., but you asked for 8.

I cannot remember. Is it a bad thing if "pee in the butt" gets more votes than Villanova wasn't overrated????

BlueHen86 wrote:

Seahawks08 wrote:
Eliminate the 1 seeds, those are obvious.

Louisville - SoS and RPI not high enough

Michigan - I can see the argument for them since their SoS was so high even though they have 8 losses. But they do have a good amount of quality wins. I'll give you this one.

SD. St. - Resume looks like Nova's resume when it comes to wins/losses, but their SoS is the downfall and there was no way they would get a 2 seed with it. RPI is also too high.

Cuse - 2 really bad losses automatically knocks them off the list. I think you are using name recognition rather than actually looking at their resume.

Fair enough?

Louisville: 27-5 won AAC regular season (tie actually) and post season tourney. Their strong finish puts them ahead of 'Nova.

SD St: 29-4, won MWC regular season title, second in post season tourney. Has win at Kansas and against Creighton (a team that hammered Nova twice).

Syracuse: 27-5, has 16 point head-to-head win over 'Nova.
Two bad losses for them, one bad loss for Nova - advantage 'Nova, but it doesn't offset head-to-head 'Cuse win,
'Cuse also didn't get blown out like 'Nova did against Creighton (twice) - advantage 'Cuse.

I could also make a case for Duke and Michigan St., but you asked for 8.

Louisville - strong finish doesn't matter when your SoS is so bad.

SD. St. - again, they can have their season and postseason wins, but their SoS keeps them off the 2 line

Cuse - those 2 losses weren't just bad losses, they were terrible losses. BC and GT were god awful this season. Seton hall is not on their level, so Cuse's win over nova doesn't cancel that out imo.

You are understating SoS and OOC SoS, which is why Louisville and SD. St. are 4 seeds and not even 3 seeds.

I don't know if VU was really overrated. I'll agree they didn't have a bunch of real good wins from December 1 on but they did knock Kansas & Iowa off early. No doubt they were a really good team & would've been successful in any league in the country. They just played a bad game against a not that great UConn team when it really mattered most, which unfortunately for VU is what most people will remember.

Whiiiite liiiiiine.

I'm sorry. It just never gets old for me.

Resume-wise nova was a 1-3 seed, no question about it. The wins back around Thanksgiving (i.e. a long time ago) help to cement that. However, it was clear that nova was virtually untested for the bulk of the year playing in a weak Big East, and when they did get tested (i.e. Creighton - which is almost laughable now considering how badly Baylor whipped up on Creighton -, Syracuse) they got trampled. Considering that, it shouldn't have been too surprising that they got knocked off well in advance of the regional final (where you could say, following chalk, a #2 seed would lose). The trend for nova's quality was clearly pointing in the downward direction from the highs they had at the very start of the season, and that came to fruition losing as badly as they did to a UConn team that was lucky to get past St. Joes in the first round. If they didn't lose to UConn they would certainly have lost to even a short handed Iowa St team. It wasn't a question if nova was going to lose, it was just a question of how quick they would.

GannonFan wrote:Resume-wise nova was a 1-3 seed, no question about it. The wins back around Thanksgiving (i.e. a long time ago) help to cement that. However, it was clear that nova was virtually untested for the bulk of the year playing in a weak Big East, and when they did get tested (i.e. Creighton - which is almost laughable now considering how badly Baylor whipped up on Creighton -, Syracuse) they got trampled. Considering that, it shouldn't have been too surprising that they got knocked off well in advance of the regional final (where you could say, following chalk, a #2 seed would lose). The trend for nova's quality was clearly pointing in the downward direction from the highs they had at the very start of the season, and that came to fruition losing as badly as they did to a UConn team that was lucky to get past St. Joes in the first round. If they didn't lose to UConn they would certainly have lost to even a short handed Iowa St team. It wasn't a question if nova was going to lose, it was just a question of how quick they would.

- I don't think they were a 1 seed but 2-3 is fair. Virginia was a better 1 seed and I would have taken Michigan before Nova from the 2's.

Seahawks08 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Louisville: 27-5 won AAC regular season (tie actually) and post season tourney. Their strong finish puts them ahead of 'Nova.

SD St: 29-4, won MWC regular season title, second in post season tourney. Has win at Kansas and against Creighton (a team that hammered Nova twice).

Syracuse: 27-5, has 16 point head-to-head win over 'Nova.
Two bad losses for them, one bad loss for Nova - advantage 'Nova, but it doesn't offset head-to-head 'Cuse win,
'Cuse also didn't get blown out like 'Nova did against Creighton (twice) - advantage 'Cuse.

I could also make a case for Duke and Michigan St., but you asked for 8.

Louisville - strong finish doesn't matter when your SoS is so bad.

SD. St. - again, they can have their season and postseason wins, but their SoS keeps them off the 2 line

Cuse - those 2 losses weren't just bad losses, they were terrible losses. BC and GT were god awful this season. Seton hall is not on their level, so Cuse's win over nova doesn't cancel that out imo.

You are understating SoS and OOC SoS, which is why Louisville and SD. St. are 4 seeds and not even 3 seeds.

Louisville 4-3 against teams that ended up in Top 25
Villanova was 1-3
Not so sure the SOS was weaker. I'm not impressed that the bad teams Nova beat were better than the bad teams Louisville beat.

Can't ignore Syracuse's 16 point head to head win. Given the choice of using head-to-head or the transitive property I'll go with head-to-head. Also, if we're gonna talk about bad losses, how about losing at home by 28 points to Creighton, and then when you get a rematch you give up 101 and lose by 21. Those are bad losses. Losing in the Garden on the first round of your conference tourney to Seton Hall is pretty bad too. Seems like every time Nova had a big game, they laid an egg. Nova peaked in November. Not worthy of a two seed.

You keep falling back on RPI and SOS (which are linked). This tourney, more than most I remember, have shown that these are only vague guides, not absolutes.

There are so few games played OOC that a good comparison, especially if you are talking the difference between #6 RPI or #15, is not really possible.

The eye test, based on reality, tells me that Villanova was not a 2 seed.

dbackjon wrote:You keep falling back on RPI and SOS (which are linked). This tourney, more than most I remember, have shown that these are only vague guides, not absolutes.

There are so few games played OOC that a good comparison, especially if you are talking the difference between #6 RPI or #15, is not really possible.

The eye test, based on reality, tells me that Villanova was not a 2 seed.

The RPI is not a good predictor of future outcomes, there are others that are much better (Sagarin for one). The committee likes the RPI because it does not take margin of victory into consideration; there was fear that teams would run up the score if margin of victory mattered.

The RPI also can be "gamed" if you work it properly when scheduling. Kudos to the AD's that do it, shame on the committee for seeing through it.

I trust Vegas much more than I trust the selection committee, note that Vegas rates Louisville and Michigan St very highly.