Congrat to the Beavers

They just beat UTEP 81-73 to win the CBI. Give them credit, they went a long way from the start of the season.

Too bad it took them the extra game. they could have had a winning season.

I watched the game. Robinson is a great coach, and the players are absolutely buying into everything he's selling. I'm not sure if I've seen a team execute that well in a pressure situation - the arena in El Paso was PACKED with 12,000 plus and they were significantly louder than the Kennel. They have everybody but one starter coming back and the #22 recruiting class in the nation coming in. I think an NIT run is a legitimate possibility for OSU next year.

Now if they'd just grow the stones to play the Pilots anywhere but in Corvallis . . . let alone schedule us at all!

At any rate, congratulations to the Beavers!

I guess this means everyone with a sub .500 record will be going to post season play now. ..

Only if the coach is connected to a celebrity and represented by a tournament sponsor.

Regardless of how they qualified, they did in fact win the tournament. Can't fault them for that.

Rob's Jacket wrote:Regardless of how they qualified, they did in fact win the tournament. Can't fault them for that.

True. They are just playing the games that are scheduled in front of them. But I CAN fault a process that rewards sub .500 performance. It is diluting college basketball and it is pathetic. If you are .500 or above, then by all means, whatever post season play you can get in to, that's great.

However, if you lose more games than you win, you shouldn't be rewarded for mediocrity or sub-medicrity. If Gonzaga were sub .500 and got into post season play, this board would be all over that situation - we all know that is the truth and nothing but the truth. So let's not be hypocritical because it's Oregon State - although I'm not sure why a Pilot Nation would be rooting for OSU unless relatives etc are the reason.

goldhelmet wrote:If Gonzaga were sub .500 and got into post season play, this board would be all over that situation - we all know that is the truth and nothing but the truth. So let's not be hypocritical because it's Oregon State - although I'm not sure why a Pilot Nation would be rooting for OSU unless relatives etc are the reason.

At the time they were selected, did I think OSU deserved a bid to the CBI? Absolutely not. But they played great basketball down the stretch and won the thing. I think they proved they belonged. My only familial connections are with UP - I just like to see the other Oregon schools do well. That's the difference between them and Gonzaga. I root against the Zags every time they take the court. I don't think that's hypocritical.

I think Notre Dame winning a BCS bowl would be a decent comparison. If the Irish actually won a BCS game, people would have less of a problem with them getting selected over other, seemingly more deserving teams. *

*(Winks are to indicate no hard feelings.)

Rob's Jacket wrote:

goldhelmet wrote:If Gonzaga were sub .500 and got into post season play, this board would be all over that situation - we all know that is the truth and nothing but the truth. So let's not be hypocritical because it's Oregon State - although I'm not sure why a Pilot Nation would be rooting for OSU unless relatives etc are the reason.

At the time they were selected, did I think OSU deserved a bid to the CBI? Absolutely not. But they played great basketball down the stretch and won the thing. I think they proved they belonged. My only familial connections are with UP - I just like to see the other Oregon schools do well. That's the difference between them and Gonzaga. I root against the Zags every time they take the court. I don't think that's hypocritical.

I think Notre Dame winning a BCS bowl would be a decent comparison. If the Irish actually won a BCS game, people would have less of a problem with them getting selected over other, seemingly more deserving teams. *

*(Winks are to indicate no hard feelings.)

Bad analogy. ND wasn't close to being .500 or sub .500 when selected for the BCS games, but I think you know that and are obvisouly trying to take a friendly jab. It's OK, I'm used to it.

goldhelmet wrote:
Bad analogy. ND wasn't close to being .500 or sub .500 when selected for the BCS games, but I think you know that and are obvisouly trying to take a friendly jab. It's OK, I'm used to it.

At least in the BCS you have to have a .500 or better season to move on to post season play...

and, as an independent, ND has to be no worse than 10-2 or they don't qualify for BCS consideration. 10-2 is a far cry from being sub .500.

But getting back to college hoops, my main point was that the regular season is becoming less and less significant. That is bad for college basketball IMO. It waters it down, it dilutes it, it cheapens it. Despite the unfairness of the BCS system, at least in college football, every Saturday matters in a HUGE way. I can't say that about college basketball. I'm not saying do away with conference tournaments - because I'm a big fan of conference tournaments and I think the excitement and hope they create more than outweigh any negatives. But what I am saying is that we should draw the line sommewhere - and I think .500 is a logical and fair way to do it. If you're sub .500, you are not elegible for post season play - period, end of discussion. The one and only exception would be if you were sub .500, but won your conference tournament. In that case then I think you should be in because that would be necessary to preserve the viability of the conference tournaments.

If we are comparing Oregon State and Notre Dame, let's do it apples to apples.

January 1, 2001
Tempe Arizona
Oregon State 41
Notre Dame 9

I agree with you Helmet on not allowing sub .500 teams...the problem is money though. I don't know that OSU is necessarily a draw, but they were a story this year, you know, how their coach was playing basketball on election day.

So maybe you need to make an addendum:

Teams who finish the season under .500 are not eligible for postseason play unless they 1) win their respective conference tournament or 2) their coach's sister is married to the POTUS.

I agree it's about the money as is the selection for the NIT. Anyway, there's no need to take the selection process for the CBI too seriously anyway. Nobody loses any sleep if they don't get into the CBI...and I don't hear jocks at the sports bars sipping their beers and cussing saying, "Damn, the CBI selection committee bypassed us again this year!"

mattywizz wrote:If we are comparing Oregon State and Notre Dame, let's do it apples to apples.

January 1, 2001
Tempe Arizona
Oregon State 41
Notre Dame 9

ha ha ha ha... a cheap shot (and you know it is! which has NOTHING to do with what we are talking discussing (this isn't about ND, Rob brought it up as a friendly jab). This isn't about ND or OSU or a comparison per se - the BCS was brought up as an example and I merely countered by saying that the BCS requires you to be well above .500, and now we're off topic with ND jabs. Yes, I'm constantly reminded about 41-9 in 2001 by OSU relatives and co-workers and I was there, so it doesn't affect me in the least. I'm numb to it and moved on a long time ago. Anthing from Davie-Ham (Bob Davie and TY Golfingham) has been permanently whited out in my brain. FYI, I also attended OSU, but graduated from PSU for undergrad (UP for grad school). So I don't hate the Beavs, far from it (just some of their obnoxious fans - the old time Beaver fans who suffered through the really bad decades, I have a great deal of respect for, they are very classy. It's SOME of the yonger ones who I find very obnoxious and have poor sportsmanship. Oregon fans are a whole different story. They are 10 times worse, regardless of age!)

The original topic of discussion was about sub .500 teams advancing to post season play in college basketball. As far as college football was used as a comparison, it does require you to be well above .500 as I stated, and the regular season is VERY meaningful. It is not meaningful in all cases in college basketball. Look at St Marys. What you do AFTER you are selected in a given year, is post mortem analysis, and is irrelevant. You can only go by the body of work up until selection Sunday. Tournament performance can be factored in future years consideration, as it obviously was in Arizona's case. But what a team does after-the fact in a given year is not known at the time of selection. You can only go by what you know at the time. There might have been another team, other than Oregon State, with a .500 record or better who could have been selected, and who might have gone just as far, given the opportunity. The regular season needs to mean something. The fact that OSU made the run in the tournament, doesn't change my thinking that they shouldn't have been playing in ANY post-season tournament, JMHO.

athleticjames wrote:I agree it's about the money as is the selection for the NIT. Anyway, there's no need to take the selection process for the CBI too seriously anyway. Nobody loses any sleep if they don't get into the CBI...and I don't hear jocks at the sports bars sipping their beers and cussing saying, "Damn, the CBI selection committee bypassed us again this year!"

Agreed that not too many care about the CBI. I know I don't (unless the Pilots are playing in it of course). But my only isssue is that maybe another more deserving team that really played their hearts out all year and finished above .500, could have really benefited from the extra games and whatever exposure is involved. Maybe the money could have helped a lesser known school who is up and coming.

But yeah, at the end of the day it's all about the green stuff, which is sad.

So, you're arguing that one of your alma maters did not deserve to be in the CBI because they were sub .500? I can't believe that we're spending this much time or energy discussing CBI selection at all. I need a beer.

At least this post, will get me past post #666. The post of the devil.

You may have passed that 50 posts ago.

The number of the Beast

athleticjames wrote:I need a beer.

+1

athleticjames wrote:So, you're arguing that one of your alma maters did not deserve to be in the CBI because they were sub .500? I can't believe that we're spending this much time or energy discussing CBI selection at all. I need a beer.

At least this post, will get me past post #666. The post of the devil.

James - I just said in my last post I don't care about the CBI per se, or OSU for that matter. I already stated that wasn't my point.

AGAIN...It was a general statement about post season play qualifications, not the CBI or OSU specifically. They were just the example used. No one is forcing you to participate or read anything. It's called a message board.

Geeezz.... state your opinion and...

goldhelmet wrote:
Geeezz.... state your opinion and...

Sorry, I though I had. If you followed that link you'll see that the link refutes Irenaeus' view that the number of the Beast is 666 and shows the earliest references (Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 from about the year 300 and a slightly later Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) record the number as 616.

I don't think there is enough evidence to show whether the number refers to Caligula, Domitian, or perhaps someone else.

Besides, there was more than one numerology used at the time, and it's not clear which one was used.

So beyond that, I don't think there is enough archaeological evidence to form an opinion.

As to the Basketball, If you recall I opened this thread congratulating the Beavers but stating that it was too bad they didn't have a winning season. If I am forced to weigh in on whether you need a .500 to play in post season, I'm kind of a hard **s on that. I think you need better than a 50% season to play in a postseason tournament or bowl. Otherwise it just cheapens them. In recent years, Notre Dame has been in a couple of bowls when they had a .500 season, and they lost them. I think the last time was when they got spanked by the same OSU that started this thread.
What was the point of them even playing those games?

When I was a kid, I watched every bowl then available, and listened on the radio to some that weren't. One of my fondest memories was a radio version of Earnie Davis playing for Syracuse in the Liberty bowl.

Now I watch maybe 3 bowls, and consider the rest trash.

But I wasn't going to weigh in on that until you forced me because this was a BASKETBALL thread and your references to Notre Dame football struck me as irrelevant as my post on Irenaeus.

Mea culpa, I brought ND football into this discussion.

(For the record, I think goldhelmet was attempting to use the exclamation "geez," a variant spelling of "jeez," something I always have to be careful of when posting here, for that the Geezer will take it the wrong way.)

Purplegeezer wrote:

goldhelmet wrote:
Geeezz.... state your opinion and...

Sorry, I though I had. If you followed that link you'll see that the link refutes Irenaeus' view that the number of the Beast is 666 and shows the earliest references (Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 from about the year 300 and a slightly later Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) record the number as 616.

I don't think there is enough evidence to show whether the number refers to Caligula, Domitian, or perhaps someone else.

Besides, there was more than one numerology used at the time, and it's not clear which one was used.

So beyond that, I don't think there is enough archaeological evidence to form an opinion.

As to the Basketball, If you recall I opened this thread congratulating the Beavers but stating that it was too bad they didn't have a winning season. If I am forced to weigh in on whether you need a .500 to play in post season, I'm kind of a hard **s on that. I think you need better than a 50% season to play in a postseason tournament or bowl. Otherwise it just cheapens them. In recent years, Notre Dame has been in a couple of bowls when they had a .500 season, and they lost them. I think the last time was when they got spanked by the same OSU that started this thread.
What was the point of them even playing those games?

When I was a kid, I watched every bowl then available, and listened on the radio to some that weren't. One of my fondest memories was a radio version of Earnie Davis playing for Syracuse in the Liberty bowl.

Now I watch maybe 3 bowls, and consider the rest trash.

But I wasn't going to weigh in on that until you forced me because this was a BASKETBALL thread and your references to Notre Dame football struck me as irrelevant as my post on Irenaeus.

First of all, I meant "JEEZ" (which I guess is the "correct" spelling?). I wasn't referencing Geezer/you in any way. I was speaking to James and Rob.

Wrong, I did NOT bring ND into this discussion if you read through this thread. I merely responded to "friendly jabs" made by others which I did not take seriously and if you read through the thread again, I tried to treat the ND references very lightly. It seems that YOU are the one taking ND SERIOUSLY, not me.

BTW, I agree that ND did NOT deserve to go to a bowl this year (which they won, but that's neither here nor there). I was the one trying to talk about college hoops and others were the ones who brought up ND becasue they know I am a fan. I merely reponded to what they said and tried to move the discussion back to college basketball. It seems I am a target because my name is goldhelmet, not because of the content of what I say - at least in this particular thread. Funny, if ND turned down a bowl appearance which they did in 1996, they are called called "arrogant". Sorry, geezer, but you are flat wrong in your hostile post towards me, which smacks of "ND hating" and nothing else. AGAIN, I DIDN'T BRING IT UP!!! But I guess you were reading "selectively".

Sorry if you took it as Hostile.

I was trying more for....impish.

It's a character flaw.

athleticjames wrote:I need a beer.

I move to discontinue this thread in favor of , as opposed to .

Is there a second?

done