Playoffs. Not playoffs!!!???

[TomCat88]

No, it isn't time to go Jim Mora. MSU still has a very realistic shot at making the playoffs, which may or may not surprise you. With five games to go they have home games with UNC, SSU and ISU. They should win the latter two, but a 1-2 record there would put things in high doubt. They have roadies with PSU and EWU. They could win one, but not likely. Still two wins (7-9) will most likely get MSU in the post season.

The league title chances have swayed way over to UNC with the Will Cherry injury. Sounds like UM's Cherry will be out anywhere from 2-6 weeks. Fortunately for UM they have SSU and ISU going to Missoula over the next two weeks, but also UNC.

[rtb]

Does it matter? By getting in to the playoffs we will get to go on the road to Weber or NAU to lose by 20 points.

[TIrwin24]

Does it matter? By getting in to the playoffs we will get to go on the road to Weber or NAU to lose by 20 points.

[rtb]

LOL....typing after enjoying the Super Bowl probably isn't the best idea. The filter gets turned off by that point.

[TomCat88]

Cats still have a chance to get a home game since 5-time NCAA Sweet 16 participant Idaho State beat NAU 90-88 in overtime. The loss drops NAU to 6-6 and if WSU hangs on vs. EWU the Eagles will fall to 5-7. MSU has to move ahead of both to get fourth place. WSU leads 76-68 with 21 seconds to play.

A win over SSU today would put MSU a half-game ahead of EWU if WSU hangs on to win that game. PSU is 4-8 and MSU's biggest competition for the No. 6 spot, if it comes down to that. The Vikings have a tough row to hoe with games at WSU and NAU, and home games against UM and MSU. MSU could get in with wins over SSU and ISU, which are both home games.

(Yes, ISU really was a Sweet 16 team five times. 1954, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1977. In 1977 the Bengals were an Elite Eight team. The Bengals are an impressive 8-13 in NCAA Tourney games.)

[BelgradeBobcat]

ISU beats NAU and EWU beats Weber. Both home teams won-but still...this is one crazy league. WSU goes from blasting NAU to losing to EWU??? How is that even possible?

PSU isn't eligible for the tournament this year so we don't have to worry about them.

It's going to be quite a battle between MSU, ISU, EWU, and Sac to see who's going to be the best bad team in the Big Sky.

What are the chances that Sac State comes in here tomorrow and hits everything they throw at the basket? I wouldn't be surprised.

[TomCat88]

EWU beats Weber.

PSU isn't eligible for the tournament this year so we don't have to worry about them.

No Weber beat EWU. Thanks for the PSU reminder, I keep forgetting about that. NAU will probably have the tie-breaker on MSU with its win over UNC, so MSU needs to win all four and have NAU only win one. If not MSU has a chance against NAU down there. Win that and then take on the tourney host most likely. Win that and then play for the BSC title on a neutral court.

[BelgradeBobcat]

Oops. I was looking at the women's score where EWU did beat Weber. That makes more sense.

[BelgradeBobcat]

[If not MSU has a chance against NAU down there.

NAU is kind of a weird team-very up and down. I don't think we can beat NAU in Flagstaff-it was over in the first five minutes the last time we played them there.

[John K]

Cats still have a chance to get a home game since 5-time NCAA Sweet 16 participant Idaho State beat NAU 90-88 in overtime. The loss drops NAU to 6-6 and if WSU hangs on vs. EWU the Eagles will fall to 5-7. MSU has to move ahead of both to get fourth place. WSU leads 76-68 with 21 seconds to play.

A win over SSU today would put MSU a half-game ahead of EWU if WSU hangs on to win that game. PSU is 4-8 and MSU's biggest competition for the No. 6 spot, if it comes down to that. The Vikings have a tough row to hoe with games at WSU and NAU, and home games against UM and MSU. MSU could get in with wins over SSU and ISU, which are both home games.

(Yes, ISU really was a Sweet 16 team five times. 1954, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1977. In 1977 the Bengals were an Elite Eight team. The Bengals are an impressive 8-13 in NCAA Tourney games.)

It's amazing to me that ISU was one win away from the Final Four in 1977. It's hard to fathom a BSC team having even a remote chance of advancing that far in the tourney in the current era. Why is BSC hoops so much less competitive nationally now, than it was back in the day?

[TomCat88]

It's amazing to me that ISU was one win away from the Final Four in 1977. It's hard to fathom a BSC team having even a remote chance of advancing that far in the tourney in the current era. Why is BSC hoops so much less competitive nationally now, than it was back in the day?

Part of the reason was that it was a 32-team tourney back then and the BSC got an autobid, which it has since its inception, so one win and you're in the Sweet 16. ISU upset UCLA in '77 to get there. UM was a Sweet 16 team in 1975 by beating Utah State in the first round and would've been Elite Eight were it not for a narrow loss to UCLA.

Money, the lack of getting at-large bids, the lack of playing against better teams, etc. all have their roles, too. Just to get to the Sweet 16 nowadays you almost need to be seeded 14 or higher and hope for a double-upset in your bracket. For instance, you're seeded 13 and beat the 4, while the 12 beats the 5. You then get to play the 12 instead of the 5 and are able to win that game. If you're 15 or 16 you basically need to beat two Top 40 teams, because even if you get the double upset at 15 with the 10 beating the 7, that's a pretty good team.

There's a huge difference in the amount of publicity (huge recruiting factor) between winning one and two games. One game gets you noticed for a couple days, but two games gets you noticed for a week with the last five days being incredibly heightened to a point that it all but obliterates winning that first game. No one talks about your first round upset win once they start talking Sweet 16, especially if there's a Butler or Davidson or George Mason or even a low seeded Big Ten-type team around. About the only other way to get noticed is to make the tourney 2-3-4 times in a row and pull off first round wins every time. Of course a Sweet 16 trip followed by a couple missed tournaments and you're right back where you started.

[John K]

Another factor is all of the middle of the pack teams from power conferences that now get into the tourney, but were excluded during the 32-team era. People like to say that too many of those teams get selected at the expense of potential at-large teams from "mid-majors", but the truth is that normally those teams are better. Most years a 7th or 8th place team from the ACC is going to be better than the BSC champ, so teams that likely would have beaten ISU in 1977, didn't even make the tourney back then, and now they do.

[TomCat88]

Another factor is all of the middle of the pack teams from power conferences that now get into the tourney, but were excluded during the 32-team era. People like to say that too many of those teams get selected at the expense of potential at-large teams from "mid-majors", but the truth is that normally those teams are better. Most years a 7th or 8th place team from the ACC is going to be better than the BSC champ, so teams that likely would have beaten ISU in 1977, didn't even make the tourney back then, and now they do.

When they went to 64 teams that also was a drag on the quality (relatively) of player that would come to the Big Sky. As in why go there, when only one team makes it, when he can go to a mid-level Big Ten-type conference team and on average make it at least twice?

For anyone that thinks the 7th-8th place teams that you're describing aren't better than the top BSC team just take a look at the NIT. The BSC has sent its regular season champ there just about as often as not and wins there are almost as rare.

[John K]

Another factor is all of the middle of the pack teams from power conferences that now get into the tourney, but were excluded during the 32-team era. People like to say that too many of those teams get selected at the expense of potential at-large teams from "mid-majors", but the truth is that normally those teams are better. Most years a 7th or 8th place team from the ACC is going to be better than the BSC champ, so teams that likely would have beaten ISU in 1977, didn't even make the tourney back then, and now they do.

When they went to 64 teams that also was a drag on the quality (relatively) of player that would come to the Big Sky. As in why go there, when only one team makes it, when he can go to a mid-level Big Ten-type conference team and on average make it at least twice?

For anyone that thinks the 7th-8th place teams that you're describing aren't better than the top BSC team just take a look at the NIT. The BSC has sent its regular season champ there just about as often as not and wins there are almost as rare.

That's an excellent point. In fact, truth be told, most years the BSC champ is probably closer to being comparable to the worst teams in power conferences, rather than the middle of the pack teams. And you can't point to the results of early season non-conference games as a way to make those comparisons. BSC teams sometimes pull off upsets in those early matchups, but if those same teams met in the NCAA or NIT tourney, the results would be very different. That's primarily due to the fact that teams from power conferences improve much more during the course of the season than do BSC teams, because of the level of competition they face during conference play.

[GrizinWashington]

I don't think your comparisons are necessarily fair. I posted earlier on this site that 94% of games the "power" conferences play against mid-majors during a season are at home. Likewise, that's almost certainly true of NIT games. I honestly think that BSC teams (and other mid majors) fare better in general against NCAA tournament teams than they will NIT teams because those games are played on a neutral floor. It's incredibly difficult to win on the road in college basketball, and just because the BSC doesn't win more of those games doesn't mean they can't compete with the middle or low ends of the power conferences. Living where I do, I've seen a lot of Pac 10 play, and I can guarantee that the top 3 teams in the BSC would match up very well with the middle teams in the Pac 10 on a neutral floor. Hell, UM alone has won 3 of the last 4 against the Pac 10 the past two seasons (losing only a nail-biter at ranked Washington last year and blowing UCLA out of the building this year), and 3 of those were on the road.

[John K]

I don't think your comparisons are necessarily fair. I posted earlier on this site that 94% of games the "power" conferences play against mid-majors during a season are at home. Likewise, that's almost certainly true of NIT games. I honestly think that BSC teams (and other mid majors) fare better in general against NCAA tournament teams than they will NIT teams because those games are played on a neutral floor. It's incredibly difficult to win on the road in college basketball, and just because the BSC doesn't win more of those games doesn't mean they can't compete with the middle or low ends of the power conferences. Living where I do, I've seen a lot of Pac 10 play, and I can guarantee that the top 3 teams in the BSC would match up very well with the middle teams in the Pac 10 on a neutral floor. Hell, UM alone has won 3 of the last 4 against the Pac 10 the past two seasons (losing only a nail-biter at ranked Washington last year and blowing UCLA out of the building this year), and 3 of those were on the road.

I guarantee you that those results would be different if the games were played at the end of the season, rather than at the beginning, regardless of where the games were played. Just look at Gonazaga as an example. They normally do very well when playing teams from higher profile conferences early in the season, winning more than their share, even when playing on the road. But they always flame out in the first or second round of the tourney, because once teams get into conference play, the teams from better leagues improve much more during the balance of the season, than do teams from mid-majors, simply because they're tested by better competition on a weekly basis. And just for clarification, what I said was that BSC teams were more comparable to the lower end than the middle of power conferences. I never said that they couldn't compete with the lower end teams from those leagues. And as for UM winning 3 of their last 4 against the Pac 10, in the last few years the Pac-10 has barely qualified as a "power" conference. They're clearly the weakest of the "big 6".

[GrizinWashington]

Play half of those games in the mid majors' home venues, and I ASSURE you the mid majors would win a whole lot more of them. And FWIW, I don't buy the "late season" argument. Again, as I said, historically BSC teams fare just as well (and some could argue better) in the NCAA tournament than in the NIT. That pretty much negates the "end of season" argument. Undoubtedly midmajors are playing better at the end of the year than at the beginning. And so what if Gonzaga flames out in the earlier rounds. So do all but 6 or 7 teams from the power conferences. How does that prove anything?

As for the Pac 10, yes it's a little down. But it's still a mid-major going into Pac 10 venues and winning. And while we're on that subject, kudos to Craig Robinson for bringing OSU into a mid-major venue. Very classy, and I hope that it starts a trend, although I doubt it.

[John K]

Play half of those games in the mid majors' home venues, and I ASSURE you the mid majors would win a whole lot more of them. And FWIW, I don't buy the "late season" argument. Again, as I said, historically BSC teams fare just as well (and some could argue better) in the NCAA tournament than in the NIT. That pretty much negates the "end of season" argument. Undoubtedly midmajors are playing better at the end of the year than at the beginning. And so what if Gonzaga flames out in the earlier rounds. So do all but 6 or 7 teams from the power conferences. How does that prove anything?

As for the Pac 10, yes it's a little down. But it's still a mid-major going into Pac 10 venues and winning. And while we're on that subject, kudos to Craig Robinson for bringing OSU into a mid-major venue. Very classy, and I hope that it starts a trend, although I doubt it.

Saying that the BSC does better in the NCAA tourney than in th NIT does not really validate your arguemnt, since with 3 wins in the past 28 years, it's hard to say the BSC's record in the NCAA's is better than much of anything. I'm not disputing that home court advantage is signifcant in college hoops....it is obviously very significant. But let me ask you this, if UM played in the ACC or the Big East, do you honestly believe that they could finish .500 in conference play? That's precisely what they should be able to do, if you really believe the best BSC teams are comparable to middle of the pack "power conference" teams. I don't think they'd even come close to being a .500 team in either of those conferences. Beating a couple of Pac-10 teams in relatively meaningless (at least to the Pac-10 teams) early season non-conference games is completely different than competing with them on a weekly basis during conference play, or playing them in a post-season tourney. That's why Gonazaga almost always loses to the same caliber opponents in the NCAA's, that they often beat during early season non-conference games.

[GrizinWashington]

Why are 94% of games involving power conference teams and mid-majors home games for the power conference team? Because they know there's a good chance they'll lose otherwise, and they need to protect the almighty RPI.

And FWIW, you claimed the 8th place team in the ACC is better than the top BSC teams. The 8th place team in the ACC is Miami at 4-7. That ain't .500. Yes, I think top BSC teams could very easily go 4-7 in the ACC if they had half the games at home.

[John K]

Why are 94% of games involving power conference teams and mid-majors home games for the power conference team? Because they know there's a good chance they'll lose otherwise, and they need to protect the almighty RPI.

And FWIW, you claimed the 8th place team in the ACC is better than the top BSC teams. The 8th place team in the ACC is Miami at 4-7. That ain't .500. Yes, I think top BSC teams could very easily go 4-7 in the ACC if they had half the games at home.

You said they could compete with middle of the pack power conference teams, which would be approximately the 5th throught the 8th place teams in the ACC, not just the 8th place team. And FWIW, i think that 4-7 is the absolute best that UM or UNC could hope for, if they played in the ACC. They may not do even that well, but they certainly wouldn't do any better.