Figured we could have a thread dedicated to any and all discussion from either the men's or women's tournament.

For the CAA:

Charleston men head out to Spokane, Washington to face Alabama Friday 3/22 at 7:35pm on TruTV

Drexel women head to Austin, Texas to Face Texas Friday 3/22 at 3pm on ESPNU

i see the women are 35 point underdogs. i don't bet on sports but if i did i would take the under because...amy mallon. if they're as dumb as some of these other teams and keep missing threes i think we can stay in the ballpark. we close out at the three point line really well while still hassling you in the paint. i expected the fsu game to be a blowout and we more than held our own for a good chunk of that game. saying we're a different team now is the understatement of the century. fsu was aggressive about getting to the rim. i started watching a texas game in the big 12 tournament but it was a blowout so i lost interest. i can't say whether they have players who can drive.

my interest level for the women's tournament is off the charts. so many stars, teams that don't like each other, interesting personalities as coaches. men's tournament...not so much. this was even before we got in.

Interesting. I don't bet either. I was thinking it would be more like a 25 point underdog but 35 is not unreasonable. I see that Texas's entire team is 6 foot or higher and they have like 3 or 4 who are 6'4" and one who is 6'9". Based on what I've seen from Drexel this year and their struggles to score points, and how they have no star player who could dominate, I could see this game being really ugly.

But it would be reasonable to place a bet on Drexel with the 35 point spread. They do play defense as well as anybody, and I guess might be able to hold the score down to like 70-40. Also depends on how classy a team Texas is and if they choose to run up the score or not like we see a lot in these 1/16 games.

I don't bet either but I would be a lot more likely to favor Drexel's odds if the game wasn't being played on Texas' home court. This topic of the top teams all getting home court advantage for at least two games (assuming they win the first one, a good assumption) really gets my goat. The men gave up that nonsense of home court advantage sometime in the early to mid eighties (although there is still a "home state" advantage; for example, either UNC or Duke gets to play in Charlotte or Raleigh or Greensboro practically every year; this year it is UNC in Charlotte). The women have said for decades that this practice is to "promote the game". Now it is just clearly an advantage for the P5 blue bloods to perpetuate their success. If the powers that be really wanted to promote the game then they would actually have the games at neutral sites so that some other teams would occasionally win and thus raise the profile of those teams and all teams in general.

(03-19-2024 11:36 AM)J.B. Wrote:  Based on what I've seen from Drexel this year and their struggles to score points, and how they have no star player who could dominate, I could see this game being really ugly.

you must have missed the games over the weekend. we scored points and had the clear cut tournament mvp.

i'm not saying we'll win. i picked them on my bracket because i had to. keeping the game interesting (like within 15-20) isn't out of the question.

they probably don't use neutral sites because nobody would be at the games. even home sites don't fill up. we went to see delaware play at maryland a couple years ago and the xfinity center was empty. it's especially tough for the weekday afternoon games. villanova had nice crowds last year but hosting ncaa tournament games was new to them. i agree neutral sites would be better. it just doesn't seem feasible.

they have an interesting way of organizing the 2nd weekend with 2 sites instead of 4. you can tell where caitlin clark is playing if you go on seatgeek. tickets are $20-30 for every session until you see $184 and $128 for the albany games. the elite 8 game could be lsu-iowa. if you like basketball and you won't watch that game because it's women's basketball...you have a problem with women that you're not being honest about.

Wagner did everything they could to choke away that game last night but held on to open the tournament. Howard even got 3 chances to tie the game in under about 6 seconds because Wagner apparently forgot the game was still going on.

Virginia is bad on offense as everyone knew. They displayed that horror for much of the game. They didnt make a field goal in the final 10:36 of the first half. And were about 9:30 without a point. They came out fired up out of halftime and went about 3:40 into the second half before scoring a bucket. Embarrassing. So glad they made the tournament over teams like Indiana State

(03-20-2024 06:32 AM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 11:36 AM)J.B. Wrote:  Based on what I've seen from Drexel this year and their struggles to score points, and how they have no star player who could dominate, I could see this game being really ugly.

you must have missed the games over the weekend. we scored points and had the clear cut tournament mvp.

I watched the games and your absolutely correct. My gut feeling about WBB is that there's a much bigger gap between the top teams and the mid majors than in MBB. Drexel did an incredible job this weekend but they did so against their peers. I feel like there will be a huge culture shock going up against a top 5 team on Friday.

There is a massive gap. A lot has to do with how the talent is distributed. The men's game had the same issues decades ago in their earlier days.

Keep in mind round 2 has the potential for 9 seeded FSU, who we faced at the DAC. We held our own for stretches but their size was just too much for us to handle and they are a 9 seed, a team that likely gets dismantled by a team like Texas as well. I am going to Austin to enjoy the rare opportunity of us playing an NCAA tournament game. If we ever lead the game (even if 1-0 or 2-0) I will be beyond thrilled and the game will have exceeded my expectations. I think we lose by 40 or so. 81-38 would be my random projection

Again think when EDD was at Delaware. She was 6'5" and we doubled and tripled her and she still scored plenty against us. She was a one woman show and could still beat us. The top teams have multiple of her playing at the same time. They have 10 ladies who average over 10 minutes per game (including Harmon who is out for the year). Those 9 players have sizes of: 5'10, 6'2, 6'0, 6'4, 6'4, 6'1, 6'2, 6'1, and 6'4. Meaning their guards are all 6 footers. Chloe is 6' and Hetta is 6'2 as the only ones on our roster who play that are 6' or above. So we are going to see a lot of Jas (5'11"), Chloe (6'0") and Hetta (6'2") trying to guard 6'4" consistently. And our guards will be giving up 4-6" in height as well.

It is not all about height and we will hopefully be highly disruptive with how we play defense, but in the end, size can't be ignored when players can just shoot over top of you. I do hope we get a lot of forced turnovers. But I also see a lot of our shots getting blocked or us taking awkward bad shots just to avoid getting blocked.

(03-20-2024 06:32 AM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  they probably don't use neutral sites because nobody would be at the games. even home sites don't fill up. ....villanova had nice crowds last year but hosting ncaa tournament games was new to them. i agree neutral sites would be better. it just doesn't seem feasible.

Maybe those home sites don't fill up because it is the "same old, same old" every year with those blue bloods. Perhaps a neutral site actually would fill up with fans who want to see something new or who recognize that a neutral site might lead to more fair and thus better basketball. Regarding small crowds at home sites for blue bloods, here is a true story from the men's side: over a decade ago (2010, I think) W&M had a really good team and had beaten Maryland and Wake Forest on the road that year but had a couple bad CAA losses and thus missed out on a NCAA at large bid (back when the CAA actually got such things). So we went to the NIT and naturally got assigned to play UNC. However, UNC was repairing the Dean Dome at that time so they stipulated that the game would be at their Field House. So, heaven forbid that the game actually be at W&M; no, they would host the game in an old dump not even being used anymore. The tragedy of that situation is that if the game HAD been held at W&M then it absolutely would have sold out (over 12K in attendance). The moral of the story is that if they are not going to use neutral sites then if they were to actually "spread the wealth" on who gets to host then it would probably be more of a moneymaker all the way around. The reason they don't do it is exemplified by what happened about 5 years ago: Kentucky was in the NIT but couldn't host the game. So they went to Robert Morris (a sure win, right?) and played in their small gym. The game sold out and the raucous crowd helped Robert Morris upset Kentucky. That is what the blue bloods are afraid of and why they keep hosting everything at their sites.

(03-20-2024 07:39 AM)dan10 Wrote:  There is a massive gap. A lot has to do with how the talent is distributed. The men's game had the same issues decades ago in their earlier days.....

(03-20-2024 06:42 AM)dan10 Wrote:  Virginia ....Embarrassing. So glad they made the tournament over teams like Indiana State

This goes along with the comments above about the small crowd sizes. For P5 schools who are among the "last four in" and who have to play in the "play-in" game....where they know their tournament shelf life is limited...it is hard for some of them to even get up for the game. However, if Indiana State (just one example from this year; there are hundreds of examples over the many years) had gotten in then they would have been super excited to be there and, win or lose, it would have been a positive experience for all involved. That's why I get so sick of hearing P5 schools whine about not getting in or, if they do, about their seeding. They need to step back and remember a time (long ago) when it actually meant something to go to the tournament....and maybe back off and give some of these other schools that chance.

(03-20-2024 07:39 AM)dan10 Wrote:  I am going to Austin to enjoy the rare opportunity of us playing an NCAA tournament game.

that's what this is all about right? i'd love to be there...but i was blessed to be there all last weekend...and it's going to be cool to sit down as a family and watch us play in that type of environment.

i don't see the utility in talking about how bad we're going to get beat. just enjoy it. i've seen this 3 times in like 22 seasons of drexel basketball.

(03-20-2024 09:20 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 06:32 AM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  they probably don't use neutral sites because nobody would be at the games. even home sites don't fill up. ....villanova had nice crowds last year but hosting ncaa tournament games was new to them. i agree neutral sites would be better. it just doesn't seem feasible.

Maybe those home sites don't fill up because it is the "same old, same old" every year with those blue bloods. Perhaps a neutral site actually would fill up with fans who want to see something new or who recognize that a neutral site might lead to more fair and thus better basketball. Regarding small crowds at home sites for blue bloods, here is a true story from the men's side: over a decade ago (2010, I think) W&M had a really good team and had beaten Maryland and Wake Forest on the road that year but had a couple bad CAA losses and thus missed out on a NCAA at large bid (back when the CAA actually got such things). So we went to the NIT and naturally got assigned to play UNC. However, UNC was repairing the Dean Dome at that time so they stipulated that the game would be at their Field House. So, heaven forbid that the game actually be at W&M; no, they would host the game in an old dump not even being used anymore. The tragedy of that situation is that if the game HAD been held at W&M then it absolutely would have sold out (over 12K in attendance). The moral of the story is that if they are not going to use neutral sites then if they were to actually "spread the wealth" on who gets to host then it would probably be more of a moneymaker all the way around. The reason they don't do it is exemplified by what happened about 5 years ago: Kentucky was in the NIT but couldn't host the game. So they went to Robert Morris (a sure win, right?) and played in their small gym. The game sold out and the raucous crowd helped Robert Morris upset Kentucky. That is what the blue bloods are afraid of and why they keep hosting everything at their sites.

i'm all about letting the non power 5 schools host or neutral sites. believe me. blue bloods sometimes don't even take ncaa tournament games seriously. i was there when lehigh beat duke in greensboro. a good chunk of the upper deck was empty despite carolina fans being there since they played in the afternoon session. i think most people assumed they would be around for the second round so they didn't show up on friday. they're spoiled.

unfortunately enthusiasm, rivalries, developing players you can connect with, and i'm sure other things aren't on any priority lists these days. it's all about money. i've heard talk about expanding AND contracting the tournament. the sec commissioner made comments that could be interpreted as wanting to get rid of aqs from smaller conferences.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/colleg...h-caution/

another reason to enjoy drexel getting in is who knows how much longer this is all going to last. i'm glad my kids got to see it so they can tell their kids about what things were like when it was still fun and we weren't having to watch more 14 loss big 10 teams.

Anyone creating a mens and womens bracket?

There is a CAA one out there: CAA Bracket Group

cbs 3 is doing a nice job covering us. they had a video on twitter of the send off yesterday and posted this from the plane...

https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/vid...ournament/

without sounding stalkerish...it's cool to se what they're up to.

really good night for caa women's basketball last night. charleston, monmouth, and stony brook all won road games. i keep forgetting to cancel espn+ which was good because i watched some of the stony brook-jmu wbit game. they held a lead most of the game and pulled away at the end. i was hoping to get stony brook up at penn state so i could wear drexel stuff up there and root for stony brook. it didn't dawn on me until monday afternoon that the roles totally reversed with our psu transfers having to watch the ncaa tournament from home when it looked like they had a better shot to make it all year.

there's a possibility of a st. joe's-villanova rematch in the wbit if they both win their next games. i would try to make it down for that.

i'll be honest...i bet on sports for the first (and hopefully last) time in my life because i wanted to try this bet $5 and get $150 free...and i can't think of a better group of people to put my $5 on. texas was a terrible matchup for us. they pounded us inside and played great defense against us. they didn't waste their size and athleticism advantage like so many men's teams...and caa teams last weekend for that matter. i'll root for them from here on out along with iowa, maryland, and some others.

full disclosure...they had this other deal where you get more payout if you bet $25 so it was $30 total. i will never do this again. betting on sports is stupid.

how could i ever forget the last week? it was amazing. let's do it again sometime soon.

Not the result that any CAA team wanted….even so, congratulations on a memorable season!

As a W&M fan whose team didn’t make ANY postseason tournament, I’ll have to take solace in the fact that we beat Drexel in our only matchup this year. Looking forward to next year already.

Been some really good games so far. The purdue game yesterday (or any purdue game really) looks like how we should have used Amari. They have a massive force in Edey who is hard to defend because he is so much larger than anyone else. So what do they do? The set him down low and feed him the ball. People are complaining he gets so many fouls called for him, but reality is they foul him a lot because they dont know how to defend against him beyond reaching and holding and grabbing. In our league Amari's size could have had a similar effect had we ever used him that way. It may not be exciting basketball but it works. Purdue is also a very good 3 point shooting team, so its not like they arent moving around despite dumping the ball down low nearly every time down the court. Its smart. Final Four should be a good one. Purdue and UConn have looked the part so far

it has been a good men's tournament. i seem to have stuff going on during the games so i haven't been able to watch much.

i'm still going out of my way to watch the women's tournament. iowa-lsu was must see tv last night. it's a shame angel reese got hurt. lsu was about to run away with the game before that happened. she's more my type of player. caitlin clark is an incredible shooter...but i've always liked post players. they're both better when they cut out any of the nonsense.

villanova is in the wbit championship game tomorrow night. dan...are you going? coach dillon has four postseason wins in a "down" year. they have the key players back for another good run next season. their defense made all the difference against penn state.