My Summit Observations 1st Half

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

How bout this......Attendance has nothing to do in terms of getting an at large bid....BUT if we consistantly beat high ranked teams our attendance will increase. We get an at large bid as a result of the quality wins. Increased attendance was just a byproduct of winning. We might need an Econ major to step in.

Agree. I at first thought Nidoros was off the deep end with the attendance and at-large comment. But, if you think about it, the attendance, getting good players, and winning (which is ultimately what gets us an at-large) can all be related. You can have any without the other but there is no question they can have an impact on each other as well.

[Nidaros]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

I actually think Nidaros has a valid point here you just have to read a bit deeper into it. IMO the only way we would reach those attendance numbers is by beating high ranking OOC teams. Winning SL games will not get any team an at large bid. Winning games against prominent power conference teams will boost attendance and the chance of an at large bid.

Thank you. I am sure the coaching staff at SDSU would also agree with me. They are not expecting a at large if they are one and done at the SL tourney or lose in the finals. If we win the SL tourney we are in but anything else in terms of NCAA play is out of the question, until we tromp U of Minn again and maybe win other B10 and B12 games. The TCU win is a start. I hope some how we get another crack at Baylor but not in the big dance.

[goon]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

Agree. I at first thought Nidoros was off the deep end with the attendance and at-large comment. But, if you think about it, the attendance, getting good players, and winning (which is ultimately what gets us an at-large) can all be related. You can have any without the other but there is no question they can have an impact on each other as well.

Maybe I would put it this way.
Winning = better attendance
Winning = at large bid
But better attendance does not = at large bid. But they are all related. You could say better recruits in the equation well.

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

I am having a hard time seeing how attendance = at large bid? I thought beating good(top 50) and ranked teams = at large bid. But I hated math, and I think my College math teacher who looked strikingly like Tom Arnold new it too, thats why he called on my every day in class.......ugh hated that.

Did you have a grammar teacher, Goon? "Tom Arnold new or Tom Arnold KNEW?" Of course, i dont give a rats a$$ just giving you $hit.

[goon]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

Did you have a grammar teacher, Goon? "Tom Arnold new or Tom Arnold KNEW?" Of course, i dont give a rats a$$ just giving you $hit.

I just blame it on I'm am using my cell phone.

[slosho]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

I just blame it on I'm am using my cell phone.

Use chrome turn on the grammar and spelling option. it will highlight what is wrong.

[Nidaros]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

Maybe I would put it this way.
Winning = better attendance
Winning = at large bid
But better attendance does not = at large bid. But they are all related. You could say better recruits in the equation well.

Maybe I started a chicken/egg: which came first argument. The transition years come to mind and the 40 point drubbing by SW Minn in Brookings have not been forgotten. Attendance went south. Why? Because we were D1, but very much a minnow in the ocean. Ten years later, we made progress and have improved attendance. The improvement is not worthy of at large bid yet. We have to improve our OOC schedule improve recruiting and find better players than Mike Daum, Deonande Parks and George Marshall. Those players have given much, but are they talented enough to defeat any Power 5 team? So we got to get to a higher level and reaching this level will improve the attendance.

[bulldogs53]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

Don't know why we're spending this much time talking about an at large bid. This conversation would probably make more sense if we had not been hit with the amount of key injuries this year. At least we would have a better picture of what we could have accomplished at full strength.

Instead we should discuss will we get an NIT bid if we don't win the conference and don't advance to the dance. Are we at that level? I'm specifically speaking about SDSU. I ask because the conference winner advances to the NIT if they don't win the SL tourney.

So the question is; if someone other than the conference winner advances to the big dance and it's not us, have we played ourselves into an NIT invite if we don't win the SL conference or tourney? Which means will they invite two SL teams! I hope this makes sense?

[filbert]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

Don't know why we're spending this much time talking about an at large bid.

Cabin fever?

[Southeast]

Re: My Summit Observations 1st Half

Don't know why we're spending this much time talking about an at large bid. This conversation would probably make more sense if we had not been hit with the amount of key injuries this year. At least we would have a better picture of what we could have accomplished at full strength.

Instead we should discuss will we get an NIT bid if we don't win the conference and don't advance to the dance. Are we at that level? I'm specifically speaking about SDSU. I ask because the conference winner advances to the NIT if they don't win the SL tourney.

So the question is; if someone other than the conference winner advances to the big dance and it's not us, have we played ourselves into an NIT invite if we don't win the SL conference or tourney? Which means will they invite two SL teams! I hope this makes sense?

Losing both the regular season title and the tournament title would mean at least two more losses. Unless those are both to a FW team that runs the table, I don't know that the NIT selection committee would pick us over a P5 school. Obviously, at this point, we have a solid resume.

It's nice to see our standing improve so much over a 2-day period in which we did not even have a game. IUPUI now joins NDSU in the "very unlikely to finish in the top-2" camp. That leaves FW, SDSU and Omaha (who still has to go to both IUPUI and FW). The Jacks are looking really good if they can avoid a stumble.

USD, on the other hand, oh my. There's a very real chance they could face the major embarrassment of missing out on the tourney. They were down by nearly 20 points for much of last night's game. That should not happen on your home floor. They definitely are looking like the 9th place team right now. The question is whether or not WIU and ORU are going to get a couple more wins.