See ya when football season gets here. Honestly, I could care less but I do think they got hosed!!
Printable View
See ya when football season gets here. Honestly, I could care less but I do think they got hosed!!
Hosed? Not really. Their RPI (60) and Strength of Schedule (133) is what kept them out.
I hate VT and they got screwed.
I don't think they got screwed. They played a weak OOC and it bit them. They had a chance and went 2-5 down the stretch (one of the losses was to Duke so they went 2-2 in their final 4) and then acted like they would have rather been somewhere else when they played the Canes in the ACC tourney. When you're on the bubble you can't stick your head so far up your rear it's up to the waist, you gotta play like you want something.
Agreed. I think the loss to Miami was the nail in the coffin.Quote:
Originally Posted by GC-1
First off, VTs out of conference schedule sucked and most years you can make the case that's a good enough reason to keep them out...until you consider that California, Utah State and UTEP all got in over Tech. Take a closer look at the RPI and SOS of all three...
Cal was 23-10, is #22 in the RPI and had the 15th-best strength of schedule. Sure, they played Kansas (#1 RPI), Ohio State (21), New Mexico (12) and Syracuse (5).....but didn't beat ANY of them. Their lone Top 50 RPI win was against Washington (#41), which they also lost to twice. Pac 10 got two NCAA tourney teams...Cal and Washington.
So judging by Cal's results, had VT replaced two of their non-conference cupcakes with road LOSSES to any two random Top 25 teams, they probably would have made the tournament.
And tell me how you're #22 in the RPI if your best win is against the #41 team and you have 10 losses? What the hell does strength of schedule matter if you lose to every good team you play?
And Utah State (#31 RPI/100 SOS, one less loss than VT)? They didn't play ONE school from a BCS/Power Six conference. Not one. Every single win they had against an RPI top 100 were against other mid-majors. Most of those were against the WAC, which would have been a one-bid league had it not been for Utah St. losing in the tourney. They played five games vs NCAA tournament teams and three of those were vs New Mexico State. To their credit, they at least beat BYU.
And who did UTEP (#38 RPI/111 SOS, two fewer losses than VT) beat outside of Conference USA (another one-bid league had it not been for a conference tourney upset)? They played five notable non-conference games: BYU (loss), New Mexico St (split 1-1), Texas Tech (lost), Ole Miss (lost).
Just goes to show how deceiving these SOS and RPI numbers are.
They got ripped off. Look at some of the little conference teams. i though they wanted good match-up s in the tourney? VT could but up a better fight than UTEP, Utah St.
1) Schedule better teams.
2) Win 1 or 2 games you shouldn't. (i.e.--don't go 0-4 against the top 2 teams in the ACC)
Someone, anyone saying VT got hosed try to explain to me how scheduling:
Brown
UNC-Greensboro
Campbell
Delaware
VMI
Charleston Southern
UMBC
Longwood
Makes ANY sense if you're trying to beef up your OOC schedule? You know for 100% certain that the committee's going to look at that if it's a close call. How hard would it have been to drop any one of those 8 teams and play Radford, Richmond, William & Mary, VCU, ODU, George Mason...all in-state teams who either made the tourney and/or have better RPI's than the above? The highest rated RPI out of those 8 teams above is Delaware, with 239 out of 347 teams. All the rest are lower than that, with the lowest being UMBC (333).
I'll put it this way--VT could have scheduled:
Radford
Richmond
William & Mary
VCU
ODU
George Mason
ETSU
Appy St.
INSTEAD of those 8 teams above, saved $$$ on travel costs all around, even if it meant agreeing to 1-2 less home games, and had a MUCH better SOS. Whatever money they lost in 1-2 less home games would have been brought back up by those in-state teams travelling to Cassell for their other home games. SOS wouldn't be an issue had they won those games. Even a loss to say Richmond wouldn't have looked bad, and 7-1 or 6-2 against those 8 looks 100x better than 8-0 against the 8 teams they played. The lowest RPI out of those teams is Radford at 168.
Greenberg/VT have no excuses given the above as far as I'm concerned.
The only beef they have is that they beat WF head to head.
But a win vs. Wake in the regular season didn't make/break their tournament resume. Wake played a tougher overall schedule and won 6 games vs. the RPI top 50 when VT only won 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by burton2019
Wake's sleepwalking right now after getting drubbed by Miami, but as far as their whole body of work, it's better than VT's when you take into account who each team played.
Is the difference between RPI 200 and RPI 300 really that big? It's huge in figuring up your RPI but in terms of quality of team you play?
I see your point, but when Delaware is your highest ranked team out of those 8 that I named, and that's still 71 places lower than the lowest ranked team (Radford) out of the 2nd 8 that I named, that speaks volumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
Even more than that, Richmond's RPI was 25th in the nation, highest out of those 2nd 8 I named. Take 25th vs. 239th (Delaware) and that's 214 spots' difference in your potential toughest opponent vs. your actual toughest opponent. That's a big deal.
The real story would be that if those 2nd 8 teams took the place of who they actually scheduled, they would have added 2 more top 50 RPI teams w/o leaving the state at all. ODU ended up 27th, 2 spots behind Richmond. They could have added 2 more top 100 RPI teams in VCU (66) and William & Mary (58). Also note that VT's RPI ended up 59th.
I honestly believe that if you switched out those groups of 8 teams in VT's schedule, and VT somehow drops 2 games in those new 8 to finish 21-10 (ACC play held as-is), they make the tournament, maybe even as a 7-8 seed. Simple fact is they scheduled for success by beating up on tomato cans, and it came back to bite them. Play some better competition throughout the year and you'll make it in.
I agree they scheduled "down" however they didn't get much help with the "big" teams they played:
win vs. Penn State (defending NIT champs)
win vs. Seton Hall
win vs. Iowa
win vs. Georgia
loss vs. Temple
More than anyting it bothers me that a 20 win ACC team that went 10-6 in league play is not getting in. It doesn't set a good precedent for the league.
I can see the ACC angle too, but the truth is as much as we follow it and love the league--the ACC was down this year. We were lucky to get the teams in that we got in. I thought all we would get in was Duke/MD/Clemson/FSU. Instead, we got those plus GT/Wake, and VT was one of the last ones out. The committee, I think, gave the ACC more than its' due this year, all things considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
As for VT and those games you just listed--keep those games the same and swap the 8 out that they had w/the 8 teams I mentioned. Don't you think that would have made a huge SOS difference and made those teams that underachieved like Iowa/Georga/Penn St/Seton Hall a null point when looking at the schedule come selection time?
Honestly, had VT beat Maryland at home (lost 104-100 in 2 OT) or beat Miami in the ACC Tournament none of this would even be mentioned. They shot themselves in the foot but at the same time I have a hard time seeing how their resume is worse than some of those that got in.
my only complaint with VT not getting in goes back to WF as well. VT finished with a better record within the conference (VT 10-6 ; WF 9-7) and beat WF head to head.
Yeah, perhaps Wake had some other big wins there, but how do you punish VT for losing to Miami in the first round of the ACC tourny but not punish WF who has played terrible the past 2 weeks?
I'm a fan of neither and actually share PVFan's concern that a 10-6 ACC team missed out on the tournament.
Im a Duke fan, but it seemed as though the committee contradicted themselves on this one. How do they see a 10-6 ACC team as not worthy of a bid, but then give the ACC Champ and Tourny champ a 1 seed and have them as the 3rd overall team?
My opinion of you just hit the floor.Quote:
I'm a Duke fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7teen
sorry to hear that
Not saying they couldn't have scheduled better, which definitely would've helped. I had no issue with VT being excluded the prior two years because 1) Their overall record wasn't quite good enough and 2) Other teams were a little more deserving.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoeburnCane
My original point was (and still is): make the case that Cal, UTEP and Utah State somehow had a better resume' than VT. The same criticisms can be leveled against those three that were leveled against Tech and Tech played in a much tougher league.
Those three all won their regular season league titles. So what? None of those leagues (except for MAYBE the Pac 10 with Washington) would have gotten more than one bid without conference tournament upsets.
The ACC had six teams make the tournament, VT beat three of them (plus they were 0-2 vs the top two, not 0-4) and finished tied for third. The bottom teams in the ACC are capable of beating the top teams (NC State beat FSU twice, plus Wake, Duke and Clemson, AND Marquette OOC; Miami beat Wake and VT twice, plus GT and Minnesota). Does anyone think the worst (or even the middle) teams in the Pac 10, WAC and CUSA are capable of that?
And, here are each of the four teams records vs #s 101-200 and 201+ respectively
Utah State: 6-2, 10-0 (total 16-2)
California: 16-3, 1-0 (17-3)
UTEP: 8-2, 10-0 (18-2)
VT: 6-1, 9-0 (15-1)
Interesting how VT gets all the criticism for the soft schedule.
Your complaint has some validity in terms of VT vs. other teams' resumes (for instance, I don't think Cal in particular should be in the tourney), but the truth remains what I said--schedule better, and it's not an issue.
I posted those 8 tomato cans they played versus 8 teams that they could have easily scheduled to make sure they had a better SOS than a bunch of other teams that got into the tourney. That comparison illustrates the glaring weakness of their schedule. It's not like that schedule w/the teams I suggested would have been murderer's row, if VT's good enough to be in the tourney--they could have navigated it at 6-2 at worst. They may have still been on the bubble at 21-10, but they would have probably gotten the nod due to actually playing someone other than powerhouses like Longwood/Brown/UMBC/etc.
Throw around what other numbers you want, but that's what it ultimately came down to, that and they couldn't beat Miami in the ACCT.
Wake had 6 wins against the RPI Top 50,theres no way VT deserved to be in over them.
and 10-6 in the ACC doesnt mean near what it used to mean, especially considering they only had one team in the RPI Top 20.
At least VT beat a couple tournamen teams, UTEP didn't beat anyone in the tournament except Houston. The only reason Houston is even in the tournament is because they beat UTEP in the conference finals. This committee in particular felt sorry for small schools and put them in. 75-80% of the time VT gets in.
I'm having a hard time with this.
Early, everyone was talking about Tech's weak OoS sked.
Then we don't fare well agaisnt the top teams.
Then we choke in the tourney.
We MIGHT have won a first rd. game, but not 2. No way.
I was EXTREMELY happy the bubble burst.
We should play 4 more games, 3 at home.
An extra week of 2 or practice, extra home games... what's not to love?
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
They have wins @ New Mexico State *12 seed Midwest,and Arkansas State, one of the play in teams.
I forgot New Mexico St. I have a hard time counting Arkansas State. Even then, if you count them all including the one that got in by beating UTEP they beat three. VT beat, Wake, Clemson, and GT. All three of whom are better than UTEP or any team they beat. The committee just felt sorry for the little guy I guess.
I'm miles away from ever thinking of being a VT fan, but they should have got in. It proves what I've always said, college athletics will always be argued, playoff format or not. Teams, most rightfully so, are complaining that this team got in and they didnt. So we cant solve the selection process letting 65 teams into a tourney, and we're to get it right letting 8,12, or 16 have a football playoff? The tournament will work itself out, like the bowl games and football NC always does. JMHO.
have you watched UTEP play??Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
they can really make some noise. Character is a monster. He was supposed to be the next big thing at Louisville, but he had some trouble and now he is at UTEP.
Have you watched VT play? They have a guy who finished 3rd in ACC POY Voting. Delaney is a star in a power conference.
im not saying UTEP is any more deserving than VT, I am saying that they arent a terrible team.
some teams had to get left out. miss state was playing as good as anybody at teh end, and tehy didnt make it either.
the committee favored small teams over the power conferences this year, and itll be the exact opposite next year, lots of big time conferences and no little teams