Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: buffalo is for real
Page: 7 of 9
mail
OUVan
1/27/2019 6:36 PM
bobcat 2000 wrote:expand_more
impressive that jay bilas would see buffalo as a final four contender. yes buffalo is a solid team this year but not final four level. duke Kentucky, north Carolina,kansas,michigan, Michigan state, virginia Gonzaga and tennesee all have too much horsepower for buffalo to beat. one of those teams will appear in buffalo,s bracket and their season will end with a blowout loss in that game.
And we had no way to hang with UNC in 2012. I mean how could they ever hope to compete with, say, Virginia? Maybe ask UMBC. Or maybe ask Syracuse how they hung with Duke and beat them in Cameron. Something Cuse couldn't accomplish against Buffalo...at home.
mail
100%Cat
1/28/2019 2:53 PM
Stayed in the top 20 (one poll has them 17, one has them 18) after the road loss. Color me shocked. I figured they'd be in the 22-24 range after the NIU loss.
mail
person
bobcat 2000
1/31/2019 6:49 PM
iv,e wondered about myself? does anyone know if either gary trent or diante flenoral were a mcdonalds all American.?
mail
RSBobcat
2/1/2019 12:06 AM
bobcat 2000 wrote:expand_more
iv,e wondered about myself?
Others have also wondered about you.....
mail
person
BobcatSports
2/1/2019 10:13 PM
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
mail
FearLeon
2/1/2019 10:16 PM
BobcatSports wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
mail
person
OhioBobcat
2/1/2019 10:23 PM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I totally disagree. The at-large bid is far from over for them (if needed) because of how much better the MAC is doing collectively and how its rated this year. They can absorb a couple more and still be in line for a bid if needed. While it would be the best thing for the MAC, I still have them pegged to win the MAC Tournament and then unfortunately the MAC would get just one team in yet again.
mail
OhioCatFan
2/1/2019 10:45 PM
I agree, the two-bid possibility is far from dead this year. Top to bottom this is the strongest MAC in many a moon. BG looks very good as does Toledo. OHIO unfortunately will probably have to settle for the roll of spoiler.

I watched the BG-UB game. It was a very good game. And, both teams looked well-coached and with very good athletes.
mail
100%Cat
2/4/2019 9:44 AM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I agree 1000%. MAC tourney winner is in. As for the rest: none shall pass.
mail
OUcats82
2/4/2019 10:04 AM
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I agree 1000%. MAC tourney winner is in. As for the rest: none shall pass.
I'd like to disagree with you here, but I think the committee is all too quick to cast aside any mid-major who "doesn't pass the eye test" or whatever other rhetoric they like to throw out. Bulls cannot lose again until the MACC finals IMHO to have a legit shot at an at large.
mail
OU_Country
2/4/2019 10:04 AM
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I agree 1000%. MAC tourney winner is in. As for the rest: none shall pass.
Disagree - IF and only if, UB manages to run out the string all the way to Saturday night in Cleveland without another loss. Frankly, that's sad to me. There is more than one good team at the top of the MAC good enough to beat mid pack or worse P6 teams on a neutral floor. Not just UB, but also BG, Toledo, and Kent.
Last Edited: 2/4/2019 10:04:51 AM by OU_Country
mail
FearLeon
2/4/2019 12:08 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I agree 1000%. MAC tourney winner is in. As for the rest: none shall pass.
Disagree - IF and only if, UB manages to run out the string all the way to Saturday night in Cleveland without another loss. Frankly, that's sad to me. There is more than one good team at the top of the MAC good enough to beat mid pack or worse P6 teams on a neutral floor. Not just UB, but also BG, Toledo, and Kent.
Fair or not...I think one more regular season loss makes this very dicey for UB to get an at-large. 13-3 and man...you think it would be good enough...but who knows. 12-4 regular season and the Bulls are going to have to win the tournament to get into the dance in my opinion. I just don't trust the committee to do the right thing. UB needs to go 8-1 in second half of MAC to really not sweat selection Sunday.
Last Edited: 2/4/2019 12:10:14 PM by FearLeon
mail
OU_Country
2/4/2019 12:14 PM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I agree 1000%. MAC tourney winner is in. As for the rest: none shall pass.
Disagree - IF and only if, UB manages to run out the string all the way to Saturday night in Cleveland without another loss. Frankly, that's sad to me. There is more than one good team at the top of the MAC good enough to beat mid pack or worse P6 teams on a neutral floor. Not just UB, but also BG, Toledo, and Kent.
Fair or not...I think one more regular season loss makes this very dicey for UB to get an at-large. 12-4 regular season and the Bulls are going to have to win the tournament in my opinion. I just don't trust the committee to do the right thing. UB needs to go 8-1 in second half of MAC....at worst.
Two things - first, they can't be 12-4 because we play 18 games in the MAC. Second, like I said in the post about the NET, it's gonna be really interesting if the selection committee leaves out any team that's sitting in the op 35 of it's own proprietary, yet public shared weekly metric. Buffalo is one, but there's also Wofford, Lipscomb, Utah State who are all very much like the Monmouth team that got screwed over a few years ago.

To me, they almost have to make any mid-major that's in the top 35 an at-large, or it completely discredits their entire weekly release of the NET ranking. That said, I have little faith in the selection committee and the NCAA to do the right things, so I tend to agree with your line of thinking.
mail
person
OhioBobcat
2/4/2019 12:18 PM
BobcatSports wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
Nope. They stayed in at #23 of the new AP poll.
mail
100%Cat
2/4/2019 1:24 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I agree 1000%. MAC tourney winner is in. As for the rest: none shall pass.
Disagree - IF and only if, UB manages to run out the string all the way to Saturday night in Cleveland without another loss. Frankly, that's sad to me. There is more than one good team at the top of the MAC good enough to beat mid pack or worse P6 teams on a neutral floor. Not just UB, but also BG, Toledo, and Kent.
I absolutely did not mean they weren't deserving of a potential at-large, just that they won't get one if they don't win in Cleveland. I agree that it's sad to think they wouldn't but the only sure thing for a MAC team who just lost to NIU and BG is "win and you're in."
mail
FearLeon
2/4/2019 1:44 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
BG 92 - Bulls 88. Say good-bye to Top 25 ranking.
And say goodbye to at-large bid as well. Have to win it all in Cleveland now.
I agree 1000%. MAC tourney winner is in. As for the rest: none shall pass.
Disagree - IF and only if, UB manages to run out the string all the way to Saturday night in Cleveland without another loss. Frankly, that's sad to me. There is more than one good team at the top of the MAC good enough to beat mid pack or worse P6 teams on a neutral floor. Not just UB, but also BG, Toledo, and Kent.
Fair or not...I think one more regular season loss makes this very dicey for UB to get an at-large. 12-4 regular season and the Bulls are going to have to win the tournament in my opinion. I just don't trust the committee to do the right thing. UB needs to go 8-1 in second half of MAC....at worst.
Two things - first, they can't be 12-4 because we play 18 games in the MAC. Second, like I said in the post about the NET, it's gonna be really interesting if the selection committee leaves out any team that's sitting in the op 35 of it's own proprietary, yet public shared weekly metric. Buffalo is one, but there's also Wofford, Lipscomb, Utah State who are all very much like the Monmouth team that got screwed over a few years ago.

To me, they almost have to make any mid-major that's in the top 35 an at-large, or it completely discredits their entire weekly release of the NET ranking. That said, I have little faith in the selection committee and the NCAA to do the right things, so I tend to agree with your line of thinking.
My bad....good catch...that is me wishing the league only played 16 conference games. I meant...14-4 I say is still dicey.....13-5 and they are sweating out selection Sunday.
mail
Ted Thompson
2/4/2019 5:55 PM

 

mail
person
OhioBobcat
2/5/2019 8:23 AM
Despite some thinking the loss to BG was crippling, Buffalo stayed in BOTH Top-25 polls. The voters clearly reorganize the body of work for UB and that BG is a decent team.
mail
person
allen
2/5/2019 8:57 AM
The MAC is beating each other up, Toledo, BG and Kent are all top 50-100 teams
mail
FearLeon
2/5/2019 9:58 AM
OhioBobcat wrote:expand_more
Despite some thinking the loss to BG was crippling, Buffalo stayed in BOTH Top-25 polls. The voters clearly reorganize the body of work for UB and that BG is a decent team.
Surprised UB stayed in the polls, but I don't think 13-5 MAC regular season and a loss in championship game gets an at-large. That would be 7 losses on the resume. Hope I'm dead wrong. Would love to see two MAC schools in the dance.
mail
OU_Country
2/5/2019 10:33 AM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
Despite some thinking the loss to BG was crippling, Buffalo stayed in BOTH Top-25 polls. The voters clearly reorganize the body of work for UB and that BG is a decent team.
Surprised UB stayed in the polls, but I don't think 13-5 MAC regular season and a loss in championship game gets an at-large. That would be 7 losses on the resume. Hope I'm dead wrong. Would love to see two MAC schools in the dance.
13-5 won't get it done, you're right, but if you look at that schedule, there aren't 3 more losses on there. So 16-2, or 15-3, get to Saturday in Cleveland really ought to get it done. MAC is the 9th ranked conference according to NET right now as well, which helps their cause assuming they take care of business for the most part.


http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2019/conferencenet
mail
UpSan Bobcat
2/5/2019 5:56 PM
Joe Lunardi has Buffalo has a No. 6 seed right now, even with the two MAC losses. They're a long way yet from having anything to worry about. Bowling Green, as the MAC leader, is in the tournament as a No. 14 seed.
mail
OhioCatFan
2/5/2019 6:12 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Joe Lunardi has Buffalo has a No. 6 seed right now, even with the two MAC losses. They're a long way yet from having anything to worry about. Bowling Green, as the MAC leader, is in the tournament as a No. 14 seed.
How could this possibly be true? All the intelligentsia of BA have told us that UB is toast, or nearly so, as an at-large seed if they lose one or two more games. They also said UB would drop out of the top 25 after two MAC loses. Now, Joe Lunardi is projecting that BG might get in even if UB wins the MAC tournament. Say it ain't so, Joe! You can't possible know more than us BAers. We are after all a one-bid league (except maybe when we are not)!
mail
FearLeon
2/5/2019 6:15 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Joe Lunardi has Buffalo has a No. 6 seed right now, even with the two MAC losses. They're a long way yet from having anything to worry about. Bowling Green, as the MAC leader, is in the tournament as a No. 14 seed.
How could this possibly be true? All the intelligentsia of BA have told us that UB is toast, or nearly so, as an at-large seed if they lose one or two more games. They also said UB would drop out of the top 25 after two MAC loses. Now, Joe Lunardi is projecting that BG might get in even if UB wins the MAC tournament. Say it ain't so, Joe! You can't possible know more than us BAers. We are after all a one-bid league (except maybe when we are not)!
I agree...UB deserves to be in as long as it doesn't choke these last 9 games and go 6-3 down the stretch. However, bottom line, I just don't trust the committee. The Trent team being left out after winning Preseason NIT is still criminal.
Last Edited: 2/5/2019 6:16:23 PM by FearLeon
mail
OhioCatFan
2/5/2019 6:26 PM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
Joe Lunardi has Buffalo has a No. 6 seed right now, even with the two MAC losses. They're a long way yet from having anything to worry about. Bowling Green, as the MAC leader, is in the tournament as a No. 14 seed.
How could this possibly be true? All the intelligentsia of BA have told us that UB is toast, or nearly so, as an at-large seed if they lose one or two more games. They also said UB would drop out of the top 25 after two MAC loses. Now, Joe Lunardi is projecting that BG might get in even if UB wins the MAC tournament. Say it ain't so, Joe! You can't possible know more than us BAers. We are after all a one-bid league (except maybe when we are not)!
I agree...UB deserves to be in as long as it doesn't choke these last 9 games and go 6-3 down the stretch. However, bottom line, I just don't trust the committee. The Trent team being left out after winning Preseason NIT is still criminal.
I agree that there were lots of unethical selections by the committee in the past that screwed the MAC. It seems with the NET ratings and some other factors that things may be different this year. In part, Buffalo is picking up the entire league, and also the league seems better this year -- top to almost bottom -- than it has been in many a moon. I just sense that the playing field is a little different this year. I recall during the BG-UB game that the announcers were discussing how the guys like Lunardi and committee members would be watching that game to evaluate both teams. I can't recall that kind of talk about a MAC game in a long while.
Showing Messages: 151 - 175 of 223
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)