Favorite sons...

[gobirds85]

The valley has some history in hiring “favorite sons.” Lil jimmy les, Chris lowery and of course, Dan Muller. Two of the three did some pretty incredible things at their alma mater before getting axed.

The problem with this scenario is that it is destined to end badly. At this level of D1 a successful coach will likely be poached for a larger paycheck. This will no doubt p*ss off the fan base and paint the individual as ungrateful. On the other hand, if he doesn’t succeed he gets shown the door and a reputation is tarnished. At the power type schools they can afford to throw boatloads of $$$ at a successful coach. Not so much for the rest of us. Is it worth the risk?

 

[SgtHulka]

Southern is well on their way to joining Team Failed Favorite Son

 

[Redbird82]

Les had one lightning in a bottle season otherwise was pretty much a complete failure. Lowery won for a couple years with Painter players who already had a game plan. With his players he was a disaster, Mullins isn’t going well….

 

[BirdGrad2011]

Southern is well on their way to joining Team Failed Favorite Son

You mean reaffirming their membership? Lowery failed then a decade later they dip back into that well.

 

[cpacmel]

Greg McDermott did some really good things at his Alma mater, UNI

 

[Yogi]

A good reason not to hire any collins or powell

 

[stats]

Lowrey coached some of the best defense I have ever seen for a stretch. They made it to 3 straight NCAA tournaments under Lowrey, including a sweet 16 appearance. He was 78-26 over those 3 years. Eventually the wheels fell off and SIU was stuck with a bad contract. It appeared the players quit buying in and Lowrey became apathetic. His last 4 years they were 49-75. What a turn-around.

 

[Phantom]

Basically, the favorite son thing works (at least temporarily) pretty much elsewhere but here. We had our chances. What, 4 tourney title game appearances? Then the great year in '17 which people misconstrue as a snub. We didn't get snubbed that year. We had four bad non-con losses - our schedule wasn't stellar that year. It was OK, but not strong enough where we can afford losses to Tulsa and San Francisco and expect to be inside the bubble. On top of that, two of our losses to WSU were complete blowouts including by nearly 40 at their place. We were close in '17, but didn't do enough.

 

[stats]

We had four bad non-con losses - our schedule wasn't stellar that year. It was OK, but not strong enough where we can afford losses to Tulsa and San Francisco and expect to be inside the bubble. On top of that, two of our losses to WSU were complete blowouts including by nearly 40 at their place. We were close in '17, but didn't do enough.

The point with me is not as much how the committee snubbed ISU, but how they will ignore bad losses from teams in big conferences, but use it as a kiss of death for mid majors. They gave Wichita a #10 seed that year who almost knocked off Kentucky in the second round. As far as what you are calling a bad loss to a 20-win San Francisco team, that was in Hawaii on December 23rd (which was technically the second game ISU played that day). Another team you are calling a bad loss is Tulsa who was 18-12. ISU actually split with Tulsa that year, winning on a neutral court and losing by 2 at Tulsa. By the way, 3 days after Tulsa beat ISU by 2, Tulsa beat Oklahoma State by 10. Despite the fact that Oklahoma State had twice as many losses as ISU and a worse RPI, they chose Oklahoma State for the NCAA tournament at large bid. (Totally ignoring ISU won their conference)

I pretty much knew after the Wichita loss that ISU was not making it. I never cried or used the word snubbed. However, your definition of a bad non-conference loss and mine vary greatly. I feel pretty strongly ISU did not have 4 bad non-conference losses. I feel there is a hypocrisy on how at large bid teams are chosen and we all know it is triggered by money.

 

[gobirds85]

I believe we can agree on the fact that the big boys don't like sharing the tourney $$$ with us lil guys. It pretty much happens on a yearly basis. 2017 was a year that we should have been invited, but we made it very easy for them to exclude us. Much to our chagrin, most on the committee don't follow MVC bball as we do. We get to play bitchita st on CBS for the Valley auto bid and that might be one of the first, if not only, time members of the committee get to watch us. Not only do we get crushed, but we look like little babies by racking up stoopid technical fouls at the end of the contest. We made it easy for the committee to not drop the "save the date" announcement to us. Muller should have had a better handle on things and try to reign the team in. He didn't and we just looked like a bad, whiny, poorly coached team. I watched this game with several other Redbird fans at a BWW up in Chicagoland area and I don't think any of us thought we were getting a golden ticket after that display.

 

[ISU86]

Which school gets at an-large this year (NCAA NET)?

RK --INSTITUTION- Cnf W--L Rd. Ntl Home -1- -2- -3- -4-
37 Loyola Chicago MVC 19-6 7-2 2-2 10-2 2-2 2-3 7-1 8-0
42 North Carolina ACC 19-8 6-3 0-3 13-2 1-7 4-0 8-0 6-1

 

[gobirds85]

Which school gets at an-large this year (NCAA NET)?

RK --INSTITUTION- Cnf W--L Rd. Ntl Home -1- -2- -3- -4-
37 Loyola Chicago MVC 19-6 7-2 2-2 10-2 2-2 2-3 7-1 8-0
42 North Carolina ACC 19-8 6-3 0-3 13-2 1-7 4-0 8-0 6-1

Are you going to inject reason and facts into this discussion?

 

[Adunk33]

Which school gets at an-large this year (NCAA NET)?

RK --INSTITUTION- Cnf W--L Rd. Ntl Home -1- -2- -3- -4-
37 Loyola Chicago MVC 19-6 7-2 2-2 10-2 2-2 2-3 7-1 8-0
42 North Carolina ACC 19-8 6-3 0-3 13-2 1-7 4-0 8-0 6-1

Obvious answer is UNC....the committee looks at # Q1 games VERY favorably. I've used an example like this before. If you finish the season 25-5 and 80% of your games are against Q3/Q4, you aren't getting in over a team that went 17-13 with 10 games against Q1. Doesn't matter if they win the Q1 games or not. Just matters that they play them.

 

[DaveBird10]

Basically, the favorite son thing works (at least temporarily) pretty much elsewhere but here. We had our chances. What, 4 tourney title game appearances? Then the great year in '17 which people misconstrue as a snub. We didn't get snubbed that year. We had four bad non-con losses - our schedule wasn't stellar that year. It was OK, but not strong enough where we can afford losses to Tulsa and San Francisco and expect to be inside the bubble. On top of that, two of our losses to WSU were complete blowouts including by nearly 40 at their place. We were close in '17, but didn't do enough.

The point with me is not as much how the committee snubbed ISU, but how they will ignore bad losses from teams in big conferences, but use it as a kiss of death for mid majors. They gave Wichita a #10 seed that year who almost knocked off Kentucky in the second round. As far as what you are calling a bad loss to a 20-win San Francisco team, that was in Hawaii on December 23rd (which was technically the second game ISU played that day). Another team you are calling a bad loss is Tulsa who was 18-12. ISU actually split with Tulsa that year, winning on a neutral court and losing by 2 at Tulsa. By the way, 3 days after Tulsa beat ISU by 2, Tulsa beat Oklahoma State by 10. Despite the fact that Oklahoma State had twice as many losses as ISU and a worse RPI, they chose Oklahoma State for the NCAA tournament at large bid. (Totally ignoring ISU won their conference)

I pretty much knew after the Wichita loss that ISU was not making it. I never cried or used the word snubbed. However, your definition of a bad non-conference loss and mine vary greatly. I feel pretty strongly ISU did not have 4 bad non-conference losses. I feel there is a hypocrisy on how at large bid teams are chosen and we all know it is triggered by money.

2017 was definitely a snub. Vanderbilt was the 1st ever 15 loss team to ever get into the NCAA tournament at 19-15 and some how they got a 9 seed. Vandy was 10-8 in the SEC and compared to ISU at 17-1 in MVC. RPI were ISU 33, Vandy 38.

It was basically that the big boys didnt want another mid major in the tournament. That year forever changed how I look at the NCAA tournament. Injuries matter for Power5 teams but not to mid major teams. Couple that when Wichita State was 30-4 and got a 10 seed to play Kentucky as a 2 in the 2nd round.

 

[Phantom]

The point with me is not as much how the committee snubbed ISU, but how they will ignore bad losses from teams in big conferences, but use it as a kiss of death for mid majors. They gave Wichita a #10 seed that year who almost knocked off Kentucky in the second round. As far as what you are calling a bad loss to a 20-win San Francisco team, that was in Hawaii on December 23rd (which was technically the second game ISU played that day). Another team you are calling a bad loss is Tulsa who was 18-12. ISU actually split with Tulsa that year, winning on a neutral court and losing by 2 at Tulsa. By the way, 3 days after Tulsa beat ISU by 2, Tulsa beat Oklahoma State by 10. Despite the fact that Oklahoma State had twice as many losses as ISU and a worse RPI, they chose Oklahoma State for the NCAA tournament at large bid. (Totally ignoring ISU won their conference)

I pretty much knew after the Wichita loss that ISU was not making it. I never cried or used the word snubbed. However, your definition of a bad non-conference loss and mine vary greatly. I feel pretty strongly ISU did not have 4 bad non-conference losses. I feel there is a hypocrisy on how at large bid teams are chosen and we all know it is triggered by money.

Those weren't necessarily my definitions of bad losses. It was the narrative of why we were kept out. Admittedly, I had forgotten about Vandy getting in. P5 schools have bigger/better games by their conference affiliation alone. It's always a moving target. "Vanderbilt put up a great fight against Kentucky, but fell just short!" "Illinois State lost to Tulsa." That was the vibe. It's a bias against mid majors sucking up at-larges from P5 schools. We all know this. After all, this is what sparked DM's twitter tirade and landed us the Ole Miss game the following year. Do I think we should've gotten in? Probably. Do I understand why we didnt? Yes. Flip one of those losses and we had it. When I say we didn't do enough or that they were bad losses - it was bad in the committee's eyes. Just one too many to be used against us, that's why I've never thought we got snubbed, even thought it can easily be interpreted that way. Similar in '08 and '09 too, although if Jank had DM's schedules we probably would've gotten in both those years.

 

[gobirds85]

I know the committee will never do this, but wouldn't it make some sense to number every team in the "at large" discussion? This would allow for some objectivity, but as I post this I wouldn't believe someone wouldn't have a "cheat sheet" regarding who is who. I don't think they need a committee at all. Just have someone write a program with various metrics and have the computer decide who is more worthy. We all know that ain't going to happen.

 

[ISU86]

I know the committee will never do this, but wouldn't it make some sense to number every team in the "at large" discussion? This would allow for some objectivity, but as I post this I wouldn't believe someone wouldn't have a "cheat sheet" regarding who is who. I don't think they need a committee at all. Just have someone write a program with various metrics and have the computer decide who is more worthy. We all know that ain't going to happen.

Ya think. Wouldn't it be nice to know where every team stood at any point in time during the season?

RPI was good (enough), until it "wasn't" ... now it is NET, until it isn't.

Any program is only as good as the information that is/not provided/tracked. They can easily make any adjustment, but that takes the back-room handshake out of the equation.

 

[gobirds85]

Ya think. Wouldn't it be nice to know where every team stood at any point in time during the season?

RPI was good (enough), until it "wasn't" ... now it is NET, until it isn't.

Any program is only as good as the information that is/not provided/tracked. They can easily make any adjustment, but that takes the back-room handshake out of the equation.

It also takes out the all knowing "eye test."

 

[CaliRdBrd]

I know the committee will never do this, but wouldn't it make some sense to number every team in the "at large" discussion? This would allow for some objectivity, but as I post this I wouldn't believe someone wouldn't have a "cheat sheet" regarding who is who. I don't think they need a committee at all. Just have someone write a program with various metrics and have the computer decide who is more worthy. We all know that ain't going to happen.

Best idea yet.

 

[Adunk33]

Ya think. Wouldn't it be nice to know where every team stood at any point in time during the season?

RPI was good (enough), until it "wasn't" ... now it is NET, until it isn't.

Any program is only as good as the information that is/not provided/tracked. They can easily make any adjustment, but that takes the back-room handshake out of the equation.

Too many Mid Majors figured out how to get a better RP so the committee had to develop something to "justifiably" keep them out. As I mentioned before, the No.1 thing NET looks at is # games vs Q1. Wasn't the Birds RPI in the 30s in 2008 when they got hammered by Drake in the Championship? Still got left out.