Coach Mo

[SFP]

You know, I have to agree with you up to at least a certain point on this one. Of course a Sweet 16 run is a far bigger accomplishment than winning the conference. But, of course the Valley is not usually as strong as it was in 2006 where you had the first fifth place teams ever from the Valley making the NCAA Tournament. That won't cut it most years, and of course we do need to win championships from time to time, which we have not done under Les and only once under Coach Mo.

My point is that there are some here who think winning the Valley "outweighs" a Sweet 16 appearance, which of course is patently ridiculous! Many teams win their conferences year after year and are one and out of the tournament. Obviously you have to win conference championships to make the tournament, but winning games in the tournament will ALWAYS outshine winning a conference championship!

I do not buy that going to the Sweet 16 trumps making the NCAA year in and year out. So you would rather have what we accomplished lately then the multiple NCAA appearance and league championships by CU? Sorry, if you look at it, one year of glory does not equal a decade of consistency of challenging for a league title. I have always felt winning the league title is of the upmost importance, followed by winning down in St Louis. an NCAA win from there is a sweet bonus.

[jrish12]

You know, I have to agree with you up to at least a certain point on this one. Of course a Sweet 16 run is a far bigger accomplishment than winning the conference. But, of course the Valley is not usually as strong as it was in 2006 where you had the first fifth place teams ever from the Valley making the NCAA Tournament. That won't cut it most years, and of course we do need to win championships from time to time, which we have not done under Les and only once under Coach Mo.

My point is that there are some here who think winning the Valley "outweighs" a Sweet 16 appearance, which of course is patently ridiculous! Many teams win their conferences year after year and are one and out of the tournament. Obviously you have to win conference championships to make the tournament, but winning games in the tournament will ALWAYS outshine winning a conference championship!

While I agree mostly, you need to win games in your conference and be in contention for titles most years to have even a shot at getting to the NCAAs let alone making a sweet 16 run. Like you said, a 4-5 place finish isnt going to get you into the tournament 9 years out of 10. Im not discounting the Sweet 16 run because that was awesome, but that should be the rule, not the exception IMO. I guess I will put it this way - We want to be like Butler, not George Mason.

[srw]

Watched Vandy the other night. Stallings is a great coach, it sure doesn't seem like he's been there 11 years.

Absolutely agreed.

Its one of the many reasons why I continue to push for Dan Muller...

Im afraid if we don't seriously look at someone like him, we will be facing him about 40 miles to the southeast in 2 years or less.

[Bravesfan]

I do not buy that going to the Sweet 16 trumps making the NCAA year in and year out. So you would rather have what we accomplished lately then the multiple NCAA appearance and league championships by CU? Sorry, if you look at it, one year of glory does not equal a decade of consistency of challenging for a league title. I have always felt winning the league title is of the upmost importance, followed by winning down in St Louis. an NCAA win from there is a sweet bonus.

I didn't say year in and year out. I was just agreeing with the poster who said in any given year a Sweet 16 is better than just winning the conference an making the tournament. I agree though that our goal is to try to win the Valley on a yearly basis, something that seems far from our grasp for now.

[Bravesfan]

While I agree mostly, you need to win games in your conference and be in contention for titles most years to have even a shot at getting to the NCAAs let alone making a sweet 16 run. Like you said, a 4-5 place finish isnt going to get you into the tournament 9 years out of 10. Im not discounting the Sweet 16 run because that was awesome, but that should be the rule, not the exception IMO. I guess I will put it this way - We want to be like Butler, not George Mason.

Very true.

[Braves4Life]

Im not discounting the Sweet 16 run because that was awesome, but that should be the rule, not the exception IMO. I guess I will put it this way - We want to be like Butler, not George Mason.

I LOVE your optimi$m jrish but I'm afraid you're living in a fanta$y world. Today'$ NCAA i$ in bed with E$PN and the other Network$. It i$ almost impo$$ible for a mid-major to reach that level of $ucce$$ anymore.

[squirrelgotdead]

Mid-Majors have had more high-level success this decade than any other since ESPN started.

If you had told me in 1995 the schools that would make the Sweet 16 and even beyond...Gonzaga, Kent St, George Mason would go to the Final Four and Butler play in the National Championship game, I would have laughed you out of the room.

The minute you buy into that belief, or sell yourself short is the minute you make the choice to be irrelevant.

And the same applies to football with the rise of Boise State, Utah and others.

[jrish12]

At least in basketball they play to determine who is in the championship, not some stupid computer.

[Braves4Life]

Mid-Majors have had more high-level success this decade than any other since ESPN started.

That is true, but I was referring to the consistency that jrish hopes for. I just do not see a mid-major having the ability today to consistently go to the Sweet-16 each year like a Duke, Mich. St. KU, or UK.

[jrish12]

That is true, but I was referring to the consistency that jrish hopes for. I just do not see a mid-major having the ability today to consistently go to the Sweet-16 each year like a Duke, Mich. St. KU, or UK.

I was just saying that George Mason was more a flash in the pan and Butler has been a consistent team in the NCAA tournament. Currently, not to offend anyone on this board, but we are more like George Mason right now a flash in the pan from that sweet 16 run instead of being a consistent force getting into the NCAAs and contending for league titles. I agree that it is tougher for mid majors to go far in the tournament now, especially with the expanded tournament as another way of keeping them out and getting marginal BCS schools into the tournament.

[theBUer]

I agree that it is tougher for mid majors to go far in the tournament now, especially with the expanded tournament as another way of keeping them out and getting marginal BCS schools into the tournament.

Not to pick on your specifically, but this is the attitude that I don't really care for. Yes the number of mid-major at-bids is low compared to those from power teams, but mids should not base their status on how many bids they get. Instead, what they should do is schedule better opponents (even if it means no return game) and win games they are supposed to win.

Look at the Big East. The best teams in that conference all expect to run the table come tourney time. They don't boast about their conferences getting multiple bids, they almost expect it.

When the Big East and Big 10 get a fair amount of bids, they do so because the conferences have a reputation of being a meat grinder. I'm not kidding myself that there are some awful teams in those aforementioned leagues, but there is definitely a creme de le creme that separates the contenders from the pretenders.

[Braves4Life]

.....we are more like George Mason right now a flash in the pan from that sweet 16 run .....

I'm not even sure we're that good......

2005–2006 George Mason 27–8 15–3 T-1st NCAA Final Four
2006–2007 George Mason 18–15 9–9 T-5th
2007–2008 George Mason 23–11 12–6 3rd NCAA 1st Round
2008–2009 George Mason 22–11 13–5 2nd NIT 1st Round
2009–2010 George Mason 17–15 12–6 4th CIT 1st round