Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum

Around the MAC


Jeseph

Recommended Posts

We were better than most MAC championship winners that year and did decently out of conference (I think we beat 3-4 eventual conference champs that year) but we finished in like a 7 way tie for 2nd with 7 conference losses. Even with that being a very good year for the MAC, and our RPI being something like upper 40's there was no way the committee was going to show us any love. Even in the NIT we were made to play a play in game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

Even with them blowing the lead, UB still deserved to be an at-large team that year. I remember seeing Dick Vitale enraged that the Bulls didn't make it.

Deserved? No way. They didn't have the resume that year for an at-large at all. Had to win that game against Ohio and they blew it big time.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

Even with them blowing the lead, UB still deserved to be an at-large team that year. I remember seeing Dick Vitale enraged that the Bulls didn't make it.

 

eh. RPI is the only argument we deserved to be an at large team.  tough to make the argument we were so "snubbed" for the dance when we were only a play-in to the nit

we were an ok 23-10 overall, but only 11-7 in conference.  we had a better record than one team in the mac east (yes, that's cherry picking conference results to showcase the worst, but still).  our best ooc win was against a 20-10 niagara. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ed said:

 

eh. RPI is the only argument we deserved to be an at large team.  tough to make the argument we were so "snubbed" for the dance when we were only a play-in to the nit

we were an ok 23-10 overall, but only 11-7 in conference.  we had a better record than one team in the mac east (yes, that's cherry picking conference results to showcase the worst, but still).  our best ooc win was against a 20-10 niagara. 

 

 

 

I understand where you're all coming from but you probably don't remember UB being including on many bracketologists' final brackets in 2005. 

RPI was supposed to be a MAJOR factor back then but there were several teams with less than stellar resumes that made it in over the Bulls. I followed ESPN's bubble watch the entire year. UB was definitely in the at-large discussion.

Snub might be a strong word but here's Bull Run breakdown of it a decade later: https://www.ubbullrun.com/2014/7/24/5858016/buffalo-loses-the-2005-mac-basketball-championship-to-ohio

Edited by Big 4 Hoops Blogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

I understand where you're all coming from but you probably don't remember UB being including on many bracketologists' final brackets in 2005. 

RPI was supposed to be a MAJOR factor back then but there were several teams with less than stellar resumes that made it in over the Bulls. I followed ESPN's bubble watch the entire year. UB was definitely in the at-large discussion.

Snub might be a strong word but here's Bull Run breakdown of it a decade later: https://www.ubbullrun.com/2014/7/24/5858016/buffalo-loses-the-2005-mac-basketball-championship-to-ohio

Yes, I remember it was discussed in a lot of bracketology discussions. RPI was one factor, of many. Not the largest (strength of schedule was a larger factor). And it always comes down to the committee anyway, and buffalo didn't have a good resum. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MAC deserved 2 bids that year.  Had Miami lost in the finals they would of been the snub.  The general understanding was that if UB or MU lost in the finals, the team and the league did enough for said loser to make it.  I know, leagues don’t earn bids, teams do... blah, blah, blah.  No easy games that year.  But when almost every media outlet had you down as the biggest at large snub, you just have just been snubbed.  And then you deal with it.  Maybe I should of scrolled up first, why is this being discussed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ed said:

Yes, I remember it was discussed in a lot of bracketology discussions. RPI was one factor, of many. Not the largest (strength of schedule was a larger factor). And it always comes down to the committee anyway, and buffalo didn't have a good resum. 

I think it really still comes down to the selection committee using the criteria any way they want to snub more mid majors and get more teams from the major conferences in. I have said many times it comes down to the NCAA wanting to please the major networks that pay millions of dollars to the NCAA. You will never get anyone in authority to admit to it but the most influential power brokers rule the roost. Fairness has nothing to do with decisions when it comes to money. I think the NCAA could live with a little less money in their coffers but sadly the world’s decisions have all come down to money, money and more money. Go Bulls!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, John said:

I think it really still comes down to the selection committee using the criteria any way they want to snub more mid majors and get more teams from the major conferences in. I have said many times it comes down to the NCAA wanting to please the major networks that pay millions of dollars to the NCAA. You will never get anyone in authority to admit to it but the most influential power brokers rule the roost. Fairness has nothing to do with decisions when it comes to money. I think the NCAA could live with a little less money in their coffers but sadly the world’s decisions have all come down to money, money and more money. Go Bulls!!!!!

Never a more true video to the discussion. 

Let's talk about around the MAC this year. 

Edited by Kevin
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John said:

I think it really still comes down to the selection committee using the criteria any way they want to snub more mid majors and get more teams from the major conferences in. I have said many times it comes down to the NCAA wanting to please the major networks that pay millions of dollars to the NCAA. You will never get anyone in authority to admit to it but the most influential power brokers rule the roost. Fairness has nothing to do with decisions when it comes to money. I think the NCAA could live with a little less money in their coffers but sadly the world’s decisions have all come down to money, money and more money. Go Bulls!!!!!

i think it is stacked against mid majors - but not because of the selection committee. it's the way conferences are set up and the difficulty in scheduling ooc games.  the power conference teams simply play a lot better teams overall, have a better chance to have late season quality wins, and even in losses, show potential in a "they played #8, 12, and 24 really tough" that weaker conference teams don't. and honestly, i don't really have a problem with that in general.  i would've loved to see the 2005 bulls team go to the tournament, and felt they got snubbed, but looking back, they didn't really have much of a tournament resume. now, st. mary's, that's a team that's been snubbed.  😛

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ed said:

i think it is stacked against mid majors - but not because of the selection committee. it's the way conferences are set up and the difficulty in scheduling ooc games.  the power conference teams simply play a lot better teams overall, have a better chance to have late season quality wins, and even in losses, show potential in a "they played #8, 12, and 24 really tough" that weaker conference teams don't. and honestly, i don't really have a problem with that in general.  i would've loved to see the 2005 bulls team go to the tournament, and felt they got snubbed, but looking back, they didn't really have much of a tournament resume. now, st. mary's, that's a team that's been snubbed.  😛

Do agree it is not totally because of the selection committee. It is the NCAA”s criteria they set up for the selection committee that favors all the power 5 conferences and the bigger conferences. Life is not fair and I just have to get off this topic for my own sanity. Go Bulls!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Just now, rma said:

We’ll have people leave too. Happens every year. Wonder if Fagan will stick around. He got extremely limited minutes. 

Of Course, but you are hoping not any of your top 5 players. Fagan is the team's 11th man. losing 5 seniors, forward minutes are really up for grabs and he already used his RS, so he'd have to trade a year to play a year. I bet he stays and has an inside track to real minutes. 

Sibande and Adaway were 2 of Miami's top 4. 

Akron lost its best player in Utomi.

I mean it'd be like us losing Graves next year, it would hurt bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Of Course, but you are hoping not any of your top 5 players. Fagan is the team's 11th man. losing 5 seniors, forward minutes are really up for grabs and he already used his RS, so he'd have to trade a year to play a year. I bet he stays and has an inside track to real minutes. 

Sibande and Adaway were 2 of Miami's top 4. 

Akron lost its best player in Utomi.

I mean it'd be like us losing Graves next year, it would hurt bad. 

Fagan could go.  At some level, though, its probably really exciting to be part of a team that is successful...even if you aren't playing that much.   And, of course, there is about 130 minutes per game to replace next year on the roster, so he is going to get an opportunity to show what he can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Of Course, but you are hoping not any of your top 5 players. Fagan is the team's 11th man. losing 5 seniors, forward minutes are really up for grabs and he already used his RS, so he'd have to trade a year to play a year. I bet he stays and has an inside track to real minutes. 

Sibande and Adaway were 2 of Miami's top 4. 

Akron lost its best player in Utomi.

I mean it'd be like us losing Graves next year, it would hurt bad. 

Agree. People are hung up on this notion that Fagan will bounce. As you said he would have to give up a year just to have one left. When he can have two left here and earn his minutes when minutes are up for grabs. 

Utomi is a grad transfer so I can’t blame him there. But Sibande and Adaway are shameful. We don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes but on the surface they might be over inflating their own value. Miami has a lot of potential but not anymore if they both leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...