BU 48 ISU 78 - Final

[Old Coach]

I agree with you somewhat OC

It's just an observation.

[TheGuy]

Please don't twist what I said- I said "they are not that good", as in "they are not an NCAA At Large team", and "they are not a top 100 team". The MVC is wide open this year after the top 2. Maybe ISU can become more consistent and stay in 3rd. If they manage to finish 3rd, which I don't think will happen, then they will be the 3rd best team in the league. They are still not that good, and will be a longshot for the NIT at best.
Do you think ISU should get interest from the NCAA or NIT? Note that the NIT almost never has given a non-automatic bid to a non-BCS team with an RPI over 100.

And in your case of ISU and MSU- you make a strong case, but I would go more by the whole "body of work" as well as my own "eye test". I think MSU is a better team. If they finish 3rd, they have a real good shot at an NIT bid.

I guess we will find out soon enough. I think a strong case can be made, but it is tough to tell.

I do have to eat some crow though because I said if we finished 3rd in the conference then I wouldn't worry about our RPI being under 100 and it is slightly over 100.

I would say at this point in time we are far away from being "not that good." I would say our best shot at the NIT over UNI would be the "eye test." They still have the better resume even though we are playing our best basketball right now.

[tornado]

I have always observed that the NCAA is MUCH MORE impressed with what a team does on the last day they play than on all the other days back to November...
It is not a fair way to pick the at-large teams but I am just observing that it seems that way more of what matters to those who send out the bids...

It was shown on March 5 of 2006 when we played well, and yet lost against SIU for the Valley title..but still got an at-large bid, while Barry had an RPI that was better and was left home.

BTW - in 2007 had ISU played tough against Drake in the MVC Final instead of laying down and losing by 30, I believe they would have gotten an NCAA at-large bid - but after than humiliating loss - it meant NIT-time...so time and time again, at least for the mid-majors - it's how you play on that final day that matters above all else.

[TheAsianSensation]

I have always observed that the NCAA is MUCH MORE impressed with what a team does on the last day they play than on all the other days back to November...
It is not a fair way to pick the at-large teams but I am just observing that it seems that way more of what matters to those who send out the bids...

It was shown on March 5 of 2006 when we played well, and yet lost against SIU for the Valley title..but still got an at-large bid, while Barry had an RPI that was better and was left home.

BTW - in 2007 had ISU played tough against Drake in the MVC Final instead of laying down and losing by 30, I believe they would have gotten an NCAA at-large bid - but after than humiliating loss - it meant NIT-time...so time and time again, at least for the mid-majors - it's how you play on that final day that matters above all else.

Wait, that March 5, 2006, when we went scoreless for like 15 minutes and the talking heads flamed our team for that singular performance the entire week?

ISU in '07 got blown out, ok. Then in '08 ISU had a close loss to UNI. Still out. I'd contend how they looked in the final game was irrelevant, since ISU was in similar situations both years.

In '06 Mason lost to Hofstra in the CAA semis then got an at-large bid over them (remember, Hofstra was nearly as big a snub as Missouri St).

So no, it may matter, but it's not an overwhelming factor in at-large selection.

[LittleBrave]

Wait, that March 5, 2006, when we went scoreless for like 15 minutes and the talking heads flamed our team for that singular performance the entire week?

ISU in '07 got blown out, ok. Then in '08 ISU had a close loss to UNI. Still out. I'd contend how they looked in the final game was irrelevant, since ISU was in similar situations both years.

So no, it may matter, but it's not an overwhelming factor in at-large selection.

I believe it was in '08 when ISU got blown out by Drake, and I agree with T that they would have likely made the Big Dance (25-10, 13-5) had they played better in the championship game. With the Valley having success in prior years, it seemed they were going to get multiple bids once again.
The 30-point loss did them in though.

And in '09, though they came super-close to beating UNI, they were not really in major bubble talk going into the tournament. After their disappointing B-Buster loss on the road, their bubble burst. Creighton was still in the hunt though - I think they finished 28-7 or something and lost in the quarterfinals (to that same ISU team), which burst THEIR bubble due to a poor showing at the conf. tourney.
I haven't kept close track, but keeping an eye on the selection commitee's decisions on who gets in and where teams get seeding, it seems they weigh heavily how teams do in the conference tournament...more that they should.
Just my observation.

[TheAsianSensation]

I believe it was in '08 when ISU got blown out by Drake, and I agree with T that they would have likely made the Big Dance (25-10, 13-5) had they played better in the championship game. With the Valley having success in prior years, it seemed they were going to get multiple bids once again.
The 30-point loss did them in though.

And in '09, though they came super-close to beating UNI, they were not really in major bubble talk going into the tournament. After their disappointing B-Buster loss on the road, their bubble burst. Creighton was still in the hunt though - I think they finished 28-7 or something and lost in the quarterfinals (to that same ISU team), which burst THEIR bubble due to a poor showing at the conf. tourney.
I haven't kept close track, but keeping an eye on the selection commitee's decisions on who gets in and where teams get seeding, it seems they weigh heavily how teams do in the conference tournament...more that they should.
Just my observation.

Eh, I'd say in ISU's case it didn't matter if they lost by 1 or 30 to Drake that year.

They do overvalue conference tourneys from time to time (I remember the Gerry McNamara Invitational taking Syracuse all the way to the 5 line one year). But I don't think at-large selection is overly dependent on these results. Remember, almost any mid-major team that does suffer any kind of a loss in the conference tournament is a bubble team already, so the sample size is a bit warped here. Of course every possible at-large team suffered a conference tourney loss, so it's always going to look like that loss negatively impacted them more than it should.