MVCfans.com

uniftw wrote:

mule wrote:

uniftw wrote: In the last 7 years we've donated enough to take our coach from 250K per year to a contract that will pay him $1,000,000 per year. That is all 100% privately funded by UNI fans and donors.

I take it by the inclusive we that you are one of those donors.

If you look at the context of the rest of the post, and the post I was replying to it's pretty clear that the context is UNI fans. I am a UNI fan. I also donate to the PSC and I am part of a group that donates to specific things on campus, one includes Jacobson. So, sure, I guess you're post is accurate.

Oddly enough, if you didn't cherry pick where to cut the quote you would have seen the previous two sentences were

UNI fans did have a hand in the sustained success? Why?

Now if you put those two in front of what you cut out you'd get

UNI fans did have a hand in the sustained success? Why? In the last 7 years we've donated enough to take our coach from 250K per year to a contract that will pay him $1,000,000 per year. That is all 100% privately funded by UNI fans and donors.

That changes the context of the "we" quickly, doesn't it? I am a UNI fan. I referenced UNI fans. I am a UNI fan that donates. I am part of the group I was referring too. Thus "we" is 100% accurate and appropriate.

But, but, but, you're all meanies.

uniftw wrote:

mule wrote:

uniftw wrote: In the last 7 years we've donated enough to take our coach from 250K per year to a contract that will pay him $1,000,000 per year. That is all 100% privately funded by UNI fans and donors.

I take it by the inclusive we that you are one of those donors.

If you look at the context of the rest of the post, and the post I was replying to it's pretty clear that the context is UNI fans. I am a UNI fan. I also donate to the PSC and I am part of a group that donates to specific things on campus, one includes Jacobson. So, sure, I guess you're post is accurate.

Oddly enough, if you didn't cherry pick where to cut the quote you would have seen the previous two sentences were

UNI fans did have a hand in the sustained success? Why?

Now if you put those two in front of what you cut out you'd get

UNI fans did have a hand in the sustained success? Why? In the last 7 years we've donated enough to take our coach from 250K per year to a contract that will pay him $1,000,000 per year. That is all 100% privately funded by UNI fans and donors.

That changes the context of the "we" quickly, doesn't it? I am a UNI fan. I referenced UNI fans. I am a UNI fan that donates. I am part of the group I was referring too. Thus "we" is 100% accurate and appropriate.

No need to go all english prof on me. Just wanted to know if you were part of the monetary stream.

mule wrote:

uniftw wrote:

mule wrote:I take it by the inclusive we that you are one of those donors.

If you look at the context of the rest of the post, and the post I was replying to it's pretty clear that the context is UNI fans. I am a UNI fan. I also donate to the PSC and I am part of a group that donates to specific things on campus, one includes Jacobson. So, sure, I guess you're post is accurate.

Oddly enough, if you didn't cherry pick where to cut the quote you would have seen the previous two sentences were

UNI fans did have a hand in the sustained success? Why?

Now if you put those two in front of what you cut out you'd get

UNI fans did have a hand in the sustained success? Why? In the last 7 years we've donated enough to take our coach from 250K per year to a contract that will pay him $1,000,000 per year. That is all 100% privately funded by UNI fans and donors.

That changes the context of the "we" quickly, doesn't it? I am a UNI fan. I referenced UNI fans. I am a UNI fan that donates. I am part of the group I was referring too. Thus "we" is 100% accurate and appropriate.

No need to go all english prof on me. Just wanted to know if you were part of the monetary stream.

Sometimes you literally have to go all literacy police on people.

Not harping on this, but the trouble for the unlikely at large MVC candidates is that the league RPI is going to pull you down even if you win. Last year WSU was literally one of the last teams in and UNI needed the at large. Don't see much scenario for an at large this season even unless someone goes like 16-2 in MVC play and then makes the final in St loo.

Red wrote:Not harping on this, but the trouble for the unlikely at large MVC candidates is that the league RPI is going to pull you down even if you win. Last year WSU was literally one of the last teams in and UNI needed the at large. Don't see much scenario for an at large this season even unless someone goes like 16-2 in MVC play and then makes the final in St loo.

UNI is currently at 24 for non-conference SOS. They need a win over Iowa and no bad MVC losses to have an outside chance.

WSU is currently only a 132 non-conf SOS, but they still have Oklahoma State to play and have the wins in the non-conf that UNI does not.

Both teams have some credibility with the selection committee having been in and won tournament games the last few years. That is not supposed to be a criteria, but both are building some name-recognition.

Illinois State has an RPI that could be nice with some wins in Hawai'i, but they basically need to win out non-con. Loyola has the record, but the SOS is awful, so likely on the outs there unless they keep the winning pct. going in conference.

Khan4Cats wrote:

Red wrote:Not harping on this, but the trouble for the unlikely at large MVC candidates is that the league RPI is going to pull you down even if you win. Last year WSU was literally one of the last teams in and UNI needed the at large. Don't see much scenario for an at large this season even unless someone goes like 16-2 in MVC play and then makes the final in St loo.

UNI is currently at 24 for non-conference SOS. They need a win over Iowa and no bad MVC losses to have an outside chance.

WSU is currently only a 132 non-conf SOS, but they still have Oklahoma State to play and have the wins in the non-conf that UNI does not.

Both teams have some credibility with the selection committee having been in and won tournament games the last few years. That is not supposed to be a criteria, but both are building some name-recognition.

Illinois State has an RPI that could be nice with some wins in Hawai'i, but they basically need to win out non-con. Loyola has the record, but the SOS is awful, so likely on the outs there unless they keep the winning pct. going in conference.

UNI needs to beat both Iowa and UNC or go like 17-1 in conference to have a chance. The George Mason and Wyoming losses are bad and are a death sentence for a mid-major.

RPIForecast is still a few weeks from achieving real value, but it is starting to come into focus. It projects that 8 regular season losses would net UNI a RPI of ~38-39 - that is probably the absolute bare minimum the Panthers would need to even be in the conversation for an at-large heading into St. Louis.

Assuming a loss at UNC and a win vs. Iowa, that would mean UNI needs to go at least 15-3 in the MVC to remain relevant for purposes of the at-large discussion. 16-2 IMO would probably put them on the right side of the bubble.

That is a tall order for the Panthers and would require significant improvement and greater consistency than what they've shown so far. Not impossible, but we're probably looking at a couple standard deviations in terms of likelihood.

Play Angry wrote:RPIForecast is still a few weeks from achieving real value, but it is starting to come into focus. It projects that 8 regular season losses would net UNI a RPI of ~38-39 - that is probably the absolute bare minimum the Panthers would need to even be in the conversation for an at-large heading into St. Louis.

Assuming a loss at UNC and a win vs. Iowa, that would mean UNI needs to go at least 15-3 in the MVC to remain relevant for purposes of the at-large discussion. 16-2 IMO would probably put them on the right side of the bubble.

That is a tall order for the Panthers and would require significant improvement and greater consistency than what they've shown so far. Not impossible, but we're probably looking at a couple standard deviations in terms of likelihood.

15-3 or better will be the minimum MVC finish for any at large consideration in the MVC. That might not be enough.

bump

Yes, we're proudly going to be a one-bid league.