Missouri getting worked

[ACE]

Sorry BAB, Washington has two wins vs. the top 50. ASU has zero. Mizzou has 4.

( I can't believe I'm defending Mizzou)

I always said, if you just got rid of the worst of the Mizzou trolls on this board, you wouldn't see as much bashing of them. Now that Mizzoutroll/banned billiphan/postcard is gone, people will probably lighten up a little on the Tigers and they won't be discussed as much. Cheesy has been pretty reasonable so far. But if he crosses the line, it is back on.

[cheesycow]

If we don't get in...NIT..Mizzou vs SLU at Chaifetz

If Mizzou doesn't make the tourney I'll donate 50 bucks to steve's Fortel's fund

[SShoe]

Washington has better players, and they are finally coming together. Washington also has a better coach IMO.

Game over- Nebraska 75 Mizzou 60.

That should go in the books somewhere as a very bad neutral court loss. But evidently, this game is irrelevant, and this game will be wiped away.

Why did the NCAA get rid of the record in the last 10 games?

Hey, why should we not lobby to put Mizzou onto that bubble? Let them sweat it out like many others.

You may be right, but I think you're going by the Jay Bilas method with that "they have better players and a better coach."When you look at it objectively, Mizzou has had a tougher schedule, more wins against the RPI top 50, fewer bad losses, and blew out its lone Pac-10 opponent (who Washington lost to). They also finished 5th in arguably the best conference in the country.

Again, would love to see them get bounced, but they won't. They sealed their bid a few weeks ago.

[Bay Area Billiken]

You may be right, but I think you're going by the Jay Bilas method with that "they have better players and a better coach."When you look at it objectively, Mizzou has had a tougher schedule, more wins against the RPI top 50, fewer bad losses, and blew out its lone Pac-10 opponent (who Washington lost to). They also finished 5th in arguably the best conference in the country.

Again, would love to see them get bounced, but they won't. They sealed their bid a few weeks ago.

Yeah- see how the Jay Bilas "Eye Test" might be used against some teams, but evidently it doesn't apply against others?

From my limited sample size of seeing Mizzou on TV, they play an ugly brand of basketball. They can't shoot. My late Uncle from NE Missouri and a Mizzou fan, would say, "They can't hit the broadside of a barn."

Then you have an objective factor like the record in the last 10 games that for some reason has been discarded.

All the decks seem to be stacked against SLU this year.

[b.hayes]

Why did the NCAA get rid of the record in the last 10 games?

So the Illini could be on the bubble still. Duh.

[Bay Area Billiken]

So the Illini could be on the bubble still. Duh.

Oh, I see. Never mind.

[billiken_roy]

If Mizzou doesn't make the tourney I'll donate 50 bucks to steve's Fortel's fund

steve you got a lot of witnesses on this.

[cheesycow]

From my limited sample size of seeing Mizzou on TV, they play an ugly brand of basketball. They can't shoot. My late Uncle from NE Missouri and a Mizzou fan, would say, "They can't hit the broadside of a barn."

Makes sense. You have a limited sample size and say they can't shoot, they broader picture says they shot 45% on the year (not great but certainly not bad). You say they play an ugly style of basketball, and the broader picture says they have one of the best defenses in the country. Funny how sample sizes work.

Kenpom has them with the 7th best D and 52nd best O. That's not a bad combo, IMO.

[SShoe]

Yeah- see how the Jay Bilas "Eye Test" might be used against some teams, but evidently it doesn't apply against others?

From my limited sample size of seeing Mizzou on TV, they play an ugly brand of basketball. They can't shoot. My late Uncle from NE Missouri and a Mizzou fan, would say, "They can't hit the broadside of a barn."

Then you have an objective factor like the record in the last 10 games that for some reason has been discarded.

All the decks seem to be stacked against SLU this year.

I personally think SLU deserves a "bump" in consideration given their late season push, the Cody situation, our record vs. the top 50, etc. However, the NCAA has made it clear that you cannot ignore the first half of the season and unfortunately, we were mediocre before Cody. So any bump we get would be entirely subjective and we're not going to get the benefit of the doubt when big-name teams like Illinois are still in the mix. There are too many ###### like Jay Bias (spelling intended) that have made it clear which teams are better for the committee to not be swayed by it.

Personally, I think Bilas is somewhat right in that you can't just look at the record and/or the RPI to determine who's worthy. Some form of "eye test" is necessary. The only problem is that the wins vs. RI, Richmond, or Dayton don't "look" as good as wins against Wisconsin, Michigan State, or Clemson, simply because of their name.

[b.hayes]

Personally, I think Bilas is somewhat right in that you can't just look at the record and/or the RPI to determine who's worthy. Some form of "eye test" is necessary. The only problem is that the wins vs. RI, Richmond, or Dayton don't "look" as good as wins against Wisconsin, Michigan State, or Clemson, simply because of their name.

That, and the fact that Dayton has been BUTTSUCKING for 2 months.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I personally think SLU deserves a "bump" in consideration given their late season push, the Cody situation, our record vs. the top 50, etc. However, the NCAA has made it clear that you cannot ignore the first half of the season and unfortunately, we were mediocre before Cody. So any bump we get would be entirely subjective and we're not going to get the benefit of the doubt when big-name teams like Illinois are still in the mix. There are too many ###### like Jay Bias (spelling intended) that have made it clear which teams are better for the committee to not be swayed by it.

Personally, I think Bilas is somewhat right in that you can't just look at the record and/or the RPI to determine who's worthy. Some form of "eye test" is necessary. The only problem is that the wins vs. RI, Richmond, or Dayton don't "look" as good as wins against Wisconsin, Michigan State, or Clemson, simply because of their name.

A motto in these situations is, "Follow the money." There is just too much money involved in getting that 5th team from the Big Ten.

There is also precedent. I don't know if a 10-8 team in the Big Ten has ever been denied an NCAA bid.

So an also-ran team like Illinois, RPI 75 and sure to have 14 losses, that pretty clearly has no business playing in the NCAA Tournament, is still in the NCAA picture.

However, the precedents sometimes are broken. There once was an unwritten rule that a big BCS team had to be at least .500 in conference play to get in the NCAA. But that was broken when Duke and North Carolina were 1-2 in the country, and the NCAA let in a 7-9 ACC team, my recollection is that it was Wake Forest. That situation is present this season with Georgia Tech (7-9 in the ACC, RPI 44).

[TheChosenOne]

I know this board can get fairly bad when the Billikens lay an egg, but read tigerboard. Their posters really go nuts after a bad loss.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Makes sense. You have a limited sample size and say they can't shoot, they broader picture says they shot 45% on the year (not great but certainly not bad). You say they play an ugly style of basketball, and the broader picture says they have one of the best defenses in the country. Funny how sample sizes work.

Kenpom has them with the 7th best D and 52nd best O. That's not a bad combo, IMO.

Try this:

Mizzou:

Lost to Richmond on neutral floor (SLU split with Richmond)

Lost at Oral Roberts (RPI 124)- bad loss;

Lost at Oklahoma (RPI 112)- bad loss;

Lost to Nebraska (RPI 153) by 15 points on neutral floor (SLU beat Nebraska)- horrible loss;

Blown out twice by Kansas by 19 and 21 points, latter on home court;

Lost at Vanderbilt;

Lost at Kansas State (albeit won at home);

Lost at Baylor;

Lost at home to Texas A&M;

Lost 3 of last 4 games, all by double digits;

Continued to play non-conference schedule filled with assorted cupcakes;

Continued to duck playing SLU.

It won't be, but why isn't it- MIZ-ZOU=NIT?

[Quality Is Job 1]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see a Mizzou thread on the board, given the coverage Missouri gets in St. Louis media. I wonder if there will be any SLU mentions on Tigerboard Friday afternoon when the Billikens will be playing and the Tigers are already done. Please note that the foregoing was not a complaint or criticism, just my thoughts. Considering the importance of the game, I was too focused on the game to read the board, which is unusual. But that means I have a lot to catch up on.

Your prerogative but I'm planning on bashing the way mizzou played in this game.

Cheesy, the Tigers STANK today. Sigh!

Is Mizzou better than Washington? Absolutely not. I don't even think that would be a close game on a neutral floor at this point in the season.

Is Mizzou better than Arizona State? Probably yes on paper, but the games are not played on paper.

Is Mizzou better than Florida? Toss-up.

Conclusion: Mizzou should be on the bubble with the rest of them. For some reason, Mizzou is getting a lot of deference IMO.

Some of this is regional bias. Folks on this board are not high on Washington, and really have no respect for Arizona State at all, even after 22 wins and 12-6 in the Pac-10. I can understand that. But it goes both ways.

What a pathetic effort from the Tigers, that is an embarrassment no matter who you are a fan of. Ever since they lost Safford they have played uninspired and bad basketball. They are lucky Zaire Taylor hit that shot at the buzzer to beat Iowa State or they may have not been so lucky come Selection Sunday, I am assuming they still make it in?

I think Missouri is better than the teams BAB mentioned, but they haven't been playing well, particularly offensively — and then it's hard for them to get their trademark defensive pressure going when they don't score — lately, since Safford went down with the injury and Steve Moore, Tyler Stone, and Jon Underwood haven't been developed.

mi$$ouri is not better than slu this year. they just play in a better rpi conference.

And played a tougher non-conference schedule, and won more games, and beat better teams, and lost less bad games....

(yawn).

Missouri is probably a little better than SLU, overall, but not lately.

I personally think SLU deserves a "bump" in consideration given their late season push, the Cody situation, our record vs. the top 50, etc. However, the NCAA has made it clear that you cannot ignore the first half of the season and unfortunately, we were mediocre before Cody. So any bump we get would be entirely subjective and we're not going to get the benefit of the doubt when big-name teams like Illinois are still in the mix. There are too many ###### like Jay Bias (spelling intended) that have made it clear which teams are better for the committee to not be swayed by it.

Personally, I think Bilas is somewhat right in that you can't just look at the record and/or the RPI to determine who's worthy. Some form of "eye test" is necessary. The only problem is that the wins vs. RI, Richmond, or Dayton don't "look" as good as wins against Wisconsin, Michigan State, or Clemson, simply because of their name.

I think the Billikens are a better team than they're RPI and non-conference record indicate. The addition of Cody Ellis mid-season was very significant. I don't know whether the Selection Committee will factor that in, or not. SLU needs to win its game Friday. They can't win the next game if they don't win the first, as the Tigers found out today.

The NCAA Tournament is supposed to be the conference tournament winners plus the 34 best remaining teams. Who are the best 34 remaining teams? Is Missouri one of them? I think so. Is Illinois one of them? Hmmm. Personally, I think SLU is one of them, but not many "experts" agree. Because of parity, it doesn't seem that many teams have really distinguished themselves as deserving of being in the tournament, but they still have to field a 65-team tournament. But I think SLU deserves to be in before Illinois, Dayton, and Rhode Island, because of how they performed in conference.

All right, there it is on a tee.

[Cowboy]

All the decks seem to be stacked against SLU this year.

-external factors are hugely favorable for slu this year, we did not win enough games on the schedule we played to merit a bid, but we are not done

-by external factors i mean the power conferences, imo and others, do not have the usual number of teams that seem worthy of at large bids (see Pac10, SEC, Big 10, ACC), so in order to get onto the bubble or into the tourney it is not taking as much this year

[billikenfan05]

Why do people apologize to cheesy and thicks for ripping MU on this board? It's our board if you don't want to hear it don't visit the board.

[eastsidejoe]

Why do people apologize to cheesy and thicks for ripping MU on this board? It's our board if you don't want to hear it don't visit the board.

you are a tough little man 05!!!!!!! i don't see you talking to the backhand like that.

[Bay Area Billiken]

-external factors are hugely favorable for slu this year, we did not win enough games on the schedule we played to merit a bid, but we are not done

-by external factors i mean the power conferences, imo and others, do not have the usual number of teams that seem worthy of at large bids (see Pac10, SEC, Big 10, ACC), so in order to get onto the bubble or into the tourney it is not taking as much this year

Yes, it is very hard for me to root for Cal, given that I am surrounded by Old Blues. But this year, I have to (begrudgingly) say: GO BEARS!

I don't think Cal will win that Pac-10 Tournament, but if that happens, is it even possible that Juan Bid could visit the Pac-10?

Again, I don't think that is going to happen.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Why do people apologize to cheesy and thicks for ripping MU on this board? It's our board if you don't want to hear it don't visit the board.

Why do you tie me to cheesycow? Cheesy posts here as a Mizzou-first fan, but I post here as a Billikens-first fan. Plus NO ONE apologized to me for "ripping" Mizzou in this thread or even mentioned me.

[billikenfan05]

Why do you tie me to cheesycow? Cheesy posts here as a Mizzou-first fan, but I post here as a Billikens-first fan. Plus NO ONE apologized to me for "ripping" Mizzou in this thread or even mentioned me.

Because it happens all the time. Anti-MU posts tend to either start or end apologetically.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Getting back in part to the original question of this thread:

RPI's after Mizzou's loss to Nebraska:

URI 41

Mizzou 45 (Can you say bubble?)

Dayton 49

Washington (for comparison purposes) 50

SLU 84.

So Nebraska's win, at least for now, helped SLU's RPI by 2 spots per the calculation at www.warrennolan.com, which should put SLU back in the NIT in the last spot.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Getting back in part to the original question of this thread:

RPI's after Mizzou's loss to Nebraska:

URI 41

Mizzou 45 (Can you say bubble?)

Dayton 49

Washington (for comparison purposes) 50

SLU 84.

So Nebraska's win, at least for now, helped SLU's RPI by 2 spots per the calculation at www.warrennolan.com, which should put SLU back in the NIT in the last spot.

And add:

Illinois 75.

[Billiken2damax]

Why do people apologize to cheesy and thicks for ripping MU on this board? It's our board if you don't want to hear it don't visit the board.

Its your board? ReallY?

Well then dont mind if I start a thread about every mizzou win ... just a little bitter when the tigers have success then quick to drill them when they lose.

[billikenfan05]

Its your board? ReallY?

Well then dont mind if I start a thread about every mizzou win ... just a little bitter when the tigers have success then quick to drill them when they lose.

Huh?

[moytoy12]

Getting back in part to the original question of this thread:

RPI's after Mizzou's loss to Nebraska:

URI 41

Mizzou 45 (Can you say bubble?)

Dayton 49

Washington (for comparison purposes) 50

SLU 84.

So Nebraska's win, at least for now, helped SLU's RPI by 2 spots per the calculation at www.warrennolan.com, which should put SLU back in the NIT in the last spot.

And Nebraska's went up 19 spots. I know they have a relatively easier chance to climb the RPI rankings, but it goes to show that there is a chance for us to improve our RPI drastically through the tourney. Maybe SShoe or Kshoe could confirm.