Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: Washpost68 and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS
Posted at 11:51 AM ET, 01/17/2011

NCAA tournament resume comparison

By Eric Prisbell

These two resumes are similar, and no one would have guessed that before the season (only games against division I opponents are included):

Team A
Record: 11-5
RPI: 18
SOS: 7
Vs. top 50: 3-4
Road/neutral court record: 3-4
Best win: Washington (21)
Worst loss: Penn State (57)

Team B
Record: 11-5
RPI: 13
SOS: 3
Vs. top 50: 3-4
Road/neutral court record: 5-3
Best win: Georgetown (8)
Worst loss: St. Bonaventure (95)

So, the records are the same. The RPIs and SOSs are virtually identical. Both teams have the same number of top 50 wins. Team B's best win is slightly more impressive. But Team B's worst loss is slightly more damaging. You may give the edge to Team B by a hair. Or maybe you give these teams roughly the same seed in the NCAA tournament. In any event, Team A is by no means clearly the better team on paper, and that is the surprising part.

Who are the teams? Team A is Michigan State, which was expected to be among the strongest national title contenders. Team B is St. John's, which was expected to be, at best, in the middle of the pack in the Big East. After a four-game stretch against Notre Dame (twice), Syracuse and Georgetown, Steve Lavin's team emerged with a 2-2 record. The schedule remains tough with Louisville, Cincinnati, Georgetown and Duke on deck. But, to date, St. John's has done everything it has needed to do. And its resume looks a lot like that of Michigan State's, which says a lot about how both team's seasons have been going.

By Eric Prisbell  | January 17, 2011; 11:51 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Where do Maryland, Virginia Tech and Georgetown stand today?
Next: Kemba Walker the difference for Connecticut against Villanova

No comments have been posted to this entry.

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company