Exile on Waveland

xavier beat memphis and mizzou on neutral courts.... that's at least as impressive if not more so. michigan has two road games all year, and those were against northwestern and indiana. if they lose at minneosota they'll be 18-13 and below .500 in the conference. non-conference wins are nice, but they haven't done well enough in conference to get in. That and those wins came extremely early on and don't really show how good that team is. They are capable of beating great teams but play way to inconsistent to be a tourny team at this point. Who cares when the wins came? Teams should make the tournamet based on what they've done, not how good they are. There is no other logical path. It must be an objective, rather than subjective, standard.

Either you left them out intentionally because you represent them, or you are a defeatist fan. Illinois is a lock. Yeah, that was part of the deal. No votes for the team you represent, to try to maintain as unbiased a selection set as possible. Ok. Didn't exactly know how far that rule went. Obviously seeding discussion should be limited to impartial observers, but I just didn't think it was terribly improper to state the obvious.

Either you left them out intentionally because you represent them, or you are a defeatist fan. Illinois is a lock.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47 To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's? A, they have at least 3 wins against top 25 teams (Duke, FSU, UNC) and only lost by 4 to Pitt. B, I would say that the ACC (top to bottom) is a better league than the Big 11. What fictional conference is this? Some people consider Indiana as a functioning basketball team. It's a highly controversial school of thought, but one that's prevalent throughout much of the midwest. Hey now, Indiana may not be very good, but they've been relatively functioning and competitive in the Big Ten for a one-win team. Michigan State will be on the top two seed lines, and they were up by a mere two points with under 30 second left Tuesday night.

B-A-C before the reveal. After, I'd be disingenuous if I switched to A-B-C.

I'd be very surprised if BC doesn't get in. They're in my top 2-3 teams outside of the near locks. I don't think they can yet be considered a lock though.

Sorry, but I see a second round loss in the future for Kansas. They've had a great season though. On Oklahoma, I see nothing to suggest they should be a No. 1 seed at this point.

You're the GM, I'm only the assistant. I'll mention a few players and show my work: The typical mock draft at this point would have the Colts pick a DT since that's their weakest spot (or perhaps a LB with the recent purge). As for DT's, I don't really think Brace or Hood or whomever is worthy of this spot. The Colts/Polian can get equal value in one of the next two rounds. I also don't think there is a linebacker the Colts would pick here even if they wanted to. So, I'm going go all Polian and surprise and all Colts and pick offense. Either Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt at WR wouldn't surprise me. However, with the way this draft has transpired, I think RB is the best value. The Colts could also use a back to pair with Addai (and perhaps replace him after next year). So that leaves LeSean McCoy, Chris Wells and Knoshown Moreno. I'm dubious the Colts would pick Wells. The combination of running, blocking and especially receiving add up to the Colts, in my opinion, taking Knoshown Moreno. Those are my thoughts, I won't blame you if you go another direction. I would agree with the DT comments. I briefly considered Laurinitis at LB because the Colts love production and love the Big 10, but they would have to transition slightly to a different defense to pick him and they also hate picking LB that high. That leaves me with RB and WR. RB has the better talent while WR has better fits. Wells is not the Colts type of RB at all. I initially dismissed Moreno as I had heard poor things about his blocking, but after researching him further more sites than not have him as a willing blocker. And that was really the only thing keeping me from picking him as that's a necessary piece of being in that offense. The Colts with the 27th pick in the draft select Knowshon Moreno out of Georgia. I will go ahead and PM Truffle for the next pick. I hope one more Colt-specific post doesn't constitute hijacking the thread. I thought about mentioning Laurinitis. I know some have soured on him, but I still really like him. Like you, I just don't see how he'd fit with the Colts. I think he'll be solid as a pro though. Keep our fingers crossed a good DT falls and is available in round two.

You're the GM, I'm only the assistant. I'll mention a few players and show my work: The typical mock draft at this point would have the Colts pick a DT since that's their weakest spot (or perhaps a LB with the recent purge). As for DT's, I don't really think Brace or Hood or whomever is worthy of this spot. The Colts/Polian can get equal value in one of the next two rounds. I also don't think there is a linebacker the Colts would pick here even if they wanted to. So, I'm going go all Polian and surprise and all Colts and pick offense. Either Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt at WR wouldn't surprise me. However, with the way this draft has transpired, I think RB is the best value. The Colts could also use a back to pair with Addai (and perhaps replace him after next year). So that leaves LeSean McCoy, Chris Wells and Knoshown Moreno. I'm dubious the Colts would pick Wells. The combination of running, blocking and especially receiving add up to the Colts, in my opinion, taking Knoshown Moreno. Those are my thoughts, I won't blame you if you go another direction.

Locks*: ACC -- (5): North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State. Big East -- (7): UConn, Pitt, Louisville, Villanova, Marquette, Syracuse, West Virginia. Big Ten -- (3): Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue. Big 12 -- (4): Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and likely Texas. Pac 10 -- (3/4): Washington, UCLA, Arizona State and likely Cal. SEC -- (1/2): LSU and likely Tennessee. MWC -- (2): Utah, BYU. CUSA -- (1): Memphis. A-10 -- (1): Xavier. Horizon -- (1): Butler. WCC -- (1): Gonzaga. I've got 29 locks and two more likely. Other teams that I believe are in decent shape include Boston College, Wisconsin, South Carolina, UNLV, and Dayton. Maybe a couple others. I'd be nervous if I was anyone else. (Hope I didn't overlook anyone.) *I'm going to define "lock" as a team that is in barring epic collapse. I'm not interested in debating doomsday results, and will assume UConn is going to beat NJIT or whomever.

I'm a Mastro fan as well. Elegant he may not be, but he was generally quite useful. I'm optimistic on Edu, but him becoming a bit better Mastro wouldn't surprise or offend me.

Does ESPN no longer have a tab for a conference tournament scoreboard? Or a conference tournament page? Perhaps I'm lazy, but I'd rather not have to individually check each conference daily. Edit: Oh, and thanks for the spreadsheet. Championship Week home page Tournament schedules Thanks. In addition to lazy, I must be blind. I looked and couldn't find that.

Does ESPN no longer have a tab for a conference tournament scoreboard? Or a conference tournament page? Perhaps I'm lazy, but I'd rather not have to individually check each conference daily. Edit: Oh, and thanks for the spreadsheet.

I too am impressed by UAB's 2-9 record against the kenpom top-100 (1-9 against the top-80).

I don't disagree. However, I also have issues with assigning too much weight to one "bad loss." Multiple such losses, sure. One isolated game isn't terribly predictive. Michigan State won the 2000 National Championship but lost to No. 187 Wright State (using kenpom). Syracuse won the 2003 National Championship but lost to No. 104 Rutgers. North Carolina won the 2005 National Championship but lost to No. 125 Santa Clara. Point taken, though to be fair, I only really tiebroke with that, because those 4 teams are really really similar. Yeah, something has to be the tiebreaker.

I don't disagree. However, I also have issues with assigning too much weight to one "bad loss." Multiple such losses, sure. One isolated game isn't terribly predictive. Michigan State won the 2000 National Championship but lost to No. 187 Wright State (using kenpom). Syracuse won the 2003 National Championship but lost to No. 104 Rutgers. North Carolina won the 2005 National Championship but lost to No. 125 Santa Clara.

I'll help. My bias won't be much of an issue. :oops:

The flagrant foul was absurd.

Indiana is 0-2 when Tijan Jobe scores.

No, I don't think I'm particularly biased on this issue. My background (both journalism and law) attempt to subjugate all personal biases. That's not entirely possible, of course, but I have a decent idea how to suppress bias. Anyway, enough about me. Well, unfortunately not, because I'm about to rely on my anecdotal experience. Having spoken to coaches and journalists, to a man they expressed a preference for Indy/Conseco. I'm a nobody on a message board, so I wouldn't blame you if you decide to disregard this. The IB is wrong, plenty of bars stay open well past midnight or 1 am. The bars mostly (all?) stay open until 3 am (and that is often a "soft" closing time). Obviously, though, the nightlife is not in the same stratosphere as Chicago's. I think Indy's is fine for this purpose though; attending the Tournament limits free time. Indy hosted multiple Final Four's before the NCAA relocated there from Kansas City, and it wasn't near the only capable venue. It even hosted once (1980) before the RCA/Hoosier Dome existed. All things being equal, in a perfect world, Chicago would host the event. It's easily the crown jewel city of the Midwest/Big Ten area. However, I don't think things are equal in this instance. For what it's worth, Indy is the 13th most populous city in the country. Finally, I will be stunned if the Tournament doesn't sell out this year. The Big Ten may not be infallible, but there has to be a reason Indy was picked over Chicago. Chicago hosted the first four years, then fell into a rotation with Indy, then Indy was chosen on a semi-permanent basis for the next few seasons.

The entire city shuts down at midnight, and it's 4-5 times smaller than Chicago. Being able to walk to a bar rather(and party for a full hour after the late game!) than take a 5 minute cab ride doesn't make it a better locale. They can't even sell it out this year. I've attended the tournament at both locales as both a fan and a working journalist. Indianapolis, though a far inferior city, is a superior locale for the tournament. Fans, coaches and journalists have all generally agreed. Indy's downtown is basically founded on conventions/sporting events. Conseco Fieldhouse is right downtown within walking distance to all necessary hotels, restaurants and bars. Most of downtown is even connected via skyways, so weather isn't an issue. Downtown does not close at midnight, especially on the weekends. There are numerous bars within a block or two from Conseco that stay open very late. Your contention is empirically false. The area is also far nicer and safer than the United Center's location. Conseco Fieldhouse is also a much better facility. Indianapolis is a lot cheaper than Chicago as well. A perfunctory search didn't yield any attendance figures, but I can almost promise attendance is equal at both locations. As an anecdote, the Conseco has seemingly had more fans for the opening rounds than Chicago. This coming from someone who doesn't like Indianapolis much at all. It's fitting of the "naptown" or "India-no-place" epithets. However, there is a reason conventions and sporting events frequent it. There's a reason the Final Four is on permanent rotation to Indy (and not just because the NCAA is headquartered there). Hell, the NFL even saw it fit to host the Super Bowl (though being in company with Detroit isn't terribly impressive). The city is predicated on hosting these very events.

Indianapolis is a better locale for the Big Ten Tournament than Chicago.

No offense to NW, but if the Tourney was in Chicago, I think many of the Big Ten Schools travel to that tourney would send more fans to the games than Northwesterns fans Northwestern often barely has a majority/plurality at many of its home games against particular Big Ten teams.

Hagler isn't a surprise but the fact they didn't want to keep Keiaho for 1 million? I'm rather shocked by that. He had injury issues but was pretty decent when he was in there. I guess they decided they had 2 small outside linebackers and that Session was the better one. Well, I've definitely moved LB way up the draft need boards. Right now, I have no idea how they are going to fill that spot. The only one I'd even consider on the roster is Wheeler, and I still haven't really seen him play. Not offering Keiaho was pretty shocking. Right now the lineup is Bracket at Mike, Sessions at Will and Wheeler at Sam. There are really no other possibilities as I see it. And Wheeler is an unkown. There is basically no depth behind those three. Linebacker is now a pressing need.

Colts re-sign Jeff Saturday. http://www.indystar.com/article/20090227/SPORTS03/902270379/1058/SPORTS03 However, they didn't offer contracts to two of their top four linebackers. http://www.indystar.com/article/20090227/SPORTS03/902270420/1100