|
|
Post by calsufan on Mar 16, 2014 12:14:14 GMT -5
I was just listening to Rafferty and Lundquist talking about St. Joe's and they mentioned that La Salle was a "bad loss" for St. Joe's. I get that we had a losing record, but we still finished in the Top 100 (95) for RPI, so how is that a bad loss? It ticked me off that we got bad pub. like that on national TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by lwc4591 on Mar 16, 2014 12:19:12 GMT -5
Because the announcers are looking for a reason to keep St.Joe's out of tourney and I agree losing to a team in top 100 is something but one of them is not a bad loss. I'll take the bad loss if Joey's don't make tourney but I think they are already in after beating St. B. If they win today it won't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Mar 16, 2014 12:53:08 GMT -5
There's a stigma that we're a much worse team by record than we really were in talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kovy on Mar 16, 2014 14:12:54 GMT -5
I actually don't have a problem with it. We finished under .500 for the season and didn't make it to the quarterfinals of our conference tournament. Other than the RPI number we were bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltrain38 on Mar 16, 2014 14:18:02 GMT -5
Bit of a moot point now
|
|
|
|
Post by thehawkisdead on Mar 16, 2014 15:22:41 GMT -5
I was just listening to Rafferty and Lundquist talking about St. Joe's and they mentioned that La Salle was a "bad loss" for St. Joe's. I get that we had a losing record, but we still finished in the Top 100 (95) for RPI, so how is that a bad loss? It ticked me off that we got bad pub. like that on national TV. Jumping back to the original question, we just weren't a good team this year. SJ lost to a sub-.500 team on its home court, on senior day, to a local rival, with a chance to all but ensure itself a tourney berth. Forget the RPI, forget the SOS, anyone who watched us play this year (all of us included) are fully aware of how lousy this team ended up being. All of those factors equal a bad loss last Sunday for SJ. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 18:11:02 GMT -5
La Salle is not a "loss" that the committee would have held against them. It was a season split, and that should count for something. Losing to the 8th place team in a 6 bid conference, too? Sometimes, these "experts" are just full of hot air, trying to put words in the committee's mouth. This is no longer necessary to do, because the committee lays out all of the rules in advance. It is no longer much of a secret as it used to be when they did everything behind closed doors. There is almost no controversy now, as the "picks" have become very predictable by anyone who understands the rules.
The definition of a bad loss on the resume is one to a sub-100 team, and a bad loss to a sub-200 team is a double whammy.
|
|
