Week 18 - March 4 to 11 (conf standings, NET, conf tourney games) | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Week 18 - March 4 to 11 (conf standings, NET, conf tourney games)

Status
Not open for further replies.
BC showing why they are 14-18 with 6 turnovers down the stretch.

58-55 Lou

Eagles deserved to lose with those awful charcoal uniforms.
 
Vowelguy said:
BC leads Lou late!
What has happened to the Cards??

Things are setting up quite nicely for ND if they get BC and VT without Kitley.
Expand ...
Louisville wins because of bad officiating at the end of the game.
 
Darn it BC! No points in last 3:42. Sheesh.
 
baggerbob said:
Louisville wins because of bad officiating at the end of the game.
Expand ...
I knew that BC was in trouble at the beginning of the 2nd half, being down by only 3, when Stephanie White started discussing the "physicality" (ie fouling) after a Louisville player made a layup after her defender magically fell on her butt due to the Louisville player's backside displacing her.
I then changed channels.
 
nwhoopfan said:
Which means probably both will get in, even though neither even remotely deserves a bid. Have I mentioned I have a strong dislike for the SEC?
Expand ...
Don't know about that. They've still got some head-scratching losses (Purdue, Georgia) to answer for and they haven't been playing well up to this point (I'm aware of the Rogers injury). I'd think that this game could knock Mississippi State (losers of 6 of their last 7 if this result holds, with the only win in that stretch over a hapless Missouri team). TAMU could really use a win over South Carolina or to at least keep that game within a reasonable (maybe 15 points) margin. A blowout and they could be done as well.
 
WBBTakeover said:
Don't know about that. They've still got some head-scratching losses (Purdue, Georgia) to answer for and they haven't been playing well up to this point (I'm aware of the Rogers injury). I'd think that this game could knock Mississippi State (losers of 6 of their last 7 if this result holds, with the only win in that stretch over a hapless Missouri team). TAMU could really use a win over South Carolina or to at least keep that game within a reasonable (maybe 15 points) margin. A blowout and they could be done as well.
Expand ...
I hope so. But selection committees have a tendency to do weird things when the SEC is involved. Most egregious in baseball and softball, but it applies to mens and womens hoops as well.
 
Vowelguy said:
Cremes first 4 out TAMU currently pounding last 4 in Miss St. 41-26 mid way thru 3rd.
Expand ...
nwhoopfan said:
Which means probably both will get in, even though neither even remotely deserves a bid. Have I mentioned I have a strong dislike for the SEC?
Expand ...
Call me crazy, however if the score stands, MSU at 22-10 and 8-8 (regular season) isn't exactly jaw dropping. I want to see other conferences get > 1 or 2 bids. Reminds me of B10 MBB.
 
MSU's major liability in the view of the committee will be that they lost 6 of their last 7, including losses to Florida and Kentucky and an uncompetitive loss to A&M. They seemed to be a lock just 3 weeks ago, with a huge win over LSU, but I don't like their chances at this point.
 
Plebe said:
MSU's major liability in the view of the committee will be that they lost 6 of their last 7, including losses to Florida and Kentucky and an uncompetitive loss to A&M. They seemed to be a lock just 3 weeks ago, with a huge win over LSU, but I don't like their chances at this point.
Expand ...
This raises what is for me the biggest challenge leading up to the bracket: do you reward for "body of work" or use "body of work" to evaluate likelihood of post-season success? Under the latter approach, it's arguably quite legitimate to weigh recent results more heavily. I actually prefer that approach too, because it's the one that coherently aligns with the committee's practice of taking into consideration injuries and player availability when seeding. In other words, isn't it just as relevant whether "4th leading scorer starter" is available for the tournament as it is whether the team has lost 6 of its last 7 games?
 
Illinois led by 14 after 1Q but Maryland roared back for the win in the 8-9 game.

What a frustrating season for Illinois, from preseason top 25 to postseason-ineligible at one game below .500. They were competitive in many of their losses, and they did get wins over Indiana and Nebraska, but too many soft losses really doomed them.

Maryland locks up an NCAA bid with this win IMO.
 
Looks like Maryland picked up another win over Illinois. That game puts Illinois under 0.500 for the season, one year after they won 22 games and earned an NCAA Tourney berth.
 
Plebe said:
Maryland locks up an NCAA bid with this win IMO.
Expand ...
Hard to say. Three wins over Illinois is nice for the NET, but they don't have any signature wins either in-conference or out of conference. They also have lots of blowout losses. I don't see them hosting any watch parties for Selection Sunday just yet.
 
I think Mississippi State is out with that loss. IMO Texas A&M still is borderline with that win. They will have to beat South Carolina or hope that the other bubble teams play poorly in their respective tournaments.
 
UNC up (37-30) at the half. Important game for both teams, but especially UNC. You'd have to think that if they hold on against Miami, a match-up with a (likely) Kitley-less Virginia Tech team could be favorable for them.
 
WBBTakeover said:
UNC up (37-30) at the half. Important game for both teams, but especially UNC. You'd have to think that if they hold on against Miami, a match-up with a (likely) Kitley-less Virginia Tech team could be favorable for them.
Expand ...

No word on her, huh?
 
WBBTakeover said:
Hard to say. Three wins over Illinois is nice for the NET, but they don't have any signature wins either in-conference or out of conference. They also have lots of blowout losses. I don't see them hosting any watch parties for Selection Sunday just yet.
Expand ...
Their win over Syracuse is a better nonconference win than what many other bubble teams have. But the more striking thing about MD is they have no bad losses: worst loss was in overtime to Michigan, and all other losses are to NET top 30 teams. Top 10 in strength of schedule to boot.

It's a comparative exercise and there are simply not enough teams with better resumes to leave Maryland out.
 
TheFarmFan said:
This raises what is for me the biggest challenge leading up to the bracket: do you reward for "body of work" or use "body of work" to evaluate likelihood of post-season success? Under the latter approach, it's arguably quite legitimate to weigh recent results more heavily. I actually prefer that approach too, because it's the one that coherently aligns with the committee's practice of taking into consideration injuries and player availability when seeding. In other words, isn't it just as relevant whether "4th leading scorer starter" is available for the tournament as it is whether the team has lost 6 of its last 7 games?
Expand ...
If it's mostly the latter then there are so many better ways of deciding who's most likely to win the championship. Really what is the point of having a regular season at all (OK, aside from conference championships)? You could have an expert committee evaluate each lineup player-by-player and come up with more solid predictions than trying to use something like "W-L last 10 games" which is both an arbitrary cutoff (why not 9? 12? 5?) and very subject to dumb luck. But that would no longer feel like sports.
 
nwhoopfan said:
Which means probably both will get in, even though neither even remotely deserves a bid. Have I mentioned I have a strong dislike for the SEC?
Expand ...
We don't deserve to make it in. We lost 6 of the last 7. Fans have detected chemistry issues. Clearly something stopped working whatever it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
1,132
Total visitors
1,348
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,051
Messages
4,380,370
Members
10,172
Latest member
mangers


.
..
Top Bottom