The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

We made it 4 pages in to a thread and have largely stayed on topic. Great job.

I'll say this, the % chance that we'll win the next 9 games and lose in the CUSA final is single digit. My only point was, with 29 wins we'd create quite the discussion among the talking heads and selection committee. There is a lot of basketball left to be played.

Also, SFA will likely be our other top 100 win if they run the Southland table.

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  That's just because most sites are place holding the CUSA tournament winner. They are basing it on conference strength, not looking at the team who actually wins the tournament.

The committee will judge the team. If we win the tourney, we will be a 13 or 14. 13 if they reward us for a good tourney last year.

Why would they reward us for last years win?? I promise they will not use that as seeding for us this year.

If they wanted to set up a rematch & Iowa State was a 4 seed, they would bump us up to a 13.

(02-10-2016 10:39 AM)Ramsay7884 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  That's just because most sites are place holding the CUSA tournament winner. They are basing it on conference strength, not looking at the team who actually wins the tournament.

The committee will judge the team. If we win the tourney, we will be a 13 or 14. 13 if they reward us for a good tourney last year.

Why would they reward us for last years win?? I promise they will not use that as seeding for us this year.

They say that they don't do it but once people get rotated off they admit they do it.


I also cant see us as a 15. That is reserved for if UTEP or FAU wins it. We will be a higher seed than that. Only one time in history have we been that low and it was last year because we had such a poor regular season.

(02-10-2016 10:44 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 10:39 AM)Ramsay7884 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  That's just because most sites are place holding the CUSA tournament winner. They are basing it on conference strength, not looking at the team who actually wins the tournament.

The committee will judge the team. If we win the tourney, we will be a 13 or 14. 13 if they reward us for a good tourney last year.

Why would they reward us for last years win?? I promise they will not use that as seeding for us this year.

They say that they don't do it but once people get rotated off they admit they do it.


I also cant see us as a 15. That is reserved for if UTEP or FAU wins it. We will be a higher seed than that. Only one time in history have we been that low and it was last year because we had such a poor regular season.

Agreed. 12 is the ceiling, IMO. Run the table and we'd be 30-4.

(02-10-2016 11:18 AM)BlazerGold09 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 10:44 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 10:39 AM)Ramsay7884 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  That's just because most sites are place holding the CUSA tournament winner. They are basing it on conference strength, not looking at the team who actually wins the tournament.

The committee will judge the team. If we win the tourney, we will be a 13 or 14. 13 if they reward us for a good tourney last year.

Why would they reward us for last years win?? I promise they will not use that as seeding for us this year.

They say that they don't do it but once people get rotated off they admit they do it.


I also cant see us as a 15. That is reserved for if UTEP or FAU wins it. We will be a higher seed than that. Only one time in history have we been that low and it was last year because we had such a poor regular season.

Agreed. 12 is the ceiling, IMO. Run the table and we'd be 30-4.

Run the table and we will get a 8, 9, or 10 seed.

(02-10-2016 11:24 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 11:18 AM)BlazerGold09 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 10:44 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 10:39 AM)Ramsay7884 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  That's just because most sites are place holding the CUSA tournament winner. They are basing it on conference strength, not looking at the team who actually wins the tournament.

The committee will judge the team. If we win the tourney, we will be a 13 or 14. 13 if they reward us for a good tourney last year.

Why would they reward us for last years win?? I promise they will not use that as seeding for us this year.

They say that they don't do it but once people get rotated off they admit they do it.


I also cant see us as a 15. That is reserved for if UTEP or FAU wins it. We will be a higher seed than that. Only one time in history have we been that low and it was last year because we had such a poor regular season.

Agreed. 12 is the ceiling, IMO. Run the table and we'd be 30-4.

Run the table and we will get a 8, 9, or 10 seed.

Doubt it. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just looking back at historical data. Non p5 teams with rpi's north of 50 aren't going to be getting 8-10 seeds. Those are reserved for teams in the field already. We are not, and will not be, in the tournament field unless we win the tournament.

I also get what you are saying about teams not playing us in Birmingham, but that is what it is. That doesn't excuse a 300+ ooc sos. That doesn't make one top 100 win count as 15. Many, many teams have tried what we are doing this year. All of them had poor endings when they lost in their conference tournaments.

UAB is 13 at best even at 30-4 the 11-12 is pretty much reserved for the lower end power 6 or really high end mid majors. Not to mention play in games will take 2 of them.

11 seed would be a dream vs 6 then playing the 3. I don't care who we play its all about match ups and location.

(02-10-2016 09:35 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 09:23 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 12:48 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  This is what I hate about college athletics. There will be 7 or 8 P5 teams with double digit losses and a losing conference record and they never came close to beating a top 3 teams in their conference. But they will be anointed a high seed against a non- P5 for which they have a great matchup.

Does anybody think UAT, UGA, Vandy, Ole miss, Clemson, Pittsburgh, Syracuse or FSU deserves to go before we or MTSU do ? Because they are all going to get in before we do. And that is a travesty and a sham all rolled into one.

We have one top 100 game, the win against mtsu. We are 5-4 against rpi 100-200
Mtsu is 0-2 against the top 50, 1-1 against 51-100 and 6-3 against 100-200. Belmont is their top 100 win.
Alabama isn't on the radar right now, but they have a 3-5 record against the top 50, 1-3 against 50-10 and 1 loss outside the top 100.
Clemson is weird. They have a terrible rpi, but a 6-5 record against the top 50. 3 sub 100 losses hurt.
Georgia isn't really close. They are 1-7 against the top 50 and 2-2 against 51-100.
Vandy has decent cpu numbers and a great schedule. 2-7 versus the top 50, 3-2 against 51-100. 1 bad loss.
Ole miss is a ways away. Bad rpi, 0-6 versus the top 100, 3-1 versus 51-100, 2 bad losses.
Pitt, Syracuse and day all have top 50 rpi's, and at least three top 50 wins.

Right or wrong, these are the numbers the committee operates off of. If we played a top 50 ooc schedule, we would be in the discussion. We have 1(One!) top one hundred game on our schedule right now. Let me reiterate that number, one. When we play mtsu again, that will be our second as long as they stay top 100. It doesn't really look like we will get another team on our schedule there. We lost 4 games to teams that are nowhere near making the tournament. I always tell teams with crappy schedules that it's their fault when they miss.(la tech, southern miss, va tech in recent years). It's our fault, not the committees. You line our resume up against any of those above, and what is our argument? We have a lot of wins against crappy opponents? There is literally nothing else you could even argue.

#1. - Nobody with a losing conference record, including the conference tourney, should be allowed in the NCAA or NIT tourney.

#2. - If a non-P5 team gets good or shows promise for next season, everybody else avoids them like a stalker ex-girlfriend. Nobody will play us in Birmingham that isn't forced to. That isn't our coaches fault, in fact it is the opposite. We shouldn't be punished for this.

#3. - The entire NCAA tourney is a giant money grab for the P5 now. It didn't feel that way 30 years ago. If you team was very good, you got in. If not, you didn't.


It still doesn't seem that hard to see my point from the first post, but there is the clarification.

It is partly our fault. We have to take the team on the road for a couple games next year again big name teams. You can't tell me we can't get a big time team to take us for one game at their place. Haase has done a good job getting us into preseason tourneys, but it's not enough.

Realistically, how good did we expect auburn, Illinois, vt, ga st, and SFA to be? Those are good games, but not enough to get us into a potentially at large worthy schedule, even if they had better years than they're having now. Add in all of the garbage teams we've played, and you have the situation we're in now.

If the committee puts us lower than that with a 30-4 record, then they have given us an engraved invite to the Sweet 16, as we will not have to face a Top 10 team on the first weekend.

(02-10-2016 12:07 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  If the committee puts us lower than that with a 30-4 record, then they have given us an engraved invite to the Sweet 16, as we will not have to face a Top 10 team on the first weekend.

It is worth repeating, we are 6-4 vs the top 200. We are 0-2 on a neutral court. We have the potential to make a sweet 16 run. We also have the potential to lose a first round game.

(02-10-2016 01:43 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 12:07 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  If the committee puts us lower than that with a 30-4 record, then they have given us an engraved invite to the Sweet 16, as we will not have to face a Top 10 team on the first weekend.

It is worth repeating, we are 6-4 vs the top 200. We are 0-2 on a neutral court. We have the potential to make a sweet 16 run. We also have the potential to lose a first round game.

Bingo. This team could be special, OR they could fall flat on their faces. They've just been too inconsistent to this point. A terrible schedule can hide some flaws. Maybe we would play more consistently against better competition that we couldn't be lazy against? Who knows, but I really hope this team clicks again like they did last year at the tourney, or sooner.. If we have another gear that we haven't shown already, we could be very, very good.

We win consistently. That should count for something.

(02-10-2016 11:57 AM)Ramsay7884 Wrote:  UAB is 13 at best even at 30-4 the 11-12 is pretty much reserved for the lower end power 6 or really high end mid majors. Not to mention play in games will take 2 of them.

Good point. Didn't think about that.

(02-10-2016 02:55 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 01:43 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 12:07 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  If the committee puts us lower than that with a 30-4 record, then they have given us an engraved invite to the Sweet 16, as we will not have to face a Top 10 team on the first weekend.

It is worth repeating, we are 6-4 vs the top 200. We are 0-2 on a neutral court. We have the potential to make a sweet 16 run. We also have the potential to lose a first round game.

Bingo. This team could be special, OR they could fall flat on their faces. They've just been too inconsistent to this point. A terrible schedule can hide some flaws. Maybe we would play more consistently against better competition that we couldn't be lazy against? Who knows, but I really hope this team clicks again like they did last year at the tourney, or sooner.. If we have another gear that we haven't shown already, we could be very, very good.

+1

I totally agree, might need to tweak his ten man rotation. Add Smallwood and drop Madison its obivious. Change things a little , this type of schedule allows it. Lol

This Team (& Coaches) has grown up A LOT since the Niceville Tourney. Our guys have a bond now that you didn't see in Florida.

(02-10-2016 03:25 PM)Big Dee Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 02:55 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 01:43 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 12:07 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  If the committee puts us lower than that with a 30-4 record, then they have given us an engraved invite to the Sweet 16, as we will not have to face a Top 10 team on the first weekend.

It is worth repeating, we are 6-4 vs the top 200. We are 0-2 on a neutral court. We have the potential to make a sweet 16 run. We also have the potential to lose a first round game.

Bingo. This team could be special, OR they could fall flat on their faces. They've just been too inconsistent to this point. A terrible schedule can hide some flaws. Maybe we would play more consistently against better competition that we couldn't be lazy against? Who knows, but I really hope this team clicks again like they did last year at the tourney, or sooner.. If we have another gear that we haven't shown already, we could be very, very good.

+1

I totally agree, might need to tweak his ten man rotation. Add Smallwood and drop Madison its obivious. Change things a little , this type of schedule allows it. Lol

I can see solid roles for all 12 guys on the roster eligible to play. Though admittedly I've missed all of Love's minutes this season.

I don't see anything wrong with the rotation really, but I do wish coach would consider tightening it up a bit. I see a pretty serious drop off in play with the starters vs. bench guys sometimes. It may not always be a starters vs. bench issue, but I notice if we have a lineup in that's clicking and playing well that coach seems to swap that lineup out too quickly sometimes.

And more minutes for Dirk :).

(02-10-2016 03:02 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  We win consistently. That should count for something.

Sure. Against the 300th worst schedule, according to my buddy Warren. That type of schedule can hide some flaws. But if you think the team is perfect as is, please keep on complaining about us realists.