untgeorge

How would this strengthen the Sun Belt's image?

Depends on the money. But they probably will be looking elsewhere.

Two wins over Kent State and a tougher conference, maybe? If not that, i don't know.

Don't know how we finished but with about a week to go we led the nation in foul shots made. So we have another strength in common.

I think if you did this analysis for only the past ten years you would find the 12 seeds at nearly 50-50 vs the 5 seeds, and likewise the 11s vs the 6s and 10s vs 7s. I did an analysis a few years ago on the 2000 thru 2004 years but no longer have it; I could spend some time to prove this if people are interested if I can dig up old brackets. The increase in wins which I believe exists by 9s thru 12s has occurred because the college game has become more balanced, and that has occurred because of the 64 team tournament.

ULM and ULL were among the top five in attendance.

shoot they don't even list the division champions in their historical list that CMJ linked to. That is of no significance to them except for seeding. Aren't you bored yet?

The three division champions (yes, MTSU and Troy are co-champions)have identical w/l records and the head-to-head records determine that Troy is 1st seed. The rule does neither says nor implies that the first step is to proclaim one of the two east co-champs a division champ. This is a seeding issue not a championship determining issue. The history of the Sun Belt shows clearly that in the past the teams that tied are considered champions no matter how they are seeded. See the link provided by CMJ; there three teams were considered co-champs in 2007 and 2008. The tie breaking formula was used only for seeding and NOT for determining a champion, division or otherwise. Look I would have written the rule differently, as well. But it is what it is. I am bored with this "issue". The Sun Belt is not out to get us and has applied the rule the way it was written. Can't we move on?

Right on.

It clearly applies to all three way ties. Dumb rule, but it is the rule.

He showed up out of shape and not ready to play. Running the court was an issue for him. Why is this of no significance to anybody?

You beat me to the keyboard. If Josh has to play 37, 38 mins 3 days in a row, it will cost us. Both of you make good points.

I left something out. (e) in the event of a three-way tie, the won-loss percentage of the tied teams against each other is first considered; That clause is what the conf appears to be relying on.

I don't know about the football scheduling things but the tie-breaker rule has been on the book for some timne, certainly more than just this past week, and could not have been aimed at us.

While it's easy to be angry, the fact is all three of us lost 5 games and finished in a tie. When you get yourself in that situation you are at the mercy of the fates. The reason to be angry is losing to FIU, a very bad basketball team which finished with a 4-14 conf record and lost 24 overall. Besides, when we complain about tie breakers we sound like Mack Brown, and I don't like Mack Brown. Just as in Mack's situation, if the rule were written differently the outcome would be different. But the core problem is we didn't take care of business, and lost a game we should have won.

The Pit is used for many events including but not limited to graduation. It has become too small for graduation, was always too large for basketball. I have been told that it is used 200 times a year, but I could not attest to that number. Whatever it is used for, the other events have interfered with basketball scheduling many times over the years. Once we played in Dallas (opponent was Southern Miss, as I recall) because the pit was unavailable, recently we played in the old pit.

The NCAA selection committee for the national championship tournament does not consider games against non-D1 teams. It is like they were not played. For purposes of determining a team's RPI games against non-D1 teams are not counted. Other NCAA stats and records include the results of such games. Sagarin does not include games against non-D1 teams but frankly as to college basketball Sagarin is irrelevant.

What a mess is right! Plus, the contenders play each other: - ArkSt has WKU and Troy (both at home) to play; - FAU has Troy (A) and MTSU (H) - Troy has FAU (H) and ASU (A) - MTSU has FAU (away) - WKU has ArkSt and FAU (both away) Anything can happen. Including that I might have gotten this right.

We hope.

The explanation that he wants to play nearer home would be reasonable for a transfer at the end of a school year. It can't be the complete explanation for leaving the team now.

Bad example. kent State has been to the NCAA 4 times in the past ten seasons and to the NIT 4 times in the same period. In total since 1985 Kent State has been in the post season 12 times. By national standards we are consistently mediocre. Are you arguing that consistently mediocre is the standard we desire?

Right on. I especially agree that we have been competing against better supported conf programs. However consider Steve Shields, who during the same period won four west division championships in his first six seasons at UALR. I don't know that UALR is better supported, but maybe they are. JJ got a two year extension and it was well earned. But in my we should be seeking consistent top 100 ranking and sometimes better. It wasn't long ago that the Belt had multiple bids and a 10 and 12 seed.

Yes, I did in fact mean men's basketball.

There can be no question that JJ is the best coach we have ever had. The question is what do we want, and what can we reasonably hope for? The subject of a post by Tasty a while ago. We are about 137 in the RPI, depending on which one your read. Sagarin has us at 163, Pomeroy at 179. If we win the conf tournament we will be a 15 or 16 seed. Until this season, we have done better than 10-6 in the conf, and that only once at 11-7. Coming into this season, JJ was below .500 in conf games in his career though in fairness he inherited a train wreck; he was 43-37 in the most recent five years and of course is improving on that. So the question that Mo is raising is, is that what we want from this program? Believe me things will be getting tougher if the conference can keep such coaches as Jarvis, Brady, Arrow, Davis, McDonald, etc. These guys have scalps on their wall and are excellent at both recruiting and game coaching. This season is probably JJs best coaching job, considering the injuries which robbed us of our point guard and inside depth, and the trend of conference results is positive. He is making progress. So to me stating that JJ is the best coach we have ever had begs the issue; the issue is are we getting out of our program what we want and are we getting what we think we should?