The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Non-tv games starting to trickle out... I'll take those teams off the list. Down to 11 home & away teams from the top 20 in rpi. Only team that does not fit is Morgan St...

11 TV games. espn2=6 espnu=5. channel assignment Feb 8

Home
Northern Iowa 17 19-2
Butler 18 18-4
Northeastern 55 14-8
Utah St 56 16-6
VCU 62 15-5
Kent St 66 14-7
Iona 81 16-6
Missouri St 89 15-7
Pacific 90 14-6
Murray St 94 20-3
George Mason 102 15-7

Away
Siena 44 19-4
Old Dominion 47 17-6
Wichita St 49 19-4
William & Mary 50 15-6
Nevada 70 13-8
Western Carolina 72 17-5
LA Tech 75 18-4
NMSU 83 13-8
College of Charleston 95 14-8
Akron 122 15-6
Morgan St 136 15-7

Wow I just finished making a comment on Carducci's blog about this. I didn't realize we actually do have a pretty good chance to host a game on television. Going by these numbers we could end up on ESPN2. An appearance on ESPN would probably make the crowd 5,000+. Last years game (non televised), still drew over 4,000 when we didn't have that great of a record. Beat Toledo on WMU!

I want Nevada or Wichita St. at the MAC Center. If Kent can go 4-1 (or 5-0) against the West....it could happen.

(01-25-2010 08:51 PM)fallsdog Wrote:  I want Nevada or Wichita St. at the MAC Center. If Kent can go 4-1 (or 5-0) against the West....it could happen.

Actually, only the next two games will count before the matchups are announced. I think Nev. (because of distance) or Wich. St. would be longshots if they win this week along with us. More likely LA Tech, Western Carolina, or College of Charleston.

Our being sent to St. Mary's was a fortunate break because of the way the road teams' RPI's were breaking. It seems a bit more balanced this year.

I hope we get charleston they have had some big wins this year and it would look nice. William&mary or Siena would be nice but they may be out of reach at the moment.

My guesses for the TV games:

Siena at Butler (Primer Game)
Old Dominion at N. Iowa
Wichita St at Northeastern
La Tech at Kent St
College of Charleston at Murray St.
Western Carolina at Utah St.

Thoughts: I pass over VCU because they are currently 6th in the CAA. They will select based on position in the conference. Kent will want to win both games this week to get a chance (that'll likely put Kent in a tie for first). I choose Kent and Murray St over Iona, who are also a worthy home team and frankly, I'm a Kent fan, so that's why.

For the road teams, I pass over William and Mary (tied for 4th in the CAA) and Nevada (tied for 4th in the WAC) and choose the top 2 Southern teams. I wouldn't be surprised if William and Mary replaces Western Carolina though. I'd watch to see how VCU, William and Mary and Nevada do this week. Also, someone is going to travel and Western Carolina got that duty. Every team with a good record in the west is a WAC team, so somebody is travelling. The Utah St game is a midnight game.

A lot of these teams have already played each other too. La Tech has played Murray St. and Northern Iowa has already played Siena.

An update...
Kent rpi- 69; SOS- 64
Akron rpi-129; SOS-202
And after that game, I don't know you tell me whose the better team.

This is a big week. Road game against a slouch and home game against a contender. The hunger of the Golden Flashes will be put to the test.

I think most people knew that before the game. Akron was riding the fumes of their run in the MAC tourney last year in the pre-season mumbo-jumbo, but that is a different team they have now. They really haven't beaten a decent team at all (best win a home game vs. BG, no wins vs. teams with winning records, etc.) and have one road win vs. a 6-11 team.

I think Dambrot knew if he took that team on the road against even average non-major teams, he would have a string of losses. His philosophy is to get wins, regardless of how weak he has to schedule to do it. Syracuse and Georgetown have done that for years, but it works better when you have a good team and a major conference to prop up the RPI and SOS eventually.

On the other hand, Miami tend to over schedule, and I don't think that does them any good either.

If you have a team that you hope to get in the NCAA's, you have to give yourself a fighter's chance to have a top 40 RPI and a shot at an at-large if you don't win your conference tourney. We have done that most consistently over the years, as has Miami. We don't always win enough to make it happen, but we give ourselves a chance and have had years we would have received an at-large had we not won the CT ('99, '02, '08).

I don't understand the mentality that thinks that only the conference tourney matters when we and other mid-majors have proved clearly that good scheduling does matter. Sure, if your team is not top 50 caliber it doesn't matter, but I'm talking about teams who might have a shot if they schedule smart.

The clearest example of bad scheduling is the '07 Zips, easily their best team since joining the MAC and clearly the best team in the conference. And everyone knew that was going to be a strong team before the season started. But their schedule gave them NO CHANCE at the post-season. Dead before they even began. That lies at Dambrot's feet. He did an injustice to that team when he built a schedule that didn't test a really capable team. They had potential to be an NCAA at-large team, but the schedule was so weak, combined with the new selection process that they couldn't even get a bid to the NIT, let alone the NCAA.

Whoops. Sorry. Didn't mean to threadjack!

Back to BracketBusters! (which has been very good to us over the years!)

Did anyone notice how they are wording things this year?

Quote: BracketBusters, named because of the success of the teams in NCAA Tournament play, will provide the 22 televised teams an opportunity to play other top non-conference opponents three weeks before Selection Sunday. The 76 teams not selected for BracketBusters will compete against each other through the same two days.

It used to be that everyone was "in" but they seem to want to make a distinction between those in the TV games and those who are not are not really involved. (Only need to focus on 11 games, can ignore the rest.) I also notice that there are no ESPN 360 games this year--all ESPNU and ESPN2. They have tightened things up a bit and seem to want to have a clearer branding for the event.

(01-26-2010 06:44 AM)naeskent77 Wrote:  An update...
Kent rpi- 69; SOS- 64
Akron rpi-129; SOS-202
And after that game, I don't know you tell me whose the better team.

Amazing what 1 win over a team with a really high RPI will do for your own. Other than UAB, we have no "quality" wins and a lot of "bad" losses. You can't lose to Miami who has 5 wins, and losing at home to a team like BG is a "bad" loss also. Either way, I would love to see WSU in the bracketbuster, but I am more inclined to think La. Tech or CofC.

(01-26-2010 08:52 AM)axeme Wrote:  Whoops. Sorry. Didn't mean to threadjack!

Back to BracketBusters! (which has been very good to us over the years!)

Did anyone notice how they are wording things this year?

Quote: BracketBusters, named because of the success of the teams in NCAA Tournament play, will provide the 22 televised teams an opportunity to play other top non-conference opponents three weeks before Selection Sunday. The 76 teams not selected for BracketBusters will compete against each other through the same two days.

It used to be that everyone was "in" but they seem to want to make a distinction between those in the TV games and those who are not are not really involved. (Only need to focus on 11 games, can ignore the rest.) I also notice that there are no ESPN 360 games this year--all ESPNU and ESPN2. They have tightened things up a bit and seem to want to have a clearer branding for the event.

Maybe they want the name copyrighted for just the TV games. I still enjoy this as a fun little quirk of college basketball.

I like the BrackerBuster, but it is ironic that it didn't serve its purpose, which was to give more mid-majors a shot at an at-large bid. In fact, a case can be made that it is more difficult now for a mid-major to get an at-large bid than it was when the BracketBuster began! There was a column in the Washington Post the other day about the talk of expanding the NCAA tournament to 96, I think it is, teams. The columnist said that even that wouldn't help the mid-majors, as most of the additional bids would go to teams from the top 6 or so conferences.

To me, BrackBusters give the team and fans a chance to play in a "high major" type atmosphere. As long as its a "marquee/tv game", the teams get a Packed gym, good competition and a tv audience.

A few of my all time favorite Kent games have been home bracketbusters vs. creighton and butler and of course staying up til 2:45 to watch Kent play St. Mary a few years back. Its a cool day of hoops.

(01-27-2010 08:34 AM)fallsdog Wrote:  A few of my all time favorite Kent games have been home bracketbusters vs. creighton and butler and of course staying up til 2:45 to watch Kent play St. Mary a few years back. Its a cool day of hoops.

Only 2:45? Bro, I was so wired, I don't think I fell asleep until 5:00 that night/day. But I catch your drift.
My opinion really hasn't changed about the BB. I'm not a big fan of them. They don't "bust brackets." It does not give a mid-major a clear advantage on Selection Sunday. Yes, KSU has had success in recent years, after having a few years of un-success. (The Hawaii game is still the most miserable night of my sports-following life.) I could even argue that the game aginst St. Mary's ony made JC more marketable, more than giving Kent State a better advantage that March.
Just my opinnion. But as I see it, if they removed the Bracket Busters, nothing changes in the eyes of the Selection Committee.

BracketBusters is just a name. I wouldn't take it too literally. The bottom line is that it gets a bunch of decent mid-major teams a nationally televised game and some national exposure in the lead-up that they would not get otherwise. I don't see the negatives for those in the televised games.

The non-televised teams' seasons aren't going anywhere anyway, so I have deaf ears to their moaning about having to travel in the middle of conference play to some new place for a game without significance. Hell, all the bottom teams games don't have significance in that sense.

Plus, the return game vs. a comparable mid-major is a good thing, too for all the teams, even the ones not in the BracketBuster, per se.

yes, the return game is a good thing. lets say Kent draws C of Co this year. If the Flashes can beat them on the road next year, thats a very nice RPI win.

(01-27-2010 07:22 AM)Kent 76 Wrote:  I like the BrackerBuster, but it is ironic that it didn't serve its purpose, which was to give more mid-majors a shot at an at-large bid. In fact, a case can be made that it is more difficult now for a mid-major to get an at-large bid than it was when the BracketBuster began! There was a column in the Washington Post the other day about the talk of expanding the NCAA tournament to 96, I think it is, teams. The columnist said that even that wouldn't help the mid-majors, as most of the additional bids would go to teams from the top 6 or so conferences.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that the Washington Post analyzes sports about as well as it analyzes politics.

I think they should expand the field, but the fact is that 64 is a magical number as it gives you 3 weekends of basketball and different stories every weekend (1st weekend: Cinderella, 2nd weekend: reaching the final 4; 3rd weekend: the championship). There are so many more D1 teams than when they set it at 64 years ago (there are 347 teams now, 20 more than 7 years ago, I bet there weren't 290 teams when they expanded the field to 64 in 1985, but I couldn't find anything).

Anyway, if they expanded the field to 96, here are a list of the top 32 teams by RPI that did not make last year's tournament:

34 San Diego St WAC
40 Creighton MVC
46 UAB CUSA
47 Illinois St MVC
48 St. Mary's WCC
49 Niagara MAAC
51 George Mason CAA
53 Tulsa CUSA
54 Florida SEC
56 Baylor Big12
57 South Carolina SEC
58 Georgetown Big East
61 Virginia Tech ACC
64 Auburn SEC
65 Miami(FL) ACC
66 New Mexico MtnWest
67 UNLV MtnWest
68 Rhode Island A10
69 Davidson South
70 Penn St B10
71 UWGB Horizon
72 Providence Big East
75 Duquense A10
76 Nebraska Big 12
77 Notre Dame Big East
78 Northwestern Big 10
79 Kentucky SEC
80 Kansas St Big 12
81 Miami(OH) MAC
82 Mississippi SEC
83 Nevada WAC
84 Cincinnati Big East

16 from Top 6 conferences and 16 from out of Top 6 conferences. And it really isn't clear to me that a Mississippi (16-15) would get the pick over a Vermont (24-9, RPI#92) anyway.

The problem is logistics. I'd like to see that the 1st round (#33 vs #96 and such) played the Tuesday and Wednesday before the 1st weekend at home courts, but I don't think that'll happen. They'll have to find neutral sites to make the TV possible (or so I'm told). It would be nice to see the expansion.

Bopol, I take it will don't agree politically, but that's neither here nor there. And, it's actually 65 teams - don't forget that play-in game. I like your analysis, but don't forget that the RPI isn't the only factor that goes into selecting teams. It is just one of many. Knowing the history of the NCAA, my bet will be that if they add an additional 31 teams, well more than half will be from those top eight conferences. Many of the remainder will be from conferences just below those eight. I can't prove it, of course. We'll just have to wait and see.

Well, I don't know if we agree or disagree politically (likely both depending on the topic), and I think we all can agree that this board shoiuld remain politically free. That said, my commentary is more that the Washington Post's analysis of politics (and for that matter, most of the MSM) is really, really poor. I get more insight and thoughtful political thought from internet blogs (either side, just much more thought out). The great political thinkers don't write for newspapers anymore.

As far as expanded the field, I think the choices for the last few slots will come down to a major team that is darn near 500, midmajor teams that have 20-12 records and low major teams that blew their tournament and have gawdy records like 24-9. Suppose you are faced with this:

Ole Miss (16-15, 4-12 against Top 50 teams, 13-15 against Top 100 team, #82 in the RPI) vs. College of Charleston (26-9, 3-3 against Top 50 teams, 6 lossss against <100 teams and #97 in RPI).

It isn't clear to me that the committee would pick Ole Miss since they were barely 500 and CoC has a gawdy 26 wins. In fact, given that, I think it could benefit the low and mid-majors over the major clubs. Imagine the committee explaining picking a 500 team over a team with 26 wins.