(03-06-2016 04:13 AM)_C2_ Wrote: I've never seen a scenario like the one in the American. It has the potential to have anywhere from 1-5 bids, which doesn't even include SMU, who is postseason ineligible. Things will really be ambiguous if Cincinnati loses tomorrow. Very strange circumstances when the 5-seed (UConn) arguably will have the best case for an at-large bid and the 1 (Temple) and 2 (Houston) seeds will be eliminated if they slip up in their first game.
Well Cincy got the big win.....
Pretty much the ONLY scenario the AAC only gets 1 bid now is if Cincy wins out in the tourney, and even there- if Tulsa made the final, I think they would be in.....
(03-06-2016 04:13 AM)_C2_ Wrote: I've never seen a scenario like the one in the American. It has the potential to have anywhere from 1-5 bids, which doesn't even include SMU, who is postseason ineligible. Things will really be ambiguous if Cincinnati loses tomorrow. Very strange circumstances when the 5-seed (UConn) arguably will have the best case for an at-large bid and the 1 (Temple) and 2 (Houston) seeds will be eliminated if they slip up in their first game.
Well Cincy got the big win.....
Pretty much the ONLY scenario the AAC only gets 1 bid now is if Cincy wins out in the tourney, and even there- if Tulsa made the final, I think they would be in.....
AAC has many bubble teams. I think hope UC secured an at large by beating SMU.
(03-06-2016 03:24 PM)stever20 Wrote: Well Cincy got the big win.....
Pretty much the ONLY scenario the AAC only gets 1 bid now is if Cincy wins out in the tourney, and even there- if Tulsa made the final, I think they would be in.....
Welp...
Lloyd Christmas Wrote:So you're saying there's a chance? Yeah!
Speaking of a chance, I'm guessing there won't be a chance of a 16 seed beating a 1. Given the conference tournament results, I'm guessing the 16-seeds will be weaker than usual. Ironically, the best chance for a 16 over a 1 may come from the SWAC...Mike Davis and TSU.
Yep, Ashville wins, so that's another non-1 seed. I haven't seen a single 1-seed even do as much as make the final, let alone win it. I'll be more than happy for someone to bump me and say I'm wrong but I'll go out on a limb and say that no 16 seed is winning a Round of 64 game this year.
well so far 3 tourneys are over, and 3 where the 1 seed didn't win.
tonight's 4th tourney final and the champion didn't make that one either.....
tomorrow may provide a bit more chalk. Hofstra made the final in the CAA, and Monmouth, Chattanooga have shots in their tourneys to make the finals as well...
(03-06-2016 04:51 PM)stever20 Wrote: well so far 3 tourneys are over, and 3 where the 1 seed didn't win.
tonight's 4th tourney final and the champion didn't make that one either.....
tomorrow may provide a bit more chalk. Hofstra made the final in the CAA, and Monmouth, Chattanooga have shots in their tourneys to make the finals as well...
However, the 1-seed can win the A-Sun indirectly. It'd be funny if they won the auto-bid by doing so. I wonder how Stetson will celebrate if they win. Will they storm the court if they win?
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2016 09:21 PM by C2__.)
saw this about tomorrow's CAA final:
Rubber match Monday between Hofstra and UNCW for CAA title. Hofstra blew a 20-pt lead in the first meeting, UNCW an 18-point lead in the 2nd
so if it's a blowout early, don't flip the channel all that quickly :)
This could be one of those years where the NIT is just littered with conference champions who couldn't win the AQ and didn't have the numbers to warrant tournament inclusion. And there's a lot of them out there this season, including the AAC's, A10's, MVC's, and WCC's of the field.
I mean, imagine a massive tanking that could give you a NIT including:
Temple
VCU
Wichita State
St. Mary's
Valpo
Monmouth
ARLR
Akron
SDSU (both the Aztecs and the Jacks)
(03-04-2016 10:37 PM)Erictelevision Wrote: Fine line between "rest" and "rust", which you can't predict in advance.
I know. It's just pretty comical you see it, and it almost never works. The double bye like what the OVC did is the most funny.
Yeah, the MAC eliminated the double bye for the top two, they went to top 4 (including at least one from each division) going straight to Cleveland, as before, but each playing the winner of the at home 5-12 knockout.
Knocking 5-12 down to 2 in two hosted rounds and then playing 3/4, then 1/2 made it a real gauntlet for anybody outside the top 4 ... as EMU found out in the last year or two when they made their run.
And I guess tis a foin change and foin timing, since it came in a year that the Golden Flashes finished 5th.
(03-06-2016 10:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: This could be one of those years where the NIT is just littered with conference champions who couldn't win the AQ and didn't have the numbers to warrant tournament inclusion. And there's a lot of them out there this season, including the AAC's, A10's, MVC's, and WCC's of the field.
Could well be. Indeed, there is one scenario where I would welcome having Akron sent to collect their NIT back-up auto-bid.
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2016 10:45 PM by BruceMcF.)
What makes Wichita's case stronger is the win against Utah. You have schools like VCU, St. Bonaventure, and St. Joe's in the A10 who beat up on each other in the conference but have nothing of worth in the non-conference. Heck, those three A10 schools have an edge over a Wichita-like program in their own conference with George Washington, who owns wins against Virginia and Seton Hall.
This season potentially sets a stage to demonstrate what kind of wins matter more: conference games or non-conference. I've thought the non-conference was to be rewarded, especially for those who challenge themselves. If you see a Wichita State and George Washington hung out there, while the Bonnies and Hawks walk right in, I don't like what it could possibly do to scheduling. And with VCU, you have a school with a tough non-conference, like Wichita, but hasn't a good win to show for it, which has to be considered in context of others who don't fare as well but extend some effort.
But the deal is, who has Wichita beaten? Utah and..? Sure it's not their fault the Valley has declined and Creighton isn't there anymore but it is what it is. Not to sound like a homer but Houston has more notworthy wins and about the same amount of bad losses, granted with a worse non-conference schedule. Even fellow bubbler Tulsa beat them head to head and aside from a loss to Oral Roberts in a rivalry game, doesn't have a loss nearly as bad as Illinois State or even Northern Iowa (I suppose Memphis also counts despite the fact they're better than they've played).
If the standard being used is that their best player was injured then that needs to be used for every other bubble team because I guarantee they aren't the only team that's had to deal with that type of adversity (UH didn't have Rob Gray in some of its losses for example).
Wichita State is an interesting case because the list of who they've beaten isn't strong, their RPI (47 today) is marginal for an at-large team, but for the advanced-metric fans, KenPom still loves them (#11 today, actually #10 because ineligible Louisville is ahead of them).
Lunardi almost seems to be averaging RPI and KenPom to seed a lot of the teams (e.g. he gives Wichita a 7-seed today).
Two things, though: (1) Any of these bracket guys who claim to be accurate only brag about getting the correct teams in the field and maybe the top 2 seeds, they don't claim to be predicting every seed perfectly; and (2) By the tournament committee's own admission, they spend most of their time discussing who should get the at-large bids and much less time on seeding and placing the teams at the different sites.
/
And so, the madness has begun!
