Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 66

Thread: Saint Mary's Deserves an At-Large Bid

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    2,840

    Default

    No

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    The problem is that there will be locks that lose their conference tournament every year, so even if they do well and just lose to GU in the finals they have to hope they can improve their stock over 2 games AND the bubble doesn't shrink. I don't see it.
    Krozman
    GU student 1996-2000
    Law Student 2000-2003

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    Has there ever been a team that lost a game by 48 points receive an at large bid?
    I am a little disappointed in numbercruncher but I guess everyone deserves a day off
    Think Big. No think Bigger than that!

  4. #29
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,527

    Default

    They certainly deserved one last year and could have made some noise with right matchups. They made the Final 4 in NIT.

    This year...not so much. They cheesed every opportunity they had to secure a Top 40 type win.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    74

    Default

    there is no chance that SMC gets a bid, but just based on KenPom they certainly deserve one. They are slightly above U-Dub, but I'd bet on the U straight up. I'd also take SMC straight up against any other P12 team. We crushed SMC because of our far superior athleticism, skill, and depth.

    but the real reason they won't get a bid is simple: ASU vs. (say) Kansas would draw far more viewers than SMC would. IMHO

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzagafan62 View Post
    I just donít get at all how anyone looks at SMC and sees quality basketball. I got the reasoning the other 5 times they got left out. Not this one. They arenít that good this season. I donít see it
    This completely. I dont see how they are even in the conversation of first four out. It shouldnt even have to be said that they are out. Its just a known thing.

    Even with continued talk of how our conference is getting better, I look at the individual teams and programs and just dont see it. Sick of there being no apparent intent on being any better than they always have been. Very uninspiring.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,374

    Default

    Delusional or not, Randy Bennett on a Bay Area radio program last week said that he feels his team deserved (or at least would be in the serious running) for an at large bid, even if they lost to Gonzaga in Moraga and in Vegas.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    921

    Default

    It's hard to argue with anyone who thinks SMC shouldn't be in. I guess my thinking is that each year the NCAA Tournament has a handful of power conference losers that end up winning a game. At some point, there's no difference between bubble teams and the decisions seem subjective and at best trivial and at worst based on TV ratings. My thought is the Pac 12 is down, the MWC will only have a couple teams, so I'd rather see SMC in as the second best WCC team with a winning conference record than a loser from the Big 12 or ACC. Everyone has said that the WCC is better this year, would love to be surprised and see that be rewarded with SMC getting a "questionable" bid rather than someone else.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    It's hard to argue with anyone who thinks SMC shouldn't be in. I guess my thinking is that each year the NCAA Tournament has a handful of power conference losers that end up winning a game. At some point, there's no difference between bubble teams and the decisions seem subjective and at best trivial and at worst based on TV ratings. My thought is the Pac 12 is down, the MWC will only have a couple teams, so I'd rather see SMC in as the second best WCC team with a winning conference record than a loser from the Big 12 or ACC. Everyone has said that the WCC is better this year, would love to be surprised and see that be rewarded with SMC getting a "questionable" bid rather than someone else.
    I agree and would go one further.

    Why have the NET and analytic measurements if they aren't going to be used?

    Forget quad 1 etc. That is just set up because th P 6 schools have more quad chances. It really is aimed at eliminating the mid major schools.

    Let each conference send their choice, regular season or tournament, but with no names visible.
    Eliminate all teams that are lower than .500 in conference record.
    insert the NEXT 37 teams (I think that is right) based on the analytics.
    Seed all the 68 teams based on the analytics
    Reveal the names of the teams.

    Let the chips fall where they may. Every team in every conference would know what they have to accomplish to get to the NCAA. They would have to get the conference auto bid OR they would have to have a winning record in conference and have a high enough metric to make the cut.

    Period.
    It's not funny.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SorenTodd45 View Post
    The CBI? You are joking, right? They are right on the Big Dance cut line. Even if they lose on Monday they are still headed to the NIT. Probably host a game as well.
    I don't think they're as close to the tourney as you think they are...their KenPom is an outlier. They are fundamentally not a good team and aside from that one metric, they have nothing to justify a tourney berth. I would think we should be having this discussion about San Francisco, not St. Mary's. They have done more to justify an invite than St. Mary's.
    GU Class of '10, MUSC Class of '14

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    It's hard to argue with anyone who thinks SMC shouldn't be in. I guess my thinking is that each year the NCAA Tournament has a handful of power conference losers that end up winning a game. At some point, there's no difference between bubble teams and the decisions seem subjective and at best trivial and at worst based on TV ratings. My thought is the Pac 12 is down, the MWC will only have a couple teams, so I'd rather see SMC in as the second best WCC team with a winning conference record than a loser from the Big 12 or ACC. Everyone has said that the WCC is better this year, would love to be surprised and see that be rewarded with SMC getting a "questionable" bid rather than someone else.
    I will say this. Alabama, Clemson, Seton Hall and Temple are Lunardi's last four in. None of them deserves a bid and Clemson(29) is the only one ranked higher than the Gaels(35) on kenpom. Alabama and Seton Hall are 59 and 60 respectively and Temple is 77!!! A case can be made that St. Mary's would have a legit shot to beat one of these mediocre teams in a play in game, but it sure wouldn't be compelling basketball.


    A better outcome this year would be to eliminate the play in at large games and readjust the bracket.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    I will say this. Alabama, Clemson, Seton Hall and Temple are Lunardi's last four in. None of them deserves a bid and Clemson(29) is the only one ranked higher than the Gaels(35) on kenpom. Alabama and Seton Hall are 59 and 60 respectively and Temple is 77!!! A case can be made that St. Mary's would have a legit shot to beat one of these mediocre teams in a play in game, but it sure wouldn't be compelling basketball.


    A better outcome this year would be to eliminate the play in at large games and readjust the bracket.

    Most of us on the godisagael board, and most of my alumni friends, are pretty realistic that we don't really deserve to get in this year. Our numbers might look pretty good, but we just don't pass the eye test. We are a solid NIT team, and that's about it. Last year, I think we did deserve to get in, but scheduled like crap and shot ourselves in the foot yet again. Thankfully, he did a better job scheduling this year, but we just couldn't pull off any of those Q1 wins.

    That said, this year, more than any other, is such a huge unknown. No one really knows how the committee is going to use the new NET rankings as tool - Lunardi, Palm, etc. They are having to speculate this year, more than any other in the past. Once precedent is set, and they choose this year's at-large field, everyone will have a much better idea of how to project the field in the future.

    As far as Bennett saying we deserve to be in, of course he is going to say that, as would 99% of the coaches in America. What would you want a coach to say? "We suck and don't deserve a bid"?

    Good luck this year in the NCAA's. As many times as I have seen them play on TV, it didn't do them justice. Getting to see them in person on Saturday was just a different level of basketball. As a fan of the game, it was truly a joy to watch (also knowing they didn't play their best). Really hope you all are the last team standing.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    7,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gaels87 View Post
    Most of us on the godisagael board, and most of my alumni friends, are pretty realistic that we don't really deserve to get in this year. Our numbers might look pretty good, but we just don't pass the eye test. We are a solid NIT team, and that's about it. Last year, I think we did deserve to get in, but scheduled like crap and shot ourselves in the foot yet again. Thankfully, he did a better job scheduling this year, but we just couldn't pull off any of those Q1 wins.

    That said, this year, more than any other, is such a huge unknown. No one really knows how the committee is going to use the new NET rankings as tool - Lunardi, Palm, etc. They are having to speculate this year, more than any other in the past. Once precedent is set, and they choose this year's at-large field, everyone will have a much better idea of how to project the field in the future.

    As far as Bennett saying we deserve to be in, of course he is going to say that, as would 99% of the coaches in America. What would you want a coach to say? "We suck and don't deserve a bid"?

    Good luck this year in the NCAA's. As many times as I have seen them play on TV, it didn't do them justice. Getting to see them in person on Saturday was just a different level of basketball. As a fan of the game, it was truly a joy to watch (also knowing they didn't play their best). Really hope you all are the last team standing.
    your view is a breath of fresh air in honesty
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    7,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    I will say this. Alabama, Clemson, Seton Hall and Temple are Lunardi's last four in. None of them deserves a bid and Clemson(29) is the only one ranked higher than the Gaels(35) on kenpom. Alabama and Seton Hall are 59 and 60 respectively and Temple is 77!!! A case can be made that St. Mary's would have a legit shot to beat one of these mediocre teams in a play in game, but it sure wouldn't be compelling basketball.


    A better outcome this year would be to eliminate the play in at large games and readjust the bracket.
    guess it just depends on what matrix one wants to rely on.....quad 1 and 2 wins, kenpom, NET, overall record etc
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    18,539

    Default

    Is the 35 ranking KenPom or is it NET?

    If it is NET, it would be just delicious to make the committee eat that number and explain why it let a BCS school with a lower NET ranking than SMC at 35 into the tourney.

    Yes to all who say they don't deserve it. BUT, there are about 8 teams this year that will get in that in no way "deserve" it.

    Why not our WCC guys?

    Agree that if ASU plays UW in final of PAC it dooms the Gaels. But, I think the PAC tourney will be wild this year, and it may well be two lower tier PAC teams playing in final.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gaels87 View Post
    Most of us on the godisagael board, and most of my alumni friends, are pretty realistic that we don't really deserve to get in this year. Our numbers might look pretty good, but we just don't pass the eye test. We are a solid NIT team, and that's about it. Last year, I think we did deserve to get in, but scheduled like crap and shot ourselves in the foot yet again. Thankfully, he did a better job scheduling this year, but we just couldn't pull off any of those Q1 wins.

    That said, this year, more than any other, is such a huge unknown. No one really knows how the committee is going to use the new NET rankings as tool - Lunardi, Palm, etc. They are having to speculate this year, more than any other in the past. Once precedent is set, and they choose this year's at-large field, everyone will have a much better idea of how to project the field in the future.

    As far as Bennett saying we deserve to be in, of course he is going to say that, as would 99% of the coaches in America. What would you want a coach to say? "We suck and don't deserve a bid"?

    Good luck this year in the NCAA's. As many times as I have seen them play on TV, it didn't do them justice. Getting to see them in person on Saturday was just a different level of basketball. As a fan of the game, it was truly a joy to watch (also knowing they didn't play their best). Really hope you all are the last team standing.
    The talent gap between the Zags and the Gaels is at an all time high this year. I was happy to see you guys compete in this last game.

    I think next year for you will be interesting. I don't think you can win at a high rate with Ford being your primary scorer and ball handler. Bennett's offense is best when the high pick and roll is the number one option. Hopefully you will find someone that approaches McConnell and Dellevadova with that skillset. Even Naar was very good at it. Ford is a very good scorer, but the team had a total of five assists in the two games against the Zags. Of course, there was no Steindl to bury threes from ridiculous distance, no Landale to feed in the paint and no underrated Rob Jones to get sneaky baskets. You have two very good pieces in Ford and Fitts, two potentially good players in Menzies and Zoriks that weren't available because of injuries and a couple of pretty good recruits coming in. If Bennett continues to upgrade the schedule, you will have a legit shot at a bid next year. I hope so. The Zags need more than one team in the league to push them next year. USF is in good hands with Kyle Smith coaching and BYU always has the potential, so we'll see.

    I would be very happy to see the Gaels make a run in the NIT. That's always weird though. Such a letdown sometimes but if Bennett can get them to focus on improving for next year they might make it to New York.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    9,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    Is the 35 ranking KenPom or is it NET?

    If it is NET, it would be just delicious to make the committee eat that number and explain why it let a BCS school with a lower NET ranking than SMC at 35 into the tourney.

    Yes to all who say they don't deserve it. BUT, there are about 8 teams this year that will get in that in no way "deserve" it.

    Why not our WCC guys?

    Agree that if ASU plays UW in final of PAC it dooms the Gaels. But, I think the PAC tourney will be wild this year, and it may well be two lower tier PAC teams playing in final.
    Both rankings are at ORnear 35-38 in both Dix
    Qualified for 21 Straight Big Dances

    11 Straight Round of 32s

    10 Sweet Sixteens (5 Straight)

    4 Elite Eights

    2017 FINAL FOUR

    2 Winningest Players in college basketball history (Karnowski 137, Perkins 134)

    The Best Point Guard to ever play the game: John Stockton, most assists, most steals.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gaels87 View Post
    Most of us on the godisagael board, and most of my alumni friends, are pretty realistic that we don't really deserve to get in this year. Our numbers might look pretty good, but we just don't pass the eye test. We are a solid NIT team, and that's about it. Last year, I think we did deserve to get in, but scheduled like crap and shot ourselves in the foot yet again. Thankfully, he did a better job scheduling this year, but we just couldn't pull off any of those Q1 wins.

    That said, this year, more than any other, is such a huge unknown. No one really knows how the committee is going to use the new NET rankings as tool - Lunardi, Palm, etc. They are having to speculate this year, more than any other in the past. Once precedent is set, and they choose this year's at-large field, everyone will have a much better idea of how to project the field in the future.

    As far as Bennett saying we deserve to be in, of course he is going to say that, as would 99% of the coaches in America. What would you want a coach to say? "We suck and don't deserve a bid"?

    Good luck this year in the NCAA's. As many times as I have seen them play on TV, it didn't do them justice. Getting to see them in person on Saturday was just a different level of basketball. As a fan of the game, it was truly a joy to watch (also knowing they didn't play their best). Really hope you all are the last team standing.
    Self awareness is a rare thing, especially on fan forums. I think they should have gotten a chance last year, IF their scheduling was better. But it wasnt. And its not a thing where they tried to schedule good teams and those teams just werent good that year. Thats the frustrating part.

    I will say that a coach being truthful is a good thing. I think very few coaches would do it, but I respect someone that can say, hey, we didnt beat anybody or try to beat anybody out of conference and didnt play much more than mediocre or pedestrian in conference, yeah we probably dont deserve a spot, even if we want it and could maybe even win a game. Youve got to earn it and we didnt.

    or you can go the other route

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    9,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gaels87 View Post
    Most of us on the godisagael board, and most of my alumni friends, are pretty realistic that we don't really deserve to get in this year. Our numbers might look pretty good, but we just don't pass the eye test. We are a solid NIT team, and that's about it. Last year, I think we did deserve to get in, but scheduled like crap and shot ourselves in the foot yet again. Thankfully, he did a better job scheduling this year, but we just couldn't pull off any of those Q1 wins.

    That said, this year, more than any other, is such a huge unknown. No one really knows how the committee is going to use the new NET rankings as tool - Lunardi, Palm, etc. They are having to speculate this year, more than any other in the past. Once precedent is set, and they choose this year's at-large field, everyone will have a much better idea of how to project the field in the future.

    As far as Bennett saying we deserve to be in, of course he is going to say that, as would 99% of the coaches in America. What would you want a coach to say? "We suck and don't deserve a bid"?

    Good luck this year in the NCAA's. As many times as I have seen them play on TV, it didn't do them justice. Getting to see them in person on Saturday was just a different level of basketball. As a fan of the game, it was truly a joy to watch (also knowing they didn't play their best). Really hope you all are the last team standing.
    Thanks for the post. And of course, yes you are correct in saying precedent is unknown. Honestly as much as I think you don’t deserve a bid, I am hoping you get it, just to throw people off. Not only would it be hilarious, it would also be nice to let another WCC in ...

    Best of luck

    62
    Qualified for 21 Straight Big Dances

    11 Straight Round of 32s

    10 Sweet Sixteens (5 Straight)

    4 Elite Eights

    2017 FINAL FOUR

    2 Winningest Players in college basketball history (Karnowski 137, Perkins 134)

    The Best Point Guard to ever play the game: John Stockton, most assists, most steals.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    Is the 35 ranking KenPom or is it NET?

    If it is NET, it would be just delicious to make the committee eat that number and explain why it let a BCS school with a lower NET ranking than SMC at 35 into the tourney.
    They'll justify it just like they have in the past with RPI. Those BCS schools with lower rankings have quality wins. SMC does not.
    A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.
    Steven Wright

    Foo Fantasy Football Champ 2012
    Foo Fantasy Football Last Place Champ 2013

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Laguna
    Posts
    7,258

    Default

    CBS has a BILLION reasons to keep small schools from at large bids

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    CBS has a BILLION reasons to keep small schools from at large bids
    I think that's way too cynical. Honestly, You think Temple vs Alabama would garner any different ratings than St. Mary's vs Clemson?

    What would be more compelling? An overachieving St. Mary's in a round of 32 game or an 18-12 power conference team? Underdogs are what makes the tourney.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,483

    Default

    Never underestimate how much lack of familiarity can breed contempt. Most east coast media/pundits/committee members are in bed before St. Mary's and the rest of the WCC tips, and if they've seen them at all it's been against us. By contrast, it doesn't take much effort to trip across a Seton Hall, Clemson or Alabama game.

    I live in/on eastern time and with the exception of when they are playing us I've seen far less of the WCC teams than I have of P6 bubble teams for just that reason.
    Your children have been placed in the custody of...Carl's Jr.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    342

    Default

    The only team they beat was New Mexico State. They needed to beat one of the three teams (LSU, Miss State, Utah State) they played in non conference. Winning one of those three might have gotten them in. Credit to them for playing a tougher schedule and hope they continue down that path.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    577

    Default

    St Marys was mediocre to bad in the non con (lost at home to Harvard) and then in Conference play against the only other tourney team in the league (Gonzaga)gets smacked by dang near 50 in Spokane and then after hanging for a half in Morega gets run off thier own court.

    If they want to ever get an at large bid they need to play tourney level teams and win. They didnt come close to doing that this year

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •