BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Basketball

Topic: NIT Bracketology

Topic: NIT Bracketology

Author

Message

The Optimist
General User

Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,597

Status: Offline

NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/14/2014 7:33:10 PM

I have seen more than one person hint at Ohio not getting an at-large bid to the NIT. Not sure that I agree.

Our "resume" is pretty solid. 20+ wins, Top 100 RPI, 5 Top 100 RPI wins, 1 Top 50 RPI win. Only 1 loss to a team below 200 in the RPI (Kent State who is currently 206)

By my calculations, 9 auto-bids have already been given for the NIT and 9ish can still go out. Assuming we end up with around 15 auto-bids, that would leave 17 open slots. Are there 17 teams out there who miss the NCAA Tournament who have 20 wins a Top 100 RPI and 5 good wins?

I've seen crazier things happen.

The Optimist
General User

Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,597

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/14/2014 7:47:14 PM

As far as an OHIO at-large to the NIT is concerned, you want to root for Toledo and WMU tonight.

Akron and EMU are both kinda on the NIT bubble also. Them winning tonight could potentially steal our (theoretical) at-large bid. WMU (lock) and Toledo both are already ahead of us for the NIT so them winning doesn't hurt us.

Beyond the MAC, you want to root for other conference champions to win their given conference tournament.

I've seen crazier things happen.

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/14/2014 10:34:35 PM

Seriously, we are the #5 team in a mediocre conference. If Toledo or WMU wins the Championship, the other will go to the NIT. Then it will be the Buffs, Akron, OHIO and EMU fighting for the scraps. We MAY be lucky to have post season play.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/14/2014 10:52:36 PM

Dream post-season matchup: I want 'kron again when it's not our 4th in 6th days and some of OUr guys have had a chance to get healed up.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Eagle66
General User

Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 1,329

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/14/2014 11:14:51 PM

Casper71 wrote:

We were only a 6 seed last year. No way we go this year. However, these other post season tournaments (CIT / CBI) don't care where you finish. It's will you pay to host / how many fans will you bring. I'm not sure if well pay to host but we certainly have a better following than Akron UB and EMU.

Last Edited: 3/14/2014 11:16:42 PM by Eagle66

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,365

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 12:54:36 AM

Unfortunately, RPI and wins aren't the main criteria for the NIT. The only real criterion is the "best available teams." It's really a matter of however they want to choose them. Butts in the seats and eyes on the tube probably mean as much as record and RPI. Last year, there wasn't a non-"power" conference team in the NIT with an RPI above 73 (I'm counting the A10 as a "power" conference). Our RPI Friday morning was 84. I think we're CBI bound.

Last year's at-large teams were (in order of RPI):
Southern Miss (25-9) -- 34 RPI
UMass (21-11) -- 55 RPI
Kentucky (21-11) -- 56 RPI
Tennessee (20-12) -- 58 RPI
Bama (21-12) -- 60 RPI
Charlotte (21-11) -- 61 RPI
Detroit (20-12) -- 64 RPI
BYU (21-11) -- 65 RPI
Baylor (18-14) -- 67 RPI
Ohio (24-9) -- 68 RPI
Denver (21-9) -- 69 RPI
Maryland (21-12) -- 72 RPI
Indiana St (18-14) -- 73 RPI
UVA (21-11) -- 74 RPI
Stanford (18-14) -- 75 RPI
Iowa (21-12) -- 78 RPI
St Joe (18-13) -- 82 RPI
Florida St (18-15) -- 84 RPI
Arizona St (21-12) -- 86 RPI
Washington (18-15) -- 86 RPI
Providence (17-14) -- 89 RPI
St. John's (16-15) -- 93 RPI

ND State was 22-9 with a 77 RPI and went to the CBI. More wins and a better RPI than seven at-large NIT teams. Weber St was 24-6 with the same RPI as St John's but wound up in the CIT. Other teams had as many or more wins and better RPIs than at-large teams in the NIT but went elsewhere. There are just no guarantees with the NIT.

Last Edited: 3/15/2014 12:57:04 AM by Pataskala

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Chicken George
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 765

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 1:05:47 AM

Think you're correct and I think the CIT/CBI is what we deserve this year, then again we've gotten the benefit of the doubt a few times recently with bowls, etc... Maybe we luck out again, but I doubt it.

One positive is that I think this years team will be in a better mindset to compete in a non-NCAA tournament than last years. i think this years team will want to play again, whereas I think last years cashed in their chips mentally after the Akron loss.

The Optimist
General User

Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,597

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 1:26:06 AM

Pataskala wrote:

Unfortunately, RPI and wins aren't the main criteria for the NIT. The only real criterion is the "best available teams." It's really a matter of however they want to choose them. Butts in the seats and eyes on the tube probably mean as much as record and RPI. Last year, there wasn't a non-"power" conference team in the NIT with an RPI above 73 (I'm counting the A10 as a "power" conference). Our RPI Friday morning was 84. I think we're CBI bound.

Last year's at-large teams were (in order of RPI):
Southern Miss (25-9) -- 34 RPI
UMass (21-11) -- 55 RPI
Kentucky (21-11) -- 56 RPI
Tennessee (20-12) -- 58 RPI
Bama (21-12) -- 60 RPI
Charlotte (21-11) -- 61 RPI
Detroit (20-12) -- 64 RPI
BYU (21-11) -- 65 RPI
Baylor (18-14) -- 67 RPI
Ohio (24-9) -- 68 RPI
Denver (21-9) -- 69 RPI
Maryland (21-12) -- 72 RPI
Indiana St (18-14) -- 73 RPI
UVA (21-11) -- 74 RPI
Stanford (18-14) -- 75 RPI
Iowa (21-12) -- 78 RPI
St Joe (18-13) -- 82 RPI
Florida St (18-15) -- 84 RPI
Arizona St (21-12) -- 86 RPI
Washington (18-15) -- 86 RPI
Providence (17-14) -- 89 RPI
St. John's (16-15) -- 93 RPI

ND State was 22-9 with a 77 RPI and went to the CBI. More wins and a better RPI than seven at-large NIT teams. Weber St was 24-6 with the same RPI as St John's but wound up in the CIT. Other teams had as many or more wins and better RPIs than at-large teams in the NIT but went elsewhere. There are just no guarantees with the NIT.

Good data.

I agree with Chicken George on our mindset heading into whichever tournament we end up in. This team has shown a lot of resilience and I do not expect that to stop now.

I've seen crazier things happen.

Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,223

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 10:09:11 AM

Don't forget guys that if a team wins its conference regular season and does't get an NCAA berth, it automatically gets an NIT berth. There have been way too many of those this year that will keep us out of the NIT. CIT is the best bet at this time according to informed sources.

colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,548

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 10:31:11 AM

Chicken George wrote:

This is simply not true about last years team. While everybody may not have been on board, the team had two chances to go ahead and probably win the game in the last minute of play, on the road (1000 mile trip)against a team that was 22-8 and 16-2 in their league. Please don't dishonor last years team in such a way.

TheBobcatBandit
General User

Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 618

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 11:06:34 AM

Pataskala wrote:

Unfortunately, RPI and wins aren't the main criteria for the NIT. The only real criterion is the "best available teams." It's really a matter of however they want to choose them. Butts in the seats and eyes on the tube probably mean as much as record and RPI. Last year, there wasn't a non-"power" conference team in the NIT with an RPI above 73 (I'm counting the A10 as a "power" conference). Our RPI Friday morning was 84. I think we're CBI bound.

Last year's at-large teams were (in order of RPI):
Southern Miss (25-9) -- 34 RPI
UMass (21-11) -- 55 RPI
Kentucky (21-11) -- 56 RPI
Tennessee (20-12) -- 58 RPI
Bama (21-12) -- 60 RPI
Charlotte (21-11) -- 61 RPI
Detroit (20-12) -- 64 RPI
BYU (21-11) -- 65 RPI
Baylor (18-14) -- 67 RPI
Ohio (24-9) -- 68 RPI
Denver (21-9) -- 69 RPI
Maryland (21-12) -- 72 RPI
Indiana St (18-14) -- 73 RPI
UVA (21-11) -- 74 RPI
Stanford (18-14) -- 75 RPI
Iowa (21-12) -- 78 RPI
St Joe (18-13) -- 82 RPI
Florida St (18-15) -- 84 RPI
Arizona St (21-12) -- 86 RPI
Washington (18-15) -- 86 RPI
Providence (17-14) -- 89 RPI
St. John's (16-15) -- 93 RPI

ND State was 22-9 with a 77 RPI and went to the CBI. More wins and a better RPI than seven at-large NIT teams. Weber St was 24-6 with the same RPI as St John's but wound up in the CIT. Other teams had as many or more wins and better RPIs than at-large teams in the NIT but went elsewhere. There are just no guarantees with the NIT.

This makes me so made at the seeding. How does a team with a lower record and lower RPI end up being 3 seeds higher than us and get a home game

Andrew Ruck
General User

Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 5,225

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 11:47:06 AM

colobobcat66 wrote:

Chicken George wrote:

i think this years team will want to play again, whereas I think last years cashed in their chips mentally after the Akron loss.

I have been saying it over and over again but I really don't understand all the hate the 2012-13 team has gotten.

Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003

Chicken George
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 765

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 12:17:35 PM

I think you should direct your displeasure to last years remaining roster holdovers who have dropped more than a couple hints this season during interviews that last years lockerroom wasn't all that healthy. That's the team speaking, not the fans. Then the subtle hints from those much closer to the team than I am that last year wasn't as pleasant as it appeared to the casual fan and that this years team was much more cohesive. You're awful sensitive to what appeared a non-threatening assumption that I still think is true, though with no grounds to base it on,--- that last years team was likely less motivated to play in the NIT (or anything other than the NCAA tourney) than this years team will be for the opportunity to extend their seasons.

As for me, my hunch was that after having experienced the Sweet 16, playing at Denver after a heartbreaking loss to Akron wasn't all that intriguing to our seniors. Maybe I was wrong, but it seems like human nature.

colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,548

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 1:04:29 PM

Chicken George wrote:

Hey, I'm not saying that last years team didn't have issues. That's something else to talk about and it has been elsewhere.
I'm just talking about the last game. I just think that you don't have to put down someone to build up somebody else. They did not "cash in their chips" before that game, they played pretty well, well enough to have won but for 2 chip shot misses. I just get tired of the same old negative stuff about that game. Were they disappointed-absolutely but they didn't quit playing.

Last Edited: 3/15/2014 1:06:09 PM by colobobcat66

The Optimist
General User

Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,597

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 1:24:57 PM

I have agreed with Ruck that there has been a lot of unfair criticism directed towards last years team. Some of the comments about DJ's play are just stupid... His name is going in the rafters eventually and he absolutely deserves that following his career as the BEST point guard this school has EVER had.

That said, I think the thought that this year's team is better prepared mentally for a postseason tournament that isn't the big dance is completely fair. That isn't so much a knock on last year's team as it is a credit to the fight this team has shown time and time again.
This is what Walt had to say about the NIT bid:
"Not really good, to be honest, I don't really feel like playing, but somehow I'm going to find a way."

I've seen crazier things happen.

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,365

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 1:25:56 PM

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Pataskala wrote:

Unfortunately, RPI and wins aren't the main criteria for the NIT. The only real criterion is the "best available teams." It's really a matter of however they want to choose them. Butts in the seats and eyes on the tube probably mean as much as record and RPI. Last year, there wasn't a non-"power" conference team in the NIT with an RPI above 73 (I'm counting the A10 as a "power" conference). Our RPI Friday morning was 84. I think we're CBI bound.

Last year's at-large teams were (in order of RPI):
Southern Miss (25-9) -- 34 RPI
UMass (21-11) -- 55 RPI
Kentucky (21-11) -- 56 RPI
Tennessee (20-12) -- 58 RPI
Bama (21-12) -- 60 RPI
Charlotte (21-11) -- 61 RPI
Detroit (20-12) -- 64 RPI
BYU (21-11) -- 65 RPI
Baylor (18-14) -- 67 RPI
Ohio (24-9) -- 68 RPI
Denver (21-9) -- 69 RPI
Maryland (21-12) -- 72 RPI
Indiana St (18-14) -- 73 RPI
UVA (21-11) -- 74 RPI
Stanford (18-14) -- 75 RPI
Iowa (21-12) -- 78 RPI
St Joe (18-13) -- 82 RPI
Florida St (18-15) -- 84 RPI
Arizona St (21-12) -- 86 RPI
Washington (18-15) -- 86 RPI
Providence (17-14) -- 89 RPI
St. John's (16-15) -- 93 RPI

ND State was 22-9 with a 77 RPI and went to the CBI. More wins and a better RPI than seven at-large NIT teams. Weber St was 24-6 with the same RPI as St John's but wound up in the CIT. Other teams had as many or more wins and better RPIs than at-large teams in the NIT but went elsewhere. There are just no guarantees with the NIT.

This makes me so made at the seeding. How does a team with a lower record and lower RPI end up being 3 seeds higher than us and get a home game

It's the perception that they could put more butts in the seats than we could. Denver is a much larger market so they thought Denver would have a bigger crowd. The funny thing is, they only had just over 2,000 and we usually beat that handily, even on a poor night.

None of the automatic bid teams had a high seed last year; all were at-large teams. Of the top 16 seeds, 9 had a worse record AND lower RPI than we did: Denver, Maryland, UVA (which was a #1 seed), Stanford, Iowa, St Joe, Florida St, Arizona St and Providence. Yet, they got home games and we didn't. They choose and seed teams largely based who they think can turn a dollar.

I would expect this year we would get a home game in either the CBI or especially the CIT.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

The Optimist
General User

Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,597

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 1:34:36 PM

Pataskala wrote:

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Pataskala wrote:

Unfortunately, RPI and wins aren't the main criteria for the NIT. The only real criterion is the "best available teams." It's really a matter of however they want to choose them. Butts in the seats and eyes on the tube probably mean as much as record and RPI. Last year, there wasn't a non-"power" conference team in the NIT with an RPI above 73 (I'm counting the A10 as a "power" conference). Our RPI Friday morning was 84. I think we're CBI bound.

Last year's at-large teams were (in order of RPI):
Southern Miss (25-9) -- 34 RPI
UMass (21-11) -- 55 RPI
Kentucky (21-11) -- 56 RPI
Tennessee (20-12) -- 58 RPI
Bama (21-12) -- 60 RPI
Charlotte (21-11) -- 61 RPI
Detroit (20-12) -- 64 RPI
BYU (21-11) -- 65 RPI
Baylor (18-14) -- 67 RPI
Ohio (24-9) -- 68 RPI
Denver (21-9) -- 69 RPI
Maryland (21-12) -- 72 RPI
Indiana St (18-14) -- 73 RPI
UVA (21-11) -- 74 RPI
Stanford (18-14) -- 75 RPI
Iowa (21-12) -- 78 RPI
St Joe (18-13) -- 82 RPI
Florida St (18-15) -- 84 RPI
Arizona St (21-12) -- 86 RPI
Washington (18-15) -- 86 RPI
Providence (17-14) -- 89 RPI
St. John's (16-15) -- 93 RPI

ND State was 22-9 with a 77 RPI and went to the CBI. More wins and a better RPI than seven at-large NIT teams. Weber St was 24-6 with the same RPI as St John's but wound up in the CIT. Other teams had as many or more wins and better RPIs than at-large teams in the NIT but went elsewhere. There are just no guarantees with the NIT.

This makes me so made at the seeding. How does a team with a lower record and lower RPI end up being 3 seeds higher than us and get a home game

Interesting, so you are arguing that the NIT picks teams based on money. Kinda like, say, the Beef O'Brady's Bowl taking Ohio when so many felt so certain it would be Toledo.

I think the reality of the Ohio athletics dollar these days is much better than the perception.

I've seen crazier things happen.

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,365

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 1:55:08 PM

The Optimist wrote:

Pataskala wrote:

Interesting, so you are arguing that the NIT picks teams based on money. Kinda like, say, the Beef O'Brady's Bowl taking Ohio when so many felt so certain it would be Toledo.

I think the reality of the Ohio athletics dollar these days is much better than the perception.

Oh, yeah. It's not as blatant as it was when ESPN was running the show and "power" conference teams with losing records wound up in the NIT, but they need to make a buck so they pick and seed the teams in a manner that they think will do it best for them. There's little fairness about it. The NCAA tourney sort of manipulates things as well by mixing regional match-ups in the second and third round games so there are more nearby teams playing at the sites.

And I agree that Ohio does better than some might perceive. We usually don't travel well but we get decent crowds for home games. I'd bet we'd have 5,000+ for a CBI or CIT game, especially now that spring break and exams aren't an issue.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,548

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 2:28:38 PM

The Optimist wrote:

Hate to pick on individual players, but looking at the box score I don't think he scored. The rest of the team seemed to do ok.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 8:35:28 PM

Last year's team underachieved, was uninspiring for the most part, and rather mailed it in against Denver.

That was/is evident. If you believe the other way, then tell me about all the inspiring/overcoming moments of last year. Espec compared to this year, given the talent and experience of the two teams.

This isn't said with any particular vitriol. It' pretty much factual.

[My memory may be way off, but I recall a ton of matador defense against Denver....We were not happy to be there.]

colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,548

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 8:59:49 PM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Last year's team underachieved, was uninspiring for the most part, and rather mailed it in against Denver.

That was/is evident. If you believe the other way, then tell me about all the inspiring/overcoming moments of last year. Espec compared to this year, given the talent and experience of the two teams.

This isn't said with any particular vitriol. It' pretty much factual.

[My memory may be way off, but I recall a ton of matador defense against Denver....We were not happy to be there.]

You may be right about last years team on many ways, the Denver game you're nuts. By the way that 14-2 conference record just proves your point I guess.

[/QUOTE]

Last Edited: 3/15/2014 9:06:24 PM by colobobcat66

Andrew Ruck
General User

Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 5,225

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/15/2014 10:35:59 PM

We were 14-2 and made the conference championship after a coaching change. We finished 24-9 overall, with 7 of those losses against top 100 teams. The regular season was very similar to the 11-12 season.

Denver had an RPI of 69, exactly one behind Ohio. They had won 16 of their last 17 games and were very tough at home. We were rushed onto a plane to fly across the country. We lost by 3 points, and the game was tied and we had the ball with 20 seconds left. You are a fool if you think the team quit on that game. I'll give some doubt on Walt given his comments and performance, but I think he earned our trust and respect after his time here to look past his comments immediately following a very disappointing MAC championship.

And as for the comments from players about this team being more cohesive and together than last year, I don't necessarily think that is a damning statement on the departed. This group gelled more, it doesn't mean the players weren't all in last year.

Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003

UpSan Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,812

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/16/2014 2:23:09 PM

Various sources on Twitter project the Bobcats to be among the first teams left out of the NIT. I honestly didn't think they'd get that much thought. Toledo will be in and I'd bet one other MAC team, probably Akron.

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,554

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/16/2014 3:34:14 PM

There are a lot of auto-bids heading to the NIT, so few at-larges will be given out. Can't see the MAC getting two.

"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

UpSan Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,812

Status: Offline

RE: NIT Bracketology

Posted: 3/16/2014 3:53:16 PM

JSF wrote:

There are a lot of auto-bids heading to the NIT, so few at-larges will be given out. Can't see the MAC getting two.

That may be. The RPIs are pretty favorable for MAC teams this year, but that probably is pretty far down on the list of selection criteria for the NIT.

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 46 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics

There are 260 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

259 Guests
1 Registered User:
	BobcatCrew

There are no other users looking at this page.