@ Cincinnati L
@ UCF L
Tulsa W
Tulane W
@ Temple L
UConn W
@ Tulsa W
Cincinnati L
@ USF W
@ ECU W
Wichita State L
UCF L
@ SMU L
@ Tulane W
Houston W
@ UConn L
USF W
ECU W

The way I see it this season’s OOCS was created to give the numerous new guys the opportunity to get accustomed to each other and gel during conference play. Surely it isn’t only about wins which wouldn’t help our RPI/ratings even if we won all of them.

IDK for me Tubby has always been hard to figure.

(12-27-2017 11:18 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I noticed a couple of posters on another thread affirming Tubby’s belief that we will earn either an NIT or NCAA bid (Thread).

What say you?

congrats on getting in another Tubby bashing thread that is almost identical to your last bashing thread- this time with 62 responses already- seems like you are getting better at trolling

(12-27-2017 04:31 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  @ Cincinnati L
@ UCF L
Tulsa W
Tulane W
@ Temple L
UConn W
@ Tulsa W
Cincinnati L
@ USF W
@ ECU W
Wichita State L
UCF L
@ SMU L
@ Tulane W
Houston W
@ UConn L
USF W
ECU W

Tubby hasn't had a winning record in conference since 2006 and you think he's winning 10 games with this team?

Since 2006.

No winning conference record in 12 years.

It's a stat that just won't stick in my brain slot. .

(12-27-2017 04:49 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 11:18 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I noticed a couple of posters on another thread affirming Tubby’s belief that we will earn either an NIT or NCAA bid (Thread).

What say you?

congrats on getting in another Tubby bashing thread that is almost identical to your last bashing thread- this time with 62 responses already- seems like you are getting better at trolling

Let's not poison the posting environment with derisive remarks directed toward fellow Tiger fans. Instead, place your unique imprint on the wide array of Tiger athletic related issues and opportunities.

(12-27-2017 04:57 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  Since 2006.

No winning conference record in 12 years.

It's a stat that just won't stick in my brain slot. .

Two of the last four completed seasons under Tubby resulted in losing records.

(12-27-2017 04:04 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 02:38 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:51 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:48 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:44 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  All the regular season from lesser leagues that don't win their tournament get an NIT bid IIRC.

Say for instance Albany does that. Normally, we would get an at large bid against them given equalish resumes and that we beat them head to head. Toss all that if they win their conference regular season, but not their tournament. Fairly common scenario in the smaller leagues where there isn't a clear dominant team I would think.

Over the past several years, the number of automatic qualifiers ranges from 10-15 with an average of about 12.

Last year, with only 10 auto qualifiers (thus a more expansive at-large pool), the lowest seeded at-large team was Boise State, which was still a top 100 KenPom and RPI team.

What is our project range of RPI/Kenpom - best and worst case? I have no idea -it's another big variable to me.

I would assume even the realistic best case would not get us an at large NCAA bid, hence I think our only shot at a bid there is the conference tournament.

RPIforecast has Memphis going 17-14 (7-11 and t9th in the AAC) with a projected RPI of 143.

KenPom has Memphis projected going 16-15 (also t9th and 7-11 in the AAC).

So, a better conference record, say 11-7 instead of 7-11, may get us in NIT territory? Depending on who the 11 and who the 7 are of course. What about 12 and 6? Etc.

For the record, that's a lot of variables IMO.

Too many variables?

Tigers' wins and losses aren't "too many variables"--that is the precise point of the conversation. Will they win enough games to garner an NIT bid or and NCAA bid.

If one can be certain that, say, 21 wins is sufficient to earn an NIT bid (or at least use 21 as the "for argument's sake") then IF you think Memphis can go 11-7 in conference then you would be on the "likely NIT bid" bandwagon.

See how that works?

(12-27-2017 03:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Here is a compilation of media and AAC coach’s pre-season predictions for those interested: http://csnbbs.com/thread-825913.html

That is a hilarious thread. Quite a few people there took a hard shift.

Wow.

(12-27-2017 07:15 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 03:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Here is a compilation of media and AAC coach’s pre-season predictions for those interested: http://csnbbs.com/thread-825913.html

That is a hilarious thread. Quite a few people there took a hard shift.

Wow.

The part about how big and strong we were going to be..where did that come from?

(12-27-2017 07:13 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 04:04 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 02:38 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:51 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:48 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Over the past several years, the number of automatic qualifiers ranges from 10-15 with an average of about 12.

Last year, with only 10 auto qualifiers (thus a more expansive at-large pool), the lowest seeded at-large team was Boise State, which was still a top 100 KenPom and RPI team.

What is our project range of RPI/Kenpom - best and worst case? I have no idea -it's another big variable to me.

I would assume even the realistic best case would not get us an at large NCAA bid, hence I think our only shot at a bid there is the conference tournament.

RPIforecast has Memphis going 17-14 (7-11 and t9th in the AAC) with a projected RPI of 143.

KenPom has Memphis projected going 16-15 (also t9th and 7-11 in the AAC).

So, a better conference record, say 11-7 instead of 7-11, may get us in NIT territory? Depending on who the 11 and who the 7 are of course. What about 12 and 6? Etc.

For the record, that's a lot of variables IMO.

Too many variables?

Tigers' wins and losses aren't "too many variables"--that is the precise point of the conversation. Will they win enough games to garner an NIT bid or and NCAA bid.

If one can be certain that, say, 21 wins is sufficient to earn an NIT bid (or at least use 21 as the "for argument's sake") then IF you think Memphis can go 11-7 in conference then you would be on the "likely NIT bid" bandwagon.

See how that works?

I have no idea how many games we will win.

The committee does not much like our conference. lol.

In case we've forgotten, a couple years back they did not let SMU in when SMU was ranked nationally.

We are an easy conference to eff with. We haven't done that well recently in the tournament either



"The Mustangs were ranked 25th in the AP Poll, 23rdin the Coaches, which is why nearly all prognosticators had them in. "

(12-27-2017 09:06 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  The committee does not much like our conference. lol.

In case we've forgotten, a couple years back they did not let SMU in when SMU was ranked nationally.

We are an easy conference to eff with. We haven't done that well recently in the tournament either



"The Mustangs were ranked 25th in the AP Poll, 23rdin the Coaches, which is why nearly all prognosticators had them in. "

Yet another variable.

I thought that was the year SMU was on a post season ban due to Larry Brown shenanigans, but I guess I am thinking of something else.

(12-27-2017 09:10 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 09:06 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  The committee does not much like our conference. lol.

In case we've forgotten, a couple years back they did not let SMU in when SMU was ranked nationally.

We are an easy conference to eff with. We haven't done that well recently in the tournament either



"The Mustangs were ranked 25th in the AP Poll, 23rdin the Coaches, which is why nearly all prognosticators had them in. "

Yet another variable.

I thought that was the year SMU was on a post season ban due to Larry Brown shenanigans, but I guess I am thinking of something else.

You are correct, the NCAA banned SMU from 2016 post season. I am assuming that is the year that snowtiger is referring to.

(12-27-2017 09:50 PM)SpiderMan79x Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 09:10 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 09:06 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  The committee does not much like our conference. lol.

In case we've forgotten, a couple years back they did not let SMU in when SMU was ranked nationally.

We are an easy conference to eff with. We haven't done that well recently in the tournament either



"The Mustangs were ranked 25th in the AP Poll, 23rdin the Coaches, which is why nearly all prognosticators had them in. "

Yet another variable.

I thought that was the year SMU was on a post season ban due to Larry Brown shenanigans, but I guess I am thinking of something else.

You are correct, the NCAA banned SMU from 2016 post season. I am assuming that is the year that snowtiger is referring to.

Nope. You have definitely forgotten. In 2014, most of the SMU student body, along with their BB coaches and media, breathlessly awaited SMU's seeding in the tourney. It was horribly embarrassing.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1...76544.html

"The Mustangs were ranked 25th in the AP Poll, 23rdin the Coaches, which is why nearly all prognosticators had them in. "

(12-27-2017 09:55 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 09:50 PM)SpiderMan79x Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 09:10 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 09:06 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  The committee does not much like our conference. lol.

In case we've forgotten, a couple years back they did not let SMU in when SMU was ranked nationally.

We are an easy conference to eff with. We haven't done that well recently in the tournament either



"The Mustangs were ranked 25th in the AP Poll, 23rdin the Coaches, which is why nearly all prognosticators had them in. "

Yet another variable.

I thought that was the year SMU was on a post season ban due to Larry Brown shenanigans, but I guess I am thinking of something else.

You are correct, the NCAA banned SMU from 2016 post season. I am assuming that is the year that snowtiger is referring to.

Nope. You have definitely forgotten. In 2014, most of the SMU student body, along with their BB coaches and media, breathlessly awaited SMU's seeding in the tourney. It was horribly embarrassing.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1...76544.html

"The Mustangs were ranked 25th in the AP Poll, 23rdin the Coaches, which is why nearly all prognosticators had them in. "

Forgot all about that.

NO

Nothing, we'll be lucky to win 5 more games the rest of the season IMO

(12-27-2017 07:15 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 03:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Here is a compilation of media and AAC coach’s pre-season predictions for those interested: http://csnbbs.com/thread-825913.html

That is a hilarious thread. Quite a few people there took a hard shift.

Wow.

yeah they did

Alabama L
Little Rock W
New Orleans W
Northern Kentucky W
UAB L
Mercer W
Samford W
Bryant W
Albany W
Louisville L
Siena W
Loyola W
LSU W
@ Cincinnati L
@ UCF L
Tulsa W
Tulane W
@ Temple L
UConn W
@ Tulsa W
Cincinnati L
@ USF W
@ ECU W
Wichita State L
UCF W
@ SMU L
@ Tulane W
Houston W
@ UConn L
USF W
ECU W

21-10