SMU Basketball

[howethegreat]

Anyone else think they are grossly overrated? Tulsa won their regular season conference title yet SMU is ranked and going dancing

[gonzagacubs]

No, SMU won the conference. 15-3 and Tulsa went 14-4. I am a Tulsa fan, and was hoping we could have beat them last Sunday. I don't know about being overrated. Their ranking is just fine.

[bdrr]

Don't ever underestimate Larry Brown.

[DalliLlama11]

Werent they the only ranked top 25 team last year to not even make the tournament? Even so its justice then because idk how ur considering a top 25 team in the polls but not in the top 60 for a tournament.

[howethegreat]

Werent they the only ranked top 25 team last year to not even make the tournament? Even so its justice then because idk how ur considering a top 25 team in the polls but not in the top 60 for a tournament.

murray st and boise st wont make the tournament and they are top 25 too

[DalliLlama11]

murray st and boise st wont make the tournament and they are top 25 too

Stuff like that is stupid and literally makes no sense to me. No reason you are considered one of the best 25 teams in the country, but don't even get a chance. I am all for the automatic bids for conference tournaments, but then bump out a team like Texas (even though it hurts me to say and they probably wont make it anyways). But if they did, both those teams would deserve it more. Just like I don't understand how you have "play in games" for seeds of like 11 and 10 or whatever. If you have to "play" to get in, wouldn't that mean you are barely in and should be placed in as a 16 seed. I dont understand how you may not even make the tournament, but because you get an extra chance you get a higher seed than a team that made it on an automatic bid.

[Beavers98]

Welcome to March Madness.....It's not always about upsets. :)


.

[mc1]

Stuff like that is stupid and literally makes no sense to me. No reason you are considered one of the best 25 teams in the country, but don't even get a chance. I am all for the automatic bids for conference tournaments, but then bump out a team like Texas (even though it hurts me to say and they probably wont make it anyways). But if they did, both those teams would deserve it more. Just like I don't understand how you have "play in games" for seeds of like 11 and 10 or whatever. If you have to "play" to get in, wouldn't that mean you are barely in and should be placed in as a 16 seed. I dont understand how you may not even make the tournament, but because you get an extra chance you get a higher seed than a team that made it on an automatic bid.

Rankings for basketball are meaningless and mean nothing for tournament selection. The committee has their own criteria for selecting teams. They look at conference strength, OOC scheduling, road record, etc.

I also agree somewhat with you about the play-in games. The real tournament starts Thursday. The play-in games are a good idea but there is absolutely no reason why a 16 seed should have to play another 16 seed for a chance to play in the 1st rd vs a 1 seed.

[DalliLlama11]

Rankings for basketball are meaningless and mean nothing for tournament selection. The committee has their own criteria for selecting teams. They look at conference strength, OOC scheduling, road record, etc.

I also agree somewhat with you about the play-in games. The real tournament starts Thursday. The play-in games are a good idea but there is absolutely no reason why a 16 seed should have to play another 16 seed for a chance to play in the 1st rd vs a 1 seed.

I don't agree with how you say rankings are meaningless. The rankings are based on all those things, wins, wins vs who, most of the same stuff the committee uses. Now is it the end all be all, that the 2>3 or the 7>10 every single game, no. But there is a process behind the rankings. If they were meaningless, they wouldn't have them. The committee goes a little more in depth, but you cant convince me that a team that didn't win their tournament (for the automatic bid) is considered better than a team that has enough wins vs quality opponents to be in the top 25. And road record I don't think really matters considering the tournament is a neutral court, sure it's closer for some teams, but none are really home games for anyone. I think our stance on the play-in is a little different. I think that if they are doing play-ins it should be for the 16 seed. Why are they doing a play in game for 2 teams that whichever wins will be ranked 11. If they are fighting for an 11 seed, they obviously think that both teams are better than the 16 seed. A play-in basically says "show us you should be here as one of the 61-64 teams", but then you give them a seeding of a top 50 team? Its a contradiction imo.

[crazy4kinsler]

I think if you're ranked in the top 25 you should be a lock. It means you've been consistent all year whether you started the season ranked or get ranked at some point and can stay there.

I was going to start a thread about potential ranks, like top 2 seeds or 3 or whatever. What are y'all's thoughts?

[gonzagacubs]

The purpose of the play in games was to allow 2 additional bubble teams a shot at making the field of 64. They are usually seeded as 11s or 12s quite frankly because they are better teams than those who won their smaller, not nearly as competitive conferences. It makes no sense to make those teams who win the at large play in games 16 seeds and give those 15 and 16s a pass against 1 seeds.

[howethegreat]

I think if you're ranked in the top 25 you should be a lock. It means you've been consistent all year whether you started the season ranked or get ranked at some point and can stay there.

I was going to start a thread about potential ranks, like top 2 seeds or 3 or whatever. What are y'all's thoughts?

please do, theres only two threads on college bball, one on betting and another on the big 10.It would be nice to have a more general college bball thread.

[sportscardbreak]

If only Mudiay stayed......