TheTastyGreek

Flyer posted this info as another thread:

The first thing I thought when I saw someone had renewed this thread last night was "George is either shaking his head in disappointment or crying out to the heavens in frustration". If it makes you any less annoyed that Morgan was brought up again... I'm off the "hope he transfers" bandwagon. Now that we've got Edwards to fill in, I'd rather see us get the 4 year kid from Nevada that averaged 35 ppg. I'll feel a lot better about our chances in 2011-12 if I know we'll have a guy like that sharing the backcourt with Alzee.

Well, I wouldn't be okay with us killing anyone. And I'm not a fan of insider trading or securities fraud. I think we just discovered that you're a more hard core fan than I am.

Oh, I hear you. Again, I'm not saying I agree with either Rohnert on 1st team or giving preferential treatment to seniors. Just that I can understand the reasoning. I think one of the reasons they favor the seniors (especially Yates this year) is that these sorts of accolades may help them get overseas contracts. For Yates, this is his third year in a row on the all-conference 1st team. Some of it may be inertia, some of it may be lifetime achievement compensating for this year's reduced stats, some of it may just be an effort to balance out the fact that he's the only Blue Raider that made any of the all-SBC teams.

Not saying I agree with it 100%, but it isn't totally unreasonable. Our guys are pretty efficient scorers compared to much of the league, and Rohnert still shot fewer attempts but averaged more points (to say nothing of his assist and rebounding stats) than Tristan. When you look at some of the other scoring leaders, many of them are up over 400 attempts on the year. Gantt and Pettigrew are the guys with the fewest attempts (other than White) to score more points per game than Rohnert, and they've got 370 and 360 attempts, respectively. Rohnert, like Tristan and Josh, does a lot of damage from the line. And he's pretty much the one guy that every opponent can key on, so I find it really impressive that the guy can deliver the way that he does on a consistent basis. Personally, I think Gantt should have made first team and Rohnert should have been second, but I can appreciate trying to honor an outgoing senior instead of a freshman. I think Marvin Roberts from FIU got screwed over the worst. George deserved first team, but at least the guy didn't get left off entirely. Roberts deserved some level of all-conference recognition more than Yates, Pettigrew, Tramiel... Basically, every forward that DID get named other than Odufuwa and Tyren Johnson. I don't know how that guy got left off.

Before the season, when our graduating class was scheduled to be Dominique and Tramiel, we anticipated having two scholarships. When Dom got hurt early enough to earn a medical redshirt, the class dropped to one and Tramiel's was the only scholarship we had to give. When Edwards committed, that filled our 2010 class (at the time). Once Thomas quit, we suddenly had a 2nd ship to give. That's the one that will go to whoever signs in April.

More like pointing out that Rohnert is quarterbacking a triple option or single wing team.

Someone on the SBC forum made a good point about Rohnert's stats... Considering that he's doing it in a Princeton offense, you almost have to look at it like someone in a more typical attack scoring 20 ppg. If Rohnert has stats similar to Tristan or someone else in an up-tempo team's lineup, Rohnert is the one who's actually doing more.

Good find. We had two recruits (or a recruit and his recruit-aged guest) at the ULL game. Coach Forrest was with them until right before the game started. The one guy I'm sure was a recruit had an 80's style high top fade haircut. Emmitt was there sitting behind me and kept making Kid n' Play references. I'd have sworn I already saw a picture of a recruit with that same haircut, but I wasn't able to find him through the Rivals database. He looked like a guard, and I'd say he was probably somewhere between 6' and 6'3"

Correction... Under Johnny Jones, we've never lost to Middle twice in the same year. Ever. But WE'VE beaten THEM twice in a year three times.

Again... There's an East Champion. If that's Troy, we get the 1 seed. If that's MTSU, we don't, and there's no room to complain about it. If they could win their division (and they had two chances against Troy, but couldn't beat them), then they'd own the overall and there wouldn't be any argument about who deserved it, even if we had the same record. And MTSU didn't beat us twice this season, man. We only played them once. I think it's been something like 5 or 6 years since MTSU beat us twice in the same year. Are you even paying attention to the stuff you're writing anymore?

Aaaaand... Now I'm pissed off about this again. This isn't a general "Division Sports" tiebreaker. It's the specific rules that determine seeding for MEN'S AND WOMEN'S BASKETBALL. And they didn't follow it.

Keith, with respect... The very first link you provided about how they 'use the same rules everywhere' is actually not only wrong, it's the exact OPPOSITE of right. And again, with respect... I don't think you understand "why all the crying", as evidenced by this post you made that gets the NIT bid completely wrong, too. The reason this is so upsetting is that this stupid interpretation of the tiebreaker cost us a guaranteed postseason bid. That may not be a big deal for any of those conferences you mentioned... But we've only had three postseason bids in our entire history. Losing the guarantee could cost us something that's only come around an average of once every 25 years or so. Plus, it costs us money and program prestige. Not playing in the postseason costs us what would otherwise be a recruiting advantage. I've already repeated all the reasons that this interpretation of the tiebreakers is absurd, and even I'm getting sick of talking about it. But the fact remains, we got screwed. It cost us something significant and valuable; something worth getting upset over.

I really appreciate your faith in my powers of persuasion... But I don't imagine anyone at SBC headquarters plans on reversing this (or any other) decision based on the arguments of some random jackass from a school message board. It would be an awkward press release for someone to have to write and send out to the relevant beatwriters, to say the least. And it bears repeating that my polite but impassioned communications with the Sun Belt Conference over matters relating to the basketball tournament generally don't do much good. Probably because I'm an idiot. I've talked to Commissioner Waters at every tournament I've ever attended for more than a night. The first time, he came and found me. Last year, I caught him walking around the arena and told him how much I loved the neutral site concept and the evolution of the tournament. This year, I'll politely but emphatically tell him that I think this was total crap and he ought to be ashamed. Then I'll tell him that I like bringing all teams to Hot Springs, but that I think they'd sell more tickets if mens and womens games ran simultaneously all day on Saturday and Sunday, rather than having men and women in separate sessions. I doubt that he'll be strongly affected by the words of that Greek guy who makes dick jokes and used to co-run not one, but TWO crappy websites. Of course, maybe I'll get lucky, and he'll name me co-commissioner and issue me a tiebreaker-crimefighting costume, like Batman and Robin.

I'll probably do another long-ass breakdown (just my opinion) of how it could all shake out. I think we're a pretty strong favorite, considering our talent, our bye, and our path to the final game. But I still don't put our chances any higher than 30-35%. It's a very open field among the top 5 teams, and either 8 or 9 has what it takes to get hot and take the tournament, too. The only teams I'd rule out are UNO, UALR, Denver, ULL, ULM, and FIU. ULL, only because they've been terrible outside of Lafayette and they're shorthanded. And I'd only rule the Golden Panthers out of a championship, because FIU matches up well enough with everyone they'd face that they still have a slim but not impossible chance of winning our side of the bracket and making the finals.

No. For proof, look at last year when UALR and WKU both finished 15-3 but WKU was the 1 seed. WKU wins the tournament, WKU gets the NCAA bid, and nobody from the Sun Belt is guaranteed the slot in the NIT. UALR didn't get the 1 seed, they didn't get the auto spot in the NIT, and they got passed over. If we don't win the SBC Tournament, we will, too.

We can probably do a cookout at our place. It's on Ramble street, very close to the team hotel (if I'm not mistaken). Anyone who'd be interested in a bring your own meat/alcohol cookout sometime around 4:00-6:00, let me know.

I know you're right (though MTSU lost to FIU, too), but it still burns me that we lost the NIT guarantee and the outright title because of unbalanced scheduling and a conference that can't apply tiebreakers in a way that compensates for it. We played the 3 top teams in the East on the road this year. Two of them, we beat. The third, we only lost to because we had what would have been a layup stolen away with 44 seconds left and no foul was called. We had the same record as Troy and we beat them heads up at their house. But they win the tiebreaker? Because of the division runner up somehow factoring into the equation? It's infuriating.

I should have known as soon as it was obvious that we could end up tied with Troy and MTSU (the kings of the Sun Belt Co-Championship) that this wasn't going to end well for us. So angry. So, so angry...

You'll also note that the game update after our final against ULM mentioned that we win the conference if MTSU loses, but didn't specify any outcome for this situation. We've heard an interpretation from an official SBC employee. But until the final decision is released by the conference, I'm holding out hope that reason prevails and this thing gets settled in a way that's consistent with how the head-to-head tiebreakers would be handled.

I believe that in a divisional sport, there are only two teams that can be considered "tied" for the 1 seed: The East champion and the West champion. But the preliminary interpretation that Vito received from John McElwain at the SBC is that they plan(ned) on treating this situation as a 3-way tie for first. That interpretation ends up with us getting screwed. We won our division, we beat the other division champion in the only matchup (on the road at their house, it ought to be mentioned), but they get higher seeding than us. I hope very strongly that, now that the situation is a concrete reality rather than a distant hypothetical scenario, Wright Waters stops and evaluates the situation very carefully before approving/determining the final interpretation of how the tiebreaker system applies in this situation. I hope that Rick V (or a very well-spoken and respected subordinate speaking on his behalf) is on the phone with Wright Waters to respectfully but emphatically ask the following questions before any official bracket is released: 1 - Who won the West? 2 - Who won the East? 3 - Who won the only head-to-head matchup between those teams this season? 4 - Who gets the #1 seed and the NIT guarantee? And if the answer to question four isn't North Texas, I'd love to hear the logical acrobatics justifying why the East runner-up has any relevance on settling a tie between the two division champions.

I'm not planning anything until an official bracket is released by the conference. I still believe that you can't have any more than 2 teams in consideration for the 1 seed: The East champ and the West champ. I can't believe there's nobody in the SBC staff that doesn't recognize that. Hopefully, now that it's not a distant hypothetical situation, the SBC will re-evaluate the preliminary interpretation of tiebreakers that was discussed with Vito. I expect we'll get screwed, but until the bracket is released, I'm not taking anything as final other than Troy wins the East, we win the West, and the rest of the seeds are whatever they are (haven't bothered to even look... Just came home from a very long two days and a very long drive).

You bastard. That does it. I'm going to sleep, and I'm not coming back to this board until late Saturday night.

K.C. Ross-Miller will play at the Super Pit... In 2011. As an LSU Tiger. He verbaled 2 weeks ago.

Don't cheat us out of 4 feet of heat, sir. It's 94 feet of heat. Although if the MTSU women's team is using a 90 feet of heat strategy, perhaps we should adjust our gameplan accordingly. It seems to work for your girls. Since you're here... Any chance you could convince Kermit and the boys to drop a game or two down in Florida? The SBC is trying to screw us in this tiebreaker situation, and we'd sure appreciate not having to murder Wright Waters if all three teams win out and go 13-5.