Bubble Watch...more bad press

[Capitol Shock]

We can always count on the pundits to give the selection committee plenty of ammunition.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch

[molly jabali]

I don't know...it's ALWAYS good to be in a conversation! I just don't see how losing to the 37 team in the country by 4 can seen as a missed opportunity??? Tough loss, yes...but that was not Seton Hall the Shocks played....

[KC Shox]

I don't get it, what have the Shocks done (except avoiding a bad loss) to deserve an at-large selection? We lose at home against UNI and MSU and 0 top 100 wins. Get with it will ya'. You give this team too much credit. Every opportunity they have had to beat a quality team has resulted in a big goose egg. Until they can prove they can win a big one, just sit back and observe and let the chips fall where they may.

[martymoose]

I have to agree with KCshox...I don't see any ammunition being handed out, they are just telling it how it is. That article describes our season to a "T".

[tropicalshox]

I have to agree with KCshox...I don't see any ammunition being handed out, they are just telling it how it is. That article describes our season to a "T".

I also agree. Hoping this is the year the Shocks finish big time.

[molly jabali]

oops! I made a mistake...should read #7...not '37'!!!!

[Capitol Shock]

I guess what irrates me the most is when I see all of the teams that have losing in conference records projected to be in the tournament ahead of a team that's first in it's conference?

UConn is a projected 1 seed in many polls and we're not good enough to be in the tournament? BS I say. I hope we get the play in invite and then face UConn for a rematch. We're good enough to beat them...we beat them for 38 minutes already this season.

[jocoshock]

I guess what irrates me the most is when I see all of the teams that have losing in conference records projected to be in the tournament ahead of a team that's first in it's conference?

UConn is a projected 1 seed in many polls and we're not good enough to be in the tournament? BS I say. I hope we get the play in invite and then face UConn for a rematch. We're good enough to beat them...we beat them for 38 minutes already this season.

Not sure about that. I don't think our guard play has been better lately than it was in that game, and it wasn't great in that game..... :whistle:

[shockerfanmas]

I agree, I think this team has taken a couple small steps back since the UConn game. I think if we played UConn again it wouldn't be nearly as close. Too much inconsistency and we caught the Huskies on a bad day. Don't think we'd be so lucky this time. I'd love to see a rematch anyways though.

[shocker3]

I agree with his assessment. It is very fair. And I wouldn't call it bad press. Any time you are in the discussion it is good.

For what it is worth though Lunardi does currently have both Mo State and WSU in right now. Although WSU is one of the last 4 in.

[Ashockalypse]

I agree with Capitol. Laying the groundwork. What have we done for an at large? How about won 19 games so far. In the favored conferences you can lose most of your league games and that's enough. At least MSU and UNI are good teams. If you just agree with those eastern pundits and look down on the MVC no matter what, I can see how KC has his viewpoint. Its sort of an inferiority complex about the MVC that I don't share.

[KC Shox]

I agree with Capitol. Laying the groundwork. What have we done for an at large? How about won 19 games so far. In the favored conferences you can lose most of your league games and that's enough. At least MSU and UNI are good teams. If you just agree with those eastern pundits and look down on the MVC no matter what, I can see how KC has his viewpoint. Its sort of an inferiority complex about the MVC that I don't share.

We have 18 wins, Chaminade does not count as they are not a D1 team. The argument is and will always be this; sure we have a 10-2 record in our conference, but if we were in the Big East for example, do you think we would have the same 10-2 and 18-4 record?

I have no problem with BCS programs who are .500 or better in their conference get at-large bids. If you are .500 or better, then that means you have some quality wins. What I do have a problem are BCS programs that finish below .500 in conference and still get bids. Unless of course they have some quality in-conference and OOC wins.

It's just the way it is and will always be. Look at football, TCU and Boise do not get to play in the FBS championship game because the computers and voters say their schedule was not difficult enough to warrant such a game. If you put Boise State in the SEC, do you think they escape the season with 1 or zero losses like they do right now?

But I do have a problem with the experts who get bent out of shape over mid-majors taking potential at-large bids from BCS programs who in their eyes are more deserving. First, they never consider that scheduling for upper tier-mid-major programs is tough and BCS programs don't want to play us. Second, we can't help what conference we are affiliated with and if we handle our business, then reward us accordingly. Lastly, and most importantly, it all boils down to tv ratings and money. The NCAA is going to want to see higher profile programs in the NCAA's than small mid-majors. It means better attendance and better tv ratings. It ain't fair, but it is the nature of the beast.

[wusphlash]

I agree with Capitol. Laying the groundwork. What have we done for an at large? How about won 19 games so far. In the favored conferences you can lose most of your league games and that's enough. At least MSU and UNI are good teams. If you just agree with those eastern pundits and look down on the MVC no matter what, I can see how KC has his viewpoint. Its sort of an inferiority complex about the MVC that I don't share.

We have 18 wins, Chaminade does not count as they are not a D1 team. The argument is and will always be this; sure we have a 10-2 record in our conference, but if we were in the Big East for example, do you think we would have the same 10-2 and 18-4 record?

I have no problem with BCS programs who are .500 or better in their conference get at-large bids. If you are .500 or better, then that means you have some quality wins. What I do have a problem are BCS programs that finish below .500 in conference and still get bids. Unless of course they have some quality in-conference and OOC wins.

It's just the way it is and will always be. Look at football, TCU and Boise do not get to play in the FBS championship game because the computers and voters say their schedule was not difficult enough to warrant such a game. If you put Boise State in the SEC, do you think they escape the season with 1 or zero losses like they do right now?

But I do have a problem with the experts who get bent out of shape over mid-majors taking potential at-large bids from BCS programs who in their eyes are more deserving. First, they never consider that scheduling for upper tier-mid-major programs is tough and BCS programs don't want to play us. Second, we can't help what conference we are affiliated with and if we handle our business, then reward us accordingly. Lastly, and most importantly, it all boils down to tv ratings and money. The NCAA is going to want to see higher profile programs in the NCAA's than small mid-majors. It means better attendance and better tv ratings. It ain't fair, but it is the nature of the beast.

Can I have an amen?

[ShockerFever]

I have a problem with BCS schools getting 20 opportunities to "prove themselves" and only cashing in on 6 or 7 of them.. and that makes them "worthy". The law of averages states that even mediocre teams can win 50% of their games.

I honestly think if WSU had a Big East type schedule, they would be able to hold their ground at home for the most part. They would probably finish above .500. But it's all a moot point because you can't compare teams like that.

[wusphlash]

I have a problem with BCS schools getting 20 opportunities to "prove themselves" and only cashing in on 6 or 7 of them.. and that makes them "worthy". The law of averages states that even mediocre teams can win 50% of their games.

I honestly think if WSU had a Big East type schedule, they would be able to hold their ground at home for the most part. They would probably finish above .500. But it's all a moot point because you can't compare teams like that.

Again, can I have an amen?