FireFightnJoey

Who is the guy in the banana suit? Anybody know?

White showing composure holding back from the open three...ball control.

That last drive was a little sloppy ... but lucky!

I had one eye closed and the other squinting and barely open...

White from looooooooooong range! Nice bucket!

All of a sudden, we can't buy a bucket...

Denver getting some good looks at the basket, but good pressure on D and those shots bouncing out. Love it.

channelsurfing.et is working great.

ESPN360 is totally sucking it right now. Houston is a regional blackout. Tell me how that makes sense...

Yes. From there you can view the schedule or replay tabs and watch any of those games.

Sorry for your loss Brett. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

WTF!? DFW is not part of the blackout area but Houston is? What logic prompted that? This sucks.

+1

S B C

George, I think I understand what you are trying to say regarding 3 way tie. But, you are wrong. You have to look at the records and determine how each team finished to understand how they listed them. The teams listed are the divisional champs and sometimes there are two ties for the division. So, they list that division's co-champ. But then comes the seeding and it is VERY different. 2007 Tournament (the year NT won it all) This site lists the champions as follows, I included their records and their seeding: Team/Overall Record/Conference Record/Tournament Seeding South Alabama 20-10 (13-5) #1 Arkansas State 16-14 (11-7) #2 Lousiana-Monroe 17-13 (11-7) #4 2007 Tournament Bracket USA won the East division and ASU/ULM were co-champs for the West division. ASU got the nod for the #2 seed. But what about Western Kentucky that year and why isn't ULM listed at the #3 seed? WKU is listed at the #3 seed. Here are their stats: WKU 21-10 (12-6) #3 So, the division champs got the number 1 and 2 seeds. The west division was tied and the head to head determined ASU the #2. WKU had a better conference record than ASU. Why aren't they the number 2 seed? According to your interpretation of the rules, that would be the case. But it is not the right interpretation of the rules. The rules CLEARLY state that the division champs get the number 1 and 2 seeds. Therefore, the champion must be determined in order to determine #1 ands #2 seeds. The 2007 season is the example that the conference determines division champions and gives them the first two seeds. Otherwise, the #2 seed would have gone to WKU. How about the 2008 Tournament when WKU and USA both went to the dance? USA (25-5) 16-2 #1 WKU (24-6) 16-2 #3 UALR (19-10) 11-7 #2 2008 Tournament Bracket Again, WKU got the #3 spot because they were NOT the division champs even though their conference record was better than UALR. 2007 and 2008 are both examples that prove the intention of the tournament format and tiebreaking rules for divions champions. Like I stated and posted in the first post, the "Tie Breaking Formula" is a separate tiebreaker for 3-13. That is why a specific tie breaker is listed for #1 and #2 to be between division winners. There can be co-champs, but there is still just one winner and that is who wins head to head. Why do you think we are all so pissed about this b-s? We have seen the format in effect and knew what happened in the past. Look at my posts and you will see I don't go these lengths unless it is quite obvious we're getting the royal shaft. Also, I recieved a reply from the athletic department that says they thought exactly the same: What's ambiguous about it? It wasn't ambiguous in 2007 and 2008. Quite clear. In this email was no mention of any crap being agreed upon at the first of the season. How about publishing this agreement? Again, what does it matter there is an odd number of teams? We all play the same number of conference games. This is total b-s and we're getting the shaft. Apparently we're stuck with it and not sure anything will be done, although there should be something done. A NIT berth is a big deal and it belongs to our players ... they deserve it. This crap about changing the rules for one freaking season is mickey mouse b-s.

I still can not believe that the Sunbelt has decided to do this three way tie breaker. So, I did my own investigative reporting to see exactly what the rules were and how they deduced comparing the western division champion with the runner up for the regular season title. Why have two divisions? All of these questions have been exhausted on this board. Questions like, we didn't even play the same number of games against each other and the other teams had home court advantage. So, here is the actual text from the Sunbelt official website. Sunbelt Post Season Format and Tie Breaking Procedure The seeding for top two seeds has its own tiebreaking for #1 and #2. A tiebreaker that only involves the division winners AND a coin toss if their records are identical and head/head matchup is identical. The "Top Three Seeds -Determination" clause specifically points out that the #3 spot is "next best ... regardless of division", which implies the division champions must be determined before determining number 3 seed. The Tie-Breaking Formula comes into play for all of the seeds below these two seeds. Specifically, point © of the Tie-Breaking Formula section states that "if each team has the same record against the highest-seeded team in the division" ... Not the other division. THE top seed has to be established before you ever get to the infamous "three way tie" clause which is point (e) of the Tie-Breaking Formula. But here is the real kicker. There is a statement that clearly states when the "Tie-Breaking Formula" is invoked. The last sentence of the "Seeding" clause: In the event of a tie for any seeded position within a division, the seed shall be determined by utilizing the conference’s tie-breaking formula. It is only to be invoked for seeded positions WITHIN a division. So, the conference skipped and ignored its own rules to find a rule that that is embedded far into the tie breaking formula that shouldn't even be invoked. The rules clearly state to determine division winners and to determine head to head of those two to determine #1 and #2 seeds. After reading and analyzing these rules, I just don't see how they came up with the seeds using this three way tiebreaker bull. I thought maybe the rules were ambiguous, but it is very clearly defined. Why does this matter so much to me? This is a guaranteed post season berth to the NIT. And that means everything. That is visibility. That is more money. And above all else, our players deserve it. This was determined before the season. The conference chose to go another direction which tells me one of two things. 1. They were too frantic in making a decision because they didn't think it would actually happen, and resulted in not analyzing the rules properly because they rushed it after the last games played out. 2. They are incompetent. Either way, I think it all boils down to number 2 (pun intended), even if number 1 is the root cause. If we win out and go to the NCAA, then in my opinion the conference dodged a bullet. If not, I‎ will be highly disappointed if UNT does not come out publicly with their lawyers and go after the conference. Quit pus-footing around these issues and be behind closed doors. Let us know you think it is bull and you are going to do something about it. Don't give me this crap that Rick V. is probably on top of this and trying to be "political" or some crap. This is not the time for this. The players and Coach Jones deserve it. Your alumni and donors want it.

How much do you think the fact that Dodge is on the hot seat affects candidates decision to interview here? Knowing that next year Dodge could (and very likely) be gone. I would try all other options first personally and then interview at UNT as a last resort in that case.

What movie is that clip from?

Was looking forward to the Rice game, but wouldn't you know it, conflicts with a trip to Dallas of all places and I can not get out of it. I can't even make a game when I'm in Dallas. Ugh. I might be able to pull the TAMU trip.

Woohoo! Awesome news. Let's get this thing built.

Watching the replay on espn360, the injury looked pretty rough. This had nothing to do with size. The defender fell just right on his ankle and it buckled fugly. I can't believe he's day to day. I thought after watching it that he was done ... goose was cooked.

The refs did not cost us that game. It was a pathetic showing from the defense. A winless team ripped them apart. But, those two non-calls just came at critical times. And they were obvious. Even the announcers were perplexed. But, we shouldn't be in that position in the first place.

Agreed. But you fight back and then no balls to make the call.

We got hosed on atleast two pass interference non-calls. Blatant non-calls. Not an excuse, but both times the defender made contact way before the ball and never looked back. They were both at critical points of the drive. Not once, but twice. But, its better to focus on the excessive celebration penalties that both were pathetic calls on each team.

We're better than last year! We're 1-5 and not 0-6 with a softer schedule. But if we're 1-11 at the end of the season ... I can't see us winning another game. We shoot ourselves in the foot at every chance possible. And it takes us until atleast midway through the 3rd quarter to adjust to anything.