(02-16-2018 09:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  UB is getting listed as "first four out"... Not even considered a bubble team at this point...

That is so screwed up I can't even get my head around it. Although first four out is a bubble team, I think. Last four in and first four out are the bubbliest of bubble teams.

I think “last four out” and “last four in” would be the 8 bubble teams up for most discussion. “First four out” would be the ones dismissed at the beginning of the process. They sometimes also list a “next four out” who would be closer to making the field than the first ones out as well.

First four out is not good. Of course, these lists are just speculative at this point anyway and don’t represent the actual committee’s thoughts.

(02-18-2018 04:44 AM)axeme Wrote:  I think “last four out” and “last four in” would be the 8 bubble teams up for most discussion. “First four out” would be the ones dismissed at the beginning of the process. They sometimes also list a “next four out” who would be closer to making the field than the first ones out as well.

First four out is not good. Of course, these lists are just speculative at this point anyway and don’t represent the actual committee’s thoughts.

First 4 out are the 4 teams that barely didn't make it in. That is why they are the 1 seeds in the NIT. I don't know where you are getting that they are the first teams to be dismissed.

(02-18-2018 09:05 AM)UAZippers Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 04:44 AM)axeme Wrote:  I think “last four out” and “last four in” would be the 8 bubble teams up for most discussion. “First four out” would be the ones dismissed at the beginning of the process. They sometimes also list a “next four out” who would be closer to making the field than the first ones out as well.

First four out is not good. Of course, these lists are just speculative at this point anyway and don’t represent the actual committee’s thoughts.

First 4 out are the 4 teams that barely didn't make it in. That is why they are the 1 seeds in the NIT. I don't know where you are getting that they are the first teams to be dismissed.

You know, I think you’re right, that is the terminology they use.

But say you are looking at 16 teams for the last four spots. The ones you order 1-4 would be the last 4 in. The ones you can more easily eliminate (#13-16) would be the first ones out. Then you eliminate the next four (#9-12), and #5-8 would then be the last ones out of consideration because they were in the most direct competition to get in the field. Ahh, semantics.

But to the original point, I do agree they call the ones who just miss the field the first four out.

(02-18-2018 09:05 AM)UAZippers Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 04:44 AM)axeme Wrote:  I think “last four out” and “last four in” would be the 8 bubble teams up for most discussion. “First four out” would be the ones dismissed at the beginning of the process. They sometimes also list a “next four out” who would be closer to making the field than the first ones out as well.

First four out is not good. Of course, these lists are just speculative at this point anyway and don’t represent the actual committee’s thoughts.

First 4 out are the 4 teams that barely didn't make it in. That is why they are the 1 seeds in the NIT. I don't know where you are getting that they are the first teams to be dismissed.

Yea UB is "first four out" and BSU is "Next four out". I don't know that there is enough hoops left to give anyone in the MAC an at large.

Speaking of which ESPN has UB men at a 13 seed... WTF?

(02-18-2018 11:22 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 09:05 AM)UAZippers Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 04:44 AM)axeme Wrote:  I think “last four out” and “last four in” would be the 8 bubble teams up for most discussion. “First four out” would be the ones dismissed at the beginning of the process. They sometimes also list a “next four out” who would be closer to making the field than the first ones out as well.

First four out is not good. Of course, these lists are just speculative at this point anyway and don’t represent the actual committee’s thoughts.

First 4 out are the 4 teams that barely didn't make it in. That is why they are the 1 seeds in the NIT. I don't know where you are getting that they are the first teams to be dismissed.

Yea UB is "first four out" and BSU is "Next four out". I don't know that there is enough hoops left to give anyone in the MAC an at large.

Speaking of which ESPN has UB men at a 13 seed... WTF?

Well... they played Syracuse who may not get in, and if they do they'll be about an 11 or 10 seed. They lost to Cuse...

UB men lost to a slew of bubble teams, St Bonnie, Syracuse, Texas AM. They played most of them tough and had a close loss to a top 4 seed Cincy team and beat a few pretty good teams that won't make the tourney but they are a 12 seed at best. Toledo is probably a 13 seed same as Ball St. Any other MAC team is a 14/15.

As for the women, I'm hoping there will be fairness as I think we have 3 NCAA teams. The fact that we have middle of the pack MAC team with non conf wins over NCAA or bubble teams says a lot about the depth of the league. CMU might be unlucky for the at large discussion as they lost close games to several bubble teams non conf and might not get full credit for all their good MAC wins. Ball St and Buffalo certainly have non conf at large resumes. realtimerpi, which has been around for a long time has CMU and UB as 9 seeds and Ball St sneaking in as a 12. If you really want to track things these are teams beaten by MAC bubble teams that are on the bubble as an at large or top 2 in a 1 bid league. If most of them do well down the stretch it makes it harder to not give the MAC at large berth(s)

Nebraska (UB), Purdue (UB and Ohio), St Johns (UB), W Kentucky BSU), UNLV (UB), Missouri St (BSU),

And these P5 or strong mid major teams who lost to MAC contenders and likely won't make the tourney but become better wins if they close strong

Clemson (UB), Iowa St (CMU), Vandy (CMU and others) Butler (BSU) Cleveland St ( a few MAC losses)

There's also the following teams who lost to other weaker MAC schools but could still make the tourney as they are a contending team in a 1 bid league (along w Dayton who is a bubble team)

Cleveland St, Delaware, Robert Morris, Dayton, Maine, St Francis, E Tenn St, W Ill, SIU-Edwardsville, IUPUI, Jacksonville St.

The last couple MAC at large teams (men) had multiple non conf wins over P5 teams who made the field or were on the bubble. There have been a few MAC teams (men and women) who did not get in and had greast non conf wins but struggled a bit in the MAC or had great non conf records but didn't beat any at large type teams. Based on history Buffalo women could finish strong but then lose respectably in the MAC tourney and get an at large. CMU could do the same and likely get denied and BSU with a winning streak up the tourney final might get in but it would be a toss up

Ball State also beat Purdue and Vanderbilt.

If UB's men go it will be the third time in four years, that and their RPI I would hop could warrant a 10/11 seed. But you may be right.

ESPN updated their women's bracketology and moved Buffalo up to the top of the "first four out" list. They also have Ball State as the first team on the "next four out" list. They currently have CMU as the only MAC representative as a # 9 seed against Iowa in the first round.

(02-20-2018 09:24 AM)GoBullsGo Wrote:  ESPN updated their women's bracketology and moved Buffalo up to the top of the "first four out" list. They also have Ball State as the first team on the "next four out" list. They currently have CMU as the only MAC representative as a # 9 seed against Iowa in the first round.

If thy view Central as good enough to be a #9 seed, how can they not have Buffalo in?

ESPN is one person's perspective, Charlie Creme. If you look at realrpi.com, they go to the other extreme and have 3 MAC teams in the tourney, CMU & UB as 9 seeds and BSU as a 12 seed.

(02-22-2018 08:27 PM)Rocket A Wrote:  ESPN is one person's perspective, Charlie Creme. If you look at realrpi.com, they go to the other extreme and have 3 MAC teams in the tourney, CMU & UB as 9 seeds and BSU as a 12 seed.

I'm thinking that the realtimerpi site goes strictly by rpi rankings, which is pretty different from how the selection committee operates.

ESPN now has both CMU and Buffalo in the field as 9 seeds: 9 Buffalo vs 8 California and 9 CMU vs 8 Arizona State. Ball State still listed as Next Four Out.

2 Nine seeds would be terrific (and well-deserved) for the MAC this year.

Congratulations to Coach Guevarra and Central Michigan on their second consecutive regular season championship. They had to fight and scrap with everything they had to come from behind late in the 4th quarter at home vs Ball State, who led almost the entire game. Great matchup of two teams who were 23-4 and it looked like an NCAA tournament worthy game.

(03-01-2018 12:10 AM)DICK Wrote:  Congratulations to Coach Guevarra and Central Michigan on their second consecutive regular season championship. They had to fight and scrap with everything they had to come from behind late in the 4th quarter at home vs Ball State, who led almost the entire game. Great matchup of two teams who were 23-4 and it looked like an NCAA tournament worthy game.

If CMU loses their next game, and Buffalo wins they tie... How do the tie breakers fall then?

I realize the odds of CMU losing is pretty low, I'm just curious. I was pulling for Ball State tonight because a CMU loss would have put UB in first.

(03-01-2018 12:23 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:10 AM)DICK Wrote:  Congratulations to Coach Guevarra and Central Michigan on their second consecutive regular season championship. They had to fight and scrap with everything they had to come from behind late in the 4th quarter at home vs Ball State, who led almost the entire game. Great matchup of two teams who were 23-4 and it looked like an NCAA tournament worthy game.

If CMU loses their next game, and Buffalo wins they tie... How do the tie breakers fall then?

I realize the odds of CMU losing is pretty low, I'm just curious. I was pulling for Ball State tonight because a CMU loss would have put UB in first.

Buffalo would be the #1 seed if somehow CMU loses to Toledo on Saturday. It would go your record amongst the ranked teams and since UB and CMU would have split their two games, the highest ranked team that would be different would be Toledo where UB is 2-0 and CMU would be 1-1 with a loss.

If CMU wins, they lock up #1 seed and outright MAC Title.

CMU was celebrating a MAC championship and passing out T-shirts after the game last night, I just went by that.

College Sports Madness bracketology still excludes a MAC at-large team. Unreal with two teams in the top 20 RPI. They give Dayton an at-large while leaving Central Michigan out. I'd like to see that explained in any kind of rational way.

Dayton has six losses.
Best wins - at home against Virginia (RPI 30) and James Madison (RPI 64), and neutral against Harvard (RPI 51).
Worst losses - neutral against George Washington (RPI 79) and at St. Louis (RPI 121).
Conference record of 16-2 in the 13th-best conference.
Lost in conference tournament semifinal.
RPI 32.

Central has four losses and would have a 5th if it needs an at-large bid.
Best wins - Home against Buffalo (RPI 19) and Ball State (RPI 34), and at Ball State (RPI 34).
Worst losses - Home against Purdue (RPI 61) and at Duquesne (RPI 73).
17-1 in the 7th-best conference.
RPI 20.

I seriously can't think of a single argument you could make in Dayton's favor, unless Central loses in the the quarterfinals of the MAC tournament.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/15725

the argument is if the MAC gets full credit for its highly ranked teams. Do you look at a win over Buffalo the same as a win over an RPI top 20 teams from a P5 conf. Do you give credit for rpi 100 wins against Toledo, Miami the same as you would for wins over rpi 51-100 P5 teams?