MVC Tie-Breaker

[Old Coach]

Honestly, next year needs to be off Thursday. Depending on who we add, next year's success may be more secure than 2015. While we would all like more inside presence, we do have Lemon and Pickett next year, along with a 5th year post who can score.

With the two transfers, along with Shayok, Bell and Tucker, that needs to be enough to move us to at least .500 in conference, because if we aren't getting enough from the non-seniors next year to boost those three to .500, it's going to be hard to get there the next (I may reconsider if Mike Shaw and Tommie Hamilton are here and the underclassmen carry the load next year).

The two transfers will likely start along side Lemon, Prosser and Pickett. Tucker will hopefully bring scoring off of the bench as the sixth man. Shayok will back up Tyshon at the PF spot. The big wild card is who will play behind Prosser at center, and who else can Geno bring who will contribute next year as a scorer. I'm not very high on Bell or Crawford. Keep in mind, if Mike Shaw transfers to Bradley, he can't play until 13-14.

[alczervik75]

The two transfers will likely start along side Lemon, Prosser and Pickett. Tucker will hopefully bring scoring off of the bench as the sixth man. Shayok will back up Tyshon at the PF spot. The big wild card is who will play behind Prosser at center, and who else can Geno bring who will contribute next year as a scorer. I'm not very high on Bell or Crawford. Keep in mind, if Mike Shaw transfers to Bradley, he can't play until 13-14.

Right, the Mike Shaw reference was to the 2014-2015 season not being "down" from 2013-2014.

I agree I'd feel a lot better with a more proven backup C (or any backup C), and while Nate Wells doesn't do anything to excite me, it's not like many other Valley Schools are deep at that position. There are also examples this year of teams finishing in the top half without one true post, let alone two.

Also, I believe the addition of Fields gives Lemmon more open threes and less forced, and the addition of Grier provides one true threat that a ball screen offense needs.

It's not perfect, or a finished product, but it should be top half, imo. Anything less would signal we're probably waiting for year 5, which is a scary proposition.

[alczervik75]

The two transfers will likely start along side Lemon, Prosser and Pickett. Tucker will hopefully bring scoring off of the bench as the sixth man. Shayok will back up Tyshon at the PF spot. The big wild card is who will play behind Prosser at center, and who else can Geno bring who will contribute next year as a scorer. I'm not very high on Bell or Crawford. Keep in mind, if Mike Shaw transfers to Bradley, he can't play until 13-14.

Right, the Mike Shaw reference was to the 2014-2015 season not being "down" from 2013-2014.

I agree I'd feel a lot better with a more proven backup C (or any backup C), and while Nate Wells doesn't do anything to excite me, it's not like many other Valley Schools are deep at that position. There are also examples this year of teams finishing in the top half without one true post, let alone two.

Also, I believe the addition of Fields gives Lemmon more open threes and less forced, and the addition of Grier provides one true threat that a ball screen offense needs.

It's not perfect, or a finished product, but it should be top half, imo. Anything less would signal we're probably waiting for year 5, which is a scary proposition.

[Bravesfan]

When SIU beat MSU in the final game - It created a 3-way tie for 7/8/9. The current MVC tie-breaking system calls for results from the 3 teams in a "Round-robin" format:
7 - MSU = 3-1
8 - BU = 2-2
9 - DU = 1-3

If MSU beats SIU in the final game, the tie-breaker goes head to head play (tie @ 1-1), then the Non-Conference SOS's - (BU last in the conference):
8 - Drake
9 - Bradley

Since MSU beat Drake twice -Bradley wins the tie-breaker over Drake. Why should Bradley win a tie-breaker based on how MSU/Drake played each other? I understand it's for the 8/9 seed... but if it were the 5/6/7 seed, the losing team is in the play-in game.

I propose the tie-breaker system goes directly to the 3 Non-Conference SOS's. Doug Elgin wants all MVC teams playing a tougher schedule, this would encourage that even more.

Either way... 8/9 or 9/8 - GO BEAT DRAKE !!

There's a reason it's called "round robin" Rick. That's why how the other two teams do head to head is as important as how Bradley did head to head against the other two.

I do like emphasizing the non-conference SOS for that reason Rick. But head to head competition still should be the first factor since it involves solely the two (or sometimes more) teams that are tied.

[Bravesfan]

also - remember that bank-in 3-pointer that Walt threw in to win the Missouri State game?
That's what kept us from being 10th seed - yes - we were rescued by Walt's amazing game winner from a 3rd straight 10th place seed

Well, a win is a win. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. Look at any of the top 50 teams in the country, and you will find games involving all of them that were won even if they had no business of winning them.

[Bravesfan]

yeah - that shot was a lock so we were a lock to stay solidly out of 10th and we all know that no 10th seed has ever advanced past Friday...

Yeah? And only one #7 seed (Bradley against #2 Creighton in 199 ever made it to Saturday. The point is whether we finished 7th or 10th, we probably aren't going beyond Friday this year either, especially considering Creighton is 10 times better this year than their NIT team was in 1998.

[Bravesfan]

For me, breaking through that in 3 years may not be enough... I don't want to play on Thursday for 2 more years... I can stomach one more year, but after 4 it may be time to evaluate. I don't think it should be hard and fast, if we have good recruits coming, we're trending the right direction, no academic/major-off-court issues, then maybe Geno gets a little more lee-way, but if we don't look after 4 years, to be considerably better in year 5, then re-evaluation is necessary. I think that we'll be top 3 in year 4 however, so hopefully it's a moot point.

No, TB meant that we should break through the top 3 within 5 years, not play on Thursday for 2 more years. I could see that possibility for another Thursday game next year with so many new players coming in. But I'm also hopeful that our depth will get us out of there as soon as next year.

[understandingthetruth]

I truly enjoy helping with English .....

[QUOTE=alczervik75;276674] We improved drastically either way and need to continue this.

Look closely at those two words. I know you know we all knew you meant improved dramatically. Yes? By the way, the word 'that' is to the word 'this' as is ain't is to isn't.

... ... ... The final frontier ... ... ...

[Future Walk-On]

[QUOTE=understandingthetruth;276714]

We improved drastically either way and need to continue this.

Look closely at those two words. I know you know we all knew you meant improved dramatically. Yes? By the way, the word 'that' is to the word 'this' as is ain't is to isn't.

... ... ... The final frontier ... ... ...

wat

[Tulsa Brave]

No, TB meant that we should break through the top 3 within 5 years, not play on Thursday for 2 more years. I could see that possibility for another Thursday game next year with so many new players coming in. But I'm also hopeful that our depth will get us out of there as soon as next year.

Yes you are right...that timetable was for top 3. I'm hopeful that this is the last season we'll see us playing on Thursday.

[alczervik75]

[QUOTE=understandingthetruth;276714]

We improved drastically either way and need to continue this.

Look closely at those two words. I know you know we all knew you meant improved dramatically. Yes? By the way, the word 'that' is to the word 'this' as is ain't is to isn't.

... ... ... The final frontier ... ... ...

I guess that's why I make my living in accounting and finance.

Thanks for the lesson, however.