ESPN has ugly article about the valley

by **oneNEIGHBOR** » December 8th, 2010, 3:23 pm

i guess its true...
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... large-fate

**Sponsor**

by **unipanther99** » December 8th, 2010, 3:36 pm

Hard to argue with any of what he said. It actually could have been worse.

by **AndShock** » December 8th, 2010, 3:42 pm

Do people even read over their articles anymore? MWC when talking about the MVC.

He might be 100% right, but I feel like he could've at least mentioned why WSU and Missouri State have no shot at an at-large, instead of mentioning UNI's and CU's at-large chances.

by **RoyalShock** » December 8th, 2010, 3:50 pm

AndShock wrote:Do people even read over their articles anymore? MWC when talking about the MVC.

He might be 100% right, but I feel like he could've at least mentioned why WSU and Missouri State have no shot at an at-large, instead of mentioning UNI's and CU's at-large chances.

You're right. The guy was effectively saying that the MVC's at-large hopes rested with UNI and CU. So I ask, just how credible is this turkey?

I'm not at all ready to say the MVC's one-bid fate is sealed. WSU still has a decent shot and MSU isn't out of the picture (though the Tulsa loss may not look very good come selection time). Before 2006 the MVC mostly only had one at-large worthy team. All those multi-bid years was due to the favorite losing in the tournament championship. This year could be similar.

by **unipanther99** » December 8th, 2010, 4:12 pm

Is WSU or MSU's at-large case any better than UNI's was this time last year? Many felt UNI had to win the tournement to get in all through last season.

by **valleychamp** » December 8th, 2010, 4:26 pm

UNI wasn't going to be an at-large team coming into the season anyway. To say that the league's chances are destroyed because we lose a crap fest at Iowa is ridiculous.

by **unipanther99** » December 8th, 2010, 4:53 pm

valleychamp wrote:UNI wasn't going to be an at-large team coming into the season anyway. To say that the league's chances are destroyed because we lose a crap fest at Iowa is ridiculous.

As for your first point, he addresses that in the article, saying it's a bit unfair to make a big deal about UNI not being an at-large team this year.

Secondly, a path to two bids for the MVC is certainly possible. But just looking at the league "as is" right now, could you call it a two bid league?

by **MSUDuo** » December 8th, 2010, 5:38 pm

unipanther99 wrote:
valleychamp wrote:UNI wasn't going to be an at-large team coming into the season anyway. To say that the league's chances are destroyed because we lose a crap fest at Iowa is ridiculous.

As for your first point, he addresses that in the article, saying it's a bit unfair to make a big deal about UNI not being an at-large team this year.

Secondly, a path to two bids for the MVC is certainly possible. But just looking at the league "as is" right now, could you call it a two bid league?

Right now? No.

Come March if a certain two teams can separate themselves from the pack and finish with 23-25 wins? Yes

by **WSUbballer** » December 8th, 2010, 6:53 pm

When did Creighton become an at-large factor? When was the last time they received an at-large bid?

Is Mr. Brennan communicating with Matt Perrault via twitter?

by **Jet915** » December 8th, 2010, 6:53 pm

The only way anyone is getting a shot at an at-large is 15-3 or better in league play IMO.