ORU just lost to 11-18 Oakland on last second shot

[ShimmyJr]

sports.espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=250670198

friggin' oral roberts, more like oral deep throat...i'll be here all week

[JimmyHoya]

who are bigger no-talent [EDITED], ORU or the sorry saps who beat them?

[GIGAFAN99]

Good job mid-majors, you've whored yourself out to ESPN for "Championship Week" and now see the consequences.

The conference tourneys should have been discontinued years ago. Everyone wonders why mid-majors get no respect. Well, here's a hint: the two we played away from home went a combined 29-3 in-conference and are both headed to the NIT.

I see no reason to reward conferences with multiple bids when they consistently shoot themselves in the foot by allowing inferior teams to make the tourney. ORU and Davidson proved tourney-worthy the whole year only to lose to Kentucky/Kansas/Illinois/UNC cannon fodder on one fateful night and in ORU's case on one fateful shot. So send them if you must, but when it comes time to choose at-large bids don't cry when you're best teams aren't in.

[Fan Of The Game]

I actually think that's the beauty of the conference tournaments. From a non-Georgetown/just a fan of the game perspective, Oakland winning is what March Madness is all about.

[GIGAFAN99]

Oh man Fan, everything I say is not directed at you but I disagree with that statement more than any other one.

March Madness is not about lousy teams. Why fans like to see terrible basketball teams in the tournament is beyond me. From this fan's perspective the NCAA tournament is about all the conferences sending their best to compete for the title. I have no sympathy for Oakland and I certainly have no support for them. ORU worked their tails off all year to win 13 conference games and win 25 overall and for what? To have it all swept away by a lucky three-point bomb with one-second left. That's not "what it's all about" that's just flat-out unfair and wrong. ORU earned its bid over a season. Oakland shouldn't steal it in a weekend. And anyone who says "Well they should have won that game" is being ridiculous. You prove your worth over a season, not in one game and ORU is worthy of a bid. Oakland is terrible and will lose to Illinois by 72 points.

I want the best from each conference in. How sub-.500 teams can't make the NIT but can make the NCAAs by the "conference tourney" loophole is beyond me. So Oakland isn't good enough for the NIT but is just dandy for the NCAAs? It makes no sense and I hope it changes but I know it never will.

[Fan Of The Game]

I see your point.

My feeling is that there are different levels of success a team can achieve in the NCAA tournament. Making it in is great, winning a game, making the Sweet 16, the Final Four...they're all different levels of success. Sometimes it is all about making it there, even if you are going to get killed by Illinois.

I guess I've been on the other side too often, rooting for a Hoya team that didn't deserve to be in the NCAA tournament but still had a chance to get in because of our conference tournament.

I won't get mad at Providence or Rutgers if they make a run, reel off four wins, and get in. I'd be happy for their fans...more power to them.

[lichoya68]

you know im not sure... but certainly if the hoyas were to be miracles ...and run the table in ny ... im sure theylll love to dance.. i see the point about the lower rated conferences and tourneys winners getting to dance.... but what the heck if we win four in nyc ... then so be it.. go hoyas .. go march madness.... even if its mad sometimes!!!

[hoyatown5168]

The thing which gives the NCAA tournament its mystique is the conference tournaments, and the chance of a 12-18 team pulling off a shocker to get itself a bid. As for Oral Roberts we're not talking about a top 25 team here, and while Oakland may lose by 72, Oral Roberts would probably lose by 30. ORU got its regular season title. These smaller conferences rarely get a win in the tournament anyway. Conference tourneys are here to stay.

[GIGAFAN99]

Hooray for "mystique!" Pardon me for not getting excited about a Jim Nantz word. Oral Roberts wouldn't lose to Illinois by 30 because:

a) The wouldn't play a #1 seed
b) Beat a bubble team (us of course) by 18, Lost at Indiana by 1, and lost to bubble UAB by 7.

ORU is good and the MCC is doing itself a disservice by not sending them. "These small conferences" don't win much, you're right but why that means they shouldn't send their best and give them a shot at winning escapes me. Tell Valparaiso in 1998, they shouldn't have gone because a team with more "mystique" from the MCC could have gotten lucky in the conference tournament.

What makes the tournament great is a good team like Valparaiso winning its conference and getting a chance to string together some close wins and make the Sweet 16. Oakland's impending doom does nothing for my entertainment level.

I want to see good teams in the tournament and that means conference champions. If they want the top 2 seeds to play a title game, that's fine (maybe one team had an injury or something that can't be captured by the standings) but sending a #7 seed at 12-18 is just plain stupid.

[HoyaSox04]

Call me crazy, but I just do not see the logic in any of your arguments on why Oakland should not be in the tournament. It just makes absolutely no sense.

Tournament time (conferences, NCAA, NIT) is the best time of the year, as far as I'm concerned, from a sports-fan perspective. Do you not see beauty in the fact that each and every team has something to play for now? I love college football as much as anyone, but at least 75% of teams have nothing to play for come November, sans a crappy bowl bid and money. That's not what college sports is about. You can't tell me that it's not almost inspiring to watch a team like that, who had no reason for hope throughout the season, go out and run the table in their conference tournament, inspiring their fans and college basketball fans across the country.

I just can't bring myself to say that a team like Oakland has no business being in the tournament at all. If people are upset because of how this hurts our own tournament standing, OOC SOS and whatnot... well, maybe we just should have gone out and beaten Oral Roberts in the first place then.

Sure, maybe Oakland won't win a game in the tournament. Maybe they get a #16 seed and lose to Illinois by 40 points. But, you know what? For the next week, these 12 kids from Oakland are on top of the world, because they got the job done and are going somewhere that few people can say they ever went to: the NCAA Tournament. No matter what the outcome is in their game next week, for those 40 minutes, those kids can say that they were on the court and played in the NCAA Tournament. They went dancing, because they deserved it. And for the rest of their lives, they get to cherish those 40 minutes.

But don't hate on these kids from Oakland who really are why college basketball still continues to prove to be the #1 sport in America, from a fan of the game's perspective (pardon FOTG, no pun intended). We should be embracing this story for what it is - emotional, inspirational, and fantastic for the game of college basketball.

[stafford72]

Count me in as a supporter of the conference tourneys. They literally give everyone a chance to dance. Making the tourney is the #1 accomplishment for most of these teams and getting to play against a team they have seen on TV. If it costs a bubble team from a major conference a bid or deprives a mid conference team with a 20+ win season a bid, well that's why they play the games. Some of the most thrilling endings in history have been upsets in lower conference tournaments. And don't blame the lowere conferences for the idea of season ending conference tournaments, they started with the ACC and SEC.

[Cambridge]

I'm with Giga on this one, but have always felt it should breakdown like this:

Big Conferences:
The future BET model, with 4 teams not making the cut

Mid-Major:
Only the top four or six teams compete in a tourney

Small Guys:
Regular season champ or title game between top two or if you insist -- a 4 team tourney.

If you don't limit the effect of luck to some degree you just end up giving a complete cakewalk to a one seed while giving an actual game to another. This is how they "rig" the brackets and I can't stand looking at them every year and seeing the "highways" they pave for the Dukes, Kansas and UNCs of the world.

There is no reason a 13-15 team should go to the tourney, ever. Next year, a 13-15 team won't make it in the BET...so why should we allow them to compete for a shot at the tourney in some piddly, 200+ RPI conference. That's total crap.

Also, those teams in the mid-majors who worked hard, played a hard schedule, won their road games and put together a solid 3 loss season get nada for an incredible run. You mean to tell me you wouldn't rather see a team like Davidson -- who has played Duke to the wire and did well against us and went undefeated in league play -- tackle a big program or the scrubs who got lucky against them? I mean, we saw Davidson matchup against Duke and nearly pull it off, why wouldn't you want them in the Tourney. They are winners and have a winning attitude. Reward them for the hard work.

[HoyaSox04]

Cambridge, you and I don't disagree often, but I do disagree with you on this. Do you mean to say that the Oakland team are not "winners"? They just went into their conference tournament and ran the table. While they might have been 12-14 or whatever, they won when it mattered. That makes them "WINNERS."

If Davidson or ORU were such great "winners," why couldn't they win the few games that actually mattered? For a school like them, the only games that TRULY matter are the games in their conference tournament. The tough games against us or any other major conference, while good for their RPI and SOS, will not get them into the tournament unless they have an AMAZING year.

And, as for your theory on the major conferences getting a full tournament, who gets to decide who the "major" conferences are? So, are we just saying the BE, ACC, SEC, Pac10, Big 12, Big10? What about the WCC? What about the WAC? CUSA? All these kind of theories are doing is propagating the myth that teams in these conferences are somehow inferior to other programs. I believe Gonzaga/Nevada/Utah/etc would take issue with this.

I just can't see at all how you can say every team in the nation does NOT deserve a shot to be part of the NCAA tournament. That is not what college athletics is about in any way, shape or form.

[GIGAFAN99]

HoyaSox430 said:

Cambridge, you and I don't disagree often, but I do disagree with you on this. Do you mean to say that the Oakland team are not "winners"? They just went into their conference tournament and ran the table. While they might have been 12-14 or whatever, they won when it mattered. That makes them "WINNERS."

If Davidson or ORU were such great "winners," why couldn't they win the few games that actually mattered? For a school like them, the only games that TRULY matter are the games in their conference tournament. The tough games against us or any other major conference, while good for their RPI and SOS, will not get them into the tournament unless they have an AMAZING year.

And, as for your theory on the major conferences getting a full tournament, who gets to decide who the "major" conferences are? So, are we just saying the BE, ACC, SEC, Pac10, Big 12, Big10? What about the WCC? What about the WAC? CUSA? All these kind of theories are doing is propagating the myth that teams in these conferences are somehow inferior to other programs. I believe Gonzaga/Nevada/Utah/etc would take issue with this.

I just can't see at all how you can say every team in the nation does NOT deserve a shot to be part of the NCAA tournament. That is not what college athletics is about in any way, shape or form.

Every team DOES have the chance to be part of the tournament. You know how? By winning the conference. That's why there is an automatic bid system.

All we're saying is that a team under .500 shouldn't represent a conference. Is that really that crazy a notion?

By the way it makes me sick when someone says "If they're such winners, why didn't they win the conference tournament?" That's the biggest cop-out ever. They lost a basketball game, something any team can do. Along with this fact, any team can win one basketball game.

But true champions have to win over the course of a year, not three days. The prize of going to the NCAA tournament is just too big for these kids to have it decided by such a small sample of games. A conference champion is the team that wins the most games in conference play. How that idea "makes no sense" and "has no logic" versus the opposing view that a conference champion is the one with a three-game win streak in March, I don't know.

[HoyaSox04]

Well, GIGA, its obvious that we're never going to agree on this. One of us has a realism point of view, the other has a more idealistic POV. I wouldn't say that either is wrong. I just don't think the overall quality of the tournament is hurt by having a team like Oakland in, that's all.

But, to each his own.

[Cambridge]

Everyone knows who the major conferences are:

BE, ACC, $EC, Pac10, Big 12, BigX

There is no dispute about that. And don't even try to slip a CUSA or a WCC or a WAC in. Those conferences' RPIs are bouyed up by individual teams or a couple teams.

Do you think the WCC would be the 7th best conference if Gonzaga wasn't sitting there with the 9th best RPI? Nope. The fact is, just by playing Gonzaga twice and stealing a win St. Marys found itself under 50 and and SF a shade under 100. The rest of the teams are over 150. Is that a major conference? They have four teams with losing records. 4 teams out of 8.

Conference USA. Hmmm, let's see, the 10th best conf RPI. They had a bad year, and in the past you might have had an argument about them being an immerging major --- but four (Cincy, Louis, Depaul, Marq) of their top 7 teams are leaving for the Big East next year and another (Charlotte) is leaving for the A-10. That leaves UAB, Houston, TCU and Memphis as the only teams in the conference that finished above 500 and/or have an RPI under 183. And listen, if you have teams leaving to the A-10, I'm sorry, but I question whether you are a major.

Ah, the WAC, with everybody's favorite Nevada holding up the torch. Only 4 teams finished above .500 in both overall and league play. They have three teams under 100 RPI (Nevada, Rice, UTEP) and after that it balloons up into the high 200s.

But more importantly, do you ever hear a recruit say:

"Ever since I was a little boy I wanted to play WAC ball?" Did you? Never. Never. Ever. Ever.

It is no myth...those conferences are inferior. I'm not bashing the good teams, I'm supporting them. I'm saying those good teams should have a fair shake at a tourney spot. Why? Because they have the best chance at advancing in the tournament. The whole purpose of a tournament is to determine who the best team in the land is...not to entertain you or to satisfy some arcane mystique requirement. Therefore, the best teams should be invited, not those who had the best week between March 7-11. That's ridiculous. If you're a small conference team, why even play between November and March? Just forfeit your matches, rest up, scrimmage a bit, then show up for the conference tourney. Get lucky and you could dance. Seems fair, right?

But anyways, I never said get rid of mid major tourneys which is what we seem to be discussing. I'm fine with them having little events in the March, but if you insist on having conference tournaments in every conference at least limit the number of entries. EVEN the Big East is not allowing EVERY crappy team in the conference into the tournament next year. So, if we are cutting 4 teams and saying, "sorry, tough nuggies you had your chance to earn a spot in the BET during the seaon" then why isn't some podunk conference with only one -- and in an exceptional year TWO -- good team doing at least the same.

But, full league tournaments are even more ridiculous for the real little guys: Southern, MAAC, Northeast, Mid-Eastern, SWAC...I mean every once in a while, these conferences get one solid team that can play competitively during the year. It doesn't happen every year, but every few years, a group of guys comes together who can play ball at ONE of the schools in the conference. They suddenly get an upset at a major program. They go on a run and finish the conf season undefeated. Now, if you want to tell me it's totally legit for that group to loose on some fluke play to a dismal 300+ RPI team with a losing record and that be just or the way college basketball works...well that's just plain ridiculous.

You just flushed four years of hard work and determined effort by those Davidson or Oral Roberts guys work down the toilet because we wanted to have a crap shoot to determine who's dancing. Not the best team over an entire season, but who has the best draw of luck over the course of three days.

But anyways, I'm rambling. The point is, at least limit the conference tournaments if you aren't going to get rid of them. Cut the bottom four teams in the standings...otherwise there's no incentive for some colleges to field competitive teams -- hell they could get lucky in MArch and dance without putting in the effort or the resources...and that's just unfair.

[HoyaSox04]

Again, that's your opinion of what's unfair. I would see it as completely fair. A lot of people just don't see it the way that you do.

That's just the way college basketball is.

[Fan Of The Game]

Well said.

I'll admit I'm somewhat on the fence. I like the fact that (almost) every team has a prayer of a chance come March, but I also want a well played, competitive tournament.

I do think, under the current system, there is still value in putting together a quality regular season. You do gain an advantage in being able to win your conference tournament via byes and/or seeding (i.e. getting an easier path to your conference championship). If you schedule right, there's always that possibility that you will be invited to the dance even if you don't win your conference tournament. And then there's the NIT. Some may think of it as the losers bracket, but getting there and winning NIT games is quite an accomplishment for schools from small conferences.

I guess I just want my cake and eat it too. Your points on changing the system have merit, but personally I love the tournament the way it is.

[Deleted]

Money money money.....
The fact is, the conference tournaments are the biggest money-makers for these little conferences. If they were scaled back, or didn't exist, there's a huge (relatively) revenue stream gone for that conference. And if you don't make it a "win-an-you're-in" tournament, no one will want to come. Each conference makes its own decision as to how their conference champ (and thus, NCAA tournament bid) is decided. The Ivy is the only one that still takes the regular season champ (although the Big 10 and Pac 10 did so until a couple of years ago). Everyone else has decided that their tourney champ goes. Does it mean that "deserving" teams like ORU and Davidson get left out sometimes? Sure, but each conference makes that decision, and that sometimes means denying your "best" team.

[HoyaSox04]

CambridgeHoya said:

You just flushed four years of hard work and determined effort by those Davidson or Oral Roberts guys work down the toilet because we wanted to have a crap shoot to determine who's dancing. Not the best team over an entire season, but who has the best draw of luck over the course of three days.

But anyways, I'm rambling. The point is, at least limit the conference tournaments if you aren't going to get rid of them. Cut the bottom four teams in the standings...otherwise there's no incentive for some colleges to field competitive teams -- hell they could get lucky in MArch and dance without putting in the effort or the resources...and that's just unfair.

Ok, so all this hard effort by the guys on ORU just went down the toilet... how about all the hard work that Oakland did all year? Are you meaning to tell me that just because ORU might have more talented people on their team that they worked harder? You want to know who Oakland played their first 3 games?

Illinois
Missouri
Xavier

You don't think that's a tough schedule? Oh, wow, I mean, they didn't work hard at all - just the #1 team in the nation and 2 teams possibly in the tourney from major conferences.

And its not like Oakland was terrible all season and just went on a run in the conference tournament. They had to win 6 games in a row to go to the tournament - 3 regular season, 3 in the tournament.

Oh, and another point on all the hard work: Pierre Dukes, the kid who hit the three at the end of the game, is a walk-on player who in September was cut from the team, only to be brought back by the coach because the team was having "problems." You don't think that this kid, or anyone on this team worked just as hard as ANY OTHER TEAM in the country? While they might not be as talented, your argument that all ORU's hard work should make them the conference representative doesn't hold up.

As for incentive on fielding a team (and instead just waiting until march to get lucky in the conference tourney), there are a few things that drive schools to field teams besides making the tournament:

Pride
School enthusiasm
Sense of community that sports brings

Being able to go to the NCAA tournament is just an added bonus to a season for these kids.