(03-08-2015 12:29 AM)dekalb222 Wrote:  Bad Baker has returned. Travon is shooting 310%fg in his last 5 games.

His shooting is up and down, FOR SURE, but he's doing other things to contribute. He's drawing fouls, getting steals, passing the ball/running the offense better.

(03-07-2015 11:29 PM)WeAreHuskies Wrote:  would we be a 16 seed if we won out? I would think 15 or 16.

ha, I really hope we have to worry about this.

(03-07-2015 02:56 PM)BullBoy Wrote:  Good luck guys!! As UB fan I always feel like we have a special bond with NIU being the outermost schools on each coast of the conference.. hope you can make a little run and we can see you in Cleveland.

Thanks, we are outliers aren't we? I hope we get far enough to play Buffalo.

Dekalb222, I cannot believe you said this "Ok, I must have heard it wrong. UNI and WSU are in. UNI should let Illinois St win, more conference money and prestige." unless it was with sarcasm which the internet cannot always detect.

Surely, as spot on and measured as most of your posts are, you didn't mean it. Has a Mad dawg flavor to it...........NO WAY would UNI risk their own higher seed to "help" the conference in whatever small way a third team might? No way would the UNI Huskies stop caring about their own prestige over league prestige. You think Gonzaga cares about league prestige?

Sarcasm! That's why I referenced the NIU vs BG ft ball game a couple years ago. Also, the MAC Tourney does need Akron in it but the refs won't be against NIU. I just heard Lunardi wrong. Of course UNI, WSU and Murry St all belong in the tourney.

Akron -79
NIU - 71

MVC, the fix is in for Illinois St.

UNI, has less offense than NIU.

(03-08-2015 01:57 PM)dekalb222 Wrote:  MVC, the fix is in for Illinois St.

It really does make you wonder. Mvc has pulled this crap before. Uni and witchita should be knocked down to 8 seeds imo

Maddawg, I'm kidding! I know you believe stuff like this.

(03-08-2015 02:32 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-08-2015 01:57 PM)dekalb222 Wrote:  MVC, the fix is in for Illinois St.

It really does make you wonder. Mvc has pulled this crap before. Uni and witchita should be knocked down to 8 seeds imo

haha it's a 3 point game now

Illinois State has the lead! aaannnnnddddd IT'S GONE

(03-08-2015 02:43 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Illinois State has the lead! aaannnnnddddd IT'S GONE

They're just manipulating the score due to the spread! The fix is still in!

(03-08-2015 02:01 PM)dekalb222 Wrote:  UNI, has less offense than NIU.

...you were saying??

It's funny how people forget their conspiracy theories when they don't happen. So odd, that.

65pts a game for UNI and 66pts a game for NIU. UNI much better defensively than NIU.

(03-08-2015 03:08 PM)dekalb222 Wrote:  65pts a game for UNI and 66pts a game for NIU. UNI much better defensively than NIU.

That's oversimplistic. UNI might play at a much slower pace. Points a game is not the end-all be-all of offensive measurement.

UNI wins because they only give up 54pts. They only have one double digit scorer. When they lose it will be because of a lack of scoring. Also, you think they play at a slower pace then NIU? Never thought I would hear that.

Joe Lunardi said that NIU had a better offensive than UNI.

(03-08-2015 03:34 PM)dekalb222 Wrote:  UNI wins because they only give up 54pts. They only have one double digit scorer. When they lose it will be because of a lack of scoring. Also, you think they play at a slower pace then NIU? Never thought I would hear that.

I have no idea, I never watch UNI. I'm just saying as an argument, PPG is too simplistic.

NIU averages 66 possessions a game, UNI only averages 59. One could argue that UNI is better offensively because they get the same amount of points in less possessions. And I think NIU has picked up the pace as the year has gone along, so that average may be a bit low for how they are playing right now.

UNI is literally in the bottom 3 in the NCAA in possessions per game. NIU isn't crazy higher, but an extra 7 possessions a game makes some difference. I'm just saying it should be accounted for.