We were done for an at-large the moment Smyth's heave at the buzzer at the TUC failed to connect.
I remember in 97-98 we had a good chance of getting an at-large had we lost the MAAC championship game against Siena. In fact, I believe the consensus was that we were in even if we lost that game. Believe that team was 27-5, and would have been 26-6 had we dropped the MAAC final. Just curious why this team, if they run the table and lose in the MAAC final, wouldn't be considered for an at-large?
I don't have the 97-98 team's resume in front of me, but as I remember it was comparable to this year's team, and there are more at-larges handed out now as compared to the 97-98 season. Is the field THAT much stronger this year than it was back then that we wouldn't land an at-large, or at least be strongly considered for one?
We were done for an at-large the moment Smyth's heave at the buzzer at the TUC failed to connect.
I remember in 97-98 we had a good chance of getting an at-large had we lost the MAAC championship game against Siena. In fact, I believe the consensus was that we were in even if we lost that game. Believe that team was 27-5, and would have been 26-6 had we dropped the MAAC final. Just curious why this team, if they run the table and lose in the MAAC final, wouldn't be considered for an at-large?
I don't have the 97-98 team's resume in front of me, but as I remember it was comparable to this year's team, and there are more at-larges handed out now as compared to the 97-98 season. Is the field THAT much stronger this year than it was back then that we wouldn't land an at-large, or at least be strongly considered for one?
Pretty sure in 98 we were in the tourny. That was the year we lost to Syracuse at the buzzer, 63-61. I believe the year before we were in the NIT v. UConn.
Sorry, just realized I misread your post. Here is 97-98
We were done for an at-large the moment Smyth's heave at the buzzer at the TUC failed to connect.
I remember in 97-98 we had a good chance of getting an at-large had we lost the MAAC championship game against Siena. In fact, I believe the consensus was that we were in even if we lost that game. Believe that team was 27-5, and would have been 26-6 had we dropped the MAAC final. Just curious why this team, if they run the table and lose in the MAAC final, wouldn't be considered for an at-large?
I don't have the 97-98 team's resume in front of me, but as I remember it was comparable to this year's team, and there are more at-larges handed out now as compared to the 97-98 season. Is the field THAT much stronger this year than it was back then that we wouldn't land an at-large, or at least be strongly considered for one?
You will find its taboo to speak of at larges on this board, several posters get very angry. That being said if we run the table (which we won't) and lose in Maac championship everyone here will be hoping for an at large and we will be in the discussion but I don't think we will get in, we will be one of first out. due to no real great wins. I think this is same situation as 98. we didn't have any great wins, if we lost that Siena game we would have all been hoping for an at large but based on 12 seed we got after winning, I think a lost would have knocked us out.
Agree, Joebird. Had we lost in the MAAC finals in 98, our RPI would have dipped to around 50 and we would have been 26-6 on the bubble--pretty much what we're looking at this season! And neither is a formula for an at-large--even in this new era with BracketBusters.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
I remember in 97-98 we had a good chance of getting an at-large had we lost the MAAC championship game against Siena. In fact, I believe the consensus was that we were in even if we lost that game. Believe that team was 27-5, and would have been 26-6 had we dropped the MAAC final. Just curious why this team, if they run the table and lose in the MAAC final, wouldn't be considered for an at-large?
I don't have the 97-98 team's resume in front of me, but as I remember it was comparable to this year's team, and there are more at-larges handed out now as compared to the 97-98 season. Is the field THAT much stronger this year than it was back then that we wouldn't land an at-large, or at least be strongly considered for one?
You will find its taboo to speak of at larges on this board, several posters get very angry. That being said if we run the table (which we won't) and lose in Maac championship everyone here will be hoping for an at large and we will be in the discussion but I don't think we will get in, we will be one of first out. due to no real great wins. I think this is same situation as 98. we didn't have any great wins, if we lost that Siena game we would have all been hoping for an at large but based on 12 seed we got after winning, I think a lost would have knocked us out.
The game against Nevada is a real test. This is a very good team that is just below the top 25 in 2 polls (one being the AP). The reason we have zero chance of an at-large is that we have not beaten one top 50 team and have lost to several "not top 50" teams (two being Siena and Hofstra which are bad teams). You don't get an at-large that way.
Post by hawaii bill on Jan 31, 2012 10:08:54 GMT -5
Here's Manhattan's record the year they got the at-large. There are no real "big names" on the sched. In fact they lost to SJ's. A lot of this depends on some luck, i.e. schools like Murray State in one bid leagues who are a lock for an at large if they lose in their tournament, must get their conf. auto bid. No upsets.
Sorry, but I did want to add that there WOULD BE a couple parameters that would be in our favor if we win out to the MAAC final.
First off, the loss would HAVE to be against Loyola, which has an RPI in the 70s I believe and probably won't dip much. We would have beaten them twice if we win out, so losing to a good team like this on a third try would be more "acceptable" than had we lost a league game to them already.
But, more importantly, the selection committee does care about a couple parameters that we'd fare well with. First is the wins away from home category. Iona would likely lead the nation or be very close to it if we win out. Second is your record in the last 10 games; obviously with winning out until the MAAC final we'd be 9-1. If we win out and lose to Loyola in the MAAC finals, our RPI will probably be in the 40s, though, still not great.
Despite all I've just said, I still think we'd be on the outside looking in.
On the flip side, if we win out and WIN the MAAC Tourney, our RPI would probably be in the high 30s, and with a 28-5 record or whatever we MAY be in the running for an 11 seed but should be comfortably at a 12.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
Here's Manhattan's record the year they got the at-large. There are no real "big names" on the sched. In fact they lost to SJ's. A lot of this depends on some luck, i.e. schools like Murray State in one bid leagues who are a lock for an at large if they lose in their tournament, must get their conf. auto bid. No upsets.
Odd thing about Murray is if they were to lose a league game, get crushed by St Mary's at home in the BB (which I think may happen), then lose in their tourney, they may not be in--that's how unimpressive their schedule is.
The greatest poster in the history of the MAAC as determined by THREE separate polls.
Here's Manhattan's record the year they got the at-large. There are no real "big names" on the sched. In fact they lost to SJ's. A lot of this depends on some luck, i.e. schools like Murray State in one bid leagues who are a lock for an at large if they lose in their tournament, must get their conf. auto bid. No upsets.
Odd thing about Murray is if they were to lose a league game, get crushed by St Mary's at home in the BB (which I think may happen), then lose in their tourney, they may not be in--that's how unimpressive their schedule is.
Good point. They're a VG team, but let's face it, they've been on cruise control for a while. They could lose a couple of conf. games.
Here's Manhattan's record the year they got the at-large. There are no real "big names" on the sched. In fact they lost to SJ's. A lot of this depends on some luck, i.e. schools like Murray State in one bid leagues who are a lock for an at large if they lose in their tournament, must get their conf. auto bid. No upsets.
Manhattan had only 4 losses going into the tourney and the only "bad loss" (RPI over 200) was to the Gaels In New Rochelle. Better Resume and they lost to a good Peacock team in the Final in OT.
Here's Manhattan's record the year they got the at-large. There are no real "big names" on the sched. In fact they lost to SJ's. A lot of this depends on some luck, i.e. schools like Murray State in one bid leagues who are a lock for an at large if they lose in their tournament, must get their conf. auto bid. No upsets.
Manhattan had only 4 losses going into the tourney and the only "bad loss" (RPI over 200) was to the Gaels In New Rochelle. Better Resume and they lost to a good Peacock team in the Final in OT.
Well its the only precedent we have to go on. Their SOS was 191 out of 302. Not exactly impressive. But I understand your point.
Manhattan had only 4 losses going into the tourney and the only "bad loss" (RPI over 200) was to the Gaels In New Rochelle. Better Resume and they lost to a good Peacock team in the Final in OT.
Well its the only precedent we have to go on. Their SOS was 191 out of 302. Not exactly impressive. But I understand your point.
I agree it is what we should go by. We compare unfavorably to that Manhattan team. BTW our strength of schedule per Sagrain is 179. There are more teams now however. Those 2 bad losses killed us.