carrcar wrote:Weak scheduling year for the MVC.
PantherSigEp wrote:carrcar wrote:Weak scheduling year for the MVC.
Don't blame 3 of the top 4
Wufan wrote:Redbirdgrad wrote:PurpleAcesFootball wrote:To be clear: I THINK THEY ARE IN.
.
Hey, no shouting around here... Didn't you realize we're in a library?
When I did the exercise above, trying to find at 36 at larges, I kept telling myself as I went past 30 how bad the bubble is this year. I guess that's where my internal conflict comes in. Wichitas resume screams NIT to me, but there is merit to anyone who includes them because the bubble is so weak.
I honestly think that there was a lot more parody in college basketball this year, rather than the assertion that teams ranked between 25 and 50 are weak. UNI is a really good example of this with so many high profile wins and head scratching losses. The field is grouped closer together weakening the resumes.
Probably need to get this tourney back to 64 before even thinking about expanding it again. Not saying that because Wichita is taking advantage of a weak bubble, just that the quality of basketball in the play-ins this year may be at the lowest level we've seen since the move to 68.
squirrel wrote:Bradley's SOS was 102, but Non-Con was 73.
NCAA teams played: Virginia, Arizona, Seton Hall, Wichita, UNI
CIT teams played: Ball St, North Dakota, UT-Arlington
Boise State is probably in some postseason, if they want, but hasn't been determined.
Return to Missouri Valley Conference Basketball
Users browsing this forum: AcesAces, Google [Bot] and 30 guests