If you want to be recognized and get into the NCAA tourney you need to win some high profile games. USM didn't really win any this year and just didn't deserve an at large.

People are trying to question NC State getting in, but NC State had a better resume than USM. Sure, NC State has more chances to win more top 25, top 100 games every year because of their conference. Tough luck for us. UAB would have been in a similar situation as USM had we not been so bad this year. We only played 9 top 100 games the whole year. USM only played 7. That's just not worthy of an at large unless you pretty much sweep the table.

The conference just has too many 200+ teams so you pretty much have to schedule a top 50-100 OOC sos or run the table if you're going to get an at large most years in this conference. Nearly every team in this conference needs to cut the amount of 200+ teams they play by 30-40%. Look at La Tech's schedule: No top 25 teams and only 10 top 100 games played. 15 200+ games played. Those aren't good numbers :(.

Not a single top 6 team in the A10 played more than 7 200+ games. None of the top half of WCC had more than 6 or 7 200+. A single team in the top half of the MWC had double digit 200+ games.

I know this is preaching to the choir. This isn't meant as a shot at anyone's team either

(03-28-2014 03:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:49 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:15 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I'm beginning to believe USM has no idea what an at-large resume looks like.

Not sure about our admins, but most of our fans have no idea how the selection process works. Most think we should have been in solely because of our RPI. We may have been one of the top 36 at-large teams however we did not have the resume of an at-large team.

ummmmmmmkay....compare last year to this year....then go back to when we got the at-large.....

get back to me on the subjectivity of all that....

RPI is the sole basis of wins that matter.....and what bad losses are about....that's how teams are supposedly judged.

we had the highest rpi and most amount of wins to not make the tourney the last two years.....

you're really trying to tell me there isn't bias at the selection table.....wtfe.....

It's all about the bias against the smaller schools that aren't located in the media capital of the NE....our resume was good enough to beat out the last handful selected.....it's the bias against the conference that is the issue.....losing memphis this year created even more credibility loss....

I do believe that can and will change moving forward if BB either gets off the crapper of gets canned.....

There are some good hoops teams in this conference....

Oh yeah, let me point this out.....how many teams from the NE are left in the dance.....lmgdfao....almost all are from the midwest or south........

The only bias here is that the committee doesn't like resumes with a lot of good wins. They've made this crystal clear, but you just won't accept the facts.

The year you got the at large, you had 3 top 50 wins. You had 6 wins 51-100. Your RPI was 21 and yours SOS was 48.

Last year you had 3 top 100 wins.(66, 96 and 96) RPI 31 SOS 74
This year, 1 top 50 win and 4 51-100 wins. RPI 34 SOS 132

Are you really trying to compare those seasons like they were remotely close to the same thing? 1 is very different than the other 2.

(03-27-2014 02:56 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 02:43 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 02:06 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  No CUSA team had an at-large tournament resume this season. There was nothing the conference or commissioner's office could do to change that fact. Being on TV more wouldn't have given USM or La Tech more Top 50 wins.

If you are really that ticked off about NIT seeding, then proceed.

But the point is this: other teams that did get bids were less worthy. Until all teams that get in are more worthy than my team, I have a legitimate complaint.

Two words: prove it.

Monarchoptimist, you just used one of my favorite lines. Now you gotta bleed. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................just playing!!!


seriously though, NC State?? Milwaukee?? (The Horizon is nowhere near as good as it used to be!!!) Colorado??. I'll give Oklahoma (who lost to NDSU) a pass this year because I feel like that would be disrespect to North Dakota State to say that OU didn't belong.

Milwaukee and ND State both won their conference tournament and got an automatic bid. NC State had a better resume. Oklahoma had a better resume. Colorado had a better resume, though not by much. That Kansas win really helped them.

(03-29-2014 03:40 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 02:56 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 02:43 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 02:06 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  No CUSA team had an at-large tournament resume this season. There was nothing the conference or commissioner's office could do to change that fact. Being on TV more wouldn't have given USM or La Tech more Top 50 wins.

If you are really that ticked off about NIT seeding, then proceed.

But the point is this: other teams that did get bids were less worthy. Until all teams that get in are more worthy than my team, I have a legitimate complaint.

Two words: prove it.

Monarchoptimist, you just used one of my favorite lines. Now you gotta bleed. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................just playing!!!


seriously though, NC State?? Milwaukee?? (The Horizon is nowhere near as good as it used to be!!!) Colorado??. I'll give Oklahoma (who lost to NDSU) a pass this year because I feel like that would be disrespect to North Dakota State to say that OU didn't belong.

LOL Gotta keep it interesting.

Colorado's best player Spencer Dinwiddie was injured early in Pac 12 play (around Jan. 13th).
If you look at their resume it's loaded (wins over Kansas, Harvard, Oregon, Stanford & Ari St all top 50). But CU wasn't the same after the injury which is why they got destroyed by Pitt (amongst other reasons).

It's really tough to compare CUSA versus a power conference school because the power conference's have so many more chances in conferences. That's why they normally get the nod and why OOC scheduling is so important for CUSA.

Only playing a team once in conference play hurt as well. For example when ODU put together four at large resumes in 8 seasons, they played the best CAA schools twice.

It takes a couple of your best conference teams to schedule well and then go out and win a number of those games. ODU's last NCAA Tournament season, they had 11 Top 100 RPI games within CAA play. The reason for that? ODU had an unbelievable non conference RPI and raised the RPI of VCU and George Mason who they played five times that season.

It hurts USM that they don't play La Tech, MTSU and UTEP twice every season. They are losing Top 100 opportunities in conference play.

One other thing the CAA did was they chose who they played twice each year. Each school would make a number of selections (1,2 and 3?) and that would have an impact as to who they played. ODU chose to play the best teams in the conference twice and while it hurt their chance to win regular season championships, it helped their at large profile.

(03-29-2014 10:51 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:49 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:15 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I'm beginning to believe USM has no idea what an at-large resume looks like.

Not sure about our admins, but most of our fans have no idea how the selection process works. Most think we should have been in solely because of our RPI. We may have been one of the top 36 at-large teams however we did not have the resume of an at-large team.

ummmmmmmkay....compare last year to this year....then go back to when we got the at-large.....

get back to me on the subjectivity of all that....

RPI is the sole basis of wins that matter.....and what bad losses are about....that's how teams are supposedly judged.

we had the highest rpi and most amount of wins to not make the tourney the last two years.....

you're really trying to tell me there isn't bias at the selection table.....wtfe.....

It's all about the bias against the smaller schools that aren't located in the media capital of the NE....our resume was good enough to beat out the last handful selected.....it's the bias against the conference that is the issue.....losing memphis this year created even more credibility loss....

I do believe that can and will change moving forward if BB either gets off the crapper of gets canned.....

There are some good hoops teams in this conference....

Oh yeah, let me point this out.....how many teams from the NE are left in the dance.....lmgdfao....almost all are from the midwest or south........

The only bias here is that the committee doesn't like resumes with a lot of good wins. They've made this crystal clear, but you just won't accept the facts.

The year you got the at large, you had 3 top 50 wins. You had 6 wins 51-100. Your RPI was 21 and yours SOS was 48.

Last year you had 3 top 100 wins.(66, 96 and 96) RPI 31 SOS 74
This year, 1 top 50 win and 4 51-100 wins. RPI 34 SOS 132

Are you really trying to compare those seasons like they were remotely close to the same thing? 1 is very different than the other 2.

I always love the comparative post that leaves out the other side of the equation (that would be losses in case you're curious)

I said it was a joke when we weren't selected....DT followed with the exact same comment a couple of days ago in the Herald.....wtfe

...you've really whiffed how demographic bias plays large, and how BB hasn't stood up and pounded the table regarding this issue....

(03-29-2014 06:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:51 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:49 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:15 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I'm beginning to believe USM has no idea what an at-large resume looks like.

Not sure about our admins, but most of our fans have no idea how the selection process works. Most think we should have been in solely because of our RPI. We may have been one of the top 36 at-large teams however we did not have the resume of an at-large team.

ummmmmmmkay....compare last year to this year....then go back to when we got the at-large.....

get back to me on the subjectivity of all that....

RPI is the sole basis of wins that matter.....and what bad losses are about....that's how teams are supposedly judged.

we had the highest rpi and most amount of wins to not make the tourney the last two years.....

you're really trying to tell me there isn't bias at the selection table.....wtfe.....

It's all about the bias against the smaller schools that aren't located in the media capital of the NE....our resume was good enough to beat out the last handful selected.....it's the bias against the conference that is the issue.....losing memphis this year created even more credibility loss....

I do believe that can and will change moving forward if BB either gets off the crapper of gets canned.....

There are some good hoops teams in this conference....

Oh yeah, let me point this out.....how many teams from the NE are left in the dance.....lmgdfao....almost all are from the midwest or south........

The only bias here is that the committee doesn't like resumes with a lot of good wins. They've made this crystal clear, but you just won't accept the facts.

The year you got the at large, you had 3 top 50 wins. You had 6 wins 51-100. Your RPI was 21 and yours SOS was 48.

Last year you had 3 top 100 wins.(66, 96 and 96) RPI 31 SOS 74
This year, 1 top 50 win and 4 51-100 wins. RPI 34 SOS 132

Are you really trying to compare those seasons like they were remotely close to the same thing? 1 is very different than the other 2.

I always love the comparative post that leaves out the other side of the equation (that would be losses in case you're curious)

I said it was a joke when we weren't selected....DT followed with the exact same comment a couple of days ago in the Herald.....wtfe

...you've really whiffed how demographic bias plays large, and how BB hasn't stood up and pounded the table regarding this issue....

I'm not dogging USM because they had a good team and USM is generally my 2nd favorite team in conference, but in most cases (if not all), they had worse losses than teams who got in ahead of them. Other teams may have had more overall losses, but their losses weren't to a 152 RPI (UAB) and 125 RPI (WKU) team, along with the fact that they had better wins and more of them.

Who do you think that USM should have been in over?

(03-29-2014 07:42 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 06:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:51 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:49 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  Not sure about our admins, but most of our fans have no idea how the selection process works. Most think we should have been in solely because of our RPI. We may have been one of the top 36 at-large teams however we did not have the resume of an at-large team.

ummmmmmmkay....compare last year to this year....then go back to when we got the at-large.....

get back to me on the subjectivity of all that....

RPI is the sole basis of wins that matter.....and what bad losses are about....that's how teams are supposedly judged.

we had the highest rpi and most amount of wins to not make the tourney the last two years.....

you're really trying to tell me there isn't bias at the selection table.....wtfe.....

It's all about the bias against the smaller schools that aren't located in the media capital of the NE....our resume was good enough to beat out the last handful selected.....it's the bias against the conference that is the issue.....losing memphis this year created even more credibility loss....

I do believe that can and will change moving forward if BB either gets off the crapper of gets canned.....

There are some good hoops teams in this conference....

Oh yeah, let me point this out.....how many teams from the NE are left in the dance.....lmgdfao....almost all are from the midwest or south........

The only bias here is that the committee doesn't like resumes with a lot of good wins. They've made this crystal clear, but you just won't accept the facts.

The year you got the at large, you had 3 top 50 wins. You had 6 wins 51-100. Your RPI was 21 and yours SOS was 48.

Last year you had 3 top 100 wins.(66, 96 and 96) RPI 31 SOS 74
This year, 1 top 50 win and 4 51-100 wins. RPI 34 SOS 132

Are you really trying to compare those seasons like they were remotely close to the same thing? 1 is very different than the other 2.

I always love the comparative post that leaves out the other side of the equation (that would be losses in case you're curious)

I said it was a joke when we weren't selected....DT followed with the exact same comment a couple of days ago in the Herald.....wtfe

...you've really whiffed how demographic bias plays large, and how BB hasn't stood up and pounded the table regarding this issue....

I'm not dogging USM because they had a good team and USM is generally my 2nd favorite team in conference, but in most cases (if not all), they had worse losses than teams who got in ahead of them. Other teams may have had more overall losses, but their losses weren't to a 152 RPI (UAB) and 125 RPI (WKU) team, along with the fact that they had better wins and more of them.

Who do you think that USM should have been in over?

can you answer a simple question.....how many home losses do we have over the last three years?

put that in perspective when you consider losses...

this is a pointless argument.....I'm sick of pointing out the obvious....you win man

I think that's even more telling honestly, man. Your team only won one away game in the top 150 and only one neutral game in the top 150. 2-5 (29%) when not playing at home against the 150 best teams in the country. Teams like NC State went nearly 50% in their top 150 road/neutral games. You have to schedule better and win some tough road games, especially when road games make up a majority of your top 100 games. That falls on your AD/coach.

(03-29-2014 08:15 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think that's even more telling honestly, man. Your team only won one away game in the top 150 and only one neutral game in the top 150. 2-5 (29%) when not playing at home against the 150 best teams in the country. Teams like NC State went nearly 50% in their top 150 road/neutral games. You have to schedule better and win some tough road games, especially when road games make up a majority of your top 100 games. That falls on your AD/coach.

I agree, and I think this **** is obvious... and I don't want to downplay the USM basketball team's success over the last 5 years or so. We are building something. But the real question is, "what is USM's goal in throwing Banowsky under the bus?" and even after asking the question in several different ways in several different threads, I'm still confused about it. If it's really just that we want someone to stand up and be a cheerleader for this ragtag bunch of Sun Belt refugees, well, that disappoints me. It's just silly. The A-10 didn't get their 37.5 NCAA bids because of their great PR staff.

(03-29-2014 06:16 PM)ODUR8R Wrote:  One other thing the CAA did was they chose who they played twice each year. Each school would make a number of selections (1,2 and 3?) and that would have an impact as to who they played. ODU chose to play the best teams in the conference twice and while it hurt their chance to win regular season championships, it helped their at large profile.

I like that. My concern with playing conference teams twice is if you end up playing the bottom teams twice.

(03-29-2014 11:37 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 08:15 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think that's even more telling honestly, man. Your team only won one away game in the top 150 and only one neutral game in the top 150. 2-5 (29%) when not playing at home against the 150 best teams in the country. Teams like NC State went nearly 50% in their top 150 road/neutral games. You have to schedule better and win some tough road games, especially when road games make up a majority of your top 100 games. That falls on your AD/coach.

I agree, and I think this **** is obvious... and I don't want to downplay the USM basketball team's success over the last 5 years or so. We are building something. But the real question is, "what is USM's goal in throwing Banowsky under the bus?" and even after asking the question in several different ways in several different threads, I'm still confused about it. If it's really just that we want someone to stand up and be a cheerleader for this ragtag bunch of Sun Belt refugees, well, that disappoints me. It's just silly. The A-10 didn't get their 37.5 NCAA bids because of their great PR staff.

me thinks the twoz of yaz should just shrack up....you girls are perfect for each other....

just unbelievable.......

(03-30-2014 08:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:37 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 08:15 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think that's even more telling honestly, man. Your team only won one away game in the top 150 and only one neutral game in the top 150. 2-5 (29%) when not playing at home against the 150 best teams in the country. Teams like NC State went nearly 50% in their top 150 road/neutral games. You have to schedule better and win some tough road games, especially when road games make up a majority of your top 100 games. That falls on your AD/coach.

I agree, and I think this **** is obvious... and I don't want to downplay the USM basketball team's success over the last 5 years or so. We are building something. But the real question is, "what is USM's goal in throwing Banowsky under the bus?" and even after asking the question in several different ways in several different threads, I'm still confused about it. If it's really just that we want someone to stand up and be a cheerleader for this ragtag bunch of Sun Belt refugees, well, that disappoints me. It's just silly. The A-10 didn't get their 37.5 NCAA bids because of their great PR staff.

me thinks the twoz of yaz should just shrack up....you girls are perfect for each other....

just unbelievable.......

You are unbelievable because you won't answer legitimate questions or look at facts. Wins and losses don't matter as much as who you won against. Your home record definitely doesn't mean a damn thing to the selection committee. Who would you have put USM in over? What would you back the selection up with? And I would also expect your coach to talk his team up when it doesn't get selected. Most coaches have some incentives for making the tournament.

"Who would you have put USM in over?"

That's what it boils down to. I've heard people mention Nebraska as a team that got in instead of us, and I just don't see it. Their schedule was brutal compared to ours, and they wrapped up the most brutal part of it with a win over a top 10 team. Right around the same time, we were blowing it against CUSA teams.

The one thing I will say is that RPI = BS and the committee should just admit that. Or, they should revise the formula.