SouthSideRyan

Man people are feisty around here lately.

Nice to know you have magical insights into the future. The fact is that, other than a #16 seed beating a #1 seed, anything can and has happened in the tournament. Well, Kansas is a 1 seed this year.

Has that always been the case with returning Rule 5 picks? Or is this a change from the new CBA? I don't remember hearing this before.

Bilas is the only one worth listening to, though the Beav's final projection will be of some value.

You also hate Illinois.

Stanford's nonconference SOS is 116. They are 4-6 in their last 10. They lost to 3 non-tourney teams in nonconference on their own homecourt, including getting embarrassed by 30+ by Air Force, and losing big to Santa Clara.

I liked that Bilas called out Lunardi on some of his teams that were in rather than get down on his knees for him like most of ESPN's idiots. The Beav just sat there with his stupid smile on his face and had no answer for Bilas's questions. What a hack.

Those are not the only criteria-and at this point, things like RPI are basically ignored by the committee. For the last bubble teams, it's all about maximizing the top wins, minimizing the bad losses, and playing well down the stretch. Purdue is much better in the wins department, Illinois is better in the losses, and they both have finished well. Their profiles are very, very close-I'm not sure how anybody could say it was wrong either way it went. Also one last criteria that is sometimes used is which team you'd rather not face-I'll let people put their own opinions on that one, although I have mine right now for most of the teams in the tournament. I thought it was said explicitly that it is not taken into account "who you'd rather not face" And excellent word subtlety saying Purdue is "MUCH better" in the wins while Illinois is "better" in the losses. The thing is it's really the other way around, the only thing Purdue has on the Illini regarding wins is that they won the head to head matchup. Illinois has an extra win over IU to combat that. I'm not comfortable with a home win in a conference where road wins are impossible to come by being the difference between two teams. Especially when that same team lost to the worst team in the conference earlier in the year. The conference wins are very similar-it's in non-conference wins where it splits off Purdue's best 4 non-conference wins-Virginia, Depaul, Oklahoma, Missouri Illinois' best 4 non-conference wins-Bradley, Missouri, Miami (OH), Florida A@M The difference in Purdue's wins is decently big there. Looks even bigger when you put Florida A&M in as one of their best 4 when Austin Peay, Belmont, and UIC are all better. U of I's nonconference schedule is ranked 38 and Purdue's was ranked 92. They're both 7-3 in their last 10. Illinois is 9-7 in road/neutral games and Purdue is 5-9.

I would bet my bank account on at least 4 and would probably throw down about 500 bucks on at least 5.

That is awful, the refs should have to explain that to the miami locker room. I think you misunderstood. Miami did win the game, but they did have a chance to lose the game because the refs arbitrarily put .6 seconds on the clock rather than actually make the proper decision. I really think they went in there, saw he took it with 1.2 seconds on the clock, thought it through, and said well we can't take away Miami's basket, but I feel bad for Akron, so let's just half that 1.2 seconds and give Akron a chance. Seems fair. Why not just institute a do-over??

Those are not the only criteria-and at this point, things like RPI are basically ignored by the committee. For the last bubble teams, it's all about maximizing the top wins, minimizing the bad losses, and playing well down the stretch. Purdue is much better in the wins department, Illinois is better in the losses, and they both have finished well. Their profiles are very, very close-I'm not sure how anybody could say it was wrong either way it went. Also one last criteria that is sometimes used is which team you'd rather not face-I'll let people put their own opinions on that one, although I have mine right now for most of the teams in the tournament. I thought it was said explicitly that it is not taken into account "who you'd rather not face" And excellent word subtlety saying Purdue is "MUCH better" in the wins while Illinois is "better" in the losses. The thing is it's really the other way around, the only thing Purdue has on the Illini regarding wins is that they won the head to head matchup. Illinois has an extra win over IU to combat that. I'm not comfortable with a home win in a conference where road wins are impossible to come by being the difference between two teams. Especially when that same team lost to the worst team in the conference earlier in the year.

Lunardi has the #s wrong. Illinois has beaten MSU and IU twice. 2 of their losses came to Iowa and UM. That'd make them 3-9 at worst, and if you're being compared to the locks in the tourney, how does the Purdue loss get included in the #s?

The game should've been over after the Miami 3. You can't go back and change the clock after the fact. It's dishonest to Miami. They're following the clock and are shooting based off of it. If you take 2 seconds off the clock after the fact it is flat out robbing them of the game. Besides, I'm not sure 1.2 seconds even happened in between the first touch and the running of the clock. That was just bush league reffing though. Pathetic.

These MAC refs are just making stuff up as they go along. They randomly put .6 seconds on the clock to make up for the fact that the clock started a second late off the free throw. This is all one big clusterf*

I could see Holy Cross winning a game if they get a 13 or a good 14 seed cause there's really not a lot of great teams after UCLA, OSU, Wiscons, UNC, Florida, Kansas, A&M, and Georgetown.(Enough for the top 2 seeds.)

I think Vanderbilt, Nevada, Virginia, BC, USC, and Illinois are no-brainers. I'm surprised they are on the "NSBB Bubble" at all. BC and Nevada are almost entirely my doing since I've argued that BC has been mediocre without Williams, and Nevada has beaten nobody. Vandy and VA under closer scrutiny had us re-consider their lock status. U of I and USC haven't really seen serious objections.

Go Akron!! I could see the comittee losing their minds and putting them in as an at large like they did for Air Force and Utah St. last year.

If U of I was left out they'd have the highest RPI of a BCS team that was left out as far back as I have info('99) (Not counting teams ineligible for postseason play) They'd also have the most wins of a team in a BCS conference to miss the NCAAs. I'm not using these as reasons why I think they should be in, but I could see the committee looking at these things. Same reason KSU will probably get in.

For those who care what us nerds from the other thread think, we have it down to these 23 teams for the last 14 spots. Nevada Virginia Boston College Vanderbilt Illinois Georgia Tech Syracuse BYU Xavier Missouri State USC Texas Tech Stanford Purdue Air Force Old Dominion West Virginia Drexel Bradley Kansas State Arkansas Oklahoma State Florida State I have no clue how you go through those 23 teams and put U of I at 15 or lower.

IU beat SIU and Wisconsin though and I think that outweighs taking 2 of 3 from them. Jerry Mathers really seems to be all over the place this year in his projections. He's had U of I in for weeks, and over the past few days he's steadily dropped them despite them getting the big win they needed against IU. We do deserve it more than Purdue, I have little doubt in my mind about that.

He had growing surgery this year. You have any idea what that does to your mobility? I know and understand that. That's probably the reason for some of the ticky-tack fouls he gets by not being in position all the time, but there seems to be more to it than just that. Who knows I guess. Kind of off topic, but he's a really bright student IIRC, right? Yes he is a very good student. And a very good guy. I'm kind of surprised he hasn't gotten the David Robinson "too nice to be tough" rap from the mainstream.

he did have perfect mechanics. he altered them. that's what led to the achilles injury, and it's all been downhill from there. It's late, but wasn't it the other way around? heh, i really wish i could explain this. i worded it exactly as i meant it. i guess i shouldn't expect anyone to believe it, but the way i worded it is correct - it's just that the reason was never released to the media/public (it has to do with a minor injury that led to altered mechanics that led to the achilles injury). source is a highly regarded injury expert trusted by many on this board..but i can't say more than that. i know it makes me seem kind of like a prick, sorry :/ In other words, it didn't come from the Cubs' training staff. :D Or Will Carroll. I guess I just don't see how changing mechanics is going to F up your achilles.

Truly a historic day. Probably gonna be the lead on sportscenter.

This team travels more than my 4th grade team did.

Welp time to wait til tomorrow at 5.