How relatively bad is Big Sky basketball?

[[cat_bracket]]

The BSC is 20-74 in NCAA, NIT, CIT and CBI tournament games.

We're 0-2 in the CBI and have only been invited one year (two teams both lost in 2011). No entries in 2013.

We're 2-3 in the CIT, which is our best tournament and have two teams going this year. Two entries in 2013.

We're 3-16 in the NIT, not even an invite this year. We do better in the NCAA than the NIT and haven't ever won more than one game in a year in that tournament.

We're only 4-33 since 1980 in the NCAA, but we were a respectable 11-20 (not counting consolation games) prior to that. Idaho State had most of those 11 wins. Out of 74 tries, ISU is the only team with two wins in one tourney (any tourney) in BSC history. That's 15-53 overall.

Are there worse conferences? Probably, but this really screams "Not even Mid-Major!" That 4-33 is about as bad as you can do. That's a .108% winning percentage, which is basically just luck. I think the only convincing win during that time span was UM beating Nevada, but that was because Nevada just wasn't that good.

[John K]

The BSC is 20-74 in NCAA, NIT, CIT and CBI tournament games.

We're 0-2 in the CBI and have only been invited one year (two teams both lost in 2011). No entries in 2013.

We're 2-3 in the CIT, which is our best tournament and have two teams going this year. Two entries in 2013.

We're 3-16 in the NIT, not even an invite this year. We do better in the NCAA than the NIT and haven't ever won more than one game in a year in that tournament.

We're only 4-33 since 1980 in the NCAA, but we were a respectable 11-20 (not counting consolation games) prior to that. Idaho State had most of those 11 wins. Out of 74 tries, ISU is the only team with two wins in one tourney (any tourney) in BSC history. That's 15-53 overall.

Are there worse conferences? Probably, but this really screams "Not even Mid-Major!" That 4-33 is about as bad as you can do. That's a .108% winning percentage, which is basically just luck. I think the only convincing win during that time span was UM beating Nevada, but that was because Nevada just wasn't that good.

ISU actually made it to the Elite 8 that year (I believe it was 1977) didn't they, because the BSC champ got a bye in the first round back then? That tells you how far the BSC has fallen. It's completely unfathomable today that a BSC team could ever make it all the way to the Regional Finals. No BSC team has even made the Sweet 16 in more than 30 years, since Idaho in 1982. As much as I hate UM (and I hate them with a passion), it's hard for me to root against them in the tourney, because I know that a win by any BSC team will help the league champ to get higher seeds in the future. Although, I suppose that shouldn't really matter to MSU fans, because that's not likely to be us at any point in the foreseeable future.

[Toucat]

The BSC is 20-74 in NCAA, NIT, CIT and CBI tournament games.

We're 0-2 in the CBI and have only been invited one year (two teams both lost in 2011). No entries in 2013.

We're 2-3 in the CIT, which is our best tournament and have two teams going this year. Two entries in 2013.

We're 3-16 in the NIT, not even an invite this year. We do better in the NCAA than the NIT and haven't ever won more than one game in a year in that tournament.

We're only 4-33 since 1980 in the NCAA, but we were a respectable 11-20 (not counting consolation games) prior to that. Idaho State had most of those 11 wins. Out of 74 tries, ISU is the only team with two wins in one tourney (any tourney) in BSC history. That's 15-53 overall.

Are there worse conferences? Probably, but this really screams "Not even Mid-Major!" That 4-33 is about as bad as you can do. That's a .108% winning percentage, which is basically just luck. I think the only convincing win during that time span was UM beating Nevada, but that was because Nevada just wasn't that good.

UM has two wins in the NCAA tournament. But I do agree that the BSC has not had much success in any tournament.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I wouldn't bet against the griz getting to the sweet sixteen this year. They're a good team, but they've got something supernatural going. I think it's the Tinkles-they can't lose.

Seriously-I would not be shocked if they got to the sweet 16.

As for the Big Sky's post season record. Yeah it's bad, but the deck is stacked against us. Every season we're at best a 12 or 13 seed so we're playing a highly ranked team. It's a pretty impossible task. I won't bother to look it up, but I bet there's a few leagues out there that envy the Big Sky's post season success.

[John K]

The BSC is 20-74 in NCAA, NIT, CIT and CBI tournament games.

We're 0-2 in the CBI and have only been invited one year (two teams both lost in 2011). No entries in 2013.

We're 2-3 in the CIT, which is our best tournament and have two teams going this year. Two entries in 2013.

We're 3-16 in the NIT, not even an invite this year. We do better in the NCAA than the NIT and haven't ever won more than one game in a year in that tournament.

We're only 4-33 since 1980 in the NCAA, but we were a respectable 11-20 (not counting consolation games) prior to that. Idaho State had most of those 11 wins. Out of 74 tries, ISU is the only team with two wins in one tourney (any tourney) in BSC history. That's 15-53 overall.

Are there worse conferences? Probably, but this really screams "Not even Mid-Major!" That 4-33 is about as bad as you can do. That's a .108% winning percentage, which is basically just luck. I think the only convincing win during that time span was UM beating Nevada, but that was because Nevada just wasn't that good.

UM has two wins in the NCAA tournament. But I do agree that the BSC has not had much success in any tournament.

When did UM have two wins during one tourney? They may have two total wins, but I don't believe they've ever won more than one game in a single year.

[CPACAT]

I wouldn't bet against the griz getting to the sweet sixteen this year. They're a good team, but they've got something supernatural going. I think it's the Tinkles-they can't lose.

Seriously-I would not be shocked if they got to the sweet 16.

As for the Big Sky's post season record. Yeah it's bad, but the deck is stacked against us. Every season we're at best a 12 or 13 seed so we're playing a highly ranked team. It's a pretty impossible task. I won't bother to look it up, but I bet there's a few leagues out there that envy the Big Sky's post season success.

Does that mean you bet for them to make it? If so I would love some of that action.

[Silenoz]

I wouldn't bet against the griz getting to the sweet sixteen this year. They're a good team, but they've got something supernatural going. I think it's the Tinkles-they can't lose.

Seriously-I would not be shocked if they got to the sweet 16.

As for the Big Sky's post season record. Yeah it's bad, but the deck is stacked against us. Every season we're at best a 12 or 13 seed so we're playing a highly ranked team. It's a pretty impossible task. I won't bother to look it up, but I bet there's a few leagues out there that envy the Big Sky's post season success.

'Cuse is going to absolutely destroy us

[Toucat]

The BSC is 20-74 in NCAA, NIT, CIT and CBI tournament games.

We're 0-2 in the CBI and have only been invited one year (two teams both lost in 2011). No entries in 2013.

We're 2-3 in the CIT, which is our best tournament and have two teams going this year. Two entries in 2013.

We're 3-16 in the NIT, not even an invite this year. We do better in the NCAA than the NIT and haven't ever won more than one game in a year in that tournament.

We're only 4-33 since 1980 in the NCAA, but we were a respectable 11-20 (not counting consolation games) prior to that. Idaho State had most of those 11 wins. Out of 74 tries, ISU is the only team with two wins in one tourney (any tourney) in BSC history. That's 15-53 overall.

Are there worse conferences? Probably, but this really screams "Not even Mid-Major!" That 4-33 is about as bad as you can do. That's a .108% winning percentage, which is basically just luck. I think the only convincing win during that time span was UM beating Nevada, but that was because Nevada just wasn't that good.

UM has two wins in the NCAA tournament. But I do agree that the BSC has not had much success in any tournament.

When did UM have two wins during one tourney? They may have two total wins, but I don't believe they've ever won more than one game in a single year.

I guess I misread his post when he said out of "74 tries." It appears he's counting NCAA consolation games to get to 74. UM doesn't have two wins in one year, but if he's counting consolation games, Weber as well as ISU do.

[John K]

The BSC is 20-74 in NCAA, NIT, CIT and CBI tournament games.

We're 0-2 in the CBI and have only been invited one year (two teams both lost in 2011). No entries in 2013.

We're 2-3 in the CIT, which is our best tournament and have two teams going this year. Two entries in 2013.

We're 3-16 in the NIT, not even an invite this year. We do better in the NCAA than the NIT and haven't ever won more than one game in a year in that tournament.

We're only 4-33 since 1980 in the NCAA, but we were a respectable 11-20 (not counting consolation games) prior to that. Idaho State had most of those 11 wins. Out of 74 tries, ISU is the only team with two wins in one tourney (any tourney) in BSC history. That's 15-53 overall.

Are there worse conferences? Probably, but this really screams "Not even Mid-Major!" That 4-33 is about as bad as you can do. That's a .108% winning percentage, which is basically just luck. I think the only convincing win during that time span was UM beating Nevada, but that was because Nevada just wasn't that good.

And since Idaho won a game in 1982, that means the BSC is only 3-32 since then, which drops their winning percentage below .100 (.086)...that is ridiculously bad!! They went 12 years without a single win from 1983-1994, then picked up 3 wins in the next 12 years from 1995-2006. Apparently one of the ESPN talking heads picked them to upset Syracuse, but I don't see it happening. UM has a great team by BSC standards, but the BSC is historically bad this season.

[JDoub]

yea, not great winning percentages

but hey, the Big Sky should produce the NBA's Rookie of the Year this year, sayin' something

and Rodney Stucky a couple years ago showed the BSC has some decent ballers

and who could forget the first round wins that Weber State put together in the 90's -- both while ranked 14 in their region, first beating Michigan State before a tough two point loss against Georgetown in '95, then against North Carolina before losing in OT against Florida in '99

Since then the BSC at least has not been completely relegated to 14-16 seeds, picking up 14-12 seeds seems to be the new norm

[John K]

yea, not great winning percentages

but hey, the Big Sky should produce the NBA's Rookie of the Year this year, sayin' something

and Rodney Stucky a couple years ago showed the BSC has some decent ballers

and who could forget the first round wins that Weber State put together in the 90's -- both while ranked 14 in their region, first beating Michigan State before a tough two point loss against Georgetown in '95, then against North Carolina before losing in OT against Florida in '99

Since then the BSC at least has not been completely relegated to 14-16 seeds, picking up 14-12 seeds seems to be the new norm

That's true. I've been afraid that the BSC might get relegated to one of the "First Four" games, but that hasn't happened...yet. I still don't understand why the winners of all those games aren't slotted into the four #16 seeds. It makes no sense to me that two of those "play-in" winners get seeded higher than some teams that don't have to play in the 1st round.

[BelgradeBobcat]

Does that mean you bet for them to make it? If so I would love some of that action.

Heck no! I don't even play the nickle slots in Nevada. Too risky.

But look at the week the Tinkles had: Both daughters are on conference championship teams (Stanford and Gonzaga), and the son wins a State boy's basketball title. Meanwhile Dad wins the Big Sky title. They can't lose!

Syracuse is a schitzo team-anything could happen. And when anything can happen it usually goes the griz's way.

[bozbobcat]

yea, not great winning percentages

but hey, the Big Sky should produce the NBA's Rookie of the Year this year, sayin' something

and Rodney Stucky a couple years ago showed the BSC has some decent ballers

and who could forget the first round wins that Weber State put together in the 90's -- both while ranked 14 in their region, first beating Michigan State before a tough two point loss against Georgetown in '95, then against North Carolina before losing in OT against Florida in '99

Since then the BSC at least has not been completely relegated to 14-16 seeds, picking up 14-12 seeds seems to be the new norm

That's true. I've been afraid that the BSC might get relegated to one of the "First Four" games, but that hasn't happened...yet. I still don't understand why the winners of all those games aren't slotted into the four #16 seeds. It makes no sense to me that two of those "play-in" winners get seeded higher than some teams that don't have to play in the 1st round.

I think that when the NCAA expanded play in games, they added two games for the last 4 teams in as far as at-large bids go. Instead of relegating 8 conferences to a 16 seed, they thought this would be more fair. If anything, it makes the NCAA look like they're not totally against the little guy.

As for the Griz, I ended up reading a bit of Syracuse's message board...I'd be ok if the Grizzlies shut that fan base up a little bit.

[CPrice91]

I seem to recall a lot of national buzz last year about how UM was a good bet to knock off Wisconsin, too. That one went well... Back when they had (don't remember his name) scoring 40 points in BSC championship games they had a shot, but now?



When the regular season ended the BSC had two teams above .500. Two! I'd have to take the time to look it up to be sure, but that sounds pretty damn bad to me. Even for a low-major.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

Syracuse has to fly all the way to the west coast and play a game at 8 MT (10 ET). That could definately be a factor as well.

[allcat]

Syracuse has to fly all the way to the west coast and play a game at 8 MT (10 ET). That could definately be a factor as well.

Wishful thinking, for the gritz. Jim Boehiem has played these games for a while, I', sure he knows how to prep a team.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

Syracuse has to fly all the way to the west coast and play a game at 8 MT (10 ET). That could definately be a factor as well.

Wishful thinking, for the gritz. Jim Boehiem has played these games for a while, I', sure he knows how to prep a team.

He can put them down for their naps around 5:00

[[cat_bracket]]

Syracuse has to fly all the way to the west coast and play a game at 8 MT (10 ET). That could definately be a factor as well.

Wishful thinking, for the gritz. Jim Boehiem has played these games for a while, I', sure he knows how to prep a team.

He can put them down for their naps around 5:00

It all depends on how ready and poised Syracuse is. If they come out flat and Montana gets a lead or stays close and 'Cuse gets tight, then it could happen for UM. That's the case for every team out of a conference like the Big Sky going against a team from a power conference like the Big East.

[ilovethecats]

That's true. I've been afraid that the BSC might get relegated to one of the "First Four" games, but that hasn't happened...yet. I still don't understand why the winners of all those games aren't slotted into the four #16 seeds. It makes no sense to me that two of those "play-in" winners get seeded higher than some teams that don't have to play in the 1st round.

i saw a great write-up on this last season. in a nutshell being in the play-in games does not mean you are the worst teams in the field. sometimes it does. if memory serves me right 4 of the teams are literally the "worst" four teams to make the field. the winners of these games go on to get 16 seeds and get their asses handed to them by the likes of duke, louisville, kentucky, etc.

the other 4 teams are different. if i am correct i think these are teams not from the smallest conferences where we know only one will get in...but also not from the major conferences either. i could be wrong on that second part but i don't think so. that's why your "first four out" consist of teams like virginia, tennessee, and kentucky. othewise they would be in the play-in.

this year these four teams are st. marys, middle tennessee, lasalle, and boise state. these are actually pretty good teams which is why they are playing for an 11 seed and a 13 seed.

the thing to remember is that when the brackets come out it is not an exact representation of the number 1 team in the country through the number 68 team in the country in exact order. for example, as a minnesota gophers fan i was worried they might not make the field. they have been playing terrible lately and had a bad showing in the big ten tourney. but they got themselves an 11 seed and a pretty good matchup with ucla in my opinion. if it was an exact science they would likely be one of the 8 teams playing in the play-in.

this is by memory so it might not be 100% accurate but i think it's the basic idea of how they select teams and why all play-in winners aren't 16 seeds.

[John K]

That's true. I've been afraid that the BSC might get relegated to one of the "First Four" games, but that hasn't happened...yet. I still don't understand why the winners of all those games aren't slotted into the four #16 seeds. It makes no sense to me that two of those "play-in" winners get seeded higher than some teams that don't have to play in the 1st round.

i saw a great write-up on this last season. in a nutshell being in the play-in games does not mean you are the worst teams in the field. sometimes it does. if memory serves me right 4 of the teams are literally the "worst" four teams to make the field. the winners of these games go on to get 16 seeds and get their asses handed to them by the likes of duke, louisville, kentucky, etc.

the other 4 teams are different. if i am correct i think these are teams not from the smallest conferences where we know only one will get in...but also not from the major conferences either. i could be wrong on that second part but i don't think so. that's why your "first four out" consist of teams like virginia, tennessee, and kentucky. othewise they would be in the play-in.

this year these four teams are st. marys, middle tennessee, lasalle, and boise state. these are actually pretty good teams which is why they are playing for an 11 seed and a 13 seed.

the thing to remember is that when the brackets come out it is not an exact representation of the number 1 team in the country through the number 68 team in the country in exact order. for example, as a minnesota gophers fan i was worried they might not make the field. they have been playing terrible lately and had a bad showing in the big ten tourney. but they got themselves an 11 seed and a pretty good matchup with ucla in my opinion. if it was an exact science they would likely be one of the 8 teams playing in the play-in.

this is by memory so it might not be 100% accurate but i think it's the basic idea of how they select teams and why all play-in winners aren't 16 seeds.

Actually, I think you're right. Now that you mention it, I sort of remember hearing something like that a couple of years ago when they first expanded the field to 68 teams. I sort of understand the logic behind it I guess, although I think it should be all one way or the other. Either it should be the bottom eight teams playing for the four #16 seeds, or it should be all eight teams from mid-majors playing for slightly higher seeds. I guess I just don't like "play-in" games in general. Once they went beyond 64 teams, I wish they just would have expanded the field all the way to 96.