2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

The higher bid.

Whos going to be the higher bidder.

[jackmd]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Whos going to be the higher bidder.

Touche

[SteelSD]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Wow, UNI gets an at large as a 10 seed.

[OldHare]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Wow, UNI gets an at large as a 10 seed.

That is a big surprise. How the at large is determined must require complex formulas.

[SanDakotaState]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

SDSU was listed in the first four out according to the committee. That loss at Omaha might have been the difference.

[UWMandSDSU]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

SDSU was listed in the first four out according to the committee. That loss at Omaha might have been the difference.

Yep a banked in three (and not making Summit League Finals). When those two and likely get the nod.

[OldHare]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Or the emphasis for next year is #WinSLT after #WinSLConference.

[JACKGUYII]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

That 53 point loss to Louisville didn't help. That should never happen regardless who is out of the lineup.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

That 53 point loss to Louisville didn't help. That should never happen regardless who is out of the lineup.

This. We didn't have a marquee win in my mind. Lost to Louisville, Oklahoma, and Green Bay and none of them were all that close. Couple that with the loss to Omaha and the fact we failed to make the conference tourney final and our goose was cooked.

The margin for error for a mid-major is razor thin.

[SteelSD]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

I suspect in really bad to do with how we were trending at the end of the season taking 3 losses in our last 5 games. Think the committee likes conference champs and teams trending strong for at large bids.

[bigticket1]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

If losing big to Louisville hurt us, UNI losing 88-39 to Iowa, who didn't even make the tournament, should have killed them

[OldHare]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

If losing big to Louisville hurt us, UNI losing 88-39 to Iowa, who didn't even make the tournament, should have killed them

Or it might be one more year before the Summit sends 2 teams to the Big Dance! The RPI goal post is moved and now there will be other criteria involved.

[SanDakotaState]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

IF the womens NCAA Tournament was a 68 field like the men, SDSU would have been in and played a play-in game.

Honestly I don't think the Jacks would have pulled off an upset this year without Miller. She is a huge game changer and a scoring guard who you have to respect from the 3 point line. No disrespect to Alexander. She did a tremendous job filling in for her.

[Southeast]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

It's good to see we at least got "official" recognition. We had a couple of wins that turned out to be really nice but did not get that signature victory. Green Bay and Oklahoma were the opportunities. AJ and company (again) need credit for putting together a great schedule that was full of tournament teams. Our top-40 RPI shows how that pays off.

Whatever the case, I agree that are ceiling is limited without Miller and am not too disappointed in a WNIT bid. Hopefully we can play at least three games and set the table for next year.

[OldHare]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Next years schedule could be stiff again if we get some return game(s). The wins that included GW, Creighton, and UNI were not too soft. The Iowa tourney on the road was a good win. I do not know the return schedule for the OU and Louisville games, but they will likely pick up a good opponent in Puerto Rico. If the RPI has any influence, there should not be any drop off next year. The Jackrabbit WBB is not done for this year either.