THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » February 5th, 2011, 2:24 pm

freakboy wrote:
StanfordAggie wrote: Having games on ESPN and having your AD on the committee are not factors that the committee uses when selecting at-large teams and awarding seeds.
These may not be explicit factors, but there is evidence (as we discussed last March) that this does have a statistically (and economically) significant effect on both selection and seeding. I suppose it could be picking up something else (e.g., committee membership could be correlated with a measure of team quality that is orthogonal to other measures of quality included in the study), but it seems pretty robust. Would you like to explain to Scott Barnes why you decided to exclude his 30-3,17th rated RPI team from the field when he comes back into the room? It's hard to imagine this doesn't play a role, on the margin.

Yeah, I looked at that study, and it is an interesting result. I would be interested to know if they got the same result if they removed the 1999 New Mexico team from the sample, since that is the one really egregious example that everyone brings up. (As I recall, they used a form of linear regression to make that inference, which is not robust to outliers. Thus, it is conceivable that the entire effect was due to that one instance.) But as you said, if they leave us out, it could be very uncomfortable to explain that to Barnes. Still, I hope we win the WAC tournament and render the entire discussion moot. I'm much less concerned about a bad seed; we'll just have to upset whoever has the misfortune to play us.

Post by **treesap32** » February 7th, 2011, 1:17 pm

lcrasmus wrote:I also challenge any of you to provide me with evidence that any ESPN or nationally recognized sports authority was predicting that we would receive anything higher than a 10 seed.

At one point they were predicting we would be a 5 seed, that year's "Gonzaga". This was when we were ranked #19 and were getting front page articles about us on ESPN.com.

Reference this photo:

NowhereLandAggie · Post by **NowhereLandAggie** » February 7th, 2011, 2:18 pm

Thanks for that 'sap. I had done a little digging but couldn't find that. I was wrong saying it was Lunardi in another thread, it was actually Andy Katz. But yes we went from a 5 seed to out of the tournament with just a loss to Pacific and a semi-final loss to CSUN.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10140

My only .02 on this matter. Every year we have the same people predicting doom and gloom citing '04, but to the best of my knowledge, that was 7 years ago. And if I remember right USU has gotten 2 at large bids since then so the whole notion that '04 was a pattern is pretty silly.

It was an anamoly and plenty of teams have thought they were going to get a bid, but then didn't. Happens every year.

Having said that, the team really needs to perform well down the stretch and win the tournament. Then the issue of seeding actually would have more clout. (I predict a 6-7 seed if that happens.) But that is way off. For now they just need to keep winning. That is all they can control.

Post by **treesap32** » February 7th, 2011, 3:07 pm

NowhereLandAggie wrote:Thanks for that 'sap. I had done a little digging but couldn't find that. I was wrong saying it was Lunardi in another thread, it was actually Andy Katz. But yes we went from a 5 seed to out of the tournament with just a loss to Pacific and a semi-final loss to CSUN.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10140

My only .02 on this matter. Every year we have the same people predicting doom and gloom citing '04, but to the best of my knowledge, that was 7 years ago. And if I remember right USU has gotten 2 at large bids since then so the whole notion that '04 was a pattern is pretty silly. It was an anamoly and plenty of teams have thought they were going to get a bid, but then didn't. Happens every year.

Having said that, the team really needs to perform well down the stretch and win the tournament. Then the issue of seeding actually would have more clout. (I predict a 6-7 seed if that happens.) But that is way off. For now they just need to keep winning. That is all they can control.

This screenshot was a week or two before our stock peaked that year. The article predicting a 5 seed was written right before the Pacific game if I remember correctly. Then things started to go downhill.

Rabidchild · Post by **Rabidchild** » February 7th, 2011, 3:15 pm

StanfordAggie wrote:I don't feel better at all. You clearly have no idea whatsoever how the NCAA selection process works. This cannot be repeated enough times: A team's ranking in the polls is not a factor used by the selection committee. We could be ranked #1 right now and it would not help our chances of selection one bit. (Well, at least in theory. The committee members are human, after all. But they are not supposed to consider a team's ranking in the polls.)

Actually, a team's ranking in the polls is in fact among the resources that the NCAA selection committee explicitly considers when determining the best 37 teams for at large bids.

StanfordAggie, I wonder if you have you ever read this document by the NCAA that actually describes the selection criteria and process. It is actually entitled "NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE BRACKET":

http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files ... 0-5-10.pdf

The very first page of the document says that:

Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, pertinent information submitted on a team’s behalf by its conference, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home, away and neutral results, rankings, polls and the NABC regional advisory committee rankings

(emphasis added). The document spends most of its time explaining the voting and seeding process, but when it comes to criteria for actually picking the teams, the above paragraph is pretty all-inclusive in describing what factors are considered. That is really the only place where the NCAA offically tells us what factors it considers. Later in the document, the RPI is discussed:

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) was created in 1981 to provide supplemental data for the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee in its evaluation of teams for at-large selection and seeding of the championship bracket. ... The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and
bracketing process.

So, the RPI is used to evaulate teams for at-large selection and seeding. Nowhere in this document does it talk about Top 100 wins, "good wins," "bad losses," "SOS," or the like. I realize that the talking heads and even past committee members have spoken about these things, but the actual official Principles and Procedures for selecting the bracket says nothing about these things. And, like I said, the official Principles and Procedures DOES say that rankings and polls are among the resources available to committee members. So, maybe you should re-think what you said earlier about others having "no idea how the selection process works" when you said so emphatically that polls are not a factor the committee considers. You were obviously wrong about that.

Post by **treesap32** » February 7th, 2011, 3:31 pm

Rabidchild wrote:
StanfordAggie wrote:I don't feel better at all. You clearly have no idea whatsoever how the NCAA selection process works. This cannot be repeated enough times: A team's ranking in the polls is not a factor used by the selection committee. We could be ranked #1 right now and it would not help our chances of selection one bit. (Well, at least in theory. The committee members are human, after all. But they are not supposed to consider a team's ranking in the polls.)
Actually, a team's ranking in the polls is in fact among the resources that the NCAA selection committee explicitly considers when determining the best 37 teams for at large bids.

StanfordAggie, I wonder if you have you ever read this document by the NCAA that actually describes the selection criteria and process. It is actually entitled "NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE BRACKET":

http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files ... 0-5-10.pdf

The very first page of the document says that:

Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, pertinent information submitted on a team’s behalf by its conference, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home, away and neutral results, rankings, polls and the NABC regional advisory committee rankings
(emphasis added). The document spends most of its time explaining the voting and seeding process, but when it comes to criteria for actually picking the teams, the above paragraph is pretty all-inclusive in describing what factors are considered. That is really the only place where the NCAA offically tells us what factors it considers. Later in the document, the RPI is discussed:

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) was created in 1981 to provide supplemental data for the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee in its evaluation of teams for at-large selection and seeding of the championship bracket. ... The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and
bracketing process.
So, the RPI is used to evaulate teams for at-large selection and seeding. Nowhere in this document does it talk about Top 100 wins, "good wins," "bad losses," "SOS," or the like. I realize that the talking heads and even past committee members have spoken about these things, but the actual official Principles and Procedures for selecting the bracket says nothing about these things. And, like I said, the official Principles and Procedures DOES say that rankings and polls are among the resources available to committee members. So, maybe you should re-think what you said earlier about others having "no idea how the selection process works" when you said so emphatically that polls are not a factor the committee considers. You were obviously wrong about that.

LOL! Stanford, why are you still repeating this? I thought I laid that to rest with THIS POST exactly 1 week ago, basically reiterating exactly what Rabid is posting here. You made this argument last year as well, and I had to dig up the official procedures for you. Please stop. You might want to read the procedures before claiming to be an expert and demeaning everyone else on here.

Rabidchild · Post by **Rabidchild** » February 7th, 2011, 3:41 pm

Exactly, treesap! I hadn't seen that previous thread - thanks for the link. I too thought we had already put these arguments by SA to rest last year by reviewing the official policies and procedures but had to look them up yet again and post them.

Mr. Sneelock · Post by **Mr. Sneelock** » February 7th, 2011, 3:46 pm

Yeah, StanfordAggie thinks he can belittle everyone else because he has Stanford in his name and he KNOWS THE WAYS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE!

Besides, we have received two (count 'em) TWO at-large berths in the NCAA tournament since 2004. Every time we have deserved and needed an at-large since we joined the WAC, we have received one.

NowhereLandAggie · Post by **NowhereLandAggie** » February 7th, 2011, 3:52 pm

Mr. Sneelock wrote:Yeah, StanfordAggie thinks he can belittle everyone else because he has Stanford in his name and he KNOWS THE WAYS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE!

Besides, we have received two (count 'em) TWO at-large berths in the NCAA tournament since 2004.

Yup, and maybe would have received a 3rd in 2009, but ended up beating Nevada down on their home court, rendering the discussion moot.

Not that it means anything this year, it is a different field, different resume, different team. Really all that anyone can do at this point is watch the games and hope for wins. The dynamics of the selection field is going to change a lot between now and Selection Sunday. A few teams that are a "lock" today will likely end up missing, while some not on the radar will win their conference tourneys and burst some bubbles.

Post by **treesap32** » February 7th, 2011, 3:58 pm

AGGZILLA wrote:Sure, enjoy the ride. Enjoy our wins over average to poor competition. Enjoy the winning streak. Enjoy being at the top of the conference standings. Enjoy being nationally-ranked. Enjoy the notoriety that follows. I'm not trying to be facetious, either. By all means, enjoy it. We we doing the same thing in '04, as well. But do you know what the first thing most fans remember about that '04 season?? It isn't the winning streak. It's not the BW regular season championship. It wasn't the fact that we were nationally-ranked. and it wasn't the teams we beat...what most fans remember from that season was where they were on Selection Sunday when the Aggies were snubbed, and how they felt afterwards. I remember it hurt, bigtime.

If you don't think that can happen this year? Think again. How you can say that this year's OOC schedule is better than last is mind-boggling. Why is that? Because we played BYU and Georgetown? Wow, just wow. Last year, we played seven... count' em, SEVEN OOC teams that were in the top 100 rpi (not to mention that NMSU, LT, and Nevada were all in the top 100, as well). I also believe that our OOC schedule was one of the reasons why we got an at-large last year. This year, we only have three OOC games against top 100 rpi teams. You're not even close to being right, here.

Also, you keep assuming that we're going to just win the WACT next month, when it is anything but certain. Crazy things happen in March and we are as prone as any other team in the country to having an bad night. Say we lose to SMC in a couple of weeks but go undefeated the rest of the season. We head into Vegas, automatically into the semi when, Hawaii, after coming close the first two times, finally gets our number and beats us (Hawaii, mind you, has a current rpi of 181... not far off from CSN's rpi of 196 when we lost to them in '04)... then what??!! You gonna sit there and tell me that this year is still different than '04??? As Stanford mentioned, at least that team had two wins over top 100 rpi teams (Pacific-rpi 61 and BYU-rpi 36... fyi, lcrasmus, the losses to Utah-rpi 41 and Pacific that year were not 'bad losses'. Obviously, you don't even know what those are). This team currently has nothing on its resume, no 'marquee' wins... except that we have no bad losses. The '04 team didn't have a bad loss until the BWT semis, the final weekend of the year before the postseason.. this year's team has had some close calls already in league play, just like the '04 team... who's to say that can't happen to this team??

If this scenario were to play out as such, I guarantee you, everyone would be saying, "It's 2004 all over again!"

Zilla, I apologize to you on behalf of all Aggie fans, on behalf of the team, on behalf of Stew, and on behalf of all of our opponents this year. I truly hope that you will forgive all of us for our incredible failures in putting together this year's schedule, and for winning only 22 games thus far against such horrible, horrible, teams. And all of our failures in past years as well.

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » February 7th, 2011, 4:20 pm

treesap32 wrote:
Rabidchild wrote:
StanfordAggie wrote:I don't feel better at all. You clearly have no idea whatsoever how the NCAA selection process works. This cannot be repeated enough times: A team's ranking in the polls is not a factor used by the selection committee. We could be ranked #1 right now and it would not help our chances of selection one bit. (Well, at least in theory. The committee members are human, after all. But they are not supposed to consider a team's ranking in the polls.)
Actually, a team's ranking in the polls is in fact among the resources that the NCAA selection committee explicitly considers when determining the best 37 teams for at large bids.

StanfordAggie, I wonder if you have you ever read this document by the NCAA that actually describes the selection criteria and process. It is actually entitled "NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE BRACKET":

http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files ... 0-5-10.pdf

The very first page of the document says that:

Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, pertinent information submitted on a team’s behalf by its conference, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home, away and neutral results, rankings, polls and the NABC regional advisory committee rankings
(emphasis added). The document spends most of its time explaining the voting and seeding process, but when it comes to criteria for actually picking the teams, the above paragraph is pretty all-inclusive in describing what factors are considered. That is really the only place where the NCAA offically tells us what factors it considers. Later in the document, the RPI is discussed:

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) was created in 1981 to provide supplemental data for the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee in its evaluation of teams for at-large selection and seeding of the championship bracket. ... The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and
bracketing process.
So, the RPI is used to evaulate teams for at-large selection and seeding. Nowhere in this document does it talk about Top 100 wins, "good wins," "bad losses," "SOS," or the like. I realize that the talking heads and even past committee members have spoken about these things, but the actual official Principles and Procedures for selecting the bracket says nothing about these things. And, like I said, the official Principles and Procedures DOES say that rankings and polls are among the resources available to committee members. So, maybe you should re-think what you said earlier about others having "no idea how the selection process works" when you said so emphatically that polls are not a factor the committee considers. You were obviously wrong about that.
LOL! Stanford, why are you still repeating this? I thought I laid that to rest with THIS POST exactly 1 week ago, basically reiterating exactly what Rabid is posting here. You made this argument last year as well, and I had to dig up the official procedures for you. Please stop. You might want to read the procedures before claiming to be an expert and demeaning everyone else on here.

After doing a little googling, it turns out that I was actually wrong about this. Apparently this is a change in the past 2-3 years; the coaches complained that they didn't have a say in the process, so they started printing a team's ranking in three different polls on the information sheet to committee members. However, the word on the street is that these rankings are basically ignored; see this page, for instance:

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... -committee

The most important criteria, as I have said many times, are quality wins: Who did you beat, and where did you beat them? I could defend that point, but I'm not really interested. If you look up the Dance Card formula that freakboy's web site uses, you'll see that it contains basically five input variables: the team's overall RPI, a team's conference record/conference strength, the number of wins against top-25 RPI teams, and the team's record against top-50 RPI teams and top-100 RPI teams. You can predict which teams will make the tournament with almost perfect accuracy considering only those five numbers. Note that a team's ranking in the polls is not part of the formula, and hence makes almost no difference when selecting/seeding times.

Anyway, if you don't believe me, that's fine; I don't particularly care. But all the available evidence indicates that a top 25 ranking plus zero top-100 wins plus 50 cents will buy us a doughnut on Selection Sunday. But if it makes you sleep better at night to think that a top-25 ranking guarantees us a bid or a single-digit seed, that's fine with me. I just think that's optimistic and naive.

Mr. Sneelock · Post by **Mr. Sneelock** » February 7th, 2011, 4:21 pm

Look, I think we can all acknowledge that it is possible we won't get an at-large bid this year, if we lose to St. Mary's and falter in the WAC tournament. However, I think we are in a pretty good position, and in as good a position as we could expect at this point in the season. If you had told me that we would be 22-2 and ranked 17th and with our only two losses coming to top-10 RPI teams at the start of the season, I would have taken it.

If we run the table in the WAC, and beat St. Mary's, and then lose in the conference tournament, there is no way we get left out. I just don't see it. Now if we lose one WAC game, and lose to St. Mary's, and lose in the conference tournament, I will be really nervous on Selection Sunday.

I still think we will win the conference tourney.

Post by **treesap32** » February 7th, 2011, 4:25 pm

StanfordAggie wrote:After doing a little googling, it turns out that I was actually wrong about this.

Was it too difficult to click the direct links that Rabidchild and I provided to you? Or did you just not trust them coming from such naive posters who know nothing about the selection process?

Mr. Sneelock · Post by **Mr. Sneelock** » February 7th, 2011, 4:27 pm

StanfordAggie: "I've was wrong once. One time, I thought I was wrong, but it really turned out that I was right."

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » February 7th, 2011, 4:37 pm

treesap32 wrote:
StanfordAggie wrote:After doing a little googling, it turns out that I was actually wrong about this.
Was it too difficult to click the direct links that Rabidchild and I provided to you? Or did you just not trust them coming from such naive posters who know nothing about the selection process?

For crying out loud, can we let this rest? The link that you provided was extremely vague. It said that the information sheet given to the committee contains information about "polls." What does that mean? For all I could tell, "polls" were a synonym for "RPI." Moreover, I was skeptical since I had read interviews from selection committee members in the past where they said things like, "We don't look at the polls at all when we select at-large teams." So I did a little googling to see if I could find some clarification. I apologize for the fact that I decided to do some research to make sure I had the entire story before I commented further. Next time I'll just mindlessly believe whatever you tell me.

More importantly, my main point stands that even if the polls are included on the information sheet, Eamonn Brennan's article implies that they are basically ignored by the committee. In light of that information, I'm not sure why you feel the need to sit here and pound your chest about this. Even if I was wrong when I said that the committee doesn't consider polls at all, I still think I'm right when I say that a top 25 ranking in the polls will do virtually nothing to improve our at-large chances or seeding.

lcrasmus · Post by **lcrasmus** » February 7th, 2011, 4:56 pm

StanfordAggie wrote:
treesap32 wrote:
StanfordAggie wrote:After doing a little googling, it turns out that I was actually wrong about this.
Was it too difficult to click the direct links that Rabidchild and I provided to you? Or did you just not trust them coming from such naive posters who know nothing about the selection process?
For crying out loud, can we let this rest? The link that you provided was extremely vague. It said that the information sheet given to the committee contains information about "polls." What does that mean? For all I could tell, "polls" were a synonym for "RPI." Moreover, I was skeptical since I had read interviews from selection committee members in the past where they said things like, "We don't look at the polls at all when we select at-large teams." So I did a little googling to see if I could find some clarification. I apologize for the fact that I decided to do some research to make sure I had the entire story before I commented further. Next time I'll just mindlessly believe whatever you tell me.

More importantly, my main point stands that even if the polls are included on the information sheet, Eamonn Brennan's article implies that they are basically ignored by the committee. In light of that information, I'm not sure why you feel the need to sit here and pound your chest about this. Even if I was wrong when I said that the committee doesn't consider polls at all, I still think I'm right when I say that a top 25 ranking in the polls will do virtually nothing to improve our at-large chances or seeding.

You're really going to call the official rules posted on the NCAA site a vague and doubtable source for infomation? And you're also going to argue that "polls" could easily be confused with "RPI", especially when not 20 words earlier in the same sentence they refer to "various computer rankings"?

AGGZILLA · Post by **AGGZILLA** » February 7th, 2011, 5:23 pm

The importance of college hoops polls was, I think, best described by Brennan in a recent blog of his where he referred to them as "inconsequential noise" and that polls share "minimal correlation with reality." Most coll bball fans have known this for some time and, coming from a college hoops analyst, you would think those comments would hold a little bit of weight. However, I digress. I forget that certain posters on the board know more than a college bball analyst, whose job it is to live and breathe the sport year-round, who gets paid to do so, and, for good measure, who has participated in the mock selection committee as recently as a year ago... but that's right, he obviously has no clue what he's talking about. From now on, when I want extensive, in-depth, "meat and potatoes" analysis of college bball, I won't go to Brennan, Glockner, Katz, among others...I've been mistaken.

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » February 7th, 2011, 5:48 pm

lcrasmus wrote: You're really going to call the official rules posted on the NCAA site a vague and doubtable source for infomation? And you're also going to argue that "polls" could easily be confused with "RPI", especially when not 20 words earlier in the same sentence they refer to "various computer rankings"?

Sheesh, can we PLEASE let this subject drop? I read interviews with committee members in years past where they said that they don't consider polls when picking at-large teams. Thus, I was a bit confused by that document that seemed to contradict it, especially given that it was unclear which "polls" they were referring to and how they factor in to the selection process. Apparently there was a procedure change in the past few years, and polls are still given minimal weight. Once again, I apologize for doing research to make sure I knew what I was talking about before posting incorrect information. From now I will just run my mouth without worrying if anything I say is correct.

At this point, I feel like some people think it is easier to just attack me personally than it is to acknowledge that I might be right. Look, I never said that we won't get an at-large bid or that we're guaranteed a terrible seed this year. I have said numerous times that USU is in uncharted territory, and I have no idea what the committee will do with us. I have also said that having Barnes on the committee might save us, even though it really shouldn't. Having said that, I definitely do not believe that a top-25 ranking in the polls is going to compensate for zero top-100 wins. If it makes you that angry to hear me say that, then I apologize, but if you're going to post strong statements like that on a message board, you should be prepared to either back up the statement or have people disagree with you.

Post by **treesap32** » February 8th, 2011, 6:22 am

Stanford, believe it or not, I actually agree with most of what you are saying. It just ticks me off when you start making posts to belittle other posters on this board when you yourself are wrong on the subject. So I decided to call you on it, that's all. Running your mouth without checking your facts is exactly what you were doing.

IdaAg93 · Post by **IdaAg93** » February 8th, 2011, 8:19 am

MahlerFan1 wrote:If you ask me, the 2004 team ended up proving the committee right, that the Emperor had no clothes, when they laid an egg at home in the NIT against Hawaii. For my money, that was the worst loss of the Stew era right there. It vindicated Bowlsby, contributed to the postseason winless streak in a year, and a situation, where the streak should have been broken, and was generally the nadir of Aggie basketball in the Stew era. Losing to Hawaii made us all look like fools for all of our righteous indignation after the snub. It made the pundits who had us as 'locks' look like idiots.

The Northridge BWT loss was bad. The Hawaii NIT loss AT HOME was far, far worse because of everything it symbolized.

Yep, that's where my PTSD comes from. Northridge loss and HI loss. Not only that, but each loss in any significant game since then...excluding Nevada (rank 10th). We don't have a great precedence to garner any confidence.
I am enjoying it all, but cautious in my expectations.

Post by **treesap32** » February 8th, 2011, 9:06 am

IdaAg93 wrote:
MahlerFan1 wrote:If you ask me, the 2004 team ended up proving the committee right, that the Emperor had no clothes, when they laid an egg at home in the NIT against Hawaii. For my money, that was the worst loss of the Stew era right there. It vindicated Bowlsby, contributed to the postseason winless streak in a year, and a situation, where the streak should have been broken, and was generally the nadir of Aggie basketball in the Stew era. Losing to Hawaii made us all look like fools for all of our righteous indignation after the snub. It made the pundits who had us as 'locks' look like idiots.

The Northridge BWT loss was bad. The Hawaii NIT loss AT HOME was far, far worse because of everything it symbolized.
Yep, that's where my PTSD comes from. Northridge loss and HI loss. Not only that, but each loss in any significant game since then...excluding Nevada (rank 10th). We don't have a great precedence to garner any confidence.
I am enjoying it all, but cautious in my expectations.

Are you saying that since 2004 we have not won any significant games except beating a top 10 Nevada team twice in 8 days?

That is a pretty selective memory my friend.

Then again, I guess it all depends on what you mean by "significant". If "significant" is beating a Top 10 ranked team, then yes, we have only done that twice since then.

cache-aggie · Post by **cache-aggie** » February 8th, 2011, 9:11 am

Stanford - Just so you know, you are not on an island by yourself on this one. I agree with everything you've posted about this topic. Maybe that makes me a pessimist too, I don't know. I don't consider myself one, I just would rather be pleasantly surprised if we get some respect than be down in the dumps if we don't.
I remember 2004 too well - I recall being the only one in my group that didn't think we were a lock when we were nervously driving home from Anaheim that year. I took a lot of flack from everyone for being 'pessimistic' about it. But when we didn't get in, I was able to cope with it better than everyone else.
I think this years WAC is a worse conference than the 04 Big West. That scares me! But we have Stew and a lot of senior leadership on the team, so I think we're in great shape for a tournament run at a neutral location for a change!
Now if we can just win a game or two in the Big Dance, I think that greatly helps our seeding and inclusion in future years, just like the Gonzagas of the world.
Its amazing what Stew has been able to accomplish with his teams over the years without any NBA talent on his teams (except Pinegar)

In Stew We Trust!

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » February 8th, 2011, 11:34 am

treesap32 wrote:Stanford, believe it or not, I actually agree with most of what you are saying. It just ticks me off when you start making posts to belittle other posters on this board when you yourself are wrong on the subject. So I decided to call you on it, that's all. Running your mouth without checking your facts is exactly what you were doing.

And I admitted that I was wrong. I don't know what else to say. Like I said before, apparently this is a recent change. I should have checked to make sure that the rules hadn't changed before posting that. My bad.

Having said that, it bothers me when people say things like, "We are ranked in the top 25, so we will definitely get an at-large bid," and I let my frustration show a little. It seems like if anyone in the world should know that a top-25 ranking does not guarantee an at-large bid, USU fans should.

Post by **treesap32** » February 8th, 2011, 11:37 am

StanfordAggie wrote:It seems like if anyone in the world should know that a top-25 ranking does not guarantee an at-large bid, USU fans should.

Definitely. I agree with you 100%.

Has someone on this board actually said that a top-25 ranking guarantees an at-large bid?

cache-aggie · Post by **cache-aggie** » February 8th, 2011, 12:42 pm

From what i remembered back in 2004, that was the first time it had happened - and I don't think it has happened since.

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » February 8th, 2011, 3:32 pm

treesap32 wrote:
StanfordAggie wrote:It seems like if anyone in the world should know that a top-25 ranking does not guarantee an at-large bid, USU fans should.
Definitely. I agree with you 100%.

Has someone on this board actually said that a top-25 ranking guarantees an at-large bid?

Ummm... Did you read the OP? He didn't put it quite in those words, but that was the basic gist. (Or at least that was the way I read it; I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying.)

cache-aggie wrote:From what i remembered back in 2004, that was the first time it had happened - and I don't think it has happened since.

That is my understanding as well. As I recall, the infamous 1999 New Mexico team was ranked in the top 25 when they got their at-large bid with a #78 RPI. Still, I won't feel any better until someone can show me a top-25 team with 0 top-100 RPI wins that got an at-large bid...

lcrasmus · Post by **lcrasmus** » February 8th, 2011, 3:51 pm

The gist of the opening post was supposed to be that I don't think it's right to cite the only time in history that something has happened as a reason to fully expect it to happen again.
I'll agree we're in uncharted territory, as the situation we're in currently has, to my knowledge, never happened. However, my feeling is that if we're going to say it's uncharted, then citing the exception to the normal rules we know of to explain it isn't the best idea. Saying "despite the thousand plus teams that have ever made the tournament, the one singular event completely changes the way everything functions" doesn't make sense to me. If we're in uncharted territory, we're going to have to forge our own destiny here, and it's really anyone's guess as to what that will be. I just get tired of people citing the exception to the rule as the reason that nothing will work. It just doesn't make statistical sense in my mind.
As I've said, the St. Mary's game will really determine our at-large status options, especially if LBSU can make it to the top 100. And I know we're all hoping for the whole problem to be solved by winning the conference tourney. Here's to that going down!

Upcoming Events

Event Results

THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

Re: THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

USU Forums

MWC Forums

Upcoming/Past Opponents

Schedules

Upcoming Events

Event Results

Basketball

National Polls/Rankings

Stats

Football

National Polls/Rankings

Stats

Newspapers

Newsletters

Radio

Blogs

Podcasts

Websites

Donate