NCAA Tourney Chances
Comments
-
TSIO
-
-
Deserved. TSIO. I'd kill myself but it's only basketball.Gladstone said:
Punch yourself in the groin as hard as you can.UW_Doog_Bot said:While I realize that we would all prefer getting into the tournament would an NIT appearance mean more post-season experience at this point? Looking at this from a developmental standpoint for a young team, will it be better to make a deep NIT run than a one and done NCAA appearance?
Doog poast, doog poaster -
If you lose in the "first round" cough...cough...glorified play in game, then you might have a point that a deep NIT run is equal. But losing by 40 even in the "second round" of the NCAA tournament is better than a final four NIT run.UW_Doog_Bot said:While I realize that we would all prefer getting into the tournament would an NIT appearance mean more post-season experience at this point? Looking at this from a developmental standpoint for a young team, will it be better to make a deep NIT run than a one and done NCAA appearance?
Doog poast, doog poaster
I'm sorry if people get offended, but the NCAA tournament doesn't start until "round two". You can't say you made the tournament unless you win the play in or get a "bye". -
To be clear, any appearance in the NCAA is a greater accomplishment than whatever you do in the NIT. I was simply thinking of the fact that we could get more post-season games for the team's development. Still going to go punch myself in the groin.greenblood said:
If you lose in the "first round" cough...cough...glorified play in game, then you might have a point that a deep NIT run is equal. But losing by 40 even in the "second round" of the NCAA tournament is better than a final four NIT run.UW_Doog_Bot said:While I realize that we would all prefer getting into the tournament would an NIT appearance mean more post-season experience at this point? Looking at this from a developmental standpoint for a young team, will it be better to make a deep NIT run than a one and done NCAA appearance?
Doog poast, doog poaster
I'm sorry if people get offended, but the NCAA tournament doesn't start until "round two". You can't say you made the tournament unless you win the play in or get a "bye". -
I don't see much a difference playing 37 games instead of 34.UW_Doog_Bot said:
To be clear, any appearance in the NCAA is a greater accomplishment than whatever you do in the NIT. I was simply thinking of the fact that we could get more post-season games for the team's development. Still going to go punch myself in the groin.greenblood said:
If you lose in the "first round" cough...cough...glorified play in game, then you might have a point that a deep NIT run is equal. But losing by 40 even in the "second round" of the NCAA tournament is better than a final four NIT run.UW_Doog_Bot said:While I realize that we would all prefer getting into the tournament would an NIT appearance mean more post-season experience at this point? Looking at this from a developmental standpoint for a young team, will it be better to make a deep NIT run than a one and done NCAA appearance?
Doog poast, doog poaster
I'm sorry if people get offended, but the NCAA tournament doesn't start until "round two". You can't say you made the tournament unless you win the play in or get a "bye".
I think the experience on a big stage (NCAA Tournament) against a quality opponent even only for one game, is much better for a young teams development, then three games in a half full stadium against the Stanford's of the world.
At least if they are good next year, they would have NCAA tournament experience. An NIT birth does nothing to help them face NCAA tournament pressure next year. -
Fuck no, the only way that this would benefit the players by playing in the NIT is if Crisp and Timmins sit out.UW_Doog_Bot said:While I realize that we would all prefer getting into the tournament would an NIT appearance mean more post-season experience at this point? Looking at this from a developmental standpoint for a young team, will it be better to make a deep NIT run than a one and done NCAA appearance?
Doog poast, doog poaster -
UW actually has a good chance of getting in by getting to the final, I'm pretty sure a couple of bubble teams will lose games.ntxduck said:
Cool. Palm and Lunardi don't know shit at this point. They always adjust on the final weekend based on what they're hearing from their people on the committee, which is how they end up so "accurate".Petersen3098 said:
Utah is still a bubble team in palm’s bracketntxduck said:
Utah also not a bubble team anymore. They need to win it to get in as well. UCLA winning at sc really screwed Utah and UW, not just because it put them into the field, but it moved Utah and uw over to the non-Zona (the only potential win that anyone on the committee would gaf about) side of the bracket.Petersen3098 said:
If they get to the final that means they'll beat OSU, USC and Utah. Utah is a bubble team also so it'll help their resume.greenblood said:
Wins over OSU and USC won’t be enough. Washington would be better off as an 8 seed. Beating Arizona in the second rd was the only thing going to bump up their resume. They have to win it all or they’ll be a top seed in the NIT.Petersen3098 said:
UW has a pretty good chance of getting in if they get to the finalntxduck said:
Lunardi hasn’t updated since UW lost to Oregon. UW has no at large shot, especially with being on the opposite side of the bracket from zona. P12 will get 3: zona, UCLA, usc...and whoever wins the conf tourney (if it’s not one of those 3).Fire_Marshall_Bill said:We were definitely punching above our weight through January. Credit goes to Hopkins and the team for that.
Lunardi has us as the last four out. So win two and there's probably a 60-80% chance we're in. If we can make it to the final, it should be a lock. There are no locks after 2012 though.
Utah isn't getting in unless they win the pac12. Neither is Washington. It's math at this point, unless you think that the P12 is going to be a 5 bid league, in which case, you dumb. -
And a few non-bubble teams will steal bids by winning their conference tourneys (MWC, A10, CUSA).Petersen3098 said:
UW actually has a good chance of getting in by getting to the final, I'm pretty sure a couple of bubble teams will lose games.ntxduck said:
Cool. Palm and Lunardi don't know shit at this point. They always adjust on the final weekend based on what they're hearing from their people on the committee, which is how they end up so "accurate".Petersen3098 said:
Utah is still a bubble team in palm’s bracketntxduck said:
Utah also not a bubble team anymore. They need to win it to get in as well. UCLA winning at sc really screwed Utah and UW, not just because it put them into the field, but it moved Utah and uw over to the non-Zona (the only potential win that anyone on the committee would gaf about) side of the bracket.Petersen3098 said:
If they get to the final that means they'll beat OSU, USC and Utah. Utah is a bubble team also so it'll help their resume.greenblood said:
Wins over OSU and USC won’t be enough. Washington would be better off as an 8 seed. Beating Arizona in the second rd was the only thing going to bump up their resume. They have to win it all or they’ll be a top seed in the NIT.Petersen3098 said:
UW has a pretty good chance of getting in if they get to the finalntxduck said:
Lunardi hasn’t updated since UW lost to Oregon. UW has no at large shot, especially with being on the opposite side of the bracket from zona. P12 will get 3: zona, UCLA, usc...and whoever wins the conf tourney (if it’s not one of those 3).Fire_Marshall_Bill said:We were definitely punching above our weight through January. Credit goes to Hopkins and the team for that.
Lunardi has us as the last four out. So win two and there's probably a 60-80% chance we're in. If we can make it to the final, it should be a lock. There are no locks after 2012 though.
Utah isn't getting in unless they win the pac12. Neither is Washington. It's math at this point, unless you think that the P12 is going to be a 5 bid league, in which case, you dumb.
Here's how it is today;
32 Automatic Bids
36 At Large Spots
44 teams that are safely in, based on current projections;
8--ACC (UVA, Duke, UNC, Clemson, Miami, VT, NC State, FSU)
7--Big 12 (Kansas, TTech, WVA, TCU, OU, Kstate, Texas). Don't agree with Texas as safel in but Vegas has them as -300 right now, so...
6--Big East (Nova, Xavier, Butler, Creighton, Seton Hall, Providence)
4--Big Ten (Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue)
3--Pac 12 (Arizona, USC, UCLA)
7--SEC (Auburn, TN, Ark, UK, UF, AtM, Mizzou)
3--American (Cincy, Wichita, Houston)
2--WCC (Gonzaga, St Marys)
2--A10 (Rhode Island, St Bonaventure)
1--CUSA (MTSU)
1--MWC (Nevada)
Now, assuming (which is a big assumption) that all of the above conference tourneys are won by teams listed here, that leaves 3 (44 minus the 11 conferences above=33, and there are 36 at larges total) bids for the following teams;
Louisville, Cuse, ND, Baylor, Marquette, Nebraska, Penn State, Utah, ASU, UW, Alabama.
UW is definitely towards the bottom of that list. They'd have to hope most of the teams in front of them lose in the 1st round of their conference tourney, while also hoping that Nevada, MTSU, and RIU/ST Bon are all able to win their conference tourneys so the bubble doesn't shrink to 2 teams, 1 team, or even 0.
It's not going to happen.
-
Next year has nothing to do with whether UW makes the tourney or NIT. There are no great track records of NIT success being a precursor to winning in the future.UW_Doog_Bot said:While I realize that we would all prefer getting into the tournament would an NIT appearance mean more post-season experience at this point? Looking at this from a developmental standpoint for a young team, will it be better to make a deep NIT run than a one and done NCAA appearance?
Doog poast, doog poaster
