Re:UH win today over SMU....
UH fans because this makes a case for Dickey remaining on Cullen or the SMU donors who "ponied" up roughly $2M to bring Larry Brown to the Hilltop?
We are bummed but we sold out our home games this year and turned a profit on basketball for the first time in program history
(03-13-2014 08:05 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Re:UH win today over SMU....
UH fans because this makes a case for Dickey remaining on Cullen or the SMU donors who "ponied" up roughly $2M to bring Larry Brown to the Hilltop?
SMU
Always sucks more to lose.
(03-13-2014 08:11 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]We are bummed but we sold out our home games this year and turned a profit on basketball for the first time in program history
Very nice.
And isn't SMU still possibly going to be making the Big Dance? UH has to be more bummed (if SMU gets an at-large bid) because it will be tougher for them to get rid of Dickey now.
At least SMU is going to the tourney; they've had an incredible season. It will be interesting to see if they can win away from home; seems like that's been their main downfall this season.
Why will it be tougher for UH to get rid of Dickey? Because of this one win? That line of thinking would just be yet another product of the vastly inflated importance of basketball conference tournaments, where apparently a team's (like Villanova) great season and probable one-seed can be wiped away in a flash after they lose a close game.
(03-14-2014 01:12 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ]At least SMU is going to the tourney; they've had an incredible season. It will be interesting to see if they can win away from home; seems like that's been their main downfall this season.
Why will it be tougher for UH to get rid of Dickey? Because of this one win? That line of thinking would just be yet another product of the vastly inflated importance of basketball conference tournaments, where apparently a team's (like Villanova) great season and probable one-seed can be wiped away in a flash after they lose a close game.
I don't see SMU making the tourney. They were a bubble team before the UH loss.
(03-14-2014 12:16 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2014 01:12 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ]At least SMU is going to the tourney; they've had an incredible season. It will be interesting to see if they can win away from home; seems like that's been their main downfall this season.
Why will it be tougher for UH to get rid of Dickey? Because of this one win? That line of thinking would just be yet another product of the vastly inflated importance of basketball conference tournaments, where apparently a team's (like Villanova) great season and probable one-seed can be wiped away in a flash after they lose a close game.
I don't see SMU making the tourney. They were a bubble team before the UH loss.
They were ranked 25 before the loss. I don't think they were a bubble team before it with that ranking (when was the last time a ranked team missed the tourney?). But I think the loss will drop them out and that makes them a bubble team.
frankly, my attitude towards them both (as I believe they were 2/3rds of the reason for the demise of the SWC-Sherril being the third) is such that I hope they are both upset.......
SMU will still make the tournament and they've got a stud recruit coming next year. They'll be fine
Not good for SMU with St Louis and UNC losing.
SMU headed to the NIT. The loss to UH was a killer in the first round of the tourney,
(03-16-2014 05:39 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote: [ -> ]SMU headed to the NIT. The loss to UH was a killer in the first round of the tourney,
Hats off to you for the foresight on picking them to miss out. Unbelievable in my opinion, pretty sour way to end the season
John Royal just tweeted that apparently UH drug the entire conference down since Louisville was only given a #4 seed.
But that was an ugly loss by SMU and that didn't help. If they had lost in a shoot out maybe they would have made it but with several upsets in conference tourneys and now seeing that play in games are for the 11/12 seeds so they can put the majors into the tourney anyway they can spelled trouble for SMU as well as La Tech.
I would think the AAC in general would be upset - not that they only got 4 teams in - because 3 of their 4 teams are in the same bracket. And Louisville's 4 seed is a little insulting to me.
(03-16-2014 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I would think the AAC in general would be upset - not that they only got 4 teams in - because 3 of their 4 teams are in the same bracket. And Louisville's 4 seed is a little insulting to me.
Losing the name Big East apparently took away the mystique of the conference with the committee.
(03-16-2014 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I would think the AAC in general would be upset - not that they only got 4 teams in - because 3 of their 4 teams are in the same bracket. And Louisville's 4 seed is a little insulting to me.
AAC + Big East got 8 in the tourney, 4 each. The NCAA committee chief (Wake Forest AD) said Louisville was always at or near the "4-line".
(03-16-2014 06:30 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote: [ -> ]SMU reaction:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/19950...g-national
Good tweet:
Tim MacMahon @espn_macmahon 49m
As soon as Tony Romo, Jason Garrett and Jerry Jones adopted SMU, I had a feeling the Mustangs wouldn't make the playoffs.
I'm not above a little schadenfreude when it comes to sports misfortune.
So, heh heh.