A few people were hanging on hope provided by extreme outliers in the bracketology game. 4 out of 110. Guys like that are trying to zig rather than zag so they can make claims of genius if they get it right. And can still claim 95% accuracy.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
2018 NIT...
- Thread starter NE FREAK
- Start date
You are correct. It used to be a complete stand alone tourney. At that time there were matchups and no brackets either. Win and the the next opponent would be decided from the winners in some back room.
By the way. I agree they did not play fav to PSU.
5 seed is incredibly low IMO. I’m not outraged but it doesn’t sit well with me either. Boys better bring it and use this as a springboard for next season. Play a strong tournament and work your asses off in the off-season getting better.
There’s your motivation. That is flat out disrespectful. Nebraska has every reason to come out and crack skulls. We’ll see if they do.
...and Nebraska as a 5 seed in the NIT is laughable.
...and Nebraska as a 5 seed in the NIT is laughable.
Yep.
These few "experts" knew they'd get more attention -- at least in Lincoln -- by proclaiming Nebraska as in. Got themselves Tweeted and re-Tweeted all over the place. Appear in news articles, radio shows, etc. Got their name out there, so they're happy.
And yes ... fact is, there's only about 4-6 teams that are in question most seasons (maybe it was 6-8 this season -- but whatever). Get half of those, miss the other half ... the rest were easy guesses anyhow, and you get your 95% and claim "expert/genius" status. Honestly, if you can't pick at least 90% of the tournament teams, you obviously aren't paying any attention to college hoops.
Last edited:
I didn't mean to say Penn State got preference over Nebraska , just that Penn State always seems to get favorable decisions from NCAA
So we are a lower half seeded team in the NIT but we beat Kansas and we'd have been in?!? With the way we are seeded we would have needed 26 wins to make the dance. I'm shocked at our seeding.
I thought for sure NU would get a home game in the 1st round of the NIT. A 5-seed seems incredibly low, but I'm guessing everything between the 3-6 seeds is a pretty big crap shoot.
It makes you wonder if the Kansas win would have been enough. We just got outranked by a 10-10 sec conference team in Mississippi State.
I think it shows that what caliber of team you beat is important. At the end of the day, for all the wins NU collected this season, only 1 came against a quality opponent (in the eyes of the selection committee). NU's resume was pretty similar to a 2nd place mid-major team. Lots of wins, good looking conference record, but very little substance.
Hey TCU was a five seed last year and ran away with it. Lets do the same
When it comes down to it all the Big 10 teams that were seeded ahead of us, we lost at least once to them
I think your last thought says it all.
So many people believe NU should have been in ... because ... Big Ten.
But that's not how it works. As I've said already today and many times in past years, the committee's job is to select by individual team's merit. Not conference affiliation. Not counting number of teams "in" from each conference. They don't do that when selecting teams.
Nebraska was treated like Middle Tennessee State and St. Mary's. Because their resumes were very similar. Lots of wins. Lots of beating the teams they were supposed to. But very little to show for beating quality teams.
MSTU had 24 wins. Lost to Auburn by 6 and Miami by 3. Didn't lose a single game by more than single digits all season. But they only beat one tournament team: Murray State.
St. Mary's had 28 wins. Split with Gonzaga. Beat New Mexico State. But that's pretty much it.
And that's basically what Nebraska did as well.
It was clear. And we heard this all season ... quality wins ... tier one/quadrant one were going to be emphasized. And that's what kept these teams out. And that's how OU and ASU got in. Not that I fully agree with that -- but it was pretty clear that the entire season -- not just the last 10-12-15 games would be analyzed equally -- with quality wins being huge.
I'm not saying I like it. Actually, I always prefer seeing the high win total teams from mid-majors in the dance over a major conference team that either was fading in the stretch or finished with a .500 type record in their conference. I saw some analysis recently that showed that the high win total at-large teams from mid-majors tend to win at a greater frequency than the middle of the pack, major conference at-large teams.
That’s what the media does. The few brackets on Bracket Matrix that had us in were just a small sample size, something like 4 out of 100. There was never a good chance, I put it at like 15% and that was before some auto-bid steals. I probably would have had us at less than 5% heading into today and even that was probably too high.
The only people who were “duped” by the media were people who didn’t know anything about the process. I’m convinced that some of our local media don’t know much of anything either.
Last edited:
Miles talks about the selection and NIT but isn't turning it down;
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle....6795&DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=211705426&DB_OEM_ID=100
I say, let's win it all.
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle....6795&DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=211705426&DB_OEM_ID=100
I say, let's win it all.
