Lunardi still has us a 12 seed...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
but you have to think that if you get in as something like a 12 seed, you're going to be the type of team no 5 seed wants to draw.
The last thing you want is an underachieving team with 4 potential NBA players on it sitting across from you when you've earned a high seed. As up and down as you've been, and as bad as you've been lately, you have potential to ruin someone's shot at a run. I wouldn't put any money on Stans making a deep run as a low seed, but in a one game setting, you wouldn't be the low seed I would want to draw after earning a high seed.
I still feel like you need 3 more wins to lock up an NCAA bid, especially as the bubble shrinks. You SHOULD be able to win these last two, and should be able to win at least one SEC tourney game.
The last thing you want is an underachieving team with 4 potential NBA players on it sitting across from you when you've earned a high seed. As up and down as you've been, and as bad as you've been lately, you have potential to ruin someone's shot at a run. I wouldn't put any money on Stans making a deep run as a low seed, but in a one game setting, you wouldn't be the low seed I would want to draw after earning a high seed.
I still feel like you need 3 more wins to lock up an NCAA bid, especially as the bubble shrinks. You SHOULD be able to win these last two, and should be able to win at least one SEC tourney game.
It's better to put off your potential match up with the 1 seed for as long as possible. I'd rather be an 11 than a 12 though, for the same reason. Put it off for another round.
It's easy to say three more wins would lock it up, but that's not really the question. Most everyone out there will tell you that this is a very soft bubble. The question is if we go 2-1 or 2-2 or even 1-2 in the next two weeks, is there anyone out there good enough to take a spot away. I mean really....Cincinnati? Northwestern? Washington? Xavier? St Joe's? Colorado State? Who's out there that's good enough to take a spot even if have done our best to give it away. Yeah, three would do it, but would two.RebelBruiser said:
I knew when they started this First Four garbage that Stansbury would make an appearance in it one day. I didn't think it might be this year.
...in the past, we've been unable to do enough to get in. Now we appear to be unable to do anything to get left out.
..when MSU is winning, all the Lunardi's keeps harping on how MSU better fix this & that, get Sidney's head right, play better defense, etc. or MSU will be in danger of missing the NCAA tournament altogether.
But now that MSU is on one of the most embarrassing losing streaks in MSU basketball history, the Lunardi's refuse to take MSU out of their brackets.
This is just one reason out of a thousand as to why basketball will never be taken seriously in the South.
But now that MSU is on one of the most embarrassing losing streaks in MSU basketball history, the Lunardi's refuse to take MSU out of their brackets.
This is just one reason out of a thousand as to why basketball will never be taken seriously in the South.
and say later that it was our fault for not winning anything toward the end of the season.
If he takes us out, he has to make a case for whoever he puts in.
I am emptionally drained with this team and the basketball program in general. Maybe next year I'll decide to buy my tickets and go again. Seems I always do. I guess its the hotdogs and Bops. Gotta be something. Sure as heck isn't watching the second half of our games lately.
If he takes us out, he has to make a case for whoever he puts in.
I am emptionally drained with this team and the basketball program in general. Maybe next year I'll decide to buy my tickets and go again. Seems I always do. I guess its the hotdogs and Bops. Gotta be something. Sure as heck isn't watching the second half of our games lately.
That's a good point too. The bubble has been getting progressively weaker. This year is no different.
Again, I chalk that up to the overall product of college basketball going down the tube. There are still a handful of teams every year that are elite and a handful of good teams, but even most of them are flawed these days because of the lack of fundamentals and basketball IQ these players get in their pre-college days.
I attribute that as the main reason you've seen Butler in two title games and VCU in a Final Four. All it takes is a little smart basketball and maybe some good shooting, and you can knock out any of the good teams these days.
That's not even talking about the teams that are getting the final at large bids. They're pathetic. Unless the product improves, I won't feel sorry for any "snubs" anytime soon. That's why I don't feel sorry for our teams under Kennedy. If they'd play smart basketball all year with consistent effort, they wouldn't be fighting for one of the last few slots every year, ending up in the NIT, but they don't.
Again, I chalk that up to the overall product of college basketball going down the tube. There are still a handful of teams every year that are elite and a handful of good teams, but even most of them are flawed these days because of the lack of fundamentals and basketball IQ these players get in their pre-college days.
I attribute that as the main reason you've seen Butler in two title games and VCU in a Final Four. All it takes is a little smart basketball and maybe some good shooting, and you can knock out any of the good teams these days.
That's not even talking about the teams that are getting the final at large bids. They're pathetic. Unless the product improves, I won't feel sorry for any "snubs" anytime soon. That's why I don't feel sorry for our teams under Kennedy. If they'd play smart basketball all year with consistent effort, they wouldn't be fighting for one of the last few slots every year, ending up in the NIT, but they don't.
where the quality of play has actually gone down over the past 20-30 years. Plenty of bad teams are getting at-large bids these days. What they should have done instead of expanding to 68 teams was contract to 48. I know most people would hate that, and it would be bad for schools like MSU and UM because it would make it harder to make the tournament. But it would make for a lot better 1st weekend of the tournament. And really, the games you would lose would mostly be the blowout games.
and I believe that was the discussion, then teams like Ole Miss and LSU would be in from the SEC, and teams like Arkansas and Tennessee would be bubble teams still fighting for a chance at the tournament.
And they may go ahead and invite the whole Big 10 this year just about.
The NCAA tournament would probably be better off as a 48 team tournament, like it used to be. As a fan, I don't mind the extra games, but there is no need for the last 16 at large teams.
I still like all the automatic bids, because it gives the tournament an inclusive feel, and it creates some drama and underdogs. They're good for TV, but for the purposes of determining a champion, you don't need more than the top 30 or so teams plus automatic bids, which is what you'd get with a 48 team field.
Likewise, in football I ultimately like the idea of a 16 team playoff with at large bids for all 11 leagues. That would give you the top 10 or so teams plus some extra automatic bids every year.
And they may go ahead and invite the whole Big 10 this year just about.
The NCAA tournament would probably be better off as a 48 team tournament, like it used to be. As a fan, I don't mind the extra games, but there is no need for the last 16 at large teams.
I still like all the automatic bids, because it gives the tournament an inclusive feel, and it creates some drama and underdogs. They're good for TV, but for the purposes of determining a champion, you don't need more than the top 30 or so teams plus automatic bids, which is what you'd get with a 48 team field.
Likewise, in football I ultimately like the idea of a 16 team playoff with at large bids for all 11 leagues. That would give you the top 10 or so teams plus some extra automatic bids every year.
I would like it more at 48, because like you said, you effectively eliminate the 9-12 seeds for the most part and bump the 13-16 seeds up to play the first round games against the 5-8 seeds.
Plus, it gives a good hierarchy for seeding.
Your top 16 overall teams earn byes. Your next 16 teams (mostly the final at large teams) are paired off against your lowest 16 teams (mostly the weak automatic bid teams)
Plus, it gives a good hierarchy for seeding.
Your top 16 overall teams earn byes. Your next 16 teams (mostly the final at large teams) are paired off against your lowest 16 teams (mostly the weak automatic bid teams)
Yet when I talk about fundamentals and how most coaches don't do much to prepare teams offensively these days, everyone tells me that's just the way the game is going. "You can't be a drill sargeant type to these kids" they tell me. But the level of play keeps dropping. I say that most of the SEC coaches suck. "Aw the game is just evolving" they say. Bull crap. It's erroding. That's why the smarter, more fundamental mid-majors are making such a push. That's why I have hated Stansbury for ten years. He has never and never will be a good basketball coach. You can't let players do what they want at this level.patdog said:
lars larson said:
I think you HAVE to be a drill sergeant with basketball players these days. You just have to actually know what you're doing too. Calipari is a good example. He's tougher on his players than almost anyone else, and he's not afraid to yank a kid out of a game.
He has flaws too, but he knows a little bit of something about actual basketball, and his players respond to him.
Look at the best coaches in the game. I wouldn't say many of them, if any, would qualify as player's coaches. For whatever reason, basketball players seem to respond better to tough love. The problem in the SEC is so few coaches actually know how to coach basketball fundamentals, and the products they recruit are just raw talents that have never been honed.
Stans's problem is that he runs your program a little bit like an AAU program lately. He's just happy to get the talented player, so he lets them do what they want once he has them.
What's the bball documentary with bobby hurley's dad? Bobby hurley Sr maybe? Hecusses and throws fits 24/7, but he teaches them basketball.Throwing someone out of practice is like burping to him. Calipariis the same way. You think Coach K takes **** from a player? nope. None of the greats do. And they teach the game and not some half-*** system that helps you get recruits who don't want to be disciplined.RebelBruiser said:
RebelBruiser said:
in March Madness is the best weekend in all of sports and you want to change it. That's 17ing retarded. Wanna be mad the quality in teams has gone down be mad at the NBA but the parity in college basketball is better than ever. Eliminating the 9-12 seeds would eliminate most of the great upsets that have happened in the last 20 years.
Almost all the huge upsets have come from 12-14 seed that won their league to get their bid. It's not really an upset when a 9-11 seed wins. What you'd do is turn those 12-14 seeds into 8-10 seeds and give them a better chance to win a game. You'd have more upsets, not fewer. </p>
But the 5 game losing streak that put us in that position has totally sapped every bit of confidence from the team.
If basketball games were 20 minutes long, we could compete with just about anyone in the country.
Unfortunately, as they are 40 minutes, see UK, LSU, and Bama games. Whoever we see in the NCAAs (IF we get in) we will hang with for half of the game, and get whooped in the 2nd half.
Hood's got a bum knee, Shaun Smith has a broken finger. Look at it this way, if Deville gets a 3rd bout of headaches and Sidney gets a zillionth suspention/sprain/spasm/sickness, we'll have 5 players playing 40 minutes each. So I'm not counting our NCAA chickens just yet. Finishing the season 0-9 (dropping last 7 SEC games, SECT 1st round, NIT 1st round) is not out of the question.
Even if we finish up something respectable pre-NCAAs (3-1) I can forsee some "bid steals" from midmajors in tourneys bumping us out. Right now, the answer to "what have you done for me lately?" is "**** the bed like a boss."
If basketball games were 20 minutes long, we could compete with just about anyone in the country.
Unfortunately, as they are 40 minutes, see UK, LSU, and Bama games. Whoever we see in the NCAAs (IF we get in) we will hang with for half of the game, and get whooped in the 2nd half.
Hood's got a bum knee, Shaun Smith has a broken finger. Look at it this way, if Deville gets a 3rd bout of headaches and Sidney gets a zillionth suspention/sprain/spasm/sickness, we'll have 5 players playing 40 minutes each. So I'm not counting our NCAA chickens just yet. Finishing the season 0-9 (dropping last 7 SEC games, SECT 1st round, NIT 1st round) is not out of the question.
Even if we finish up something respectable pre-NCAAs (3-1) I can forsee some "bid steals" from midmajors in tourneys bumping us out. Right now, the answer to "what have you done for me lately?" is "**** the bed like a boss."
Basketball needs to be split like football, maybe the FBS conferences + the A10, CAA, and maybe WCC or MVC.<div>
</div><div>30 autobids (champs and tourney champs) and 18 at large would be excellent. It would still be good if they did it like this and had 64, except that we would still be a lock.</div>
</div><div>30 autobids (champs and tourney champs) and 18 at large would be excellent. It would still be good if they did it like this and had 64, except that we would still be a lock.</div>
Well, considering we played the number 1 team in the country for 35 minutes toe to toe, I think we can make some noise if we just get in. If we do get in (and at this point it's a big if) and grab say a 10-12 seed, we could make a sweet 16 run. With the two teams we finish off with and the fact we won't play a top 50 RPI team until the second round of the SEC tourney, puts us in good position if we get the win against USC. Barring the biggest collapse this team could do, we should beat USC. I fully expect us to even with just a Bost/Moultrie combination. We shall find out soon enough if this team wants to get off the mat and fight or just lay there for the ten count. I think fans tend to forget that USC is equally in a death spiral. I think if we are up on them by 20 at halftime they lay down. The USC game might be what MSU needs to get a kick in the pants win.
tenureplan said:
Yes, they did, but they didn't win the title, so ultimately you've never had a team from outside that Top 32 win a national title, which is what the tournament is actually about.
For some reason, the tournament now has become more about what round you made it to, so you can hang a banner that says Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, or Final Four. Those are good accomplishments, but ultimately, the purpose of the tournament is to crown 1 team and one team only. If some other teams that really didn't deserve a shot at the national title get left out in their chance to hang a banner for a run, then that doesn't tarnish the end result.
You can tell the tournament is too watered down when fans of your bubble teams are talking about hoping they can win a few games and get a Sweet Sixteen banner, without even considering the possibility of winning 6 straight.
That said, I still like the inclusion of the automatic bids, because you never know when a Butler might actually be good enough to win it all, even if they aren't getting respect nationally due to the conference they are in.