Numbers 1 , 2 , 4 and 6 Made it---Good on Salukis !! Came out of nowhere--but as 63 and others have repeatedly written--Stay out of seventh or worse. They did and lo they are in the semis !!

Watch those Shockers--Great chance to to tourney unbeaten !! Obviously , it would be almost impossible to run the table--but.......

I recall we lost two in 63 --It got our attention--especially the Shocker game--back in the day--


I like the Wheatshockers to stun the field and win the PRIZE !!!

Was hoping for round 3 between my alma maters, but I think the back to back games for an already tired Ramblers team was too much. I think the season ended on a somewhat positive note getting at least one win, though...as well as some brief national attention for Doyle.

Rooting for the Salukis from here on out this year, and it looks like things may have finally turned positive in Carbondale with the young kids there. A good SIU team will mean some great games at Gentile with big crowds. Lot of SIU people in Chicago, but many haven't exactly been thrilled about the basketball team the last few years or motivated to follow it. That will change quickly with a good run this year and potential next year. I'm already seeing a big change in attitude among my friends since the beginning of the year. Winning breeds that, and will hopefully do the same in Rogers Park soon.

The big statistic going around discussion boards was that only 1 seven seed or lower (out of something like 34) has ever made it to the semi-finals-- Bradley in 1998.

Yeah, the Salukis have been impressive. When their bus broke down in the snowstorm after the loss at ISUr, they were 0-2 in conference and 4-11 overall. Since then (unfortunately, starting with their first win against Loyola), they're 10-7. They're 8-3 in their last 11 games, and find themselves in the semi-finals at Arch Madness. What a job by Hinson...

The Ramblers represented well in your first trip to ArchMadness. It sometimes takes a team a few trips before picking up a win in the Valley tournament.

Our Sycamores can and should beat the Saluki's today............but Coach Barry Hinson worries the hell out of me. We never seem to play well against his teams whether he was at Southwest Missouri State or at SIU. The man can coach & motivate & frustrate the hell out of you.

The top three Saluki producers (Beane, Jackson & Smithpeters) all played 38 or 39 minutes in the late game last night. Jake Odum played 33 minutes and the next eight players played between 15-28 minutes in the earlier evening game........Advantage Sycamores, one game at a time.

The Shockers are destroying--NO --obliterating the Bears--Might hit 40 points--unless Coach puts in the water boy et al.

This Bear team is the one we took out at Gentile for our most lop-sided win.

If this is what we will be up against next season, I want more of it !! Do the Math--This wreck was a 4th place team ??? Yuck !

Wichita State has a chance to match the best starting record ever in the history of college basketball tomorrow at 34-0. UNLV went into the National Championship game at 34-0 before losing to Duke in 1991. So Wichita State isn't just the #1 seed in the MVC, they have to be mentioned among the best teams in the history of college basketball.

Yes, you can point to the fact that the Valley is down this year, but when you consider that WSU is also coming off a Final Four appearance, it underscores how solid their program is. I don't care how supposedly mediocre your conference strength of schedule is, teams are bound to have a bad game now and then, or run up against a team that happens to be hot. You can look at how last place Boston College knocked off Syracuse at home in the ACC for proof of that. I think they're clearly better than the 2009-10 Butler team that went undefeated in the Horizon and 33-4 before losing in the National Championship game by two points. Just maintaining your focus to win every game is harder than it seems, and it certainly doesn't happen unless you're a truly exceptional team.

Define "mentioned".

Define "among".

Define "of."

_________________
Cigarboy sucks!

If you think about it , "of" is actually hard to define, especially without context.

Here is one definition: "used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of

Be honest; if you were presented with this definition, would you be able to come up with "of" as the answer?