- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LSU NIT hopes
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:00 pm to TeddyPadillac
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:00 pm to TeddyPadillac
If I am understanding this correctly, us losing to Mississippi State might increase our chances of going to NIT because that would virtually guarantee State getting into the NCAA's themselves, thus guaranteeing us one of the at large spots. 
0
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:05 pm to timlan2057
quote:That’s not exactly how it works, so don’t worry about shite tournaments past the NIT.
Personally, I do not want to see us in one of those shite tournaments that selects after the NIT. I prefer we just turn down the bid.
For above poster, it’s all speculation at this point due to NIT criteria changes, but yes, it’s certainly possible losing increases our chances for the NIT.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:27 pm to TeddyPadillac
I’m still not comprehending how A&M is still being looked at as a potential tournament team. They have equally as many shitty losses as they do good wins. They beat Iowa St, Florida, Kentucky, and split with Tennessee which are all good wins. But they also split with us and Ole Miss, lost to Vanderbilt, and lost to Arky twice. I can’t ever remember LSU having a season like that and being considered as a tournament team.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:35 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Mississippi State is quicker
Not really. They're taller, and thicker, not quicker.
Kentucky was quicker but somehow LSU upset that team. The size of MSU is the matchup prbm for LSU.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:41 pm to Alt26
quote:
If A&M and Miss. St get in, LSU's NET rating compared to Ole Miss is largely irrelevant because they would be one of the 2 highest NET teams that didn't make the NCAAT (unless Arkansas and/or Georgia go on a tear this week)
True. I guess you can say LSU needs the SEC to get 8 in the NCAA or win 2 games in the SEC. However, most all predictions are at 7 SEC and it might be a case where A&M gets in over State if State loses to LSU.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:42 pm to lsudave1
quote:
I’m still not comprehending how A&M is still being looked at as a potential tournament team.
NET rankings are really the only thing keeping them in the conversation. The good wins you mentioned are propping up their NET rankings (three current top 10 wins). Their SOS is also pretty high at #24. They have certainly had games this year where they look like crap and they really don't pass the eye test, but their metrics are keeping them in the conversation
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:44 pm to GumboPot
quote:I agree it's a bad matchup but I saw it more as their physicality we couldn't match moreso that quickness.
SU does not matchup well with Mississippi State. They have trouble with quicker teams and Mississippi State is quicker.
I mean Baker/Dean are going to struggle with every team we play Re: quickness and every team plays to that, so as long as we play only those 2 at the 5 we are going to have a quickness issue out there but I think at the other positions we can hold our own in that regard.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:47 pm to Tiger Ugly
I think Dean needs to get majority of the minutes over Baker this game. Neither really have the strength to match up well with Mississippi St. down low, but Dean has seemed to be a bit more capable of it than Baker.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:48 pm to lsudave1
quote:
LSU having a season like that and being considered as a tournament team
They had one season that was much worse-- and made the tournament-- 1987!
That LSU team was simply awful during the regular season, with no decent OOC wins and an 8-10 reg season SEC record. They went on a tear in the SEC tourney winning three straight games --upsetting Florida and Georgia -- before being upended by Bama for the championship. No one believed the Tigers would qualify for the tourney, but somehow they were selected (no doubt on the strength of their Final Four showing the year before).
I remember Louisville coach Denny Crum being overcome with ire following LSU's selection. His own team, which won the Metro Conference regular-season championship in 1986-87, but lost in its conf tournament, was NOT chosen.
Anyway, LSU made a more than credible showing in 1987, as a 10-seed making it to the Elite Eight game before losing that one late to Indiana.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:49 pm to DallasTiger45
quote:
To the poster asking about LSU making the NIT as an unseeded team, or basically the equivalent of an at-large bid- we don't really know. This is the first year that the NIT is using this new 2 teams per conference deal, and we're not sure how they'll evaluate the other power conference teams vs smaller conference regular season winners.
I mentioned in another thread that the smaller conference ADs have been hammering the NCAA over this new format. I think the NCAA responds to that and you see some conf champs (that normally would have gotten an auto NIT bid) that missed the NCAA get into the NIT with a worse NET than a team like LSU.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:52 pm to Aforem7
quote:
I think Dean needs to get majority of the minutes over Baker this game. Neither really have the strength to match up well with Mississippi St. down low, but Dean has seemed to be a bit more capable of it than Baker.
This may be the 100th time I've said this here so my apologies for repetitiveness....but IMHO it does not have to be Dean for Baker and visa versa ALL THE TIME.
Try playing Fountain and Reed together some, especially against more athletic teams. You don't really lose much rebounding or defense because neither Dean nor Baker are very proficient at either and you get more defensive versatility, especially on high ball screens that teams run at Baker and Dean all the time for obvious reasons if you watch.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 12:58 pm to Tiger Ugly
quote:
Try playing Fountain
Fountain should have been playing more all season.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 1:02 pm to rds dc
quote:
Fountain should have been playing more all season.
I’ve been thinking this all year as well. How he hasn’t logged more minutes is a bit of a head scratcher.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 1:08 pm to drizztiger
quote:
What’s a NET?
They hang it on the rim in basketball.
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 3/13/24 at 1:12 pm to rds dc
quote:
Fountain should have been playing more all season.
I agree - CMM is growing on me, I have some hope this year where I really did not before SEC play started this year.
But again, one thing I still have an issue with is who CMM plays, when and how much.
And the Dean/Baker at 5 is one I've had issues with all year. If Baker does not score 20 point or more his issues on defense and boarding make it counterproductive to play him, and Dean is only marginally better at either and brings very little offensively outside pick and roll plays.
That we have not and will not try Fountain and Reed at 4/5 together at least for a four minute stretch here an there, especially against the more athletic teams, really baffles me.
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/13/24 at 1:13 pm to Walter White Jr
quote:
I’ve been thinking this all year as well. How he hasn’t logged more minutes is a bit of a head scratcher.
Fountain is technically averaging only 4 less minutes per game than Baker. The average minute distribution this season is Baker (24 minutes), Reed (22 minutes), Fountain (20 minutes), and Dean (13 minutes). Dean has been getting a bit more playing time lately, but I really don't think minutes have been an issue with Fountain this season, comparatively.
I do think there's an argument that Baker's minutes should be cut overall and be distributed among the other forwards
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/13/24 at 1:15 pm to lsudave1
quote:
I’m still not comprehending how A&M is still being looked at as a potential tournament team
It's b/c of their SOS, espeically their OOC SOS.
When they are comparing two teams and one has a top 20 OOC SOS as well as overall schedule and the other is 130+ in both (Indiana St), or like Colorado's 224 OOC SOS, then typically they reward the team that scheduled harder games.
in 2016 South Carolina and Vandy both had 11-7 SEC records. USC was 25-9, Vandy was 19-14.
Vandy got in the tourney, USC did not.
Vandy's OOC SOS was 26, and overall 36, 4-1 vs quality teams.
USC's OOC SOS was 287, and overall 94, 4-8 vs quality teams, and they beat Vandy that year.
a lot of bracketology had Vandy out that year, but they made it b/c of their SOS, especially their OOC SOS even though they didn't do that well in those games.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 1:48 pm to TeddyPadillac
This is LSU. We don’t need to be making complicated arguments for why we should be in the NIT.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 1:54 pm to drizztiger
quote:
What’s a NET?
what we gon'be cutting down around 4pm sunday
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:25 pm to TeddyPadillac
It usually boils down to win the game in front of you, lose to Miss St and probably not without other upsets. If we beat Miss St we’re probably in. Hey McMen win against both Miss St and Tennessee we might sneak into the big dance but the losses to Arkansas & Nicholls cost us dearly
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News