(08-05-2013 08:23 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 08:15 PM)STexMiner Wrote:  #96 and #5 in CUSA: Tulsa.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/7067

Well if Tulsa is 5 then that leaves UTEP, USM, Charlotte and ? (UAB, Marshall or ECU).

...or La Tech who likely returns about the best team in CUSA and should absolutely be on that list, if not first. I have no faith in this stupid site regardless if they put us in there or not it's a pile of $hit.

(08-06-2013 07:54 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 08:23 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 08:15 PM)STexMiner Wrote:  #96 and #5 in CUSA: Tulsa.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/7067

Well if Tulsa is 5 then that leaves UTEP, USM, Charlotte and ? (UAB, Marshall or ECU).

...or La Tech who likely returns about the best team in CUSA and should absolutely be on that list, if not first. I have no faith in this stupid site regardless if they put us in there or not it's a pile of $hit.

Very true, I completely overlooked that.

La Tech is really solid and should be considered no worse than 3rd in CUSA, although nobody should be angry if they are ranked first either.

(08-06-2013 08:46 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Is 144 teams = NCAA + NIT + CIT + CBI?

68 (NCAA) + 32 (NIT) + 32 (CIT) + 16 (CBI) = 148

(08-07-2013 09:46 PM)STexMiner Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 08:46 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Is 144 teams = NCAA + NIT + CIT + CBI?

68 (NCAA) + 32 (NIT) + 32 (CIT) + 16 (CBI) = 148

Then why "144 teams" being listed?

(08-07-2013 10:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:46 PM)STexMiner Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 08:46 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Is 144 teams = NCAA + NIT + CIT + CBI?

68 (NCAA) + 32 (NIT) + 32 (CIT) + 16 (CBI) = 148

Then why "144 teams" being listed?

No idea, but they've been doing this since before the CBI or CIT existed.

#77 and #4 in CUSA: Southern Miss.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/7227

Interesting.

(08-24-2013 10:14 PM)STexMiner Wrote:  #77 and #4 in CUSA: Southern Miss.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/7227

Interesting.

That probably indicates UTEP, LTU and probably MTSU are the last 3 for CUSA.

Maybe also Charlotte.

(08-28-2013 02:53 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-24-2013 10:14 PM)STexMiner Wrote:  #77 and #4 in CUSA: Southern Miss.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/7227

Interesting.

That probably indicates UTEP, LTU and probably MTSU are the last 3 for CUSA.

Maybe also Charlotte.

MTSU was #104 or something like that.

In at #66 and #3 in CUSA: Louisiana Tech.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/7288

I heard that the C-USA Tournament in El Paso will be set up like a regional bracket in the NCAAs: 1/16, 2/15, and so on. A team has to go 4-0 in order to win the championship. Is that really the way it will be set up?

(09-05-2013 09:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I heard that the C-USA Tournament in El Paso will be set up like a regional bracket in the NCAAs: 1/16, 2/15, and so on. A team has to go 4-0 in order to win the championship. Is that really the way it will be set up?

No, that is incorrect.

Championship Format: Each team qualifies for the tournament, with the exception of FIU this season. The top four seeds will receive a double-bye, seeds five through nine receive a bye. The winner of the single-elimination tournament will gain the league's automatic bid to the NCAA Championship.

From the C-USA site: http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-ba...ormat.html

(09-05-2013 09:53 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I heard that the C-USA Tournament in El Paso will be set up like a regional bracket in the NCAAs: 1/16, 2/15, and so on. A team has to go 4-0 in order to win the championship. Is that really the way it will be set up?

No, the best way is to only include 12.

Chappy, thanks for the link on that.

I knew that what I'd been told didn't sound right, but I didn't have any better information to refute it.

That format rewards the top 4 teams, which I think is deserved. But it sure puts a lot of pressure on the #10-#15 seeds, which would have to win 5 games in 5 days in order to punch their ticket to the Dance.

Who wants the 10th to 15th ranked teams representing the conference in the tourney anyway especially if we only end up getting a couple of bids? They're just going to get a 16 seed and get blown out in the first round.

I like the format. Gives your best teams the best opportunity of getting to the tournament both as the champ or as an at large and further if at large is in play you don't get an extra penalty by playing another low RPI team in your own conference.

(09-05-2013 11:55 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Who wants the 10th to 15th ranked teams representing the conference in the tourney anyway especially if we only end up getting a couple of bids? They're just going to get a 16 seed and get blown out in the first round.

I like the format. Gives your best teams the best opportunity of getting to the tournament both as the champ or as an at large and further if at large is in play you don't get an extra penalty by playing another low RPI team in your own conference.

Agreed with all of this. I wasn't complaining about the format, just noticing that the reward for regular-season success is very high compared to most other conference tournaments.

I'd actually be fine if the bottom 3 teams were simply excluded from the tournament altogether. Have a field of 12 and do it the "normal" way with the top 4 teams getting a first-round bye.

So far we have

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #104
Conference Rank: #6 C-USA

Tulsa Golden Hurricanes
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #96
Conference Rank: #5 Conference USA

Southern Miss Golden Eagles
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #77
Conference Rank: #4 C-USA

Louisiana Tech Bulldogs
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #66
Conference Rank: #3 Conference USA

It will be interesting to see who they have as the other two.

(09-06-2013 01:01 PM)BhamSnap Wrote:  So far we have

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #104
Conference Rank: #6 C-USA

Tulsa Golden Hurricanes
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #96
Conference Rank: #5 Conference USA

Southern Miss Golden Eagles
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #77
Conference Rank: #4 C-USA

Louisiana Tech Bulldogs
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #66
Conference Rank: #3 Conference USA

It will be interesting to see who they have as the other two.

One would have to be UTEP. The other is likely Charlotte. Longshots might be UAB or ECU.

(09-06-2013 01:09 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:01 PM)BhamSnap Wrote:  So far we have

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #104
Conference Rank: #6 C-USA

Tulsa Golden Hurricanes
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #96
Conference Rank: #5 Conference USA

Southern Miss Golden Eagles
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #77
Conference Rank: #4 C-USA

Louisiana Tech Bulldogs
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #66
Conference Rank: #3 Conference USA

It will be interesting to see who they have as the other two.

One would have to be UTEP. The other is likely Charlotte. Longshots might be UAB or ECU.

If we aren't in the top 144 this list is a complete joke. UAB certainly has no buisness preseason top 65, we probably wouldn't either and while Charlotte certainly should be top 144 as well they shouldn't be top 65 the way they limped to the end of the season after Mayfield was booted. Especially losing Braswell, Clayton and Nickerson as well. Anyone that was watching already saw what a team with out Mayfield looked like. UTEP lost their McDonalds's AA they were counting on as well. La Tech should have been the favorite. Lot of dumb on there list.

(09-06-2013 02:04 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:09 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:01 PM)BhamSnap Wrote:  So far we have

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #104
Conference Rank: #6 C-USA

Tulsa Golden Hurricanes
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #96
Conference Rank: #5 Conference USA

Southern Miss Golden Eagles
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #77
Conference Rank: #4 C-USA

Louisiana Tech Bulldogs
2013-2014 Overall Rank: #66
Conference Rank: #3 Conference USA

It will be interesting to see who they have as the other two.

One would have to be UTEP. The other is likely Charlotte. Longshots might be UAB or ECU.

If we aren't in the top 144 this list is a complete joke. UAB certainly has no buisness preseason top 65, we probably wouldn't either and while Charlotte certainly should be top 144 as well they shouldn't be top 65 the way they limped to the end of the season after Mayfield was booted. Especially losing Braswell, Clayton and Nickerson as well. Anyone that was watching already saw what a team with out Mayfield looked like. UTEP lost their McDonalds's AA they were counting on as well. La Tech should have been the favorite. Lot of dumb on there list.

First of all, Charlotte didn't lose Clatyton. He's still on the team, not sure where you heard that.

Also, I still do not understand why you think ECU beating scrubs in a tournament no one has heard of makes them better than the teams that went to the NCAA and NIT tournaments.