MVC BracketBuster games

[shox1989]

The way I look at it the Bracket Busters provides the Shocks and the MVC an opportunity to make a statement with a few of their better teams on national TV.

Of course, this is a two-edged sword that can cut you on the other side if you blow it and that the MVC has done big time this year.

I have no problem getting out of the BB but not if it means we replace it with another Alabama A&M or Georgia Southwest AT&T.

The problem with the BB is not so much with the BB itself, but with our performance in the BB. Dominate the BB and prove that you are a cut above. Do that for a few year's in a row and then maybe you can move on to something better.

Exactly.

You have idiots here thinking BB is the fault for the Valley sucking when it's simply just the Valley sucking.

We're proving we can't even compete in this thing and you have people thinking we're too good for this thing, better than it, and should abandon it.

We get national tv exposure. We get a great home and home series. We get a great opportunity at a Top 50/100 win.

Instead of another Alabama A&M on the schedule, we get VCU. Next year, our home schedule just got better thanks to Utah State coming in.

Some of you have completely lost it.

Up until this year the Valley HAS dominated this event (WSU being the exception as the only Valley team with a losing BB record).

Dominating this event for 8 years really hasn't helped the Valley. Now in the 9th year we go 3-7.

After playing in this event for 8 years, we have finally reduced ourselves down to the level of our competition.

When we started playing in this thing, we were viewed as being one of the best non-BCS conferences. Our annual rpi backed it up and we were a regular multiple bid conference.

And even though our conference rpi remained very good for the last 3 years (we were #7 last year), we became a one bid conference.

Now this year our rpi is that of a one bid conference and our performance in the BB certainly bears that out.

It is very, very sad to see the Valley sink so low. The perception of being a one bid conference is now reality.

The BB event started in 2004. The Valley was a multi-bid league before BB, and during BB. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. So half the years we had BB's we were a multiple bid conference. To think that we aren't that way because of this event is absolutely ludicrous. We aren't getting multiple bids because of these notable reasons:
a.) the schedule rules were eliminated and now we know longer schedule like we used to
aa.) therefore we don't get big OOC wins because we don't play anybody like we used to
b.) coaching turnover (We're still a very young coaching league)
c.) overall talent level may be slipping

You are basically stating that we should abandon BB because of one bad year and because we can't beat the teams in it. If we're too good for BB, why did we just get boatraced in it? If we're as good as you think we are, we should dominate it every year. When THAT HAPPENS, then come back and talk to me about getting out of it. It's put up or go home.

If you can't win at home vs. VCU, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Valparaiso, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. George Mason, you ARE NOT at at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. Morehead State, you ARE NOT an NIT-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Akron, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Murray State, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.

Is this sinking in for you yet? If we are who you think we are, we don't flunk out like this.

Butler, Gonzaga, and the like don't participate because they don't NEED to, and because they dominated it so bad, they are BETTER than it. We ARE NOT.

FEVER up until this year we did own this event. The Valley went 4-0 the first year and if I remember right 9-1 the second year.

WSU is the only Valley team with a losing record in this thing.

I thought it was a bad idea in 2005 and I haven't changed my mind. in 2004 there weren't that many teams participating so I kept an open mind. But the second year they expanded it to a whole bunch of one bid type conferences and I decided it was a bad event for a top 10 conference to be involved with. I was worried then that we were pulling oursevles down by associating with a bunch of one bid conferences.

I said back then that it would cause us to become a one bid conference. Now I know that this isn't the only reason, but we have become a one bid conference for 4 years in a row.

And really up until this year our conference rpi was still fine.

Unfortunately we may have waited too long to get out of this thing (and make other changes like strengthening our non-con schedules).

We may have sunk so low that we may actually need the BB, which would be a really bad thing.

[shox1989]

If we shred ourselves of the BB, we will have 2 more slots for games. I have to believe that we could get two decent teams (rpi top 100) to replace the BB game and the BB return game..

Why does one BB game count for two slots? Explain that math to me please.

Are you saying VCU is not a decent team? They're Top 60 in the RPI and are consistently at that spot so that bodes well for next year's schedule, and one less game we have to worry about scheduling.

If it's so easy getting those types of games, how come we don't have more of them on the schedule?

Your logic is mindbogglingly flawed.

The two games comes from the BB game for this year, and a return game from a previous year.

VCU is a top 100 team. If we had 2 open slots on our schedule (from eliminating the BB contractual games) we should be able to find 2 more top 100 rpi teams to replace them.

VCU would be a good team to schedule (as would a George Mason or a Utah State). But I would rather play them in December. Not as part of an elimination game that disrupts our conference schedule in late February.

There is virtually nobody involved in the BB that we couldn't schedule a home and home with if we really wanted to (none of the teams are of the caliber that would turn down a home and home with a WSU).

George Mason, VCU, St. Mary's don't seem to have problems with the games in the middle of their conference season. *ANOTHER LAME EXCUSE ALERT* :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Ok, if we can just so easily schedule these teams, how come they aren't on the schedule, or haven't been in the last 5 years? Under the Marshall regime, he has gotten one decent home and home series - Tulsa. That's one series started in the last 4 years. *ANOTHER NONSENSICAL COMMENT ALERT* :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

One reason we haven't had more of these teams on our schedule is because we have a contractual agreement for 2 BB related games.

Coach wants 4 games a year that are buy games, we try and play in a tournament to get BCS teams on a neutral court, we have one MWC game a year, that plus other contracts doesn't leave a lot of room to schedule other teams.

But in recent years we have scheduled Tulsa, TCU, Texas Tech, LSU.

If we had 2 more slots available by dropping the BB, we could schedule 2 more top 100 teams. And I am sure those are the type of teams we would be looking for (coach want 4 buy games, I don't think he would go for 6).

The types of teams involved in the BB, should not be that hard to schedule.

[ShockerFever]

You just aren't getting it.

What's your point about WSU's losing record? Perhaps that is why you don't want us in it. Because we can't beat the "garbage" teams that participate in it? If that's the reason, just come out and say it. That'll make things a lot easier for me to understand.

How did expanding it affect us? In 2005, we got Miami OH which was a Top 50 RPI team, and a Top 100 RPI team on the return. In 2006, we got Top 25 RPI Mason, and an ESPN-televised return game. In 2007, we got Appy State. They were a Top 60 RPI team. In 2008, we deservedly got Northern Arizona because we sucked. In 2009, we somehow managed to get Cleveland State, another Top 70 RPI team who ended up winning an NCAA game. Cleveland State was from a multi-bid conference. Last year, we had a Top 30 RPI game in Utah State. This year, we get Top 60 VCU.

So how exactly has this affected Wichita State. You get the teams you deserve. When you're good, you get a good matchup. When you suck, you get a sucky matchup. I guess we just aren't cut out for Top 70 RPI games. That's what you're making it out to be.

Half the teams we've played in this thing have been from multiple bid conferences. So what exactly is your point again?

You're now blatantly ignoring all the other points. We are a one-bid league because we suck at scheduling, can't beat anybody, along with a few other reasons. We aren't a one bid conference because of the BB. Try and get that through your THICK SKULL.

[ShockerFever]

Coach wants 4 games a year that are buy games, we try and play in a tournament to get BCS teams on a neutral court, we have one MWC game a year, that plus other contracts doesn't leave a lot of room to schedule other teams.

Then maybe we shouldn't have 4 GD buy-ins per year. Maybe THAT is the problem, not BRACKETBUSTERS.

But in recent years we have scheduled Tulsa, TCU, Texas Tech, LSU.

George Mason, Cleveland State, Utah State, and VCU are all better than those stellar group of teams. SORRY.

If we had 2 more slots available by dropping the BB, we could schedule 2 more top 100 teams. And I am sure those are the type of teams we would be looking for (coach want 4 buy games, I don't think he would go for 6).

This is the one part of your responses that is dumbing the IQ of everybody in this forum. VCU is a Top 100 RPI team. Utah State is a Top 50 RPI team. We HAVE those BECAUSE of Bracketbuster. You're going in circles and the wheels are beginning to fall off.

The types of teams involved in the BB, should not be that hard to schedule.

Shouldn't, but we haven't proven it. Rumor has it our coach turned down a home and home series with George Mason. So actually, your opinion seems to be trending the opposite.

BB is an event that actually is trying to keep our SOS below 100.

Your lack of taking any responsibility with this team and coach is one of your looniest arguments yet. And you've put up some boppers in your time here.

[SHOXAAC]

The way I look at it the Bracket Busters provides the Shocks and the MVC an opportunity to make a statement with a few of their better teams on national TV.

Of course, this is a two-edged sword that can cut you on the other side if you blow it and that the MVC has done big time this year.

I have no problem getting out of the BB but not if it means we replace it with another Alabama A&M or Georgia Southwest AT&T.

The problem with the BB is not so much with the BB itself, but with our performance in the BB. Dominate the BB and prove that you are a cut above. Do that for a few year's in a row and then maybe you can move on to something better.

Exactly.

You have idiots here thinking BB is the fault for the Valley sucking when it's simply just the Valley sucking.

We're proving we can't even compete in this thing and you have people thinking we're too good for this thing, better than it, and should abandon it.

We get national tv exposure. We get a great home and home series. We get a great opportunity at a Top 50/100 win.

Instead of another Alabama A&M on the schedule, we get VCU. Next year, our home schedule just got better thanks to Utah State coming in.

Some of you have completely lost it.

Up until this year the Valley HAS dominated this event (WSU being the exception as the only Valley team with a losing BB record).

Dominating this event for 8 years really hasn't helped the Valley. Now in the 9th year we go 3-7.

After playing in this event for 8 years, we have finally reduced ourselves down to the level of our competition.

When we started playing in this thing, we were viewed as being one of the best non-BCS conferences. Our annual rpi backed it up and we were a regular multiple bid conference.

And even though our conference rpi remained very good for the last 3 years (we were #7 last year), we became a one bid conference.

Now this year our rpi is that of a one bid conference and our performance in the BB certainly bears that out.

It is very, very sad to see the Valley sink so low. The perception of being a one bid conference is now reality.

The BB event started in 2004. The Valley was a multi-bid league before BB, and during BB. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. So half the years we had BB's we were a multiple bid conference. To think that we aren't that way because of this event is absolutely ludicrous. We aren't getting multiple bids because of these notable reasons:
a.) the schedule rules were eliminated and now we know longer schedule like we used to
aa.) therefore we don't get big OOC wins because we don't play anybody like we used to
b.) coaching turnover (We're still a very young coaching league)
c.) overall talent level may be slipping

You are basically stating that we should abandon BB because of one bad year and because we can't beat the teams in it. If we're too good for BB, why did we just get boatraced in it? If we're as good as you think we are, we should dominate it every year. When THAT HAPPENS, then come back and talk to me about getting out of it. It's put up or go home.

If you can't win at home vs. VCU, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Valparaiso, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. George Mason, you ARE NOT at at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. Morehead State, you ARE NOT an NIT-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Akron, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Murray State, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.

Is this sinking in for you yet? If we are who you think we are, we don't flunk out like this.

Butler, Gonzaga, and the like don't participate because they don't NEED to, and because they dominated it so bad, they are BETTER than it. We ARE NOT.

FEVER up until this year we did own this event. The Valley went 4-0 the first year and if I remember right 9-1 the second year.

WSU is the only Valley team with a losing record in this thing.

I thought it was a bad idea in 2005 and I haven't changed my mind. in 2004 there weren't that many teams participating so I kept an open mind. But the second year they expanded it to a whole bunch of one bid type conferences and I decided it was a bad event for a top 10 conference to be involved with. I was worried then that we were pulling oursevles down by associating with a bunch of one bid conferences.

I said back then that it would cause us to become a one bid conference. Now I know that this isn't the only reason, but we have become a one bid conference for 4 years in a row.

And really up until this year our conference rpi was still fine.

Unfortunately we may have waited too long to get out of this thing (and make other changes like strengthening our non-con schedules).

We may have sunk so low that we may actually need the BB, which would be a really bad thing.

I'm just a simpleton, but it seems to me that playing 2 games per year against similar competition as ourselves, without having to invest the time and effort in scheduling them, is a good thing. I think the label BB is getting taken out of context. Yes, the teams in the MVC play a big part in it each year, but it still boils down to playing a basketball game against a worthy opponent. Does it really matter whether it's played in December or February. Maybe it is good to have a quality non-conference game during the MVC schedule. Maybe the distraction of playing a non-familiar team is good. I know our record doesn't reflect it, but you can't blame it on BB. You still have to prepare to win, regardless of who the opponent is, regardless of where the game is played, and regardless of who scheduled the game. Show up and play. If the coach has properly prepared and the players execute the game plan, then there is a good chance a win will occure. Some on this board are trying to draw too many connections that aren't necessary to the label of BB. Sorry, I just don't see it. Thanks for your input however...good discussion.

[shox1989]

You just aren't getting it.

What's your point about WSU's losing record? Perhaps that is why you don't want us in it. Because we can't beat the "garbage" teams that participate in it? If that's the reason, just come out and say it. That'll make things a lot easier for me to understand.

How did expanding it affect us? In 2005, we got Miami OH which was a Top 50 RPI team, and a Top 100 RPI team on the return. In 2006, we got Top 25 RPI Mason, and an ESPN-televised return game. In 2007, we got Appy State. They were a Top 60 RPI team. In 2008, we deservedly we got Northern Arizona because we sucked. In 2009, we somehow managed to get Cleveland State, another Top 70 RPI team who ended up winning an NCAA game. Cleveland State was from a multi-bid conference. Last year, we had a Top 30 RPI game in Utah State. This year, we get Top 60 VCU.

So how exactly has this affected Wichita State. You get the teams you deserve. When you're good, you get a good matchup. When you suck, you get a sucky matchup. I guess we just aren't cut out for Top 70 RPI games. That's what you're making it out to be.

Half the teams we've played in this thing have been from multiple bid conferences. So what exactly is your point again?

You're now blatantly ignoring all the other points. We are a one-bid league because we suck at scheduling, can't beat anybody, along with a few other reasons. We aren't a one bid conference because of the BB. Try and get that through your THICK SKULL.

Fever have you watched any of the other BB games.

I mean really, St. Mary's and Utah St. was supposedly the premier BB game this year. It was played in what looks like a high school gym (St. Mary's home court).

Maybe I am becoming a snob, St. Mary's is a really good team (and so is USU). But I don't think major level college basketball when I see teams playing in a high school type gym.

The Montana-Long Beach game at Long Beach was in a 4000 seat arena.

I could go on, but this event from the beginning has just reaked of small time.

Maybe I just remember the AC, Good News, and X days of WSU too much to get too excited about these BB games.

[ShockerFever]

The way I look at it the Bracket Busters provides the Shocks and the MVC an opportunity to make a statement with a few of their better teams on national TV.

Of course, this is a two-edged sword that can cut you on the other side if you blow it and that the MVC has done big time this year.

I have no problem getting out of the BB but not if it means we replace it with another Alabama A&M or Georgia Southwest AT&T.

The problem with the BB is not so much with the BB itself, but with our performance in the BB. Dominate the BB and prove that you are a cut above. Do that for a few year's in a row and then maybe you can move on to something better.

Exactly.

You have idiots here thinking BB is the fault for the Valley sucking when it's simply just the Valley sucking.

We're proving we can't even compete in this thing and you have people thinking we're too good for this thing, better than it, and should abandon it.

We get national tv exposure. We get a great home and home series. We get a great opportunity at a Top 50/100 win.

Instead of another Alabama A&M on the schedule, we get VCU. Next year, our home schedule just got better thanks to Utah State coming in.

Some of you have completely lost it.

Up until this year the Valley HAS dominated this event (WSU being the exception as the only Valley team with a losing BB record).

Dominating this event for 8 years really hasn't helped the Valley. Now in the 9th year we go 3-7.

After playing in this event for 8 years, we have finally reduced ourselves down to the level of our competition.

When we started playing in this thing, we were viewed as being one of the best non-BCS conferences. Our annual rpi backed it up and we were a regular multiple bid conference.

And even though our conference rpi remained very good for the last 3 years (we were #7 last year), we became a one bid conference.

Now this year our rpi is that of a one bid conference and our performance in the BB certainly bears that out.

It is very, very sad to see the Valley sink so low. The perception of being a one bid conference is now reality.

The BB event started in 2004. The Valley was a multi-bid league before BB, and during BB. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. So half the years we had BB's we were a multiple bid conference. To think that we aren't that way because of this event is absolutely ludicrous. We aren't getting multiple bids because of these notable reasons:
a.) the schedule rules were eliminated and now we know longer schedule like we used to
aa.) therefore we don't get big OOC wins because we don't play anybody like we used to
b.) coaching turnover (We're still a very young coaching league)
c.) overall talent level may be slipping

You are basically stating that we should abandon BB because of one bad year and because we can't beat the teams in it. If we're too good for BB, why did we just get boatraced in it? If we're as good as you think we are, we should dominate it every year. When THAT HAPPENS, then come back and talk to me about getting out of it. It's put up or go home.

If you can't win at home vs. VCU, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Valparaiso, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. George Mason, you ARE NOT at at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. Morehead State, you ARE NOT an NIT-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Akron, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Murray State, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.

Is this sinking in for you yet? If we are who you think we are, we don't flunk out like this.

Butler, Gonzaga, and the like don't participate because they don't NEED to, and because they dominated it so bad, they are BETTER than it. We ARE NOT.

FEVER up until this year we did own this event. The Valley went 4-0 the first year and if I remember right 9-1 the second year.

WSU is the only Valley team with a losing record in this thing.

I thought it was a bad idea in 2005 and I haven't changed my mind. in 2004 there weren't that many teams participating so I kept an open mind. But the second year they expanded it to a whole bunch of one bid type conferences and I decided it was a bad event for a top 10 conference to be involved with. I was worried then that we were pulling oursevles down by associating with a bunch of one bid conferences.

I said back then that it would cause us to become a one bid conference. Now I know that this isn't the only reason, but we have become a one bid conference for 4 years in a row.

And really up until this year our conference rpi was still fine.

Unfortunately we may have waited too long to get out of this thing (and make other changes like strengthening our non-con schedules).

We may have sunk so low that we may actually need the BB, which would be a really bad thing.

I'm just a simpleton, but it seems to me that playing 2 games per year against similar competition as ourselves, without having to invest the time and effort in scheduling them, is a good thing. I think the label BB is getting taken out of context. Yes, the teams in the MVC play a big part in it each year, but it still boils down to playing a basketball game against a worthy opponent. Does it really matter whether it's played in December or February. Maybe it is good to have a quality non-conference game during the MVC schedule. Maybe the distraction of playing a non-familiar team is good. I know our record doesn't reflect it, but you can't blame it on BB. You still have to prepare to win, regardless of who the opponent is, regardless of where the game is played, and regardless of who scheduled the game. Show up and play. If the coach has properly prepared and the players execute the game plan, then there is a good chance a win will occure. Some on this board are trying to draw too many connections that aren't necessary to the label of BB. Sorry, I just don't see it. Thanks for your input however...good discussion.

Rarely would I give this out to you, but..

+1.

[SHOXAAC]

The way I look at it the Bracket Busters provides the Shocks and the MVC an opportunity to make a statement with a few of their better teams on national TV.

Of course, this is a two-edged sword that can cut you on the other side if you blow it and that the MVC has done big time this year.

I have no problem getting out of the BB but not if it means we replace it with another Alabama A&M or Georgia Southwest AT&T.

The problem with the BB is not so much with the BB itself, but with our performance in the BB. Dominate the BB and prove that you are a cut above. Do that for a few year's in a row and then maybe you can move on to something better.

Exactly.

You have idiots here thinking BB is the fault for the Valley sucking when it's simply just the Valley sucking.

We're proving we can't even compete in this thing and you have people thinking we're too good for this thing, better than it, and should abandon it.

We get national tv exposure. We get a great home and home series. We get a great opportunity at a Top 50/100 win.

Instead of another Alabama A&M on the schedule, we get VCU. Next year, our home schedule just got better thanks to Utah State coming in.

Some of you have completely lost it.

Up until this year the Valley HAS dominated this event (WSU being the exception as the only Valley team with a losing BB record).

Dominating this event for 8 years really hasn't helped the Valley. Now in the 9th year we go 3-7.

After playing in this event for 8 years, we have finally reduced ourselves down to the level of our competition.

When we started playing in this thing, we were viewed as being one of the best non-BCS conferences. Our annual rpi backed it up and we were a regular multiple bid conference.

And even though our conference rpi remained very good for the last 3 years (we were #7 last year), we became a one bid conference.

Now this year our rpi is that of a one bid conference and our performance in the BB certainly bears that out.

It is very, very sad to see the Valley sink so low. The perception of being a one bid conference is now reality.

The BB event started in 2004. The Valley was a multi-bid league before BB, and during BB. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. So half the years we had BB's we were a multiple bid conference. To think that we aren't that way because of this event is absolutely ludicrous. We aren't getting multiple bids because of these notable reasons:
a.) the schedule rules were eliminated and now we know longer schedule like we used to
aa.) therefore we don't get big OOC wins because we don't play anybody like we used to
b.) coaching turnover (We're still a very young coaching league)
c.) overall talent level may be slipping

You are basically stating that we should abandon BB because of one bad year and because we can't beat the teams in it. If we're too good for BB, why did we just get boatraced in it? If we're as good as you think we are, we should dominate it every year. When THAT HAPPENS, then come back and talk to me about getting out of it. It's put up or go home.

If you can't win at home vs. VCU, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Valparaiso, you ARE NOT an at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. George Mason, you ARE NOT at at-large worthy team.
If you can't win at home vs. Morehead State, you ARE NOT an NIT-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Akron, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.
If you can't win on the road at Murray State, you ARE NOT a CBI-worthy team.

Is this sinking in for you yet? If we are who you think we are, we don't flunk out like this.

Butler, Gonzaga, and the like don't participate because they don't NEED to, and because they dominated it so bad, they are BETTER than it. We ARE NOT.

FEVER up until this year we did own this event. The Valley went 4-0 the first year and if I remember right 9-1 the second year.

WSU is the only Valley team with a losing record in this thing.

I thought it was a bad idea in 2005 and I haven't changed my mind. in 2004 there weren't that many teams participating so I kept an open mind. But the second year they expanded it to a whole bunch of one bid type conferences and I decided it was a bad event for a top 10 conference to be involved with. I was worried then that we were pulling oursevles down by associating with a bunch of one bid conferences.

I said back then that it would cause us to become a one bid conference. Now I know that this isn't the only reason, but we have become a one bid conference for 4 years in a row.

And really up until this year our conference rpi was still fine.

Unfortunately we may have waited too long to get out of this thing (and make other changes like strengthening our non-con schedules).

We may have sunk so low that we may actually need the BB, which would be a really bad thing.

I'm just a simpleton, but it seems to me that playing 2 games per year against similar competition as ourselves, without having to invest the time and effort in scheduling them, is a good thing. I think the label BB is getting taken out of context. Yes, the teams in the MVC play a big part in it each year, but it still boils down to playing a basketball game against a worthy opponent. Does it really matter whether it's played in December or February. Maybe it is good to have a quality non-conference game during the MVC schedule. Maybe the distraction of playing a non-familiar team is good. I know our record doesn't reflect it, but you can't blame it on BB. You still have to prepare to win, regardless of who the opponent is, regardless of where the game is played, and regardless of who scheduled the game. Show up and play. If the coach has properly prepared and the players execute the game plan, then there is a good chance a win will occure. Some on this board are trying to draw too many connections that aren't necessary to the label of BB. Sorry, I just don't see it. Thanks for your input however...good discussion.

Rarely would I give this out to you, but..

+1.

I will alert the media!!! :lol:

[ShockerFever]

You just aren't getting it.

What's your point about WSU's losing record? Perhaps that is why you don't want us in it. Because we can't beat the "garbage" teams that participate in it? If that's the reason, just come out and say it. That'll make things a lot easier for me to understand.

How did expanding it affect us? In 2005, we got Miami OH which was a Top 50 RPI team, and a Top 100 RPI team on the return. In 2006, we got Top 25 RPI Mason, and an ESPN-televised return game. In 2007, we got Appy State. They were a Top 60 RPI team. In 2008, we deservedly we got Northern Arizona because we sucked. In 2009, we somehow managed to get Cleveland State, another Top 70 RPI team who ended up winning an NCAA game. Cleveland State was from a multi-bid conference. Last year, we had a Top 30 RPI game in Utah State. This year, we get Top 60 VCU.

So how exactly has this affected Wichita State. You get the teams you deserve. When you're good, you get a good matchup. When you suck, you get a sucky matchup. I guess we just aren't cut out for Top 70 RPI games. That's what you're making it out to be.

Half the teams we've played in this thing have been from multiple bid conferences. So what exactly is your point again?

You're now blatantly ignoring all the other points. We are a one-bid league because we suck at scheduling, can't beat anybody, along with a few other reasons. We aren't a one bid conference because of the BB. Try and get that through your THICK SKULL.

Fever have you watched any of the other BB games.

I mean really, St. Mary's and Utah St. was supposedly the premier BB game this year. It was played in what looks like a high school gym (St. Mary's home court).

Maybe I am becoming a snob, St. Mary's is a really good team (and so is USU). But I don't think major level college basketball when I see teams playing in a high school type gym.

The Montana-Long Beach game at Long Beach was in a 4000 seat arena.

I could go on, but this event from the beginning has just reaked of small time.

Maybe I just remember the AC, Good News, and X days of WSU too much to get too excited about these BB games.

They may play in a gym but St. Mary's was a Sweet 16 team last year. That's good enough for me. I don't care where they play.

By the way.. Gonzaga plays in a gym. Butler also plays in an old fieldhouse. Oh yeah, Duke also plays in an old high school-esque barn.

The west coast teams tend to have smaller venues. Just the way it is. The event is about getting everybody involved, not just the awesome Missouri Valley.

Also, that 4,000-seat gym still outdraws over half of this conference.

You are being smug. Time to smell the coffee and realize we aren't bigger, badder, and better than this thing. This year only proved it.

[shox1989]

You just aren't getting it.

What's your point about WSU's losing record? Perhaps that is why you don't want us in it. Because we can't beat the "garbage" teams that participate in it? If that's the reason, just come out and say it. That'll make things a lot easier for me to understand.

How did expanding it affect us? In 2005, we got Miami OH which was a Top 50 RPI team, and a Top 100 RPI team on the return. In 2006, we got Top 25 RPI Mason, and an ESPN-televised return game. In 2007, we got Appy State. They were a Top 60 RPI team. In 2008, we deservedly we got Northern Arizona because we sucked. In 2009, we somehow managed to get Cleveland State, another Top 70 RPI team who ended up winning an NCAA game. Cleveland State was from a multi-bid conference. Last year, we had a Top 30 RPI game in Utah State. This year, we get Top 60 VCU.

So how exactly has this affected Wichita State. You get the teams you deserve. When you're good, you get a good matchup. When you suck, you get a sucky matchup. I guess we just aren't cut out for Top 70 RPI games. That's what you're making it out to be.

Half the teams we've played in this thing have been from multiple bid conferences. So what exactly is your point again?

You're now blatantly ignoring all the other points. We are a one-bid league because we suck at scheduling, can't beat anybody, along with a few other reasons. We aren't a one bid conference because of the BB. Try and get that through your THICK SKULL.

Fever have you watched any of the other BB games.

I mean really, St. Mary's and Utah St. was supposedly the premier BB game this year. It was played in what looks like a high school gym (St. Mary's home court).

Maybe I am becoming a snob, St. Mary's is a really good team (and so is USU). But I don't think major level college basketball when I see teams playing in a high school type gym.

The Montana-Long Beach game at Long Beach was in a 4000 seat arena.

I could go on, but this event from the beginning has just reaked of small time.

Maybe I just remember the AC, Good News, and X days of WSU too much to get too excited about these BB games.

They may play in a gym but St. Mary's was a Sweet 16 team last year. That's good enough for me. I don't care where they play.

By the way.. Gonzaga plays in a gym. Butler also plays in an old fieldhouse. Oh yeah, Duke also plays in an old high school-esque barn.

The west coast teams tend to have smaller venues. Just the way it is. The event is about getting everybody involved, not just the awesome Missouri Valley.

Also, that 4,000-seat gym still outdraws over half of this conference.

You are being smug. Time to smell the coffee and realize we aren't bigger, badder, and better than this thing. This year only proved it.

Fever- Let me ask you this. Why should the non-BCS at large teams all play each other a couple of weeks before the selection just to eliminate half of them?

It really doesn't make sense to me? It seems to me that the big winners are teams like UNL, Baylor, Alabama, Okie St. etc.

They get to sit back and watch the middies eliminate each other in these BB games, opening up possible at large slots for more mediocre BCS teams.

Back when this thing started, non-BCS teams were getting more at large bids. Today they are few and far between. BB has only seemed to cut the number of middies getting at larges not enhancing it.

The best thing for us would be to improve our non-con schedule, but do it by adding a couple of top 100 teams in December. Not by playing what amounts to an elimination game in the heat of the conference schedule.

BTW- Butler and Duke play in old venues but they do not look and feel like high school gyms. That 3000 seat St. Mary's gym looks smaller than my high school gym.

And its not just the west coast schools, Valpo that thing holds about 5000 and Kent St is something like that too. Like I said, most of these BB venues just look small time. The WSU and Creighton type venues (from past years) are the exception rather than the rule for the BB games.

[ShockerFever]

It would be nice if you answered some of the questions I posed to you in previous posts, instead of just ignoring them like they didn't exist. Unless of course you felt you got owned by them so badly, that you didn't want to bring them up because you had no answer for them.

Fever- Let me ask you this. Why should the non-BCS at large teams all play each other a couple of weeks before the selection just to eliminate half of them?

Uh, BCS teams eliminate each other on the very same weekend. Baylor just eliminated itself against Texas Tech. Okie State just blew their opportunity at home to A&M. Who says half get eliminated? WSU and Mason played each other in your "elimination game" and both made it. SIU and Butler as well as Drake and Butler played each other. All made it. You assume the losers of these games are eliminated. Nope. They lose at the overall body of their work, whether it's in February or November. Fact is, WSU should be even more prepared in February and they still choked off games down the stretch. Your logic once again is flawed.

It really doesn't make sense to me? It seems to me that the big winners are teams like UNL, Baylor, Alabama, Okie St. etc.

How was Baylor a winner today? How was Oklahoma State a winner today? How was George Mason not a winner today? How was Utah State not a winner today? You're incredibly thick-headed.

They get to sit back and watch the middies eliminate each other in these BB games, opening up possible at large slots for more mediocre BCS teams.

Again, all you do is repeat the same nonsensical jargon over and over and over and over and over and over again. I respond to you and you ignore it with the same bullsh*t over and over and over and over and over again.

Somehow, you think because these games are played in February makes them different if they were played in November. Once again, the committee looks at the overall body of work. Teams like George Mason, Utah State, Old Dominion certainly didn't have problems proving themselves.

Back when this thing started, non-BCS teams were getting more at large bids. Today they are few and far between. BB has only seemed to cut the number of middies getting at larges not enhancing it.

Why are you continually holding out to the fallacy that this event itself has correlated with the less appearance of mid bids? During the height of BB, and right in the middle of it, the mids gained the most bids EVER. You're just making up stuff now and it's starting to piss me off.

Mids aren't getting it because they aren't deserving enough to get in. PLAIN and SIMPLE.

The best thing for us would be to improve our non-con schedule, but do it by adding a couple of top 100 teams in December. Not by playing what amounts to an elimination game in the heat of the conference schedule.

Translation:
REPEATING, REPEATING, REPEATING. NO SUBSTANCE. REPEATING. REPEATING TO THE POINT THAT IF I REPEAT SOMETHING ENOUGH, IT WILL BECOME FACT AND I WILL BECOME MORE RIGHT WHEN IN REALITY I'M SOLIDFYING MY DEFEAT.

You still keep ignoring the fact that Utah State and VCU will be on our schedule next year. TWO Top 100 RPI opponents. Something we can't do ON OUR OWN.

BTW- Butler and Duke play in old venues but they do not look and feel like high school gyms. That 3000 seat St. Mary's gym looks smaller than my high school gym.

Great. What's your point again? We have a rocking 10,500 seat venue and we lost on national tv and will be NIT-bound unless we win in St. Louis.

What's your point again?

And its not just the west coast schools, Valpo that thing holds about 5000 and Kent St is something like that too. Like I said, most of these BB venues just look small time. The WSU and Creighton type venues (from past years) are the exception rather than the rule for the BB games.

WSU and sCUm have also been spending the majority of their March's in tournaments not called the NCAA Tournament. We're BIG time alright. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[swish1]

It would be nice if you answered some of the questions I posed to you in previous posts, instead of just ignoring them like they didn't exist. Unless of course you felt you got owned by them so badly, that you didn't want to bring them up because you had no answer for them.

Fever- Let me ask you this. Why should the non-BCS at large teams all play each other a couple of weeks before the selection just to eliminate half of them?

Uh, BCS teams eliminate each other on the very same weekend. Baylor just eliminated itself against Texas Tech. Okie State just blew their opportunity at home to A&M. Who says half get eliminated? WSU and Mason played each other in your "elimination game" and both made it. SIU and Butler as well as Drake and Butler played each other. All made it. You assume the losers of these games are eliminated. Nope. They lose at the overall body of their work, whether it's in February or November. Fact is, WSU should be even more prepared in February and they still choked off games down the stretch. Your logic once again is flawed.

It really doesn't make sense to me? It seems to me that the big winners are teams like UNL, Baylor, Alabama, Okie St. etc.

How was Baylor a winner today? How was Oklahoma State a winner today? How was George Mason not a winner today? How was Utah State not a winner today? You're incredibly thick-headed.

They get to sit back and watch the middies eliminate each other in these BB games, opening up possible at large slots for more mediocre BCS teams.

Again, all you do is repeat the same nonsensical jargon over and over and over and over and over and over again. I respond to you and you ignore it with the same bullsh*t over and over and over and over and over again.

Somehow, you think because these games are played in February makes them different if they were played in November. Once again, the committee looks at the overall body of work. Teams like George Mason, Utah State, Old Dominion certainly didn't have problems proving themselves.

Back when this thing started, non-BCS teams were getting more at large bids. Today they are few and far between. BB has only seemed to cut the number of middies getting at larges not enhancing it.

Why are you continually holding out to the fallacy that this event itself has correlated with the less appearance of mid bids? During the height of BB, and right in the middle of it, the mids gained the most bids EVER. You're just making up stuff now and it's starting to piss me off.

Mids aren't getting it because they aren't deserving enough to get in. PLAIN and SIMPLE.

The best thing for us would be to improve our non-con schedule, but do it by adding a couple of top 100 teams in December. Not by playing what amounts to an elimination game in the heat of the conference schedule.

Translation:
REPEATING, REPEATING, REPEATING. NO SUBSTANCE. REPEATING. REPEATING TO THE POINT THAT IF I REPEAT SOMETHING ENOUGH, IT WILL BECOME FACT AND I WILL BECOME MORE RIGHT WHEN IN REALITY I'M SOLIDFYING MY DEFEAT.

You still keep ignoring the fact that Utah State and VCU will be on our schedule next year. TWO Top 100 RPI opponents. Something we can't do ON OUR OWN.

BTW- Butler and Duke play in old venues but they do not look and feel like high school gyms. That 3000 seat St. Mary's gym looks smaller than my high school gym.

Great. What's your point again? We have a rocking 10,500 seat venue and we lost on national tv and will be NIT-bound unless we win in St. Louis.

What's your point again?

And its not just the west coast schools, Valpo that thing holds about 5000 and Kent St is something like that too. Like I said, most of these BB venues just look small time. The WSU and Creighton type venues (from past years) are the exception rather than the rule for the BB games.

WSU and sCUm have also been spending the majority of their March's in tournaments not called the NCAA Tournament. We're BIG time alright. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

fever just owning him here...

its unfortunate that wsu and creighton have such a great basketball following but neither have a decent conference to play in because football is where the money is.

[1979Shocker]

Rumor has it our coach turned down a home and home series with George Mason.

I hadn't heard that. Where did that rumor start? On ShockerNet? :lol:

[tropicalshox]

Rumor has it our coach turned down a home and home series with George Mason.

I hadn't heard that. Where did that rumor start? On ShockerNet? :lol:

My understanding is that one started on the Mason board.

[wu_shizzle]

That 3000 seat St. Mary's gym looks smaller than my high school gym. And its not just the west coast schools, Valpo that thing holds about 5000 and Kent St is something like that too. Like I said, most of these BB venues just look small time.

What's "small time" is judging a team by the gym the play in or the name on the jersey.