MBB: Landmark Conference

[pg04]

Every single prediction I saw, both on the Pool C board, and the ones made by Pat Coleman and Dave McHugh had Scranton getting in. So I'm not sure where you are getting your "not getting in" predictions.

[NEPAFAN]

DMAC essentially said Scranton was unlikely to get in. He also said that he was disappointed with the Landmark as a conference, and they get 3 teams in this year.

[pg04]

So then why did he select them to get in? And does he represent "a lot of people"?

[pg04]

I realize he said that previously on this board, but I am more aghast at the "Almost everyone else but me didn't have them getting in" argument.

[ronk]

DMAC essentially said Scranton was unlikely to get in. He also said that he was disappointed with the Landmark as a conference, and they get 3 teams in this year.

Dave's been disappointed generally with the Landmark NCAA play over the years, not this year necessarily. We'll start with 2 home games and a neutral court game; should get at least 2 to the 2nd round.

[NEPAFAN]

DMAC essentially said Scranton was unlikely to get in. He also said that he was disappointed with the Landmark as a conference, and they get 3 teams in this year.

Dave's been disappointed generally with the Landmark NCAA play over the years, not this year necessarily. We'll start with 2 home games and a neutral court game; should get at least 2 to the 2nd round.

one day the men will play a home NCAA game, been a while...

[San Juan]

Pg04 were you at the ladies game Saturday at Scranton the men I hang around with even said they would not get in along with a couple people on this board as I was saying from the get go they would get in.

[ronk]

So then why did he select them to get in? And does he represent "a lot of people"?

There weren't many bubble busters this year(including Sunday); Pat Coleman and Dave had a difficult time distinguishing among the next to last 5, so in the interest of time they admitted all of them as a group(including Scranton).

[pg04]

Pg04 were you at the ladies game Saturday at Scranton the men I hang around with even said they would not get in along with a couple people on this board as I was saying from the get go they would get in.

Fair enough. I thought you were mostly referring to people here. The "nerds" on the boards as NEPAFAN has called them  . Obviously I can't speak for people that you spoke too. They should have had more confidence!

[NEPAFAN]

Pg04 were you at the ladies game Saturday at Scranton the men I hang around with even said they would not get in along with a couple people on this board as I was saying from the get go they would get in.

Fair enough. I thought you were mostly referring to people here. The "nerds" on the boards as NEPAFAN has called them  . Obviously I can't speak for people that you spoke too. They should have had more confidence!

Scranton fans are generally negative. Although there is a love fest with the women's team right now.

[saratoga]

You can have all the unwavering confidence in the world as to how you would like & expect things to be for your respective team....then the Selection Committee slaps you with a no thanks to the head & that's that.

I've been around long enough to know there are certain times when where your school stands in the eyes of the NCAA is nothing more than a crapshoot...logic does not always prevail.

For the sake of the Royals players & especially Brended Boken...just glad they made it.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

For the record, I stated repeatedly that I thought Scranton was in trouble. I don't believe I ever said I thought they were out. There is a distinct line there this time of the year and I know fully well where that line is. Scranton was in trouble, I felt, and actually fell to sixth in the final regional rankings. The advantage Scranton had was they got to the table quickly. Susquehanna and Salisbury were taken with enough time for Scranton to be considered for a long time. Pat and I selected them somewhere in the final six picks. It was getting difficult and we realized we had five teams and six slots and those five teams were going to get in no matter how long we spun our wheels through the process. Scranton was one of those five we threw in as a group to get us to our final pick.

Now the committee chair told us on Hoopsville today that Scranton was the second to last pick... and had Randolph beaten Lynchburg in the ODAC title (went to OT), Scranton would have been the final team into the tournament.

That right there... the simple fact the committee chair stated Scranton was the second to last pick (and potentially last pick) is why I said Scranton was in trouble.

saratoga - I understand your points about not understanding the process and such, but the men's side has come a LONG way from wherever the bad blood was formed for you. They are extremely transparent - even going well beyond what the NCAA would technically allow.

A great example today would be when I asked the men's committee chair who the final four in were and who the last three out where... he gave them to us without hesitation. The women's chair (and her assistant chair this year), ducked that question like it would cost them their lives.

The men's committee over the last five plus years has found ways to sneak the final regional rankings out the door to individuals like myself. They have spoken openly about selections and bracketing. They may disagree with someone's take on things, but they don't hide behind anything.

The women's committee on the other hand does everything they can not to answer questions and while they are very friendly, will not give up any information. There are a lot of theories why, but they aren't worth getting into.

And a quick note about Massey Ratings and selection criteria... no selection criteria has outside ratings or polls, like D3hoops.com, in the NCAA. That isn't what the membership of the NCAA has agreed to use for varying reasons. I don't ever see Massey Ratings or D3hoops.com Top 25 polls ever included in selection criteria. They are nice to look at and talk about, but in the long run... they are just for show.

[saratoga]

Dave:
Regarding Scranton...I felt the same way, I wanted them in, just wasn't so sure they'd actually make the cut & get the chance.
Big difference between saying no way/no how it will never happen as opposed to, I'm not really so sure they can pull it off.

Looking at where the Royals were placed certainly led me to believe they were one of the last teams taken...which you've now confirmed.

As for the mens side being more transparent...great to hear.
Glad they answer basic questions from their perspective rather than trying to decipher a ton of words that mean nothing.

The women have been more resistant in this regard as you've mentioned.
Even last season I remember there being a mini meltdown by some team about not getting in that most thought would make it & you had the actual chairperson on your show & asked her point blank why were they left out & someone else was given the chance. Her answer sounded more like Jackie Gleason on the Honeymooners when caught doing something dumb by his wife as opposed to a well thought out & articulate defense.

Don't always agree but the effort you've given over the past several days to keep us all informed about all the teams in all the regions has been fantastic.

Thanks...well done.

[NEPAFAN]

https://bballplayoftheyear.speakcreative.com/?on_page=true


what do you guys think? Which is the best play?

[ronk]

https://bballplayoftheyear.speakcreative.com/?on_page=true


what do you guys think? Which is the best play?

While Boken's shot gave Scranton halftime momentum to win a game they needed to get into the NCAA, I'd vote for the OT buzzer-beater of Rochester over Chicago. Rochester was down 3 with secs to go, was fouled to prevent a 3-pt tying attempt, made the 1st FT, intentionally missed the 2nd, which bounced hard back to the shooter who passed to the wing for the winning 3-pt basket. Well-executed!!!