Zips @ NIU — Feb 13 at 4:30 pm

[Sportsjunkie330]

10 hours ago, LoyalZIP said:

 

How did they lay an egg? They played a really good game in an arena that they usually are terrible in. Was it a perfect performance? Hell no, but to say that they laid an egg is completely asinine. Still a 2 game lead over everybody else. 

When the talk all week long leading up to this game was:

 

At large bid, being able to play with Villanova, being ranked in the top 50, etc.... Yes, I'd say that this loss is laying an egg.

[burrdie]

Calipari did not get T with 2 minutes to go in game and a every close game

As an aside, the refs could have just talked to KD instead of calling a T that late in game

At my age coaching is not in my life now

Hey overall KD does a good job

Mistakes happen time to move on to next game

Hopfully we learn from our mistakes 

[tolbob]

NIU shot 39% 3-pointers.  Where was the 3 point defense?  Actually, teams will have good shooting nights against us every now and then. 

 

What hurt more was losing the rebounding (41-34) and turnover battles (13-7).  You can look at so many lost opportunities in a 1 point loss, and the last few minutes of the game always stand out.  Big Dog's foul shooting was great (8-10) before the last miss on the front of 1 and 1.

 

They seem to be pulling the on the floor announcers from the student communications departments to give them experience.  Awful !!

[LoyalZIP]

19 minutes ago, Sportsjunkie330 said:

When the talk all week long leading up to this game was:

 

At large bid, being able to play with Villanova, being ranked in the top 50, etc.... Yes, I'd say that this loss is laying an egg.

 

A one point loss to a decent team on the road is disappointing, but to call it "laying an egg" takes away from how hard they played. 

[Glib Shanley]

53 minutes ago, Sportsjunkie330 said:

When the talk all week long leading up to this game was:

 

At large bid, being able to play with Villanova, being ranked in the top 50, etc.... Yes, I'd say that this loss is laying an egg

 

When you start evaluating a team's performance based on fans' expectations via a chat site, you're going to be able to supply Bob Evans.

 

[LZIp]

We lost to a team that prior to beating us, was under .500 in MAC play. When we are the supposed "class" of the league, I'd say its laying an egg. They have a double digit loss to Miami for cryin' out loud.

Edited February 14, 2016 by LZIp

[burrdie]

Thank you bigzipguy!

As a school counselor, I have sent many many students to UA and feel they get a great education.

The more I think about it, the refs were wrong to call a T with 2 minutes to go and such a very close and important game.

That being said, we all lead by example!

[K92]

Can we put the cart back behind the horse now?

[The Hip Zip]

We lost by one, on the road, to a team that is now 17-8.  Some of you guys really crack me up.

[K92]

41 minutes ago, The Hip Zip said:

We lost by one, on the road, to a team that is now 17-8.  Some of you guys really crack me up.

Yeah but it ruins the pipe dream of running the table until a squeaker loss in the MAC final and getting at at large.

 

Beat Canada.

[burrdie]

Not sure we could get an at large bid 

We need to win MAC and in Cleveland 

There are to many great unrank teams in top conferences who will get at large bids

just never know!

[RooYahoo]

21 hours ago, 1981 grad said:

When Pat comes in they stop playing inside out.  They need to have Pat in the lane and feed him the ball.  No reason to change the offense when he is in.

I totally agree. All he does is set screens. 

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, burrdie said:

Not sure we could get an at large bid 

 

just never know!

 

A logical voice has returned. 

 

You're exactly right.  All we can do is build our own credentials with the games we have, look at some past data among tournament entrants, and hope for the best.

 

1)I felt like this was the target for maximum losses, so we could still end up at 26-5.  Really Good. 

2)We could also be as good as 8-1 against the Top 100, depending on where some other teams end up.  Really Good.

3)We just lack any blockbuster wins. 

I hope that's still enough.  I think it should be.  If it's not, then I am going to bitch again next year about why we don't target the types of games in our OOC schedule to enhance that resume.  If we don't make it better, then shame on us. 

[kreed5120]

The Zips are still in an excellent position to win the regular season MAC title and #1 overall seed in the MACC. They are up 2 games with 6 remaining. Of those 6, 4 are at the JAR a place the Zips have yet to lose at this season. A strong regular season finish plus a MACC win should still give them a decent seed come tourney time.

 

I'm confident they will hang onto the 2 game lead. Best case scenario is the Zips win out and enter the tourney as a 10 seed, if lucky maybe a 9. A loss in MAC tourney puts them in the NIT. An at-large seems like a huge stretch at this point and honestly shouldn't be our focus anyways. The MAC has been a 1 bid conference for the past 16 years and any team banking on that changing this year was likely going to end up disappointed.

Edited February 14, 2016 by kreed5120

[NWAkron]

As I was writing Kreed posted same thing, I've never been a fan of discussing at large bids because it would mean we didn't win the MAC Tournament.  Let's get that regular season championship, the automatic bid to the NIT, the top seed and win the tournament.  If we were to finish 29-5 and with 9 straight wins, we would be looking at a much better seed.  That at large big would seem difficult considering our post-season history.  Cutting down the nets at the Q...nothing better.

Anyone remember many years back when the top team in the West got the #2 seed and there was talk Akron lost a game or two to get on the easier side of the bracket?

[skip-zip]

Not sure if this comparison has come up yet, but it's worth seeing. 

 

Why haven't we looked at another great Zips team.  The 2007 team.  I recall being disappointed that they couldn't get an NCAA bid, but absolutely shocked that they didn't get to the NIT.

 

Here's how 2007 and 2016 compare:

 

Records:

2007: 26-7 with the MAC tournament finals loss.

2016: 27-6 potential with a MAC tournament finals loss.

 

RPI:

2007: Final RPI #68

2016: Current RPI #45 (will certainly climb much higher if we won 7 and lost 1 through the next month).   

[bigzipguy]

If they should win out, including the MACC, I do not believe they could get a 9 or 10 seed. If they could get a #12,great!!!!

If you look at the recent NCAA   tournament results, there have been more that just a few upsets of #5 vs #12. In fact, I believe, that is where most have occurred.

[skip-zip]

4 hours ago, bigzipguy said:

If they should win out, including the MACC, I do not believe they could get a 9 or 10 seed. If they could get a #12,great!!!!

If you look at the recent NCAA   tournament results, there have been more that just a few upsets of #5 vs #12. In fact, I believe, that is where most have occurred.

 

There's actually been A LOT of 12 vs. 5 upsets over the years.  In fact, many people have said that these games usually see a good mid-major conference tournament champ playing against a team that finished a few rungs down in the standings in a major conference.  It's been a spot that's been ripe for upsets many times over the years. 

 

You would think that the committee would maybe take this as a message that more of those high achievers in the "less recognized" conferences were possibly deserving of more tournament bids?  Not a chance.   

[kreed5120]

25 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

There's actually been A LOT of 12 vs. 5 upsets over the years.  In fact, many people have said that these games usually see a good mid-major conference tournament champ playing against a team that finished a few rungs down in the standings in a major conference.  It's been a spot that's been ripe for upsets many times over the years. 

 

You would think that the committee would maybe take this as a message that more of those high achievers in the "less recognized" conferences were possibly deserving of more tournament bids?  Not a chance.   

 

12 seeds have gone 47-97 (32.6%) vs. 5 seeds.

11 seeds have gone 49-95 (34%) vs. 6 seeds

10 seeds have gone 58-90 (39.2%) vs. 7 seeds

9 seeds have gone 69-79 (46.6%) vs. 8 seeds

 

Moral of the story is there is little difference between an 11 and 12 seed odds of winning, but a sizeable boost in a 9 & 10 seed winning.

 

http://mcubed.net/ncaab/seeds.shtml 

 

Edit:

To expand on my above post 13 seeds win 19.5% vs. 4 seeds and 14 seeds win only 16.1% vs. 3 seeds.

Edited February 15, 2016 by kreed5120

[zippy5]

Looks like the committee gets it right over time

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

Moral of the story is there is little difference between an 11 and 12 seed odds of winning

 

But you're forgetting to factor in that the 12/5 games were SUPPOSED to be much bigger mismatches than the 11/6 game.  You're talking about teams that were separated by 5 spots in the seeding process, and teams that were separated by 7 spots.  Big difference. 

 

So, the fact that they are nearly equal in upsets seems to validate why so many people talk about those 12/5 games, and the reasons why they are a matchup where so many upsets occur.   

[kreed5120]

11 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

But you're forgetting to factor in that the 12/5 games were SUPPOSED to be much bigger mismatches than the 11/6 game.  You're talking about teams that were separated by 5 spots in the seeding process, and teams that were separated by 7 spots.  Big difference. 

 

So, the fact that they are nearly equal in upsets seems to validate why so many people talk about those 12/5 games, and the reasons why they are a matchup where so many upsets occur.   

 

As a fan though it makes little difference if you're an 11th or 12th seed, however, you should be hoping for a 10 seed or better. In general I feel there isn't much of a talent gap between an 11th & 12th seed just like there isn't much of a talent gap between a 6th and 7th seed. Once you start getting into the 13th and 14th seeds, you begin seeing teams that aren't really 1 of the best 68 teams in the country but got in by winning a mediocre to bad conference.

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

 

As a fan though it makes little difference if you're an 11th or 12th seed

Again, it is when you have to consider that the competitor is a step up too.  Essentially, you're matching a team that's as many as 4 spots higher (one seed level) with a team 4 spots lower.  That's the point.  You can call it insignificant, if you like.  For that matter, you could also say that #68 and #1 isn't a significant difference because there's another 300 teams that were worse.   

Edited February 15, 2016 by skip-zip
add

[kreed5120]

31 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

Again, it is when you have to consider that the competitor is a step up too.  Essentially, you're matching a team that's as many as 4 spots higher (one seed level) with a team 4 spots lower.  That's the point.  You can call it insignificant, if you like.  For that matter, you could also say that #68 and #1 isn't a significant difference because there's another 300 teams that were worse.   

 

If a #1 seed actually played the 68th best team, we would have seen a 16 seed beat a 1 by this point. Those 16 seeds come from awful conferences and are more like the 200th best team and that might be me being generous. A 12 seed typically features some of the best mid-major teams plus the final 1-2 at-large teams. 11 seeds are typically bubble teams that squeezed themselves in. After you get past the top dozen or so serious contenders, teams 20-30 aren't that far apart. If you don't believe me, just look at how often teams juggle in the AP poll.

 

Edit: 6 seeds are 4-3 vs 7 seeds. Small sample size, but it just goes to show how even those teams are.

Edited February 15, 2016 by kreed5120

[GJGood]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 0:55 PM, burrdie said:

Not sure we could get an at large bid 

We need to win MAC and in Cleveland 

There are to many great unrank teams in top conferences who will get at large bids

just never know!

I know the NCAA is what we all want but lets take it one step at a time. Winning the MAC regular season title guarantees us of at least an NIT berth. That is a lot better than the CBI,  CiT, or sitting at home. Those options will be where we will find most of our MAC brethren in the postseason.