2008-2009 College Basketball Thread......

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

REALLY like Mizzou's draw. Funny quote from one of MU's freshman on their opening round opponent (Cornell).....

The Ivy League champ, which finished 21-9 overall and 11-3 in conference, has Missouri’s respect as an educator of men. MU’s Kim English said: “We’re probably going to be working for them in four years. We’d better get them now.”

Marquette is missing a starter and has lost 5 of their last 6. Memphis would be the next opponent if seeds hold. The last coach to beat Memphis in a conference game? Mike Anderson.

Oh, and I don't need to remind Mizzou fans what happened the last 2 times we visited Boise (Tyus Edney and Northern Iowa ring a bell)?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's gotten better since the NCAA took them over. They now have automatic qualifiers for the smaller conference regular season champs. Some mid-majors like Old Dominion, Dayton, and Hofstra have made good runs the last couple years. But still, the seeding heavily favors major conferences and very few mid-majors get the right to host a game in the tournament (especially in the later rounds). If the whole thing was played on neutral courts, I think you'd see more mid-majors do well, just like we see in the NCAA tournament.

Yes. Dayton got hosed on seeding last year in the NIT... they got a 3 seed, and had to travel to Illinois State and Ohio State... and couldn't quite beat OSU to get the bid to New York.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Do you really think the TOP mid-majors have 0% chance of winning the title? George Mason just made the Final Four three years ago.

That's only 2/3 of the way there, and really only 1/3 of the way there in terms of beating elite teams. They got to the final 8 only beating one of the best teams in the country. Its certainly possible for a GMU caliber talent type team to beat three good teams and one great team to make the final four, but to win 3 games in a row against great teams. Very unlikely.

[molson]

The number of mid-major entrants have been going down, but some of the former "mid majors" (when defined as non-power conferences), are no longer mid majors. Like Louisville and Marquette. Should the promotion of those teams make it more difficult for other power conference teams to get in so we can maintain a minimum number of unqualified mid-majors?

I really wonder would satisfy the mid-major fanatics. Maybe we should just make the NIT the exclusive mid-major tournament, with a Division 1 split into 1 and 1-A.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Your examples of Siena and Temple are nice, but neither team gets into the dance without winning their conference tournament. Neither team plays in a conference with a team as good as Gonzaga. The MAAC also isn't in the same league as the WCC.

Siena got a 9 seed, Temple an 11. With the last at larges getting 12's, that indicates to me that they would have gotten in ahead of St. Mary's, who the committee obviously viewed as a 13.

Temple does play in a league with a team as good as Gonzaga - Xavier is a 4 seed, just like the zags, and are an automatic at large every year just like Gonzaga. The difference between the leagues is that the A-10 actually has some depth. They had two "locks" this season, and two other teams in the at-large conversation. The WCC rarely has anyone but Gonzaga in the discussion. There is no comparison between the leagues.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

The number of mid-major entrants have been going down, but some of the former "mid majors" (when defined as non-power conferences), are no longer mid majors. Like Louisville and Marquette. Should the promotion of those teams make it more difficult for other power conference teams to get in so we can maintain a minimum number of unqualified mid-majors?

It's really stupid to frame the argument that way. No one wants unqualified mid-majors getting in. We want qualified mid-majors getting in.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's really stupid to frame the argument that way. No one wants unqualified mid-majors getting in. We want qualified mid-majors getting in.

The Big East expanding to a super-conference means the existence of less qualified mid-majors. But the fanatics want the same number of mid-majors in anyway, and whine about their decreasing numbers. The fanatics prefer the mid-majors regardless of the actual qualifications of the teams - I understand that to a degree, because the mid-majors are more "interesting", but it's not fair to keep teams out only because they're less interesting, and part of a "evil" power conference empire.

Of course, none of the fanatics would admit that, that's just my opinion. People hate power conferences, Duke, The Patriots, US Steel, Walmart, etc. They love to see the little guys be relevant. But the kids on a mediocre power conference team deserve the same look as any other team.

The numbers, RPI, don't matter. When the annual power conference vs. mid-major debate takes place, the players are always the same on each side of the argument. They try to frame the numbers to support their case, but if their inclination is mid-majors, that's always the side of the argument they're on. It's just a preference, yes nobody ever argues it as a preference - it's always that the mid-majors are screwed, it's a conspiracy, etc.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Samdari

That's only 2/3 of the way there, and really only 1/3 of the way there in terms of beating elite teams. They got to the final 8 only beating one of the best teams in the country. Its certainly possible for a GMU caliber talent type team to beat three good teams and one great team to make the final four, but to win 3 games in a row against great teams. Very unlikely.

?? Didn't they also beat Michigan State and North Carolina on the way there? Geez you've got high standards. Those two with Wichita State and UConn, that's a tougher path than most take to the F4, because most F4 teams get a first round gimmee. But regardless, for the purposes of my argument, F4 = capable of winning the title. I think that's a fair statement.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

REALLY like Mizzou's draw. Funny quote from one of MU's freshman on their opening round opponent (Cornell).....



Marquette is missing a starter and has lost 5 of their last 6. Memphis would be the next opponent if seeds hold. The last coach to beat Memphis in a conference game? Mike Anderson.

Oh, and I don't need to remind Mizzou fans what happened the last 2 times we visited Boise (Tyus Edney and Northern Iowa ring a bell)?

I like the draw too... but I don't know much about Cornell.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

The Big East expanding to a super-conference means the existence of less qualified mid-majors. But the fanatics want the same number of mid-majors in anyway, and whine about their decreasing numbers. The fanatics prefer the mid-majors regardless of the actual qualifications of the teams - I understand that to a degree, because the mid-majors are more "interesting", but it's not fair to keep teams out only because they're less interesting, and part of a "evil" power conference empire.

Who here is arguing that, though? I don't see it. In fact, some of the people arguing for the mid-majors are known fans of BCS teams (including me). I mean, sure there are probably some insane people out there, but why bring them up if they'r enot part of this thread. If you want to find a crazy person to argue against because that's easier, then I suggest you go seek them out, instead of bringing up irrelevant points in this thread.

Of course, none of the fanatics would admit that, that's just my opinion. People hate power conferences, Duke, The Patriots, US Steel, Walmart, etc. They love to see the little guys be relevant. But the kids on a mediocre power conference team deserve the same look as any other team.

And they get that look. But when a #62 RPI team gets in ahead of teams in the 30's and 40's, then people that like to see mid-majors get in are annoyed.

The numbers, RPI, don't matter. When the annual power conference vs. mid-major debate takes place, the players are always the same on each side of the argument. They try to frame the numbers to support their case, but if their inclination is mid-majors, that's always the side of the argument they're on. It's just a preference, yes nobody ever argues it as a preference - it's always that the mid-majors are screwed, it's a conspiracy, etc.

But that's part of the argument. The RPI comparisons don't look good this year. I mean, if you want to dismiss the facts people bring up because the mid-major people are always conspiracy nuts in your mind, then fine, but I don't think that makes for an intelligent discussion.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Do you really think the TOP mid-majors have 0% chance of winning the title? George Mason just made the Final Four three years ago.

Yup because they had to hit the lotto just to get to the final four and nobody in their right mind actually thought they would win it all which of course they didn't

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

?? Didn't they also beat Michigan State and North Carolina on the way there? Geez you've got high standards. Those two with Wichita State and UConn, that's a tougher path than most take to the F4, because most F4 teams get a first round gimmee. But regardless, for the purposes of my argument, F4 = capable of winning the title. I think that's a fair statement.

Michigan St. was a 6 seed. North Carolina a 3. They were 23-8 that year.

Michigan St. was certainly not an elite team that year, but a good team. I guess the 3's border on elite some years. UNC was 23-8 that year, having lost anyone with any significant tournament experience to the NBA. I don't think I'd call them elite that year. This year, Villanova and Kansas border on elite, Missouri and Syracuse do not.

My standards for applying the term "elite" are indeed high.

I don't think your F4 - capable of winning the title is necesarily true. Generally the "surprise" F4 teams don't win the national championship. That is because you can usually make the final four only beating one of the best teams in the country. But, you'll have to beat two more once there to win it. Winning three games in a row against that competition is much harder than winning one.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's really stupid to frame the argument that way. No one wants unqualified mid-majors getting in. We want qualified mid-majors getting in.

Exactly. What people are talking about is at most the swapping the last two or three at large bids for big conference teams and giving them to teams that actually won a vast majority of their games. But once anyone suggests taking a spot or two away from someone's beloved big conference people get really defensive.

I see people using the "well they won't go anywhere in the tournament anyway" argument. It's not like low seeds from the big conferences have a stunning record in the tournament. Teams with an 11 seed or lower making it past the second round in the last eight years:

So. Illinois, George Mason, Temple, W. Kentucky, Villanova, UW-Milaukee, Butler, Missouri, Gonzaga, Bradley.

Obviously smaller teams are more likely to be seeded 11 or lower but there are still a few from the big conferences every year and I don't feel their record in past tournaments suggest that one of these below average big conference teams deserve a place in the field.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Michigan St. was a 6 seed. North Carolina a 3. They were 23-8 that year.

Michigan St. was certainly not an elite team that year, but a good team. I guess the 3's border on elite some years. UNC was 23-8 that year, having lost anyone with any significant tournament experience to the NBA. I don't think I'd call them elite that year. This year, Villanova and Kansas border on elite, Missouri and Syracuse do not.

Granted, but I still maintain that going through a 6, 3, 7, and 1 is a tougher path to the F4 than most F4 teams take. Nevertheless, I appreciate your take. Unlike Chubby, you're actually making an intellectually honest argument.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Granted, but I still maintain that going through a 6, 3, 7, and 1 is a tougher path to the F4 than most F4 teams take. Nevertheless, I appreciate your take. Unlike Chubby, you're actually making an intellectually honest argument.

Honest, sure. Intellectual, iffy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I like the draw too... but I don't know much about Cornell.

Cornell's strength is long distance shooting. They are 5th in the nation in 3 point shooting percentage. They've got one kid named Whitman who's not afraid to shoot it from 30 foot.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Honest, sure. Intellectual, iffy.

For a thread about sweaty college kids running around in baggy shorts, we'll call it intellectual.

[Young Drachma]

Wyoming got into the CBI. They're playing Northeastern at home in the first round. If they win, they'll play the winner of Nevada/UTEP and that'd setup a semi-final against Stanford/Boise State/Wichita State/Buffalo

I think they could get there before losing to Stanford, but I say that knowing nothing about how good the Tree is this year.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Wyoming got into the CBI. They're playing Northeastern at home in the first round. If they win, they'll play the winner of Nevada/UTEP and that'd setup a semi-final against Stanford/Boise State/Wichita State/Buffalo

I think they could get there before losing to Stanford, but I say that knowing nothing about how good the Tree is this year.

Due to the overwhelming success of the CBI (can anyone name 3 teams that were in it?) there is yet another tournament this year. We are rapidly getting into bowl ridiculousness. The new tournament even has a .com name.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Kansas may be facing a pretty hostile crowd in their first round matchup. The last time North Dakota St. had a game in the Metrodome, they piled 30,000 fans into the opposing team's stadium. Good Lord.

Roehl's school-best 263 rushing yards help Bison avenge '06 loss - NCAA College Football Recap - ESPN

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Samdari

We are rapidly getting into bowl ridiculousness. The new tournament even has a .com name.

Maybe worse, because I believe the CBI contains two teams with losing records. Seems it has a whole weird financial aspect to it that makes a lot of schools not want to participate. I cannot imagine why it exists or who would take pride in winning it. At least the NIT has tradition.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Maybe worse, because I believe the CBI contains two teams with losing records. Seems it has a whole weird financial aspect to it that makes a lot of schools not want to participate. I cannot imagine why it exists or who would take pride in winning it. At least the NIT has tradition.

MU turned down a bid to that tournament in the past due to the financial situation. Mizzou's AD refused to use school funds to buy into the tournament.

[Arles]

A lot of things going on, so I will try to catch up. First, the RPI is a tool. If a team is top 20, I think it makes sense to cite it. When comparing conferences, it makes sense to cite it. When one team is 50 and the other is 60, I don't see it being the end all be all in a comparison. It's one piece of data, but not enough to tilt the balance. I also have a hard time with this argument that despite losing 3 games against Gonzaga, St Marys is better. I know injuries played a part, but going 0-3 against 1 team makes it a tough sell.

As to talent, here's the latest NBA mock draft:

NBADraft.net

Arizona has 2 lottery picks in Hill (#3) and Budinger (#16). The Pac 10 has 6 picks in the top 29 (two in the top 4). The ACC also has 6 and the big east has 5. By the time Gonzaga's only player goes (Heytvelt at 39), the Pac 10 has already had 7 players go. Patty Mills isn't listed as being drafted.

It seems like all of St. Marys promise is based on the myth of what a healthy Patty Mills gives them. Here's what we know - the best team they beat with a healthy Mills was San Diego State by 5 (who other Pac 10 teams trounced - including Arizona by 13). Plus, Mills just had a 5-30 shooting exhibition in the WCC tournament, so it would be hard to show he's ready to carry St. Marys into the dance (which is what he would need to do as they struggle without him).

So, at the end of the day, the argument for St. Marys is that a player who isn't considered NBA draft material, who's best win came in a 5-point win over San Diego State and who just shot 5-30 against WCC defenses is enough to make St. Marys a mid-tier Pac 10 team. I don't see it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

MU turned down a bid to that tournament in the past due to the financial situation. Mizzou's AD refused to use school funds to buy into the tournament.

Yeah, it is just bizarre that they have to pay to participate. Acutally, I think they only have to pay to host games. Still, its a strange arrangement.

Why anyone would be in it: Tulsa probably made money on it last year. They got 4 home games, I think. And left the Alumni with a warm feeling. And got to practice for a few weeks.

Apparently the new tournament (the collegeinsider.com bowl, err tournament) is because the CBI left Fox College Sports for HDNet, and by God, Fox Sports wanted to televise a tournament settling the question of who is the 114th best team in the country.

At least the world gets these matchups:
The Citadel (20-12) @ Old Dominion (21-10)
Rider (19-12) @ Liberty (22-11)
Kent State (19-14) @ Oakland (22-12)

Wednesday March 18
Mount St. Mary’s (19-13) @ James Madison (19-14)
Austin Peay (19-13) @ Bradley (18-14)
Belmont (19-12) @ Evansville (17-13)
Portland (19-12) @ Pacific (19-12)
Drake (17-15) @ Idaho (16-15)

Only parents, grandparents and very dedicated girlfriends will be watching. One of the main points I heard in last nights post selection analysis is how 16-15 Idaho deserved to continue playing.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

A lot of things going on, so I will try to catch up. First, the RPI is a tool. If a team is top 20, I think it makes sense to cite it. When comparing conferences, it makes sense to cite it. When one team is 50 and the other is 60, I don't see it being the end all be all in a comparison. It's one piece of data, but not enough to tilt the balance. I also have a hard time with this argument that despite losing 3 games against Gonzaga, St Marys is better. I know injuries played a part, but going 0-3 against 1 team makes it a tough sell.

As to talent, here's the latest NBA mock draft:

NBADraft.net

Arizona has 2 lottery picks in Hill (#3) and Budinger (#16). The Pac 10 has 6 picks in the top 29 (two in the top 4). The ACC also has 6 and the big east has 5. By the time Gonzaga's only player goes (Heytvelt at 39), the Pac 10 has already had 7 players go. Patty Mills isn't listed as being drafted.

It seems like all of St. Marys promise is based on the myth of what a healthy Patty Mills gives them. Here's what we know - the best team they beat with a healthy Mills was San Diego State by 5 (who other Pac 10 teams trounced - including Arizona by 13). Plus, Mills just had a 5-30 shooting exhibition in the WCC tournament, so it would be hard to show he's ready to carry St. Marys into the dance (which is what he would need to do as they struggle without him).

So, at the end of the day, the argument for St. Marys is that a player who isn't considered NBA draft material, who's best win came in a 5-point win over San Diego State and who just shot 5-30 against WCC defenses is enough to make St. Marys a mid-tier Pac 10 team. I don't see it.

Stop making sense. Everyone knows that St Mary's is more deserving because they are a midmajor and Arizona is not.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Exactly. What people are talking about is at most the swapping the last two or three at large bids for big conference teams and giving them to teams that actually won a vast majority of their games. But once anyone suggests taking a spot or two away from someone's beloved big conference people get really defensive.

I see people using the "well they won't go anywhere in the tournament anyway" argument. It's not like low seeds from the big conferences have a stunning record in the tournament. Teams with an 11 seed or lower making it past the second round in the last eight years:

So. Illinois, George Mason, Temple, W. Kentucky, Villanova, UW-Milaukee, Butler, Missouri, Gonzaga, Bradley.

Obviously smaller teams are more likely to be seeded 11 or lower but there are still a few from the big conferences every year and I don't feel their record in past tournaments suggest that one of these below average big conference teams deserve a place in the field.

To use this year's example, Arizona won a grand total of TWO games outside the state of Arizona, versus Pac-10 stalwarts Oregon & Oregon St.

To argue that this team deserves to be playing in lieu of (Insert qualified Mid-Major) is ridiculous/stupid.

EDIT: That said, I'm thrilled about the chance to bet against Arizona this week.

[Young Drachma]

Even with the other tournaments, there is still a huge percentage of college basketball teams that don't play post-season matchups.

I'm all for more opportunities for the season to keep going, rather than just the NCAA and its bastard stepchild acquired through marriage, the NIT. Buying your way into the post-season is a little lame, for sure. But plenty of schools have banners from national tournaments in the 30s, 40s and 50s that were just as curious as the collegeinsider.com tournament.

[DeToxRox]

This is what's great about March Madness .. People are ready to kill one another over teams that MIGHT make it to the Sweet 16 at best.

[Radii]

With all these great arguments for why all these teams don't deserve to be in, why in the world does anyone think its a good idea to expand the field even further?

Note: That's not sarcasm. The last few at large teams and the first teams out of the tournament are hugely flawed, always. There's just no reason at all to expand things further.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Hold on, there's ANOTHER tournament now? I had completely forgotten about the CBI, and now there's this collegeinsider thing? Why the hell isn't New Orleans participating in postseason basketball? Now I'm pissed off.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Hold on, there's ANOTHER tournament now? I had completely forgotten about the CBI, and now there's this collegeinsider thing? Why the hell isn't New Orleans participating in postseason basketball? Now I'm pissed off.

The Hornets are in the NBA silly!

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

The Hornets are in the NBA silly!

bite me

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

To use this year's example, Arizona won a grand total of TWO games outside the state of Arizona, versus Pac-10 stalwarts Oregon & Oregon St.

To argue that this team deserves to be playing in lieu of (Insert qualified Mid-Major) is ridiculous/stupid.

EDIT: That said, I'm thrilled about the chance to bet against Arizona this week.

I guess I am in the minority, I thought neither Arizona nor St Mary's deserved to go.

I think St. Mary's was one of the more difficult cases to evaluate since the bracketology era (and thus endless debate) started. I think the team that was playing with a completely healthy Patty Mills would have been selected as an at-large. Clearly a St Mary's team without said Mills was not one of the top 50 teams in the country. So, they were left to figure out: which St. Mary's team could they send to the tournament. It sure looks to me like they rushed Mills back in a desperate attempt to get the committee to consider only their record with Mills. However, since he came back, I think they did nothing to demonstrate that the pre-Mills' injury team was available for selection.

Of course, looking at the other teams who were left out, I am not sure I see anyone with a whole lot of merit. All but Arizona played pretty crappy nonconference schedules.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Why the hell isn't New Orleans participating in postseason basketball?

I'm waiting for the "Almost 20 Losses Tournament" to form so UNO can get back in the action.

Best Wins: Tulane, Middle Tennessee
Bad Losses: Pretty much all 19 of them
Mediocre Big Name They Kinda Almost Beat: NC State

You can't argue with that resume for the ATLT. I'm psyched now. Who wants to finance this baby?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I'm waiting for the "Almost 20 Losses Tournament" to form so UNO can get back in the action.

Best Wins: Tulane, Middle Tennessee
Bad Losses: Pretty much all 19 of them
Mediocre Big Name They Kinda Almost Beat: NC State

You can't argue with that resume for the ATLT. I'm psyched now. Who wants to finance this baby?

LOL

I'm liking this idea a lot.

On the bright side, Bo McCalebb is leading his pro team in total points scored. He's playing for Mersin BSB over in Turkey, alongside former Tennessee standout Chris Lofton. I don't know their playoff system over there, but I hope that Bo gets some postseason work for a change.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

On the bright side, Bo McCalebb is leading his pro team in total points scored. He's playing for Mersin BSB over in Turkey, alongside former Tennessee standout Chris Lofton. I don't know their playoff system over there, but I hope that Bo gets some postseason work for a change.

Bo showed up in the new Lakefront Arena this year for our last home game, a rare win no less over a once-Final Four coach (another feather in our cap for the ATLT resume). It was great to see Bo back. Our handful of fans pretty much swarmed him. Poor guy should have gotten to play in the arena again. Stupid FEMA.

Anyway, hijacking a 1,600+ reply thread to talk about our crappy Sun Belt team will never get old. Never.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Yup because they had to hit the lotto just to get to the final four and nobody in their right mind actually thought they would win it all which of course they didn't

I remember Memphis coming within a couple free throws of winning it all last year. A Utah squad who made it to the finals a little while back. And one of the greatest college hoops team in history was a mid-major (UNLV).

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Arles

A lot of things going on, so I will try to catch up. First, the RPI is a tool. If a team is top 20, I think it makes sense to cite it. When comparing conferences, it makes sense to cite it. When one team is 50 and the other is 60, I don't see it being the end all be all in a comparison. It's one piece of data, but not enough to tilt the balance. I also have a hard time with this argument that despite losing 3 games against Gonzaga, St Marys is better. I know injuries played a part, but going 0-3 against 1 team makes it a tough sell.

As to talent, here's the latest NBA mock draft:

NBADraft.net

Arizona has 2 lottery picks in Hill (#3) and Budinger (#16). The Pac 10 has 6 picks in the top 29 (two in the top 4). The ACC also has 6 and the big east has 5. By the time Gonzaga's only player goes (Heytvelt at 39), the Pac 10 has already had 7 players go. Patty Mills isn't listed as being drafted.

It seems like all of St. Marys promise is based on the myth of what a healthy Patty Mills gives them. Here's what we know - the best team they beat with a healthy Mills was San Diego State by 5 (who other Pac 10 teams trounced - including Arizona by 13). Plus, Mills just had a 5-30 shooting exhibition in the WCC tournament, so it would be hard to show he's ready to carry St. Marys into the dance (which is what he would need to do as they struggle without him).

So, at the end of the day, the argument for St. Marys is that a player who isn't considered NBA draft material, who's best win came in a 5-point win over San Diego State and who just shot 5-30 against WCC defenses is enough to make St. Marys a mid-tier Pac 10 team. I don't see it.

Patty Mills is only a sophomore I do believe. Im certain he will get drafted based on his performance in the Olympics last summer. It appears only the highest profile sophomores are on that draft list you reference. Depending on when he turns pro Id speculate he will be a mid to late 1st rounder.

As for the rest of what you say its hard to argue with any of it. I will say Arizona has had the reputation for about 10 years of being very talented but extremely dumb on the court nothing from what I see of them early in the season changed my point of view. I cant recall what game it was however Arizona made a shot to tie it up with about 3 seconds left and while the opponent was setting up for the 3/4 court heave at the buzzer the arizona player fouled him on purpose. The team they were playing of course hit 1 of the 2 ft's and Arizona lost the game. My biggest problem with them is how can a team of 5 star recruits consistently be so dense when it comes to a game they've played their entire life.

After looking it up I am 90 percent sure it is the UAB game I am referencing above.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

My biggest problem with them is how can a team of 5 star recruits consistently be so dense when it comes to a game they've played their entire life.

See Hewitt, Paul or Pearl, Bruce.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Siena got a 9 seed, Temple an 11. With the last at larges getting 12's, that indicates to me that they would have gotten in ahead of St. Mary's, who the committee obviously viewed as a 13.

Temple does play in a league with a team as good as Gonzaga - Xavier is a 4 seed, just like the zags, and are an automatic at large every year just like Gonzaga. The difference between the leagues is that the A-10 actually has some depth. They had two "locks" this season, and two other teams in the at-large conversation. The WCC rarely has anyone but Gonzaga in the discussion. There is no comparison between the leagues.

Like I said, most of the bracket experts said that Siena and Temple had no shot at getting an at-large bid. Maybe they would be completely wrong but they have a good track record.

The A-10 is a better conference, especially today. But the WCC has had some strong seasons where they put 3-4 teams in the tournament if I remember correctly.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I remember Memphis coming within a couple free throws of winning it all last year. A Utah squad who made it to the finals a little while back. And one of the greatest college hoops team in history was a mid-major (UNLV).

Do most people consider Memphis a mid-major? The A-10,C-USA, and I think the Mountain West are considered in between conferences,not quite power conferences, but well above "mid-majors" in your average season.

[Radii]

dola i think..

FBCB distinguishes between those conferences and mid-major conferneces as far as conference prestige goes. College Hoops 2k8 has a conference designation of "large" that sits between the power conferences and mid majors. Not that these are completely accurate sources of information, but I think that's a good indicator of the perception of the landscape of college basketball.

Memphis, Temple, Xavier, etc,etc, IMO are not mid-major schools.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I remember Memphis coming within a couple free throws of winning it all last year. A Utah squad who made it to the finals a little while back. And one of the greatest college hoops team in history was a mid-major (UNLV).

Well, what's a mid-major?

You can probably find stories calling GMU the first mid-major final four team to make the F4 since Penn in 1979.

Then other times, you read that it means any team outside the Big 6.

Did they count Memphis last year as one? How about 1985? Cincinnatti in 1992? Louisville in the entire 1980's?

Gonzaga would have definitely been considered a mid-major in 1999, but probably would not be hailed as such today. Memphis 2008 probably has shed the label too. And if they have, then the great pro UNLV teams from the early 1990 & 1991 cannot be called that, but they might have qualified for that label in 1987, and certainly would if they made it today.

Utah is a great point - its from the BCS era and not a BCS school. Why didn't they count?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Bo showed up in the new Lakefront Arena this year for our last home game, a rare win no less over a once-Final Four coach (another feather in our cap for the ATLT resume). It was great to see Bo back. Our handful of fans pretty much swarmed him. Poor guy should have gotten to play in the arena again. Stupid FEMA.

Anyway, hijacking a 1,600+ reply thread to talk about our crappy Sun Belt team will never get old. Never.

Wow, it's awesome that Bo went back home and saw his school play. I wonder if that caused him to miss any time with his pro team (they only play once a week over there). It sucks that he had to finish his career as the greatest player in Sun Belt history by playing in the HPC. Hell, I played on the HPC floor between classes. There's no way that Bo should've finished up there. He deserved better.

As a huge Memphis fan, I still have basketball to look forward to this year, but my heart will always lie with the Privateers. The final seconds of the 1996 Sun Belt tournament championship game are on YouTube. Tyrone Garris with the teardrop at the buzzer to send UNO to the Big Dance. Wow, that was ages ago.

Thanks for helping me hijack this thread a little bit!

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

As a huge Memphis fan, I still have basketball to look forward to this year, but my heart will always lie with the Privateers. The final seconds of the 1996 Sun Belt tournament championship game are on YouTube. Tyrone Garris with the teardrop at the buzzer to send UNO to the Big Dance. Wow, that was ages ago.

That YouTube video came directly from my videotape of the game! Buddy of mine actually posted it. I believe I have watched that sequence about 5,000 times give or take 100.

There is actually a more recent Memphis-UNO connection than the glorious Tic Price era, since Doneal Mack transferred to UNO for about a week last summer. I suppose he's happy he changed his mind...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Radii

The A-10,C-USA, and I think the Mountain West are considered in between conferences,not quite power conferences, but well above "mid-majors" in your average season.

Those conferences (along with Missouri Valley and lately CAA) are exactly what I think "mid-major" references. The descriptive words you use:

"in between conferences,not quite power conferences, but well above ...."

Is what the term "mid-major" brings to my mind, but in my thinking .... refers to the lowest conferences.

I think the term has been expanded by the media to include lower conferences, for PC reasons (its more polite to refer to the Southland conference as "mid-major" rather than "shitty") to encompass more teams/conferences than it should.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

That YouTube video came directly from my videotape of the game! Buddy of mine actually posted it. I believe I have watched that sequence about 5,000 times give or take 100.

There is actually a more recent Memphis-UNO connection than the glorious Tic Price era, since Doneal Mack transferred to UNO for about a week last summer. I suppose he's happy he changed his mind...

What? Are you serious about that tape? That's awesome! I never would have guessed!

I also had no idea that Doneal Mack transferred to UNO. I'd say we could use a guy like him, but it would really be a waste of his talent. The team could be 11-19 without him or maybe 13-17 with him. Yeah, he probably made the right move by staying at Memphis.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Radii

FBCB distinguishes between those conferences and mid-major conferneces as far as conference prestige goes.

Yeah, I think the 1-5 is more descriptive. Something roughly like

5- Major
4- High mid-major
3- Mid-major
2- Low mid-major
1- Low-major, or shitty, depending on your outlook

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

A lot of things going on, so I will try to catch up. First, the RPI is a tool. If a team is top 20, I think it makes sense to cite it. When comparing conferences, it makes sense to cite it. When one team is 50 and the other is 60, I don't see it being the end all be all in a comparison. It's one piece of data, but not enough to tilt the balance. I also have a hard time with this argument that despite losing 3 games against Gonzaga, St Marys is better. I know injuries played a part, but going 0-3 against 1 team makes it a tough sell.

The RPI is a tool and one that was used heavily in determining who made it to the tournament. That went away a few years ago when too many mid-majors were making it and the BCS schools had a fit.

Originally Posted by Arles

As to talent, here's the latest NBA mock draft:

NBADraft.net

Arizona has 2 lottery picks in Hill (#3) and Budinger (#16). The Pac 10 has 6 picks in the top 29 (two in the top 4). The ACC also has 6 and the big east has 5. By the time Gonzaga's only player goes (Heytvelt at 39), the Pac 10 has already had 7 players go. Patty Mills isn't listed as being drafted.

It seems like all of St. Marys promise is based on the myth of what a healthy Patty Mills gives them. Here's what we know - the best team they beat with a healthy Mills was San Diego State by 5 (who other Pac 10 teams trounced - including Arizona by 13). Plus, Mills just had a 5-30 shooting exhibition in the WCC tournament, so it would be hard to show he's ready to carry St. Marys into the dance (which is what he would need to do as they struggle without him).

So, at the end of the day, the argument for St. Marys is that a player who isn't considered NBA draft material, who's best win came in a 5-point win over San Diego State and who just shot 5-30 against WCC defenses is enough to make St. Marys a mid-tier Pac 10 team. I don't see it.

By that analysis, Arizona is a better team than Louisville, UConn, and Pittsburgh because they have more lottery picks. Being a great college player which Patty Mills is doesn't always translate into NBA stardom.

My argument against Arizona is that they lost 13 games and were .500 in one of the weakest power conferences. They lost 5 of their last 6 games and was ousted in the first round of the conference tournament. That's a lot of losing in one season to be featured in the tournament.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Patty Mills is only a sophomore I do believe. Im certain he will get drafted based on his performance in the Olympics last summer. It appears only the highest profile sophomores are on that draft list you reference. Depending on when he turns pro Id speculate he will be a mid to late 1st rounder.

The top 20 have 11 Freshmen and Sophomores in the mock. So, if Mills was that great, he would atleast be projected in the 1st/2nd round (before he pulls his name out).

As for the rest of what you say its hard to argue with any of it. I will say Arizona has had the reputation for about 10 years of being very talented but extremely dumb on the court nothing from what I see of them early in the season changed my point of view. I cant recall what game it was however Arizona made a shot to tie it up with about 3 seconds left and while the opponent was setting up for the 3/4 court heave at the buzzer the arizona player fouled him on purpose. The team they were playing of course hit 1 of the 2 ft's and Arizona lost the game. My biggest problem with them is how can a team of 5 star recruits consistently be so dense when it comes to a game they've played their entire life.

Welcome to being a fan of Arizona. Salim Stoudemire, Marcus Williams, Chase Budinger - Arizona has a recent history of having extremely brain-dead stars who disappear in big games (or make bonehead plays). It wasn't like that in the 90s and even 2002, but this has been the case for the past 5-6 seasons. It's the one nice thing about the Lute era ending, maybe we can actually get basketball players instead of 5-star, brain dead athletes.

After looking it up I am 90 percent sure it is the UAB game I am referencing above.

It was and Jamele Horn was the player in question.