Thompson could be an all American player, he just can't stay out of foul trouble...he just isn't very smart.

...and David Bell has worse hands than Amir Williams...he's just plain awful.

Somehow, despite running out of warm bodies, they're still in this game. I have no clue how.

I have to admit even though they lost, it's prolly one of their best efforts of the season...I don't miss Lyle at all.

In a season that's been one low after another, tonight might have been the lowest low. Leading almost the entire game vs. Nebraska, often by 8-10 points and then choking it away in the clutch to lose by 1 in the final seconds. There are no words.

OSU beats Wisky. Really good win. Obviously way too little, way too late. But maybe enough to save Matta.

Any chance they can make the NCAA tournament without winning the B1G tournament? What if they beat Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue and then lose in the B1G title game? (I know I'm dreaming, but...)

No.

I don't think OSU is done, as crazy as it sounds.

15-13 Vanderbilt, 14-13 Clemson, 15-13 Tennessee, 15-13 Indiana, 16-12 Georgia, etc. All of these teams are at least in the conversation. Obviously it depends how things play out, and one of the differences is all those teams have generally better wins than OSU, but still.

wildcats20;1838563 wrote:OSU beats Wisky. Really good win. Obviously way too little, way too late. But maybe enough to save Matta.

good win, but I think Matta's gone regardless--not only due to his health, but imo, it's time to infuse some new energy into the program

If they win out to a Big Ten title game appearance, I think they are in as a 12 seed. Would put their record at 20-13 if I'm not mistaken...

slingshot4ever;1838600 wrote:If they win out to a Big Ten title game appearance, I think they are in as a 12 seed. Would put their record at 20-13 if I'm not mistaken...

Yeah, and there are going to be some 14-loss, possibly some 15-loss teams that get in on at-large bids this year. It's that bad.

Azubuike24;1838602 wrote:Yeah, and there are going to be some 14-loss, possibly some 15-loss teams that get in on at-large bids this year. It's that bad.

That's the bed CBB has made for itself by essentially deciding to screw over mid-major teams simply because they don't play in rugged conferences. Despite the fact that they get stuck on the road for most of their early-season games, while majors play either at home or neutral sites 90% of the time. Take shitty Clemson, for example -- from looking at their schedule, they had one true road game in their non-conference slate with four neutral sites and seven home games. In comparison, Texas Arlington (21-6, leads Sun Belt, needs to win conference tourney to get in), had nine road games and four home games, including opening the season 1-3 with a stretch where they had a home game followed by three road games, all in a seven-day period. Or for another UT-A comparison, Pat Forde mentioned them vs. Arkansas in a recent column (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/forde-minutes-coaching-carousel-edition-055033469.html) mentioning they lost to Arkansas at the end of that seven-day stretch because they blew a double-digit second-half lead in their third straight road game over five days. Meanwhile, Arkansas was under a "brutal" stretch where they opened with three home games in eight days.

Simply put, big conference teams can feast on small teams at home and rely on a couple good non-conference match-ups and their league to carry them into the tournament, as long as they're halfway competent; mid-majors have to go on the road to play anyone worth playing and then have any positive accomplishments forgotten because they don't have a strong league to back them up, so if they don't win their conference tournament, their 25-4 season gets tossed into the NIT because some big team might have only shown that they're capable of losing a lot of close games to good teams, but BY GOD THEY SURE PLAYED A LOT OF THOSE GOOD TEAMS!!!!

And let's be real: The only reason teams like Ohio State, Indiana, Clemson, Wake, etc. deserve in the NCAA tournament is if they win their conference tournament. To say otherwise is to say mediocrity should be rewarded simply because they played teams that weren't mediocre and even might have won one or two along the way.

Agree. Which is why I feel they need to vary the bids each year and give each regular season champ an automatic bid, and if other teams win the conference tournament, also put them in. That puts the number of at-large bids as variable.

Azubuike24;1838670 wrote:Agree. Which is why I feel they need to vary the bids each year and give each regular season champ an automatic bid, and if other teams win the conference tournament, also put them in. That puts the number of at-large bids as variable.

this

Azubuike24;1838670 wrote:Agree. Which is why I feel they need to vary the bids each year and give each regular season champ an automatic bid, and if other teams win the conference tournament, also put them in. That puts the number of at-large bids as variable.

Are we changing the number of at-large bids or total teams in the field?

15 teams received auto bids to the NIT last season as regular season champs but not conference tourney champs. I believe this would have taken the number of At-Large to 21. 32 auto tourney winners, 15 reg season winners.

It would have to be year by year, depending on outcomes.

However, the NCAA Tournament would be higher quality if the regular season champions were in over the tournament champions. Or at least let the conference itself decide who gets the bid. It's not like all the conference tournaments are huge revenue generators.

Going along with Azu's post, winning conferences and conference championships should count for something, so both should get in. If that team is one and the same, that just opens the door for another at-large bid.

Heretic;1838621 wrote:That's the bed CBB has made for itself by essentially deciding to screw over mid-major teams simply because they don't play in rugged conferences. Despite the fact that they get stuck on the road for most of their early-season games, while majors play either at home or neutral sites 90% of the time. Take shitty Clemson, for example -- from looking at their schedule, they had one true road game in their non-conference slate with four neutral sites and seven home games. In comparison, Texas Arlington (21-6, leads Sun Belt, needs to win conference tourney to get in), had nine road games and four home games, including opening the season 1-3 with a stretch where they had a home game followed by three road games, all in a seven-day period. Or for another UT-A comparison, Pat Forde mentioned them vs. Arkansas in a recent column (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/forde-minutes-coaching-carousel-edition-055033469.html) mentioning they lost to Arkansas at the end of that seven-day stretch because they blew a double-digit second-half lead in their third straight road game over five days. Meanwhile, Arkansas was under a "brutal" stretch where they opened with three home games in eight days.

Simply put, big conference teams can feast on small teams at home and rely on a couple good non-conference match-ups and their league to carry them into the tournament, as long as they're halfway competent; mid-majors have to go on the road to play anyone worth playing and then have any positive accomplishments forgotten because they don't have a strong league to back them up, so if they don't win their conference tournament, their 25-4 season gets tossed into the NIT because some big team might have only shown that they're capable of losing a lot of close games to good teams, but BY GOD THEY SURE PLAYED A LOT OF THOSE GOOD TEAMS!!!!

And let's be real: The only reason teams like Ohio State, Indiana, Clemson, Wake, etc. deserve in the NCAA tournament is if they win their conference tournament. To say otherwise is to say mediocrity should be rewarded simply because they played teams that weren't mediocre and even might have won one or two along the way.

Terrific post sir. It's what absolutely kills these teams in recruiting, going back to only 15 years ago the MAC consistently turned out great talent, now BG and UT aren't even in the running it seems for the top players in NW Ohio. Bottom line is guys wanna play in March, averaging 4 PPG at a Michigan or Ohio State is a better option for that then being a starter at BG or UT scoring 12 a game

The criteria also needs to be stronger. Luckily, this is the last year the NCAA is using RPI, and next year, they are going to put together a formula that uses all of the advanced metric, into something like a BCS score. Not perfect, but it doesn't favor those who have taken the RPI and hired people to exploit it (schools have done it).

Classyposter58;1838790 wrote:Terrific post sir. It's what absolutely kills these teams in recruiting, going back to only 15 years ago the MAC consistently turned out great talent, now BG and UT aren't even in the running it seems for the top players in NW Ohio. Bottom line is guys wanna play in March, averaging 4 PPG at a Michigan or Ohio State is a better option for that then being a starter at BG or UT scoring 12 a game

This is total BS. The MAC, for many reasons, has seen their basketball go way down hill. However, in this same period where you claim they can't get good talent, there is more parity in the sport than ever. The big schools aren't getting everyone. There's plenty of talent in basketball to build legit D1 teams and make a Sweet 16/Elite 8 run in the right year with a mid-major. The Horizon, CAA, Missouri Valley, SoCon, etc...many other leagues in the same tier with the MAC, have still done quite well. The MAC used to be near the top of the second tier, and they simply aren't now.

Squeaked by PSU last night....gotta get past Indiana this weekend

slingshot4ever;1839115 wrote:Squeaked by PSU last night....gotta get past Indiana this weekend

Indiana's terrible, but yes--and I think Hoosier fans wouldn't mind an OSU win so it puts another nail in Crean's coffin.

Will the arena be half full? It's a really weird game because it feels like false hope for either one to win (or lose).

Azubuike24;1839122 wrote:Will the arena be half full? It's a really weird game because it feels like false hope for either one to win (or lose).

Doubtful......Ohio State is just painful to watch.

I imagine IU is pretty much the same.