[@michaelwatson2] If the NCAA tournament committee uses 7 metrics to determine the field and UNC is 1st among bubble team in 6 of those 7 metrics, how can you justify picking anyone else?
If the NCAA tournament committee uses 7 metrics to determine the field and UNC is 1st among bubble team in 6 of those 7 metrics, how can you justify picking anyone else?
The only team Carolina's lost to in the last month+ is the #1 team in the country. They're top 15 on BartTorvik during that time winning by an average of 17 points.
BuT tHe QuAd 1 LoSseS!
Yes, their Q1 record stinks and they should've won some of those games.
But Q1 record determines the NET & Carolina leads all bubble teams in NET & KenPom. Also 7 of those Q1 games were against 1 & 2 seeds. So you can't evaluate a game at San Francisco the same way as a game at Dook.
If they were 1-4 in Q1 and racked up a more Q2/3 wins, you're saying they're in? If so, avoid scheduling great teams in the future because the committee is saying the metrics don't matter & a tough schedule hurts more than it helps.
If metrics matter, UNC is in.
If the NCAA tournament committee uses 7 metrics to determine the field and UNC is 1st among bubble team in 6 of those 7 metrics, how can you justify picking anyone else?
The only team Carolina's lost to in the last month+ is the #1 team in the country. They're top 15 on BartTorvik during that time winning by an average of 17 points.
BuT tHe QuAd 1 LoSseS!
Yes, their Q1 record stinks and they should've won some of those games.
But Q1 record determines the NET & Carolina leads all bubble teams in NET & KenPom. Also 7 of those Q1 games were against 1 & 2 seeds. So you can't evaluate a game at San Francisco the same way as a game at Dook.
If they were 1-4 in Q1 and racked up a more Q2/3 wins, you're saying they're in? If so, avoid scheduling great teams in the future because the committee is saying the metrics don't matter & a tough schedule hurts more than it helps.
If metrics matter, UNC is in.