St. Louis Post writer says ISU "deserves a spot in NCAA tournament"

[cpacmel]

MVC Coaches (First 2 seasons)

The following are the coaching records of the current MVC coaches in their first 2 years in the MVC. The records are for CONFERENCE GAMES only. (wouldn't want those non-conference schedules to make their records out to be more impressive than they really are. )

Lowery 31-10 (including 4-1 in the MVC tourney)

Jankovich 28-16 (including 4-2 in the MVC tourney)

Jacobsen 20-20 (including 2-2 in the MVC tourney)

McKenna 17-23 (including 2-2 in the MVC tourney)

Les 15-23 (including 0-2 in the MVC tourney)

Altman 13-24 (including 0-1 in the MVC tourney)

Marshall 14-27 (including 1-2 in the MVC tourney)

Simmons 11-27 (including 0-2 in the MVC tourney)

Martin and Phelps are in their first seasons.

[cpacmel]

wow, Dana should have been canned!!
and Porter Moser sure left behind some good players!

Maybe. Jank was handed a team that went 6-12 the year before in conference games though.

Altman was handed a team that went 3-15 the year before he got there.

SIU was 17-1 in conference the year before Lowery got the job.

MO's last year you guys were 5-13 in the MVC play.

[shaunguth]

The following are the coaching records of the current MVC coaches in their first 2 years in the MVC. The records are for CONFERENCE GAMES only. (wouldn't want those non-conference schedules to make their records out to be more impressive than they really are. )

Lowery 31-10 (including 4-1 in the MVC tourney)

Jankovich 28-16 (including 4-2 in the MVC tourney)

Jacobsen 20-20 (including 2-2 in the MVC tourney)

McKenna 17-23 (including 2-2 in the MVC tourney)

Les 15-23 (including 0-2 in the MVC tourney)

Altman 13-24 (including 0-1 in the MVC tourney)

Marshall 14-27 (including 1-2 in the MVC tourney)

Simmons 11-27 (including 0-2 in the MVC tourney)

Martin and Phelps are in their first seasons.

I guess that means they must deserve a spot.

ISU resume

vs. Top 50: 2-1

vs. Top 100: 7-6

RPI: 47

SOS: 105

Last 10: 5-5

[SFP]

In the WAC final it does not matter, because both team should get in regardless. St. Mary's has shown what type of team they are with a healthy Patty Mills. If you have not seen him play you should. He plays a lot like Tony Parker but with a better jump shot.

IMO ISU will not get in! CU should but I doubt it. We will be a 1 bid league. ISU and CU should blame their scheduling if they do not get in. They know that our conference overall is a bit weaker so they needed to go outside a bit of their comfort zone or win out to make a much better case. This may be the best thing for the MVC in the long run because there will be a re-emphasis on SOS.

[cpacmel]

ISU resume
SOS: 105

I just saw BU's SOS of 96. After it's all said and done, BU played a schedule that is a full 9 spots harder than ISU's.

Is 9 spots negligible?

[Murph]

I just saw BU's SOS of 96. After it's all said and done, BU played a schedule that is a full 9 spots harder than ISU's.

Is 9 spots negligible?

Playing ISU 2 times pulled us down....

[shaunguth]

I just saw BU's SOS of 96. After it's all said and done, BU played a schedule that is a full 9 spots harder than ISU's.

Is 9 spots negligible?

You are correct on those numbers. I don't think Bradley has any business being in the NCAA tournament either.

[Da Coach]

cpacmel, that is the overall SOS, and the reason it looks close is because the 12 teams play essentially the same conference schedules (except BU plays ISU, and ISU plays BU twice), and in a good conference like the MVC, those games draw everyone closer in overall SOS.

The real fair comparison is looking at the non-conference Strength of Schedule, where there is a huge difference--

Here is Ken Pomeroy's site for 2008-2009. The non-conference SOS is in the far right column--

http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2009&c=MVC

BU= 177 (the lowest it's been for many years for BU)
ISU= 272- 2nd worst in the MVC

Here is last year's (2007-2008 )-

http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2008&c=MVC

BU= 89
ISU= 142

Here is 2006-2007-

http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2007&c=MVC

BU= 42
ISU= 236


And 2005-2006-

http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2006&c=MVC

BU= 74
ISU= 291

In fact, you have to go all the way back to 2003-2004 to find the last season where ISU had a better non-conference SOS than Bradley. Every year since then it hasn't been close.

[cpacmel]

Playing ISU 2 times pulled us down....

With our RPI being 47, I think it was quite the opposite Murph. But I know your kidding.

We were BU's only top 50 win. (1-6 overall) Does that mean we were your BEST WIN?

ISU was only 2-1 vs. the top 50.

And as Shaunguth already pointed out 7-6 vs. the top 100. BU was 2-10 vs. the top 100.

[shaunguth]

With our RPI being 47, I think it was quite the opposite Murph. But I know your kidding.

We were BU's only top 50 win. (1-6 overall) Does that mean we were your BEST WIN?

ISU was only 2-1 vs. the top 50.

And as Shaunguth already pointed out 7-6 vs. the top 100. BU was 2-10 vs. the top 100.

It's a good thing the writer didn't say "Bradley deserves a spot".

[thefish7]

Cpacmel,

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BU's resume is better... I don't know anyone who thinks BU has anything like a shot at the NCAA. I think we all think that our non-con schedule was better. I think most of us think ISU was the better team this year, and has a better resume. I think most of us also think that ISU doesn't have any shot at an NCAA bid... I also think that ISU may have indeed been our best win this year.

So, doesn't that mean we agree with you?

[cpacmel]

cpacmel, that is the overall SOS, and the reason it looks close is because the 12 teams play essentially the same conference schedules (except BU plays ISU, and ISU plays BU twice), and in a good conference like the MVC, those games draw everyone closer in overall SOS.

I have to disagree with that. A matter of fact, the only SOS # the committee looks at is a team's OVERALL SOS.

Now a team's schedule is grouped by wins vs. 1-50, 51-100, 101-200, and 200+ for the selection committee, but in their selection sheet the only SOS # is Overall.

Evansville's SOS is #57
Drake's SOS is #127

[cpacmel]

Cpacmel,

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BU's resume is better... I don't know anyone who thinks BU has anything like a shot at the NCAA. I think we all think that our non-con schedule was better. I think most of us think ISU was the better team this year, and has a better resume. I think most of us also think that ISU doesn't have any shot at an NCAA bid... I also think that ISU may have indeed been our best win this year.

So, doesn't that mean we agree with you?

Good post TheFish. Though I think you would find people on here that would say that BU was better than ISU, despite the fact that ISU finished ahead of them in the standings and have a better RPI. (by 40 spots too)

My point really came down to scheduling. I just thought it was interesting that despite the fact that BU's schedule was described as "challenging" and ISU's schedule was described as "soft", the 2 team's overall SOS was virtually the same.

That is all.

[thefish7]

Well, I do think ISU's schedule was extremely soft. Bradley's schedule was decent with three excellent opponents, but not "strong" because after those three it was pretty weak. Bradley didn't perform over the course of the schedule. We beat none of the big guys and lost to a couple of teams that we shouldn't have.

We played okay in conference, but ISU did better. We split our series with ISU, so given ISU's better conference performance, nod goes to ISU. I think ISU had the talent to be quite a bit better, and I think a healthy BU might have very well been the better team. Doesn't really matter though, now.

[Bravesfan]

That is right, the final factors are now out of anyone in the MVC's control.
It now depends on how many conference tournament upsets occur that award a team who would not have been deserving of an at-large bid.

ISU and Creighton fans are pulling for the likes of Memphis (RPI of 7) in the CUSA, Utah (10) or BYU (22) in the MWC, Butler (RPI of 1 in the Horizon, Siena (24) in the MAAC, Utah State (27) in the WAC, Gonzaga (35) in the WCC, George Mason (46) in the Colonial, to win their tournaments, and for no low-seeded teams to win any of the big power conference tournaments. It will all play out this week.

I think St. Mary's might be in anyway, so I don't think tonight's game will matter there. George Mason is right on the fringe and may not get in short of the tourney championship anyway. Hard to gage where the committee is on Utah St. but hopefully they win along with Siena because they will both take away bids if they don't take care of business. Finally, three teams minimum will come out of the Mountain West anyway, so it does not matter much there either. Obviously Butler or a third team out of the A-10 could do some damage to Creighton's chances as well.

As far as ISU is concerned, I think they should get consideration. They are 2-1 against the top 50 (all Creighton) and have a very respectable against the top 100 as well. I would hate to see a team like ISU and especially Creighton get shafted by the likes of a South Carolina who has a 1-5 record against the top 50, or a Kentucky who while decent is not an NCAA caliber team in my opinion. What the fascination is regarding South Carolina by the media is beyond me, but they stick out like a sore thumb as an "ultimate" bubble team who really has no business in the tournament. If the committee does their job, a team like that will not be chosen, but as usual Selection Sunday ought to be fascinating in either a good way or a bad way!