Seattle U will head to CBI or CIT as announced by Jim Hayford tonight. Assuming it's the CBI, that will he the fourth time in five years for SU.

That ties the Redhawks with Oregon State and Vermont for second-most appearances all time, first is Wyoming with 5. They've hosted every year so expect the same again. Even when they had a losing record.

So we have (assuming #1 seed NMSU wins Tournament):

NMSU - NCAA or NIT if they lose

UVU - has outside shot at NIT, likely will be CBI/CIT I'm

GCU - CBI/CIT, could they decline?

RGV - CBI/CIT is a lock I'd think

CSUB - CBI/CIT likely offered but with how season ended going what, 1-8 vs WAC? Plus Durham kicked off team? Wouldn't shock me at all if they call it a year.

SU - confirmed CBI/CIT

UMKC - None. Has talent to have made CBI/CIT, but brutal 1-7 start to season killed their record.

CSU - None

CBU - CBI/CIT confirmed

Can we stop bailing out the mighty 11 win UMKC team. 5-10 in non conference and 6-11 in the WAC. This can't be all coaching or officiating....

UMKC non-con strength of schedule was 118 and their Kenpom luck was 297. Luck is pretty much coaching and officiating as everything else besides randomness is in the model.

Utah Valley Luck was 53 and New Mexico St is 38.

Grand Canyon's luck is 317 and that's why I still see them making it to the final.

Since 2015, UMKC's luck has only broken the top 200 once and that was year we made the post season and had a winning record. It is a very important stat.

(03-15-2019 12:36 PM)RoosHouse Wrote:  Since 2015, UMKC's luck has only broken the top 200 once and that was year we made the post season and had a winning record. It is a very important stat.

The luck factor that KenPom puts out could be viewed in two ways. Often a low luck factor (like NMSU's 38) can also be seen as a team that has a winning attitude and knows how to pull games out at the end. Personally, this is what the Aggies have that GCU lacks. Somehow, someway the Aggies find a way to win very close games while GCU has found a way to lose them. Is it coaching? Perhaps. Is it bias by the refs? I doubt it. Is it universal karma? I hope not! Most of all I think it is that intangible winning attitude that needs to be developed within a program. The Aggies expect to win the WAC each and every year, while the rest of the WAC just hopes they can get 'lucky'.

(03-15-2019 01:37 PM)ProfScott Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 12:36 PM)RoosHouse Wrote:  Since 2015, UMKC's luck has only broken the top 200 once and that was year we made the post season and had a winning record. It is a very important stat.

The luck factor that KenPom puts out could be viewed in two ways. Often a low luck factor (like NMSU's 38) can also be seen as a team that has a winning attitude and knows how to pull games out at the end. Personally, this is what the Aggies have that GCU lacks. Somehow, someway the Aggies find a way to win very close games while GCU has found a way to lose them. Is it coaching? Perhaps. Is it bias by the refs? I doubt it. Is it universal karma? I hope not! Most of all I think it is that intangible winning attitude that needs to be developed within a program. The Aggies expect to win the WAC each and every year, while the rest of the WAC just hopes they can get 'lucky'.

I am so grateful we have been lucky, lo these many years...

(03-15-2019 04:28 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 01:37 PM)ProfScott Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 12:36 PM)RoosHouse Wrote:  Since 2015, UMKC's luck has only broken the top 200 once and that was year we made the post season and had a winning record. It is a very important stat.

The luck factor that KenPom puts out could be viewed in two ways. Often a low luck factor (like NMSU's 38) can also be seen as a team that has a winning attitude and knows how to pull games out at the end. Personally, this is what the Aggies have that GCU lacks. Somehow, someway the Aggies find a way to win very close games while GCU has found a way to lose them. Is it coaching? Perhaps. Is it bias by the refs? I doubt it. Is it universal karma? I hope not! Most of all I think it is that intangible winning attitude that needs to be developed within a program. The Aggies expect to win the WAC each and every year, while the rest of the WAC just hopes they can get 'lucky'.

I am so grateful we have been lucky, lo these many years...

Luck favors the prepared, and it would be hard to argue that the Aggies are not at least equally if not more prepared than their opponent on most nights. Add that to the poise that comes with having been there/done that in a program that consistently wins and there you have the Aggies. KenPom's metrics and rankings make for good fodder, but NMSU didn't get to where they are by luck or accident. I think all posters here can agree about that (except maybe one, who would blame it on the refs).

New Mexico St doesn't always have top luck, but they are never below 200. UMKC is always below 200. UMKC was 0-9 in the Pacific Time Zone and 11-12 everywhere else. Same coach.

New Mexico St's biggest statistic oddity is they have only lost 1 tournament game since 2013 although they usually around -300 betting odds to win. Implying they should lose 1 every 3 years instead of 1 every 8. That is the luck factor. It is not explained, but sample is small.

Also the WAC should definitely be having a 5, 6, 7, or 8 win a game almost every year and its very odd that has not happened.

There is simply no parity in this league.

(03-15-2019 05:12 PM)RoosHouse Wrote:  New Mexico St doesn't always have top luck, but they are never below 200. UMKC is always below 200. UMKC was 0-9 in the Pacific Time Zone and 11-12 everywhere else. Same coach.

New Mexico St's biggest statistic oddity is they have only lost 1 tournament game since 2013 although they usually around -300 betting odds to win. Implying they should lose 1 every 3 years instead of 1 every 8. That is the luck factor. It is not explained, but sample is small.

Also the WAC should definitely be having a 5, 6, 7, or 8 win a game almost every year and its very odd that has not happened.

There is simply no parity in this league.

There is more parity this year than most season to this point. Didn't UMKC hang with UVU two days ago until the end? 11 win team hanging with a 24 win team...

Can we stop talking about UMKC? More fans here on the WAC board talk about them than actual people in Kansas City.

Let’s talk about invites only and not refs.

(03-16-2019 03:13 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 05:12 PM)RoosHouse Wrote:  New Mexico St doesn't always have top luck, but they are never below 200. UMKC is always below 200. UMKC was 0-9 in the Pacific Time Zone and 11-12 everywhere else. Same coach.

New Mexico St's biggest statistic oddity is they have only lost 1 tournament game since 2013 although they usually around -300 betting odds to win. Implying they should lose 1 every 3 years instead of 1 every 8. That is the luck factor. It is not explained, but sample is small.

Also the WAC should definitely be having a 5, 6, 7, or 8 win a game almost every year and its very odd that has not happened.

There is simply no parity in this league.

There is more parity this year than most season to this point. Didn't UMKC hang with UVU two days ago until the end? 11 win team hanging with a 24 win team...

Since 2015, no 6 seed or lower has won a tournament game. 2016 the only time a 5 seed won. GCU and NMSU have a lot more money invested in sports than other schools. We will see UMKC and Seattle have the capability to expand budget if they want to. Don't see how its not NMSU vs GCU every year going forward.

(03-16-2019 03:18 PM)RoosHouse Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 03:13 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 05:12 PM)RoosHouse Wrote:  New Mexico St doesn't always have top luck, but they are never below 200. UMKC is always below 200. UMKC was 0-9 in the Pacific Time Zone and 11-12 everywhere else. Same coach.

New Mexico St's biggest statistic oddity is they have only lost 1 tournament game since 2013 although they usually around -300 betting odds to win. Implying they should lose 1 every 3 years instead of 1 every 8. That is the luck factor. It is not explained, but sample is small.

Also the WAC should definitely be having a 5, 6, 7, or 8 win a game almost every year and its very odd that has not happened.

There is simply no parity in this league.

There is more parity this year than most season to this point. Didn't UMKC hang with UVU two days ago until the end? 11 win team hanging with a 24 win team...

Since 2015, no 6 seed or lower has won a tournament game. 2016 the only time a 5 seed won. GCU and NMSU have a lot more money invested in sports than other schools. We will see UMKC and Seattle have the capability to expand budget if they want to. Don't see how its not NMSU vs GCU every year going forward.

Seattle puts more funds into basketball than NMSU. Also in a 8 team and before this year 7 team tournament where the bottom teams have been very bad UMKC included in this, why would there be any expectation for a team ranking 235 in KenPom beating a KenPom team that is 92 in the ranking?

(03-15-2019 04:05 AM)SeattleVandals Wrote:  Seattle U will head to CBI or CIT as announced by Jim Hayford tonight. Assuming it's the CBI, that will he the fourth time in five years for SU.

That ties the Redhawks with Oregon State and Vermont for second-most appearances all time, first is Wyoming with 5. They've hosted every year so expect the same again. Even when they had a losing record.

So we have (assuming #1 seed NMSU wins Tournament):

NMSU - NCAA or NIT if they lose

UVU - has outside shot at NIT, likely will be CBI/CIT I'm

GCU - CBI/CIT, could they decline?

RGV - CBI/CIT is a lock I'd think

CSUB - CBI/CIT likely offered but with how season ended going what, 1-8 vs WAC? Plus Durham kicked off team? Wouldn't shock me at all if they call it a year.

SU - confirmed CBI/CIT

UMKC - None. Has talent to have made CBI/CIT, but brutal 1-7 start to season killed their record.

CSU - None

CBU - CBI/CIT confirmed

Look, I love supporting my school, but. . . .this baffles me! I know they CAN compete, but they have shown so much inconsistency this year in particular. IMO, they SHOULD call it a year.

Sitting on a toilet somewhere and interacting with you.

CBI

Grand Canyon at West Virginia
Cal St Northridge at Utah Valley
Loyola Marymount at Cal Baptist

(03-17-2019 08:41 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  CBI

Grand Canyon at West Virginia
Cal St Northridge at Utah Valley
Loyola Marymount at Cal Baptist

CIT - Grambling St. @ UT-Rio Grande Valley
CIT - Cal State Bakersfield ???

(03-17-2019 10:50 PM)desertscholar974 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:41 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  CBI

Grand Canyon at West Virginia
Cal St Northridge at Utah Valley
Loyola Marymount at Cal Baptist

CIT - Grambling St. @ UT-Rio Grande Valley
CIT - Cal State Bakersfield ???

Coach Hayford also said Seattle U will also be in the post-season. We know it isn't CBI, so unless the Vegas16 started up again, RedHawks should also be in the CIT field. 7 of 9 WAC schools still playing ball.

Seattle U will host Presbyterian in CIT round one. 18-15 Blue Hose.

4th post season in 5 years for SU. I do know they were only going to accept postseason bid with 17 wins minimum

Seattle U turned down the CBI because of requirement to play 13-20 CS Northridge. Ironically who UVU plays. Team reportedly wanted to play actual postseason-worthy opponents in postseason, not sub-500 teams.

UVU should be able to beat 13-20 Northridge. They got spanked by 35 by NMSU.

(03-18-2019 02:50 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  UVU should be able to beat 13-20 Northridge. They got spanked by 35 by NMSU.

UVU should be able to easily handle any team that NMSU beat by 30+. Oh, wait...