Z-Pouch Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 1) The MAC has had At-Large selections, but not in recent years.Absolutely false - People have provided facts on this subject - You dont listen. A couple of bids over many years hardly makes for a good argument.2) Can't State had teams that would have been good enough to get an at-large, but they won the MAC Tournament, which, of course, eliminated the need for an at-large bid.Absolutely false - Unless you are part of the committee, you are making wild assumptions here. I follow the MAC closely and dont remember serious consideration in recent years. Funny, you can't remember our schedule 3 years ago but I bet you go to Kents teams of 6-7 years ago to support this argument.4) Miami and Can't scheduled well enough to give themselves an OPPORTUNITY to get an at-large. We simply had another 20+ win season with absolutely no national recognition.Absolutely false - Once again, Can't's schedule is not that different from ours. PLEASE look at the facts and level that they scheduled. Their number was up this year, alot of things fell in place, alot of their midlevel opponents have overachieved this year. Some very unexpectedly. People keep on providing you facts and you keep on with the same hand waving arguments.My point, more than anything else, is that what we are doing now has never worked. Just 3 years ago our schedule (05-06) had......Mississippi State, Clemson, California, Louisville and Neveda. I think the Bracketbuster return game was a dud in Niagra. Do you have a clue what happened in the California and Louisville games? You make it out like UA has scheduled this way for the past decade. And BTW - Miss State and Clemson were part of a Tourny package. Your credibility sinks lower with every post. And, please stop with "we" on this schedule stuff. It is YOU that has the major issue. I think the majority of people on this site who follow college basketball and look past RPI/SOS get what KD is trying to do and it will improve in the future as the program develops. No one responds to the crap anymore because it's getting old. I'm sorry you dont get it but you seem to be the type of person that looks at the surface and draws these absolute conclusions without much factual support. Next year, under the same philosophy, you will be touting how great the schedule is if we manage a better preseason tourney then the Alaska fiasco that gets two lower majors on the schedule on a neutral court. BTW- since you dont EVER go into any details, thats how Can't got Illinois State and Xavier on their schedule, the won games in a preseason Tourny. These were NOT "scheduled" opponents neither were Bracketbuster commitments with George Mason and St Marys. If you were around last year that would have been like our schedule IF we had won some games in the Texas Tourny rather then losing to Arkansas LR (I, like others here, can shoot holes in your short sighted stories). Do you honestly think they are not trying on the scheduling? Trying not put us in a good situation......Cmon man. We have a huge game on Sunday and you are bogged down in countless identical posts that have been talked about since December. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP. We got your point a long time ago. I'm sure the moderators would rather spend time talking/having fun with the Can't game then looking for another picture of a horse getting beat so that you get the subtle hint. Although, I'm pretty sure that the last horse beating picture (with animation even) would be difficult to top. Can we just move on to the Can't game and the MAC Tourney ? There's nothng new here except people trying to educate you more on the "what ifs" of our schedule and history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Pouch Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 we had the opportunity too...we just blew it.losses to NIU, Western, Central, Portland State...we win those ones, we're looking at a top 50 RPI, that's not out of the question.we beat Dayton, we could be around 35-40.Advance to the MAC semi's...with a win over Western in the semi's our RPI is around 30-35.If we win one out of the Dayton/VCU pair, we're on the right side of the bubble.we had the opportunity, Miami didn't.We had a chance to beat teams we scheduled, Miami didn't...I guarantee he won’t listen but nicely done. Of course, you are saying we would have to be 30-0 though…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 Z-Pouch....I love the ABSOLUTELY FALSE references, as if you are trying to prove a point by yelling the loudest. Nice try. Apparently YOU aren't listening.Racer said, "THE MAC HAS ALWAYS BEEN A ONE BID CONFERENCE" and my response was "THE MAC HAS HAD MULTIPLE BIDS".FACT: 1999 the MAC had TWO selections to the NCAA tournament. Yet, you call my statement ABSOLUTELY FALSE. So, Can't could not have gotten any at large bids during some of those years they won 20+ but won the automatic bid anyway?? How do you know that? Yet ...you say ABSOLUTELY FALSE to that statement.The only "what ifs" I've seen from a couple of you are "If only we won a couple more of the games we should have won". I have news for you. That's NOT going to get it done. It didn't last year, didn't during the Huggins era, and hasn't for almost 30 years now. And as someone with a considerable coaching background, I know how tough it is to get young kids to play consistenly enough to NOT have "bad losses" during the course of a 5-month schedule. YOU WILL LOSE GAMES YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO WIN...EVERY YEAR. Please, take a closer look at the kinds of resumes that get you at-large NCAA tournament bids, and you'll get a much clearer picture. I'm fine with moving on to discussions about the Can't game. I'm looking forward to the game very much. Maybe it's time we all have some unity. But please, don't try to keep on with the argument that we don't need major changes to improve our situation when it comes to post season opportunities. Like I've said before, you can feel free to join with a few of the others who appear to be happy with continuing on the same path that hasn't worked before, and yields the same results, year after year. But please, don't try to argue that "a couple more wins" would solve the problem, when it's never worked before, and our schedule strength has us WAY off of the NCAA radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippy5 Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 we had the opportunity too...we just blew it.losses to NIU, Western, Central, Portland State...we win those ones, we're looking at a top 50 RPI, that's not out of the question.we beat Dayton, we could be around 35-40.Advance to the MAC semi's...with a win over Western in the semi's our RPI is around 30-35.If we win one out of the Dayton/VCU pair, we're on the right side of the bubble.we had the opportunity, Miami didn't.We had a chance to beat teams we scheduled, Miami didn't...I guarantee he won’t listen but nicely done. Of course, you are saying we would have to be 30-0 though…… Not saying we have to be 30-0...with our schedule if we lossed 5 or 6 like Can't did with a very similar schedule, we would be a top 40 RPI team, and most likely looking at an at-large bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 Ok...let's take your "what if" and give Akron a full 3 more wins, and put their record at 24-5 instead of 21-8. Even though we had some close wins that could have gone the other way as well. But..let's take the best scenario and look at it. That bumps our RPI to somewhere in the neighborhood of the 45-50 mark. Can't State is at 31, and may have possibly blown their last chance by getting their 6th loss last week. Plus, we don't have similar schedule strength. Can't's schedule strength is ranked 35 spots higher than ours.Listen...I joined people like you in a display of total disgust when we didn't get a bid to EITHER tournament last year. I don't think it's right, but this is the game we are forced to play. It's been this way for a long, long time. Even if we had squeaked out a couple more wins, we're right about in the same boat as last year, which didn't get us one of the 96 spots available for post season play, let alone a spot in the top 64 field. Do you really think anything has changed in a year?Plus, we're still not factoring in the idea of just how hard it is for a coach to get college kids to play consistently enough to win 85% of your games in a given season. You are always going to lose games you should have won, and those losses are devastating. I'm not totally disregarding your opinion. I'm just demonstrating that it's going to take much bigger changes than what some people are proposing to eliminate the "if only we....", and give us some legitimate chances at NCAA at-large bids.Again, look back at CraftyMFer's post. I believe he probably has the right mix for OOC scheduling that would get the job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.