Sign in to follow this  
Billy B

NCAA Basketball

Recommended Posts

http://sportsline.com/collegebasketball/ma...ts/viewable_nit

NIT bracket is out. Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, and Arizona State get the one seeds.

http://www.gazellegroup.com/cbi/cbi_bracket08.pdf

The CBI's is out as well. Virginia, Washington, and Cincy are the only big conference schools playing in it.

First person to make the "We're number 66!" joke gets punched in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're number 66!

Oh, wait. You're right, it's not funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.gazellegroup.com/cbi/cbi_bracket08.pdf

The CBI's is out as well. Virginia, Washington, and Cincy are the only big conference schools playing in it.

Hooray! Let's see if Bradley can get a nifty banner after all this year. :D All they need is for "Jekyll" Bradley to show up for 4 or 5 games.

(Although, I saw some reports that said the Big XII was not accepting bids to this tournament, maybe that's a reason for so few majors there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First person to make the "We're number 66!" joke gets punched in the face.

Fine... We're the #1! mediocre team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the good ole NIT...Not Invited Tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, you can add the CBI to that list.

Oh, and with Cincy being in... Yeah. WTF?!? Why the hell do you invite a team that's 13-18 like them when a 26-7 IUPUI or a 25 win Wagner team could of taken the invite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, you can add the CBI to that list.

Oh, and with Cincy being in... Yeah. WTF?!? Why the hell do you invite a team that's 13-18 like them when a 26-7 IUPUI or a 25 win Wagner team could of taken the invite.

They couldn't pony up the $60,000 in ticket sales?

That or the CBI's organizers were desperate for any major teams they could get their hands on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBM, numbers mean nothing, it should have been what was on the field than what happened in the RPI, SOS. Arizona State was a far better school this season and I do believe because Arizona is a school based on prestige, Arizona State was screwed. Look what is on the field not on paper, ASU was the far better school. In 2 years when Lute is gone they will still be the better school. This year I believe we have seen the baton handed. ASU SCREWED

I don't know how you can say ASU was far better on the court. They had nearly identical conference records (9-11 vs. 9-10). Is there a formula that says who is better on the court? I frankly think that Arizona getting in on prestige is bull****, but that's my opinion. I don't think, either, that you can base "who is better" on only (and they were very close) head-to-head matchups alone when Zona did so much better in non-conference play(I know you said no numbers, but their non-conference RPI was 5). I don't know how you judge who is better on the court but the Committee person said they did talk to "basketball" people who talked about teams' style of play, etc., and that influenced their decision somewhat. So I would have to guess Zona wins "on the court" too.

okay than talk to me on this. Did they beat 5 teams who were in the top 50 in the RPI? No ASU did, did they sweep their main rival this year? No ASU did, people I have talked to the past few hours agree that it was their prestige that got them that spot. They were an NIT team that bulls*** there way into the dance and were lucky to get in. So you say BS on prestige I say BS on the court. The better team was left out. You and I will disagree on this. Better leave it as is. ASU was screwed. ASU had the better record. ASU swept Arizona. Yeah rankings had a great deal in determining, but head to head should have been the number 1 key to look at how it should have been done. Arizona should have been the one left out. My opinion, and it's not going to change!

Well you are obviously not going to budge, but I thought I would point out that Arizona actually had 5 wins against top 50 teams as well; and they had less losses(5-8 vs. 5-9) as well. I completely disagree on prestige and on judging primarily on head to head, but we'll leave that as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBM, numbers mean nothing, it should have been what was on the field than what happened in the RPI, SOS. Arizona State was a far better school this season and I do believe because Arizona is a school based on prestige, Arizona State was screwed. Look what is on the field not on paper, ASU was the far better school. In 2 years when Lute is gone they will still be the better school. This year I believe we have seen the baton handed. ASU SCREWED

I don't know how you can say ASU was far better on the court. They had nearly identical conference records (9-11 vs. 9-10). Is there a formula that says who is better on the court? I frankly think that Arizona getting in on prestige is bull****, but that's my opinion. I don't think, either, that you can base "who is better" on only (and they were very close) head-to-head matchups alone when Zona did so much better in non-conference play(I know you said no numbers, but their non-conference RPI was 5). I don't know how you judge who is better on the court but the Committee person said they did talk to "basketball" people who talked about teams' style of play, etc., and that influenced their decision somewhat. So I would have to guess Zona wins "on the court" too.

okay than talk to me on this. Did they beat 5 teams who were in the top 50 in the RPI? No ASU did, did they sweep their main rival this year? No ASU did, people I have talked to the past few hours agree that it was their prestige that got them that spot. They were an NIT team that bulls*** there way into the dance and were lucky to get in. So you say BS on prestige I say BS on the court. The better team was left out. You and I will disagree on this. Better leave it as is. ASU was screwed. ASU had the better record. ASU swept Arizona. Yeah rankings had a great deal in determining, but head to head should have been the number 1 key to look at how it should have been done. Arizona should have been the one left out. My opinion, and it's not going to change!

Well you are obviously not going to budge, but I thought I would point out that Arizona actually had 5 wins against top 50 teams as well; and they had less losses(5-8 vs. 5-9) as well. I completely disagree on prestige and on judging primarily on head to head, but we'll leave that as is.

My problem with Arizona getting in over ASU is the fact that Kevin O'Neil has basically taken a top-teir contender and crippled them with bad coaching. Lute picked those guys to play a specific type of basketball, yet O'Neil has them run schemes counter to the Olsen-method. They have no excuse with that talent for playing the way they have this year. On the other hand, in only his second year, Herb Sendek has revitalized the Sun Devil program.

I guess all ASU needs to do next year is schedule games against Kansas and Memphis and lose them like UA did to "improve" our S.O.S.

I'm over it. We're gonna take the NIT and I'll be there to witness ASU while all of Tucson can watch the Mildcats lose on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one major problem with the NCAA tournament though.

Even if an independent team were to go unbeaten this year, there's no way they make the Big Dance, because the committee wouldn't put them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't even start, man.

You know darn well Indys don't have great schedules. Even if one went unbeaten, the committee would underseed the school in favor of a BCS school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's one major problem with the NCAA tournament though.

Even if an independent team were to go unbeaten this year, there's no way they make the Big Dance, because the committee wouldn't put them in.

I'm going to go ahead and call "phooey" on that.

First you're taking a big leap of faith claiming that an independent school could go undefeated. In college basketball, independents are usually teams brand new to Division 1. Once they make that transition successfully, they normally have no problem joining a conference. Division 1 conferences range from tiny (Ivy) to Huge (Big East/Old C-USA). Teams like IPFW, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, and UC-Davis all made this transition with ease and are now part of a conference.

Look at the records of the current D-1 Independents

Chicago State (11-17)

Longwood (9-22)

New Jersey Tech (0-29)

Texas Pan-Am (18-13)

Savannah State (13-18)

Utah Valley (15-14)

Winston Salem St (12-18)

Presbyterian (5-24)

Of all of those, UTPA would have the only shot of being considered for the tournament. But look at their wins against such world beaters as:

Texas Permian-Basin, Texas A&M International, Huston-Tillotson (seriously, that's a school), Houston Baptist, and Cal State Bakersfield

But then flip the card, say they went undefeated, then they would have an impressive 31-0 ranking with wins over UT Arlington, Northwestern, Pepperdine, Drake, Tulsa, Alabama and Missouri State. Not shabby. They definitely wouldn't be a #1 seed, but possibly as high as a 9 seed.

Independents have a tough time to begin with. Until they join a conference, they are going to have a hard time finding opponents so they have no chance of beefing up their tournament resume.

Most of these schools only make the transition because they have they have to be D-1 provincial members by the NCAA first, and have conference bids awaiting them as soon as they are approved by the NCAA (I'm fairly certain that Presbyterian is joining the Big South or Southern Conference in a few years)

This year especially, the selection committee showed their commitment to mid-majors by offering invites to deserving teams (re: South Alabama) so it's not unheard of that they'd overlook an undefeated independent team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mount St. Mary?s beat Coppin State 69-60 last night. They now go on to play Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's one major problem with the NCAA tournament though.

Even if an independent team were to go unbeaten this year, there's no way they make the Big Dance, because the committee wouldn't put them in.

Aren't you the same guy that barks against even an undefeated Notre Dame team even sniffing the BCS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mount St. Mary?s beat Coppin State 69-60 last night. They now go on to play Carolina.

If I have one problem with the tournament, it's that the small-conference winners play in the stupid play-in game. I think that they should get 16-seeds or so, and the play-in should be for at-large bids (namely, Arizona and Villanova).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mount St. Mary?s beat Coppin State 69-60 last night. They now go on to play Carolina.

If I have one problem with the tournament, it's that the small-conference winners play in the stupid play-in game. I think that they should get 16-seeds or so, and the play-in should be for at-large bids (namely, Arizona and Villanova).

Yea, I saw that suggested somewhere else and its sounds like a great idea. If your going to expand the tournament make it play-in games for the 12 seeds. Make them major vs. mid-major matchups. There is no reason to "penalize" the teams that actually earn a spot at the tournament, just to add more teams that are questionable to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mount St. Mary?s beat Coppin State 69-60 last night. They now go on to play Carolina.

If I have one problem with the tournament, it's that the small-conference winners play in the stupid play-in game. I think that they should get 16-seeds or so, and the play-in should be for at-large bids (namely, Arizona and Villanova).

Yea, I saw that suggested somewhere else and its sounds like a great idea. If your going to expand the tournament make it play-in games for the 12 seeds. Make them major vs. mid-major matchups. There is no reason to "penalize" the teams that actually earn a spot at the tournament, just to add more teams that are questionable to start with.

Ideally, they should just get rid of the 34th at-large team, and return it to the perfect 64-team format. Chances are, that last at-large team isn't winning a game, much less winning the whole tournament.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mount St. Mary?s beat Coppin State 69-60 last night. They now go on to play Carolina.

If I have one problem with the tournament, it's that the small-conference winners play in the stupid play-in game. I think that they should get 16-seeds or so, and the play-in should be for at-large bids (namely, Arizona and Villanova).

Yea, I saw that suggested somewhere else and its sounds like a great idea. If your going to expand the tournament make it play-in games for the 12 seeds. Make them major vs. mid-major matchups. There is no reason to "penalize" the teams that actually earn a spot at the tournament, just to add more teams that are questionable to start with.

Ideally, they should just get rid of the 34th at-large team, and return it to the perfect 64-team format. Chances are, that last at-large team isn't winning a game, much less winning the whole tournament.....

I totally agree, but if they were going to expand I'd perfer it be for the 12 seeds rather than the 16 seeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mount St. Mary?s beat Coppin State 69-60 last night. They now go on to play Carolina.

If I have one problem with the tournament, it's that the small-conference winners play in the stupid play-in game. I think that they should get 16-seeds or so, and the play-in should be for at-large bids (namely, Arizona and Villanova).

Yea, I saw that suggested somewhere else and its sounds like a great idea. If your going to expand the tournament make it play-in games for the 12 seeds. Make them major vs. mid-major matchups. There is no reason to "penalize" the teams that actually earn a spot at the tournament, just to add more teams that are questionable to start with.

Ideally, they should just get rid of the 34th at-large team, and return it to the perfect 64-team format. Chances are, that last at-large team isn't winning a game, much less winning the whole tournament.....

You may be right, but I'm willing to bet that the '06 Bradley team that ended up in the Sweet 16 was the "last one in". It's not likely the last at larges will advance, but it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this