Derek Kellogg - LIU Brooklyn

[minutefanjsf]

Conference tournament winners shouldn't be playing in the play-in game, be it an ex-UMass coached team or otherwise. I've always hated that.

I agree play in games should all be the last at large entries to play these games. 11 or 12 seeds usually. If you win a conference tourney you should get to play in the round of 64.

[classof62-64]

i dont know...just looked at numbers is all....football all time record is 561-557. so .500 ball. 25-83 since 2004. thats 14 years. Maybe powerhouse numbers in your eyes. Not in many others. Basketball..601-464, thats not too bad. Most of those victories came under calipari of course(193). I will say basketball has ok numbers. Not sure powerhouse style. Hockey since 1993, 282-476. Thats all that has to be said about hockey.

You're a pretty pathetic troll. You could have simply told Rudy to not throw stones from glass houses or something like that. Nothing but a sad troll.... and one that can't count. 25 football wins since 2004? Try 73, dick.

I think billybuck is the UMass-Lowell troll if I'm not mistaken. Hey Bill, how'd U. of Lowell do in the Hockey East tournament this year?

That makes more sense. Sad and pathetic use of his/her time.

Having a little problem with Math, or is it perception? 193 out of 601 cannot be classified as "most", no matter how badly you want to slant it.

Actually, were not "most" of the 601 wins under Jack Leaman?

[minutefanjsf]

You're a pretty pathetic troll. You could have simply told Rudy to not throw stones from glass houses or something like that. Nothing but a sad troll.... and one that can't count. 25 football wins since 2004? Try 73, dick.





That makes more sense. Sad and pathetic use of his/her time.

Having a little problem with Math, or is it perception? 193 out of 601 cannot be classified as "most", no matter how badly you want to slant it.

Actually, were not "most" of the 601 wins under Jack Leaman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMass_Min ... basketball

I don’t even know where those numbers come from. Cal, Leaman and DK together are close to the 601 themselves. Add in Ford and Bruiser and you’re over 700. If the Wiki can be trusted.

[McKinney]

Sports-reference.com has the record as 1071-935 since 1925. Of course there has to be more wins than that as they've been playing basketball since 1908.

[minutefanjsf]

Sports-reference.com has the record as 1071-935 since 1925. Of course there has to be more wins than that as they've been playing basketball since 1908.

Any idea where the 601 total came from for this guy?

[Billybuck]

Sports-reference.com has the record as 1071-935 since 1925. Of course there has to be more wins than that as they've been playing basketball since 1908.

I love how everyone is dug on these numbers. It's hilarious. Of course more losses as well since 1908. I just went to wiki and think I added up the numbers starting at jack. maybe....don't remember. I didn't go back to 1925. Jack must have been a good coach...he had going good way back then and after that it fell to the dumps to calipari reared his head and made ya famous for a few years in the 90's.

[InnervisionsUMASS]

Again, why are you here other than to troll?

[MikeEsq]

Sports-reference.com has the record as 1071-935 since 1925. Of course there has to be more wins than that as they've been playing basketball since 1908.

I love how everyone is dug on these numbers. It's hilarious. Of course more losses as well since 1908. I just went to wiki and think I added up the numbers starting at jack. maybe....don't remember. I didn't go back to 1925. Jack must have been a good coach...he had going good way back then and after that it fell to the dumps to calipari reared his head and made ya famous for a few years in the 90's.

Hey Bill, speaking of struggles, U. of Lowell has really bit the big one since moving up from Division 2, huh? I guess it's a little tougher when you're playing with the big boys. Where do you stand on the general suckage of the River Hawks? Thanks in advance for your thoughts . . . .

[natwam2547]

Conference tournament winners shouldn't be playing in the play-in game, be it an ex-UMass coached team or otherwise. I've always hated that.

I'm probably in the minority, but I disagree. For half the teams, they get to experience the joy of a tournament win (it is a tournament win after all, not a play in game) before they get their tails kicked in by a #1 seed.

[InnervisionsUMASS]

^

I have to think that you're also in the minority in thinking that those games are legit tournament games. They are play-in games, regardless of how the NCAA and CBS tries to spin it.

[bobolink]

Conference tournament winners shouldn't be playing in the play-in game, be it an ex-UMass coached team or otherwise. I've always hated that.

I'm probably in the minority, but I disagree. For half the teams, they get to experience the joy of a tournament win (it is a tournament win after all, not a play in game) before they get their tails kicked in by a #1 seed.

You both have reasons I can see. Playing in the first 4 games means you're the one and only NCAA game on national TV at the time (but it's only TruTV). Being in the 64 that start Thursday puts your name in the brackets, which is how so many think of the tournament, but then again most of those say things like "Syracuse/Arizona State" so your school name is there regardless. I think the committee did a good job of putting a mix of weak-conference champions and power conference teams that barely made the field, giving us interesting opening games. Of course, UMass connections enhanced my interest. I found it a little surprising that of the 4 players that left us 1 year ago, 3 made the Big Dance.

[eldonabe]

Perception and reality are at odds here.

The public perception is that the First 4 are not really in the tournament. "The tournament doesn't really start until Thursday." The NCAA says your in, but clearly the public is not listening.

If you earn a spot by winning your conference you should be "in" not "kinda in". Yes you may be subject to a 1st round ass-whoopin' at the hands of a 1 seed, but you earned that right.

It should be a field of 60 plus the next 8 bubbles - and they can all be slotted in the 11 & 12 play in holes on the bracket. The reality is that they should be slotted in the 13 & 14 holes actually so they have an even harder game once they get into the full bracket, and give the better conf champs a little easier 1 round game as the prize for winning your conference. That however makes too much sense and would somehow be marginalized by the NCAA as "bad for business".

I know that 6 or 7 of those 8 teams would probably be P5 schools but so what, they are probably the next best 8 anyways.... who does that really harm.

[fenway617]

The thing about the tourney is it is not the best 68 teams in the country. It's like the best 40 or so teams then the winners of some low level conferences who get the auto-bid. Making the first 4 games is sort of like saying we know your teams ins't good so you have to earn your way into the tourney. The first 4 games should just be 8 teams that are deemed the bottom 8 and the 4 winners of each of the play-in games clinch one of the four 16 seeds. This also rewards the #1 seeds for having a great year and getting a cupcake game in the first round.

[InnervisionsUMASS]

I just disagree with that. If you're going to have an auto-bid system, those who receive the auto-bid should be in the tournament and not have to play an extra game to "get in."

I also have an issue with these teams being slotted in as 16 seeds, but that's another argument for another day in another thread that's not about our former coach. *moving on*

[fenway617]

Absolutely arguments on both sides. I can't disagree with your point either. There is something special about these random colleges who get in and pull of upsets that makes each tourney unique.