Bracketology

[ABC]

Because it guarantees a Non-BCS school moving on in the tournament which helps them sell "Cinderella".

But it also ensures that a non-BCS team is moving on to the 2nd round.

I really don't think it is a conspiracy.

[wu_shizzle]

But it also ensures that a non-BCS team is moving on to the 2nd round.

I really don't think it is a conspiracy.

Did you mean to quote me or Shoxlax?

[shoxlax]

I agree with everybody about the Panthers, but I'm struggling even more about Illinois State.

It is really infrequent for a school to come back the year after a coach leaves and be as good as they were the year before. To me, its almost an easy pick to predict that a Valley team who just lost their coach will be a few games down at best....not UP...and in the dance...? To say, Illinois State will be BETTER than they were last year is a huge stretch to me. We got a new coach who was and is as good as a school could hope for and were WAY down. MOSU got a new coach and were way down even with Weems back. CU wasn't awesome in year one with Big McD. The closest thing you could argue is ISUb in Lansing's first year, but that was still only a 12-6 season, a hot string of defense in St. Louis, upsetting two great teams, and then an embarrassment on the big stage because they didn't belong.

Anyway, It would be a hugely successful season under a brand new coach if ILST is as good as they were last year. I see them as a solid 4th or 5th place finisher, but not a team that will be able to challenge CU. They will be similar to last year, with another berth in the NIT. That is, unless the new coach is some kind of special. Coaching is huge in the Valley because the talent level isn't generally as high across the board. You take away a good coach, and that team might be back to square one.

On the other hand, I do feel like UNI has a good argument but it just remains to be seen. I think they are one step above ILST and I can see a prediction that they may be in the dance. My reasoning, once again, is COACHING. Jacobson is still there and he is a solid coach.

In the Valley, the teams who don't have coaches in flux are the teams you should be banking on. CU, WSU, UNI, UE, ISUb will all be ready to go (although I don't mean that I think UE and ISUb are going to contend...I just think they will be decent and maybe good). ILST, SIU, BU and MOSU are obvious question marks to me...not NCAA preseason picks.

Its just a funny take on bracketology for the Valley. I would like to hear the reasoning why it isn't CU, WSU and UNI in that order. I understand the idea that we may be down, having lost who we lost. I just do not buy that we lost so much that our coaching and recruiting efforts won't be able to cover a lot of the loss. The idea that Marshall will be able to bring in talent and get it up and running in time for the spring seems way easier for me to believe that Jackie Carmichael and a brand new coach will be able to have ILST BETTER than they were last year without Nic Moore or Jank. hmmmm

I'm bumping this because DJ is a stud!

If I can bump KC's nonsense, then I need to be fair.

[Shox21]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-field/page/26 Don't know if this has been posted yet, but not very flattering.

[CBB_Fan]

Because it guarantees a Non-BCS school moving on in the tournament which helps them sell "Cinderella".

I think it has more to do with logistics. The hardest part about making the bracket is making sure no rematches occur in the first weekend, especially conference rematches. When you have 8 teams from the Big East and 7 from the B1G, it gets very clustered in 6-11 range. Mid-major teams are pitted against each other because they are much easier to work around.

For example, say you have the following:

B1G:
Indiana (1)
Michigan St. (2)
Michigan (3)
Ohio (3)
Minnesota (6)
Wisconsin (7)
Illinois (11)

Big East:
Louisville (1)
Georgetown (3)
Marquette (4)
Syracuse (4)
Notre Dame (10)
Cincinnati (11)
Villanova (12)

You have to figure out a way to get those teams in different brackets. Oftentimes that becomes almost impossible without pitting mid-majors against each other. If you put a mid-major versus Notre Dame or Illinois, you have to worry about the potential rematch against Ohio State or Syracuse, so most of the time mid-majors are matched up with each other to make sure conferences with a ton of at-large bids don't have rematches.

[rrshock]

I think it has more to do with logistics. The hardest part about making the bracket is making sure no rematches occur in the first weekend, especially conference rematches. When you have 8 teams from the Big East and 7 from the B1G, it gets very clustered in 6-11 range. Mid-major teams are pitted against each other because they are much easier to work around.

For example, say you have the following:

B1G:
Indiana (1)
Michigan St. (2)
Michigan (3)
Ohio (3)
Minnesota (6)
Wisconsin (7)
Illinois (11)

Big East:
Louisville (1)
Georgetown (3)
Marquette (4)
Syracuse (4)
Notre Dame (10)
Cincinnati (11)
Villanova (12)

You have to figure out a way to get those teams in different brackets. Oftentimes that becomes almost impossible without pitting mid-majors against each other. If you put a mid-major versus Notre Dame or Illinois, you have to worry about the potential rematch against Ohio State or Syracuse, so most of the time mid-majors are matched up with each other to make sure conferences with a ton of at-large bids don't have rematches.

I agree that is most likely the case, but it still sucks. We will just have to see what happens on Sunday. Maybe we get a mid-tier BCS team and get a win or two. I would really like to see that happen.

[GoShockers89]

The number of bid thieves this year is going to be unusually low. Only a handful of leagues still have the chance to swipe spots at this point: CUSA and SEC are the most likely. Outside chance in the A-10 or PAC12 if a play-in round team catches fire. The MVC, OVC and WCC holding serve was big for bubble teams.

We are in, and solidly so. If you want to make yourself feel better then check the committee sheets for us; then compare it with teams in everyone's Last 4 In/First 4 Out lists. The difference is enormous. The fact that we are slotted near them in projections/S-Curves/etc. isn't because there is some black helicopter conspiracy against us. Rather, this year there is an unusually HUGE drop-off in quality between roughly the 43rd best team and the 47th best team. It happens. Just because we might be somebody's #42 doesn't mean we are in any danger of getting jumped by a vastly inferior #48 team. We're pretty safely cemented in the 36-42 range just like teams such as Virginia, Tennessee, etc are stuck in the 45-50 range barring a miraculous run.

tl;dr we're in and stop worrying.

[ShockerFever]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-field/page/26 Don't know if this has been posted yet, but not very flattering.

2 words:

Bleacher Report.

3rd graders write a lot of their articles. Hell, even DOFO could write for them.

Next.

[jocoshock]

2 words:

Bleacher Report.

3rd graders write a lot of their articles. Hell, even DOFO could write for them.

Next.

Arrogant SOB.... He obviously hasn't been paying attention that the entire NCAA field has had the same issues we have with not so-so/average performances. Of course teams like KU can have their 20 point beat downs, but we drop a couple of games by a few points and we are mediocre and non-deserving.

Reminds me of a couple of years ago when Bob Fesko of 610sports congratulated the Shox on being the 69th best team in the country when they won the NIT. I sent him an email congratulating KU for losing to the #68 team - the play-in VCU Rams...

Gotta love it. Good opportunity to prove him wrong.

[shoxlax]

2 words:

Bleacher Report.

3rd graders write a lot of their articles. Hell, even DOFO could write for them.

Next.

Had he thrown in a drought report, I would've swore it was DOFO under yet another alias.

[newshock1234]

Seth davis tweeted that we are a sleeper final four team and that he think we will be in the 8-9 game

[ShockerPrez]

The problem with sleepers is that someone has to wake them the hell up.

Has anyone ever gone back and looked at all the sleepers of these guys when they all went one and done?

Didn't think so. You'll see it if they hit on one, though.

I guess all we really need to care about is whether our dear ruler will pick us in his bracket.

[jocoshock]

Seth davis tweeted that we are a sleeper final four team and that he think we will be in the 8-9 game

Seth had us at 21, 22 or 23 in his top 25 ballot this week. Let's hope he is right about the sleeper part. Not crazy about an 8-9 seed, but won't complain if we get that unless we wind up playing another non-BCS team. Hate that. Lunardi has us matched up with Buther in a 6-11 seeding, and it is the only 6-11 that is non-BCS vs. non-BCS.

[60Shock]

Just how are we a sleeper unless they have changed the definition? If they want to label us a dark horse, fine, but a sleeper we are not.

[jocoshock]

Just how are we a sleeper unless they have changed the definition? If they want to label us a dark horse, fine, but a sleeper we are not.

Doesn't matter if we are or are not. It only matters that the other teams are not paying attention.....:cool-new: