This just shows how corrupted your thought process is. Criticism of WW going, what, 2-6 in the last month is equivalent to criticizing burrow leading up to the super bowl. At one point LSU was in the discussion for 1-seed. Now it’s 6-seed? If we make the NCAAT I expect a lower seed than that. If the team makes a drastic turnaround, maybe I’ll reevaluate. I haven’t seen any indication of change, or improvement (parish the thought), but maybe we’ll turn it around.
incorrect. its not important at all. the top 25 is subjectively voted on, the NET is objective math. selection committee cares far more bout NET. the wise coach cares zero about the top 25 and whole shitload about the NET. so does the wise fan. the top 25 is almost completely inconsequential. the selection committee isnt very interested in subjective metrics like the polls of media etc that make up polls. the analogy i am making about burrow is mocking your pre-criticism of anticipated failure. already speculating about how you will want to fire wade if he does poorly next year. maybe we wait until things go bad before imagining it. a six seed is fine. you are afraid to describe a metric for what constitutes a good season, because your points are stupid, but i think the wise fan is pleased with making the tournament every year with a 6ish seed. makin the tournament with a 6 seed is a good season. not making the tournament at all is a bad season. coaches that make the tournament dont get fired very much, and especially coaches that make the tournament every year like wade is doing. its the whole point of the season. lsu is pretty much a lead pipe lock to make the tournament, because of the net, which is buoyed by wins over kentucky (4 in net) and Tennessee(11) . as well as wake forest (33), liberty, la tech, and belmont etc. belmont, for example is higher ranked than miss st. oh yes we are well aware you are a pessimist. .
let me expand on how wrong you are about this and why wade, who is the most detail oriented guy around, often doesnt know the poll data. because it doesnt mean shit. its literally "not criteria". https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...ttee-uses-to-compare-ncaa-tournament-resumes/ The data that matters While no one criterion is necessarily THE most important on the team sheets, it is possible to group the criteria by relative importance, so I will attempt to do that here. In short, the committee is looking for teams that have performed well, especially away from home since the tournament is not played on home floors. No attempt is made to rank the importance of the criteria within a group. Most important Games by quadrant, listing results and upcoming games Records by quadrant, away and neutral Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (SOS) Overall SOS Overall road and neutral records Non-Division I losses Some value Average NET win and loss Overall record Non-Conference record, road record Not nothing, but not very important NET and other computer rankings Overall home records, non-conference and by quadrant Game scoring margins Not criteria Conference records and standings AP Top 25, Coaches Poll Tournament history
The top 25 is fairly reflective of good wins. I respect WW kinda stacking the deck with pretty wins according to the computers; I agree that looks good at the end of the year. Where your wins and losses fall in the quadrant system is also pretty important, I believe. We have a couple of bad losses this far, which hurts. Our Q1 W-L is pretty pedestrian. I think there is something about Q1A for the cream of the crop games; I think we’re probably pretty meh there as well, with a fortuitous win against an injured UK team. A top 6 seed would be pretty good for a down year; I don’t see any it based on quality of play (which you’re blind to).
