Jump to content

OZoner

Members
  • Posts

    578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by OZoner

  1. NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.
    Here's some reading material for you
    I'm sorry, but this does nothing to suggest anything of a concerted effort by the NCAA to keep mid-majors out. At best, it's tautology. Mid-majors aren't there because the NCAA doesn't want them; the NCAA doesn't want them, so they're not there. Because the number of bids has been going down is proof of nothing. What about when the numbers were going up? Doesn't this decline match the NBA's age rule? Think that might be a reason?Fact of the matter is, the at-large pool was weak last year. The teams cited in that article all had huge holes in their resume.People want to blame The Man instead of looking in the mirror.Here's a good piece about the at-large process. You tell me if there's room for collusion.
    One of the most interesting parts of that article:One thing that really struck me was up in the top left corner, the first thing a committee member sees when scanning one of these. There's average RPI win and average RPI loss. That's not something that you can find on any website, is it? (Don't worry, we're on it this weekend.) SJU's average win of 170 makes its profile look a whole lot less impressive.
    Basketball State has it.
  2. NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.
    Here's some reading material for you
    I'm sorry, but this does nothing to suggest anything of a concerted effort by the NCAA to keep mid-majors out. At best, it's tautology. Mid-majors aren't there because the NCAA doesn't want them; the NCAA doesn't want them, so they're not there. Because the number of bids has been going down is proof of nothing. What about when the numbers were going up? Doesn't this decline match the NBA's age rule? Think that might be a reason?Fact of the matter is, the at-large pool was weak last year. The teams cited in that article all had huge holes in their resume.People want to blame The Man instead of looking in the mirror.Here's a good piece about the at-large process. You tell me if there's room for collusion.
  3. I don't think anyone considers Ohio a serious contender in the East, especially after Coleman went down. He was their best player.As far as Van Kempen goes, he's not a scoring threat, but his rebound has improved vastly and he is good at clearing out on drives by guards. He's no Romeo Travis, but he's no Brandon Parks, either.As far as the "me first" brand of basketball goes, you're thinking of the O'Shea days. Groce's offense is predicated on ball movement and unselfishness. Being such a young team, it's going to break down at times and the lack of offense from the forwards is putting the onus on the perimeters, but to call the team selfish is unfair, I think.Akron might have been better off had Ohio won Saturday. The team across I-76 taught them an important lesson, I think, in what it's going to take to compete in this division. If the young 'Cats are quick learners, they stand a good chance of winning tomorrow.

  4. I don't often wander into football, but I have to say, you sound like a very sore loser here. By most accounts, we brought our D+/C- game up 77 and still won. Ask Tennessee and BG if Theo Scott can throw.All in all, I'll take the kind of suck that gets you to 2-0 in the division.

×
×
  • Create New...