Soonerinkc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 372
Being the last "at-large" team in..minus the 8 "play-in" teams puts us on the bubble...IMHO.
It is what it is...
Boomer
Archie Miller out at Indiana
- Thread starter WichitaSooner
- Start date
Being the last "at-large" team in..minus the 8 "play-in" teams puts us on the bubble...IMHO.
It is what it is...
Boomer
Sooner04
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,399
- Reaction score
- 248
Others may see it differently, but if you're an at-large with a double-digit seed, then you're bubbling. The Trae Young team, which was a train wreck by the time the Tournament came around, that was a bubble team. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that.
But an 8? Or a 9? You had some breathing room.
But an 8? Or a 9? You had some breathing room.
Max Power
New member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,672
- Reaction score
- 0
The Trea young team was the last bye. That is squarely on the bubble.
BoulderSooner
Owner/Operator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 13,191
- Reaction score
- 3,087
What are you talking about?
lexusooner
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2009
- Messages
- 348
- Reaction score
- 3
I’ve got business partners in Indiana and they have 100% unrealistic expectations. That blue blood still beats in their hearts and high school basketball is still king there but they don’t recruit like they used too and they are the on top kids radar like they used to be
Soonerinkc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 372
OU was the last of the 32 at large teams...correct? So minus the 8 "play-in" teams OU was the last team taken. Obviously you have a different opinion which is fine, to me that puts us on the bubble. 1 more loss and we might have been a play-in team.
Ya can get all bent out of shape about it but it is what it is. OU got in. We'll be 50/50 with 1st game then get Gonzaga after, the overall #1 seed. So OU was the last #8 seed.
I said OU got an 8 seed because half of the 64 bids were conf champs and out of those OU was better than some.
We were highest rated 8-seed. There are quite a few non play in at large teams ranked behind us. We were nowhere near the bubble this year. Trae’s year we were on the bubble but still pretty safely in.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1371232513369210881
Max Power
New member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,672
- Reaction score
- 0
yep, there were 12 at large bids behind us. That's not on the bubble in any definition
Soonerinkc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 372
The highest rated 8 seed gets to play the overall #1? Thought the overall #1 gets the easiest route.
Soonerinkc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 372
We were not the highest rated 8 seed... the 8 seed and their order
#29 Lsu
#30 loyola
#31 unc
#32 ou
This is from your own tweet.
“Highest” meaning the worst seeded 8 seed, 32nd overall. We play the lowest 9 seed in mizzou.
Last edited:
WichitaSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,232
- Reaction score
- 2,463
This correct but your comment that we were the last at large team not in the playin games is incorrect, as many others have noted. Our opponent Saturday is among that group.
Soonerinkc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 372
we were saying the same thing then....guess I should have said worst seeded.
Soonerinkc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 372
yes, thanks for pointing that out...:ez-roll:
many = 3 now...:woot
bet you are feelin groovy...lol
I used confusing wording my mistake.
The link shows we were rated better than at least 10 at large non play in teams. Not even close to the bubble.
NMSooner'80
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 31
So, what became of the Archie Miller firing discussion? I don't like Indiana because of that perceived blue-blood superiority, but it is an interesting situation.
Soonerinkc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 372
NM, what is your take on your new guy?
NMSooner'80
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 31
I assume you mean Richard Pitino. It's going to be interesting. I think the name-recognition will help. But he sure needs to produce.
I'm also glad they didn't buckle under any pressure to hire the almost-65-year-old alum Michael Cooper. He has no degree or any sort of D-1 coaching experience of any sort. But he's sort of a local legend (who many locals there deny had any sort of scandal during that time, despite the obvious "Lobogate" fiasco of '79-80). The absurd Albuquerque print media (now only one paper; used to be two - both sucked) covered for that corrupt coaching staff of that era and made life hell for any coach who followed, except one. That was Steve Alford, who made their lives miserable despite "homer" coverage for the most part.
I think it's been a hard lesson for many there to take that no "coaching legends" have ever been begging for the job. Many are still under the delusion that Bob Knight was coming in '88, then wonder why "big names" didn't line up for the job in '99 when it opened up again. Neither have there been any sort of McDonald's All-Americans who've been dying to come there out of high school. Best wishes to Pitino Jr.
Last edited:
