Thoughts on this potential resume

[Hitman Hart]

With 68 teams now I'd say IN. If it were still 64/65 I'd think out

1 Top 50 win is still a terrible number in the 68 team era. Several bracketologists refused to even talk about Wake Forest last year until they got their 2nd Top 50 win of the season on March 1st. Wake followed that up with another Top 50 win to close out the regular season. They ended up making the First Four with 3 top 50 wins.

1 Top 50 win just isn't going to cut it, unless the bubble is historically weak.

The team being discussed in the OP is out.

 

[rmilia1]

1 Top 50 win is still a terrible number in the 68 team era. Several bracketologists refused to even talk about Wake Forest last year until they got their 2nd Top 50 win of the season on March 1st. Wake followed that up with another Top 50 win to close out the regular season. They ended up making the First Four with 3 top 50 wins.

1 Top 50 win just isn't going to cut it, unless the bubble is historically weak.

The team being discussed in the OP is out.

Sure but all the other stuff is decent . I've always valued having very few bad losses as much as good wins . Consistency is important in the bottom part of the bracket

 

[Hitman Hart]

Sure but all the other stuff is decent . I've always valued having very few bad losses as much as good wins . Consistency is important in the bottom part of the bracket

You may value that, but the committee doesn't. Wake had zero bad losses last year, and Wake didn't have a snowballs chance of making the NCAA Tournament until they beat Louisville and Virginia Tech late in the season.

Going 1-8 against the Top 50 is pretty atrocious.

 

[rmilia1]

You may value that, but the committee doesn't. Wake had zero bad losses last year, and Wake didn't have a snowballs chance of making the NCAA Tournament until they beat Louisville and Virginia Tech late in the season.

Going 1-8 against the Top 50 is pretty atrocious.

We will see. As far as I'm aware they've always looked at sub 100 losses as well. In any event most teams have a bad metric or two at the bottom of the bracket. All the other stuff here is Rock solid. 1-8 is bad but so is 3-7 and that's the kind of team you'll be competing with.

 

[Hitman Hart]

We will see. As far as I'm aware they've always looked at sub 100 losses as well. In any event most teams have a bad metric or two at the bottom of the bracket. All the other stuff here is Rock solid. 1-8 is bad but so is 3-7 and that's the kind of team you'll be competing with.

3-7 against Top 50 teams is about 50000x better on a resume than 1-8 against Top 50 teams.

No one cares about 0 sub 100 losses if you only have one top 50 win.

 

[Skerpokes]

Why is revealing who the team is such a big deal?

 

[ericd7633]

Why is revealing who the team is such a big deal?

To try and take any unwarranted biases out of the equation.

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

If you guys can go 13-5 or 11-7 with beating nevada then ... in.

I don't know if we can afford that many bad losses. We have two conference losses, I think we'll lose to San Diego State on the road, we played well against Nevada on the road so hopefully we can beat them at home. We beat UNLV on the road already and play them again at home. We've already played a lot of our tricky road games against the mid-level conference teams, we can't afford losses to any of the land mines

 

[SteelersPride]

who is it, pm me