Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unconfigured Ad Widget 7

Collapse

MVC coaches questioning BracketBuster?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dogsrus View Post
    And right now somebody from UT-M is saying...."we are playing BRADLEY.....YUCK."

    Actually, Dogs...we are quite possibly the best non-conference opponent ever to visit there, or at least in a generation. The best team I could find the last seven years to visit there was Evansville.

    This could be a big game for them.

    Comment


    • #17
      I would think the MVC staying with it for now, would be good due to the reasons mentioned--national games, some buzz, occassionally being used for bubble-tying, etc. However, the onvious thing that should go is the "return game" concept. That frequently jacks-up scheduling, and really is not needed since it does not add anything to the teams schedules--all the BB teams can easily schedule one another when and if they choose, why lose scheduling felxibility and get forced into a return game for no apparent reason?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ghunt View Post
        I would think the MVC staying with it for now, would be good due to the reasons mentioned--national games, some buzz, occassionally being used for bubble-tying, etc. However, the onvious thing that should go is the "return game" concept. That frequently jacks-up scheduling, and really is not needed since it does not add anything to the teams schedules--all the BB teams can easily schedule one another when and if they choose, why lose scheduling felxibility and get forced into a return game for no apparent reason?
        Because just about everyone who isn't the MVC actually needs that scheduling help. They actually need these games to fill out the schedule and get potential quality games for next year's non-con.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TylerDurden View Post
          BU didn't get hosed. They hand-picked several of those games, plus they necessarily set pairings a month out - you never know how a team will play that month.

          In 2006, BU was pretty far down the MVC list when the pairings were set at the first of Feb. If you recall, the run started near the middle of February. BU was 6-5 in the MVC when the pairings were set.

          Tenn Tech was 10-4 in their league at the beginning of Feb.
          RPI on Feb 1st 2006
          #54 Bradley
          #115 Tenn Tech


          Yea... we got hosed.

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't call drawing down being hosed if you're only 9-7 or whatever we were.

            Hosed implies some great injustice was done. If we had been better, we would have drawn better.

            Comment


            • #21
              2006 was an injustice upon a dozen independent injustices. I don't care what anyone says. That freaking game, when compared with the boost other bubble contenders got from BB, actually cost BU several spots in the SoS and **** near burst our bubble. We're probably up a seed line that year if we never played that game.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by squirrelgotdead View Post
                I don't call drawing down being hosed if you're only 9-7 or whatever we were.

                Hosed implies some great injustice was done. If we had been better, we would have drawn better.
                It was 12-7 (6-5), for what it's worth.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by squirrelgotdead View Post
                  I don't call drawing down being hosed if you're only 9-7 or whatever we were.

                  Hosed implies some great injustice was done. If we had been better, we would have drawn better.
                  Originally posted by TheAsianSensation View Post
                  2006 was an injustice upon a dozen independent injustices. I don't care what anyone says. That freaking game, when compared with the boost other bubble contenders got from BB, actually cost BU several spots in the SoS and **** near burst our bubble. We're probably up a seed line that year if we never played that game.
                  Well, I revisited the RPI data from Feb 1, 2006 and went thru the matchups teams got. Based on Home/Road.... basically:
                  Iona drew Buffalo over us and Ohio drew Samford over us. So we got the next best thing at the time - Tenn Tech. Buffalo finished 103 in the RPI and Samford finished 76. So conference standings played a role in who got to choose a matchup first. Kinda amazing the bcs-mentality of ESPN would let a middle team from the best conference not get the nod over a team near the top of a lesser conference. And that is where we got shafted. And we weren't the only ones... Manhattan was 53 in the RPI on Feb 1st (ahead of Bradley) and drew (then in the RPI) #239 Long Beach St.

                  Looking back at the RPI from Feb 1, 2006... it's also amazing to see how the tv matchups had some teams drawing down... some way down. At the time, Creighton was 18 and got 123 Fresno St.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    2006 was a mess. They forgot their #1 mission - to help resumes. They let politics (not letting a conference get 6 teams on TV, among them) get in the way of it.

                    Of course, 2006 was so loaded with mid major darlings ESPN didn't know what to do with them.

                    Comment

                    Unconfigured Ad Widget 6

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X