The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Don't go doing research to see who these teams are, just rank them and I will reveal which teams match the profile in a bit. Curious to see how we think teams stack up when there is no name attached to it !

Team 1

RPI - 42
SOS - 90
Last 10 : 9-1
vs. 1-50 : 1-2
vs. 51-100 : 5-3
vs 101-200 : 9-3
vs 200+ : 7-0

Worst Losses vs. #189, #149, #108
Best Win vs. #41

Team 2

RPI - 43
SOS - 131
Last 10 : 8-2
vs. 1-50 : 2-3
vs. 51-100 : 4-1
vs. 101-200 5-1
vs. 201+ : 13-0

Worst Losses : vs. #110, #81
Best Wins : #32, #36

Team 3

RPI - 46
SOS - 80
Last 10 : 8-2
vs. 1-50 : 2-5
vs. 51-100 : 5-0
vs. 101-200 : 7-2
vs. 200+ : 9-1

Worst Losses : vs. #203, #187, #161
Best Win : vs. #41

Team 4

RPI - 36
SOS - 70
Last 10 : 8-2
vs. 1-50 : 2-5
vs. 51-100 : 1-1
vs. 101-200 : 9-1
vs. 200+ : 8-1

Worst Losses : vs. #222, #121
Best Win : vs. #7, #47

I did some research, not related to dannyb73's. IF the RPI were the sole criterion (it's not), and IF the best teams in each conference get the automatic bids, all teams with an RPI of 54 or less would get in. If there are upsets in conference tournaments, it would be 48, I think. Using RPI only, it looks like Kent State would be in. Of course there are two factors: (a) what would be Kent State's final RPI if they lose? Certainly not as good as it is today. (b) as stated above, RPI is NOT the sole criterion. Teams with RPI's in the mid-30's have been not selected before. I still maintain, and this is something I can't prove, that the MAC is currently a one-bid conference. Perhaps if Kent State had beaten Pitt or Xavier it may be a different story. Then again, if Kent State was good enough to have beaten them, I doubt any team in the MAC could touch them at the Q, anyway!

4
2
1
3

Assuming you want 2 in and 2 out, I'd take 4 and 2. Stronger overall resumes. 1 and 3 are shaky but this year they are in the mess that will just miss, is my guess.

BTW, the committee is no longer looking at "last 10 games" as a factor and have stated they will will look at the overall body of work to a greater degree.

Was watching ESPN this morning , Katz was on M&M, no mention of Kent on bubble at all. nada . They have UAB out, and St Marys in right now. VA Tech has to make a slight run in ACC tourney to get in. VT has a horrible OOC sched. They are still talking about UCONN on bubble and ND, typical east coast, BE bias.

Right now, I think I have all 4 in (I think I know which teams they are). 4&3 are in better shape than 2&1. I think I have 2 above 1 in my last guessimate.

Let's me see if I am right about which team is which (close 3 of 4)

I have #3 as a 10 seed
I have #4 as an 11 seed.
I have #1, #2 as 12 seeds with #2 ahead of #1

The better question might be putting RPI#42 vs. #48 or #53 or #58, since the 'gurus' suggest correctly that the committee may look fondly upon them.

(03-08-2010 11:47 AM)luckyflash Wrote:  Was watching ESPN this morning , Katz was on M&M, no mention of Kent on bubble at all. nada . They have UAB out, and St Marys in right now. VA Tech has to make a slight run in ACC tourney to get in. VT has a horrible OOC sched. They are still talking about UCONN on bubble and ND, typical east coast, BE bias.

I have VT and ND in. Yes, VT has a miserable OOC schedule, but they handled the ACC pretty well. One thing the committee will do is go in order of the conference standings. That's why I think UAB is in deep do-do, since Memphis finished ahead of them.

With that in mind, how does UConn get in finishing 11th in the BE behind South Florida and Seton Hall. USF has a better chance than UConn (no, I don't have USF in at this point).

The oddity is the PAC-10. Does the PAC-10 only get one team in?

Using the above info, I say, in order: 4, 2, 1, 3. Just based on the RPI/SOS. But who knows. I'm still hoping Carolina will get in just based on the fact that they can draw a good crowd. I'm also hoping they will play us in the first round. Both undetermined, unlikely scinerios, I know. But hey, thats what these discussions ammount to anyway.

Team 1 - Kent State
RPI - 42
SOS - 90
Last 10 : 9-1
vs. 1-50 : 1-2
vs. 51-100 : 5-3
vs 101-200 : 9-3
vs 200+ : 7-0

Worst Losses vs. Bowling Green, Miami (OH), Green-Bay
Best Win vs. UAB

Team 2 - St. Mary's College
RPI - 43
SOS - 131
Last 10 : 8-2
vs. 1-50 : 2-3
vs. 51-100 : 4-1
vs. 101-200 5-1
vs. 201+ : 13-0

Worst Losses : vs. USC, Portland
Best Wins : San Diego State, Utah State

Team 3 - Memphis
RPI - 46
SOS - 80
Last 10 : 8-2
vs. 1-50 : 2-5
vs. 51-100 : 5-0
vs. 101-200 : 7-2
vs. 200+ : 9-1

Worst Losses : vs. SMU, UMASS, Houston
Best Wins : vs. UAB (2x)

Team 4 - San Diego State
RPI - 36
SOS - 70
Last 10 : 8-2
vs. 1-50 : 2-5
vs. 51-100 : 1-1
vs. 101-200 : 9-1
vs. 200+ : 8-1

Worst Losses : vs. Wyoming, Pacific
Best Wins vs. New Mexico, UNLV

It's those three losses to 100+ teams that's killing Kent.

You can blame Bo Borowski for the UWGB game. The Miami and BG games, we freaking choked. That's what is so unreal about this team. Realistically, they should be 26-5 at worst. The Northeastern game was another we should have won, but you can just say that about every game.

We had double-digit leads in the last 10 minutes of both the BG and Miami games and seemed to get complacent. We had some really stupid possessions in both those games that we have since cleaned up. We deserved those losses, unfortunately, and perhaps without those wake-up calls, we would not have the team we have now. That Miami loss was particularly painful becasue we should have won the game in regulation. Hayes needed a prayer shot-clock-beating-3, and even then, Simpson only needed to dunk the ball to end it.

I think back to the '02 season and the losses to Youngstown and to Buffalo which brought that team together...

(03-08-2010 01:40 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  You can blame Bo Borowski for the UWGB game. The Miami and BG games, we freaking choked. That's what is so unreal about this team. Realistically, they should be 26-5 at worst. The Northeastern game was another we should have won, but you can just say that about every game.

Laing Kennedy on the NCAA selection committee will be handy for pointing out that

a) Chris Singletary did not play against USF and was coming off an injury and only played 20 minutes vs. Xavier. The committee is supposed to take into account injuries provided that player is available for the tournament.

b) a videotape of the last 3 seconds of the UWGB game is available.

Now, I don't totally subscribe to bad luck as the downfall here. Let's face it, every team has breaks (both good or bad). Let me present the last few seconds of WMU-Kent as a counterexample.

Unfortunately bopol, I do not think they are breaking down the bubble to individual games and what went wrong and reviewing tape of controversial endings. Nor do I think Sing missing 1 full game due to injury is something they will consider. I am not sure what the parameters are on considering injuries and the return of a player towards potential resumes/results, but I doubt one game will generate much discussion. Just my 2 cents.

Injuries do play a role. If a team has a bad streak where there star player is hurt, the committee supposedly does consider that.

I don't know about controversial ending, but of course, you can place it in the minds of the committee. Whether or not they say they consider it, they do know about it and probably do end up considering it.

Whether we get in or not, it's crazy that we're not even being talked about by any of the so-called experts. Your blind test shows how competitive our profile is.

As I posted above, the MAC is -to the NCAA - a "one bid conference". The MAC is ranked 16th out of 31, currently. Let's face it, while Kent State is having a very good year, they didn't do enough to warrant serious consideration. Enough, that is, given the weakness of the MAC. Let's hope it is all moot. Kent State is the best team in the MAC, so let's hope they go win all three at the Q.

maybe Selection Sunday should be blind so reputations don't precede everything else.

Well, a system could be input for the at-large bids. It's do-able. It would be just as controversial as a selection committee, though.

(03-08-2010 05:57 PM)Kballard122 Wrote:  maybe Selection Sunday should be blind so reputations don't precede everything else.

The ESPN announcer on Friday suggested that. I think it is a pretty good idea. I don't think it will ever happen though.

It seems like if you were entirely scientific about it, the only people complaining would be those that don't understand. To me that would be better than understanding that things are the way they are because of a good 'ole boys network.