CSNbbs

Full Version: Monroe - I didn't realize this
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Four other teams were also given postseason bans: Chicago State men's basketball, Cal State-Northridge men's basketball, Idaho State football and Louisiana-Monroe men's basketball.
(05-31-2011 12:04 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Four other teams were also given postseason bans: Chicago State men's basketball, Cal State-Northridge men's basketball, Idaho State football and Louisiana-Monroe men's basketball.

In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.
(05-31-2011 01:41 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 12:04 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Four other teams were also given postseason bans: Chicago State men's basketball, Cal State-Northridge men's basketball, Idaho State football and Louisiana-Monroe men's basketball.

In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.

I don't think it would be wise to allow a team whom is ineligible for post season to play in the conference tournament for the reason you point out, and I bet they won't be. I guess there will be one more first round bye next year.

But that brings up another subject also that apparently is going to be addressed at the upcoming meeting in the SEC. Should the seedings for the tournament be done 1-12 based on conference record and not divisional standings. I think that they should.
(05-31-2011 01:54 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:41 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 12:04 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Four other teams were also given postseason bans: Chicago State men's basketball, Cal State-Northridge men's basketball, Idaho State football and Louisiana-Monroe men's basketball.

In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.

I don't think it would be wise to allow a team whom is ineligible for post season to play in the conference tournament for the reason you point out, and I bet they won't be. I guess there will be one more first round bye next year.

But that brings up another subject also that apparently is going to be addressed at the upcoming meeting in the SEC. Should the seedings for the tournament be done 1-12 based on conference record and not divisional standings. I think that they should.

Probably that would be more "fair". But if you're going to have divisions, I think how you finish in the division should mean something. Also since the schedule is unbalanced, a team from Division A may not necessarily be better than a team from Division B even if they have a slightly better record. I'd probably vote to keep it the way is, but I certainly see the rational to seed 1-12.
(05-31-2011 02:09 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:54 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:41 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 12:04 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Four other teams were also given postseason bans: Chicago State men's basketball, Cal State-Northridge men's basketball, Idaho State football and Louisiana-Monroe men's basketball.

In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.

I don't think it would be wise to allow a team whom is ineligible for post season to play in the conference tournament for the reason you point out, and I bet they won't be. I guess there will be one more first round bye next year.

But that brings up another subject also that apparently is going to be addressed at the upcoming meeting in the SEC. Should the seedings for the tournament be done 1-12 based on conference record and not divisional standings. I think that they should.

Probably that would be more "fair". But if you're going to have divisions, I think how you finish in the division should mean something. Also since the schedule is unbalanced, a team from Division A may not necessarily be better than a team from Division B even if they have a slightly better record. I'd probably vote to keep it the way is, but I certainly see the rational to seed 1-12.

We haven't had the unbalance in the divisions as much as the SEC, but it could occur. When that happens you get what happened in that league last year with a very mediocre team getting a bye because it finished second in a weak division and a team with a much better record from the other side having to play an additional game.

Personally I'd just as soon do away with divisions while protecting natural rivalries for home and homes. But what really makes more sense for a league like ours is to just go ahead and play a complete round robin. When Denver departs that would make a 20 game conference schedule and up to eleven out of conference.

Do away with divisions. Divisional championships don't count for anything anyway.
(05-31-2011 02:22 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 02:09 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:54 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:41 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 12:04 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Four other teams were also given postseason bans: Chicago State men's basketball, Cal State-Northridge men's basketball, Idaho State football and Louisiana-Monroe men's basketball.

In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.

I don't think it would be wise to allow a team whom is ineligible for post season to play in the conference tournament for the reason you point out, and I bet they won't be. I guess there will be one more first round bye next year.

But that brings up another subject also that apparently is going to be addressed at the upcoming meeting in the SEC. Should the seedings for the tournament be done 1-12 based on conference record and not divisional standings. I think that they should.

Probably that would be more "fair". But if you're going to have divisions, I think how you finish in the division should mean something. Also since the schedule is unbalanced, a team from Division A may not necessarily be better than a team from Division B even if they have a slightly better record. I'd probably vote to keep it the way is, but I certainly see the rational to seed 1-12.

We haven't had the unbalance in the divisions as much as the SEC, but it could occur. When that happens you get what happened in that league last year with a very mediocre team getting a bye because it finished second in a weak division and a team with a much better record from the other side having to play an additional game.

Personally I'd just as soon do away with divisions while protecting natural rivalries for home and homes. But what really makes more sense for a league like ours is to just go ahead and play a complete round robin. When Denver departs that would make a 20 game conference schedule and up to eleven out of conference.

Do away with divisions. Divisional championships don't count for anything anyway.

Don't tell that to ASU. I'm sure Coach Brady still has the nets they cut down. Unless he trashed them after we knocked them out of the tournament.
(05-31-2011 03:39 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 02:22 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 02:09 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:54 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:41 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.

I don't think it would be wise to allow a team whom is ineligible for post season to play in the conference tournament for the reason you point out, and I bet they won't be. I guess there will be one more first round bye next year.

But that brings up another subject also that apparently is going to be addressed at the upcoming meeting in the SEC. Should the seedings for the tournament be done 1-12 based on conference record and not divisional standings. I think that they should.

Probably that would be more "fair". But if you're going to have divisions, I think how you finish in the division should mean something. Also since the schedule is unbalanced, a team from Division A may not necessarily be better than a team from Division B even if they have a slightly better record. I'd probably vote to keep it the way is, but I certainly see the rational to seed 1-12.

We haven't had the unbalance in the divisions as much as the SEC, but it could occur. When that happens you get what happened in that league last year with a very mediocre team getting a bye because it finished second in a weak division and a team with a much better record from the other side having to play an additional game.

Personally I'd just as soon do away with divisions while protecting natural rivalries for home and homes. But what really makes more sense for a league like ours is to just go ahead and play a complete round robin. When Denver departs that would make a 20 game conference schedule and up to eleven out of conference.

Do away with divisions. Divisional championships don't count for anything anyway.

Don't tell that to ASU. I'm sure Coach Brady still has the nets they cut down. Unless he trashed them after we knocked them out of the tournament.

Don't ya just love it when we piss off ASU!
(05-31-2011 02:22 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 02:09 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:54 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:41 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 12:04 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Four other teams were also given postseason bans: Chicago State men's basketball, Cal State-Northridge men's basketball, Idaho State football and Louisiana-Monroe men's basketball.

In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.

I don't think it would be wise to allow a team whom is ineligible for post season to play in the conference tournament for the reason you point out, and I bet they won't be. I guess there will be one more first round bye next year.

But that brings up another subject also that apparently is going to be addressed at the upcoming meeting in the SEC. Should the seedings for the tournament be done 1-12 based on conference record and not divisional standings. I think that they should.

Probably that would be more "fair". But if you're going to have divisions, I think how you finish in the division should mean something. Also since the schedule is unbalanced, a team from Division A may not necessarily be better than a team from Division B even if they have a slightly better record. I'd probably vote to keep it the way is, but I certainly see the rational to seed 1-12.

We haven't had the unbalance in the divisions as much as the SEC, but it could occur. When that happens you get what happened in that league last year with a very mediocre team getting a bye because it finished second in a weak division and a team with a much better record from the other side having to play an additional game.

Personally I'd just as soon do away with divisions while protecting natural rivalries for home and homes. But what really makes more sense for a league like ours is to just go ahead and play a complete round robin. When Denver departs that would make a 20 game conference schedule and up to eleven out of conference.

Do away with divisions. Divisional championships don't count for anything anyway.

I agree with doing away with divisions and playing a round robin schedule. Would help with scheduling also.04-cheers
Too many conference games. Need to build rpi.
Not relevant in our situation. Never has been. Never will. Win the tournament or the league. That's the only way we get to the postseason. I would like to play one big game on the road each year. A Duke or Kansas like MJS has suggested. We get creamed, but it's still a great experience for our kids to play in those type of situations. And we get good money.
(05-31-2011 03:39 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 02:22 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 02:09 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:54 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011 01:41 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]In that case, would they play in the tournament in Hot Springs? I can't see them winning it, but if they did I guess we wouldn't have a team in the NCAA tournament.

I don't think it would be wise to allow a team whom is ineligible for post season to play in the conference tournament for the reason you point out, and I bet they won't be. I guess there will be one more first round bye next year.

But that brings up another subject also that apparently is going to be addressed at the upcoming meeting in the SEC. Should the seedings for the tournament be done 1-12 based on conference record and not divisional standings. I think that they should.

Probably that would be more "fair". But if you're going to have divisions, I think how you finish in the division should mean something. Also since the schedule is unbalanced, a team from Division A may not necessarily be better than a team from Division B even if they have a slightly better record. I'd probably vote to keep it the way is, but I certainly see the rational to seed 1-12.

We haven't had the unbalance in the divisions as much as the SEC, but it could occur. When that happens you get what happened in that league last year with a very mediocre team getting a bye because it finished second in a weak division and a team with a much better record from the other side having to play an additional game.

Personally I'd just as soon do away with divisions while protecting natural rivalries for home and homes. But what really makes more sense for a league like ours is to just go ahead and play a complete round robin. When Denver departs that would make a 20 game conference schedule and up to eleven out of conference.

Do away with divisions. Divisional championships don't count for anything anyway.

Don't tell that to ASU. I'm sure Coach Brady still has the nets they cut down. Unless he trashed them after we knocked them out of the tournament.

I still have pictures from the net cutting, and then ensuing girls basketball game with you guys that day.

Though I never got to use them for the nefarious purposes I imagined...
(06-01-2011 10:09 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ]Not relevant in our situation. Never has been. Never will. Win the tournament or the league. That's the only way we get to the postseason. I would like to play one big game on the road each year. A Duke or Kansas like MJS has suggested. We get creamed, but it's still a great experience for our kids to play in those type of situations. And we get good money.


Completely relevant, and has been several times. Have you forgotten the many times we've gotten multiple bids in the tourney? The Sweet 16 runs by WKU? That begins with RPI. And as we saw last year, our RPI doesn't get any better in league play. If we are going to be a consistenttly good league with multiple bids possible each year, we need good RPI.

Absolutely, completely, 100% relevant. Always has been. Always will be.
(06-01-2011 10:09 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ]Not relevant in our situation. Never has been. Never will.

It hasn't been relevant to date, but it could be. A few teams from the SBC have been at-large teams. If we start getting to where we expect to win 20 games every season, we might start thinking about RPI.
Reference URL's