So, which is it?

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

January 9th, 2019, 10:39 am
cajun_lannister

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbine

Since the NCAA took over the NIT they have invited exactly 1 "at large" team from the Sun Belt. Western Kentucky the very first year the NCAA took over. None since.

You have to go back to the '80s for the belt to have consistent at-large bids in the NIT. The '90s & '00s were much like it is today automatic qualifiers only so the NCAA taking over has little to do with us being held out the NIT as an At-large.
January 9th, 2019, 10:42 am
cajun_lannister

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajun_lannister

You have to go back to the '80s for the belt to have consistent at-large bids in the NIT. The '90s & '00s were much like it is today automatic qualifiers only so the NCAA taking over has little to do with us being held out the NIT as an At-large.

It does not matter anyway the team needs to have the mindset If I want to play in a postseason game, I either have to win the regular season or the tournament. Any other outcome I'm sitting at home watching games from my couch.
January 9th, 2019, 10:48 am
Hatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajun_lannister

You have to go back to the '80s for the belt to have consistent at-large bids in the NIT. The '90s & '00s were much like it is today automatic qualifiers only so the NCAA taking over has little to do with us being held out the NIT as an At-large.

Everything bid was “at large” for the NIT before 2006 when the NCAA took over. That is when the “automatic qualifier” of regular season conference champs who didn’t win the tournament was established.
January 9th, 2019, 10:53 am
cajun_lannister

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatch

Everything bid was “at large” for the NIT before 2006 when the NCAA took over. That is when the “automatic qualifier” of regular season conference champs who didn’t win the tournament was established.

I should have said 1 bid into the NIT
January 9th, 2019, 10:55 am
Turbine

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajun_lannister

You have to go back to the '80s for the belt to have consistent at-large bids in the NIT. The '90s & '00s were much like it is today automatic qualifiers only so the NCAA taking over has little to do with us being held out the NIT as an At-large.

In the online spreadsheet I saw the Sun Belt at large bids of teams that left conference are being attributed to their current conference.
January 9th, 2019, 10:59 am
Boomer

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbine

Good morning.

Some of my best memories were hanging out with you and Hammer at the Eauk.

It bothers me to this day that I irked him.

....Where is Hammer? His cousins grand son was pretty good this last year....LSU think so!
January 9th, 2019, 11:33 am
Cajunsmike

Quote:

Originally Posted by zephyr

I keep hearing you guys say this but how are you coming to that conclusion? Attendance? Because attendance is down in football across the country as well including ole mighty Alabama. Does that mean there is less interest in football in a football rich part of the country? I don't think so. I think you have streamed games as the main reason for that. We are a little void of top talent in the state right now but that comes and goes. I just don't necessarily believe there is a disinterest in basketball in general. We just fail to put a program out there that people typically want to see.

The streamed games are a factor in all sports. Perhaps there are still people watching but in a different manner. As far as our team this year, the injury to Marquetti has magnified their limitations. Just appreciate every victory they can attain.
January 9th, 2019, 12:00 pm
ULvictory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajunsmike

As far as our team this year, the injury to Marquetti has magnified their limitations. Just appreciate every victory they can attain.

There’s no doubt I’m always enjoying a nice Cajuns win. But this is where I have a problem with our basketball program’s mindset. All I’ve heard was hype when we brought in the likes of Gant, Miller, Stroman, Russell, etc.. So now that Marquetti is hurt, we should just cash it in?

I know you’ve mentioned it before, but the injury to Marquetti and the dialogue that has gone with it tells me that either our coaching staff has underachieved in either recruiting or coaching up what we already have. There’s no way that one player should affect our season that much especially if our recruiting was hyped.
January 9th, 2019, 12:44 pm
CajunJeaux

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ULvictory

But cost has to match the quality of what we are paying for. If we voluntarily pay for a product that has not complimented us with the results that we are paying for, then there's a problem. That's why there's people who didn't like Marlin's contract extension.

On the other hand, we have gotten an ROI in football with a product that overachieved last year. That's all I'm saying.

Are we getting an ROI based on our basketball standards??...we've beaten the strength of the basketball schedule horse to shreds, let's do the same for football... we finished Massey rankings at 93...we beat 124, 125, 70, 119, 121 & 97...we also lost to 105...so we beat 1 team ranked higher than us, but lost to a team worse than us (a wash there) and got throttled by P5 competition...IMO, seems identical to basketball results
January 9th, 2019, 12:49 pm
ULvictory

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CajunJeaux

Are we getting an ROI based on our basketball standards??...we've beaten the strength of the basketball schedule horse to shreds, let's do the same for football... we finished Massey rankings at 93...we beat 124, 125, 70, 119, 121 & 97...we also lost to 105...so we beat 1 team ranked higher than us, but lost to a team worse than us (a wash there) and got throttled by P5 competition...IMO, seems identical to basketball results

Football was in year one of a new regime with a program that is getting over probation and a depleted roster. And they still won the Sun Belt Western Division title and made a bowl game. The Basketball coaching staff is on year 9.

It's safe to say that football has gotten a higher ROI so far than basketball.
January 9th, 2019, 12:52 pm
cajun_lannister

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CajunJeaux

Are we getting an ROI based on our basketball standards??...we've beaten the strength of the basketball schedule horse to shreds, let's do the same for football... we finished Massey rankings at 93...we beat 124, 125, 70, 119, 121 & 97...we also lost to 105...so we beat 1 team ranked higher than us, but lost to a team worse than us (a wash there) and got throttled by P5 competition...IMO, seems identical to basketball results

See above and below
January 9th, 2019, 12:54 pm
CajunT

Re: So, which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CajunJeaux

Are we getting an ROI based on our basketball standards??...we've beaten the strength of the basketball schedule horse to shreds, let's do the same for football... we finished Massey rankings at 93...we beat 124, 125, 70, 119, 121 & 97...we also lost to 105...so we beat 1 team ranked higher than us, but lost to a team worse than us (a wash there) and got throttled by P5 competition...IMO, seems identical to basketball results

Football had a new staff in it's first year. Coach Marlin is in his 9th season, so are your expectations the same for both staff's at this time? For the record, my expectations rise with the football staff for the 2019 season in year two.

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page