The tv part I can believe.
But I just have a hard time believing we’d actually make it we won that game. We weren’t even seeded in the NIT. The only reason we hosted that first round game is because Sam Houston’s arena was booked for a different event. I can’t imagine that winning against USF would’ve been enough to from unseeded NIT to into the big dance.
The WCC tournament is a week earlier than most of the other conference tournaments so there were still a lot of dominoes to fall after the WCC tournament. Maybe the NCAA puts out feelers to the top 80 teams or something like that but the committee still had a week of basketball to watch after we lost. No way we were guaranteed anything if we win that game.
I can believe that the NCAA at least called SCU to make tentative plans as a squad that was identified as a potential At-Large. I’m sure it would have been for Dayton, so calling a bit ahead would make sense.
Just looking at Torvik, Santa Clara was, prior to that fateful USF game, 23-8 and #68 with only one bad loss to an honestly not completely rudderless Pacific team (way less of a bad loss than our LUC debacle this season). They were +.8 in Wins Above Bubble which is quite good for a mid major squad. That was before the NCAA actually put WAB on the Selection Committee sheets, but it basically shows that the Podz-led Broncos were the most consistent team of the post-COVID era for SCU. They won almost all the games they should have.
Had Santa Clara beaten USF, they would have climbed even a bit further in the analytics. I still think the Selection Committee would not have looked to SCU unless they made the Championship game, beating SMC. But I can believe that the path was there right to the end.
The semifinal game would’ve been vs. Gonzaga. Or did you mean SCU would’ve had to beat SMC in the final?
I goofed. Beat Gonzaga then. SCU would need to win in the semifinal to get there is all I’m saying.
Thanks for clarifying. However, maybe the committee would’ve thought a “quality loss” to Gonzaga in the semis was good enough for an at-large? It’s all rearview mirror speculation. I’ll stop picking at the scab.
Prior to that USF game, I don’t even think we were on Lunardi’s “First eight out.” It may have been the first time the department had even been called by the NCAA 
.
Primetime for Zags-Broncos. Folks will finish up the CFP game between Miami and Ole Miss and roll right into Zags/Cos!
LMU wins vs. USF. BEAT LMU Saturday and we begin to separate from the pack in the top 3.
Yup. 4th through 8th looks like a real mess. Santa Clara needs to stay out of that fracas.
Also, the double OT win for LMU makes me think they will arrive a little tired to Leavey on Saturday…advantage Broncos.
Loyola Chicago got thrashed by GW the way they should have been thrashed in Santa Cruz. Unfortunately, the Rambler Renaissance is not coming to save SCU. They are going to have that Q4 stain on the resume to overcome in the end.
There’s a theoretical path to the at-large still, but it will require something crazy like sweeping SMC and taking no losses to teams other than Gonzaga. Trying to get an at large with a Q4 loss as a mid major is like trying to swim after encasing your feet in concrete.
Xavier (110) got a strong win over Providence (81).
Also ASU (101) beat Kansas State (78).
But hey, good thing we tried the manufactured “neutral court” matchup. Karma.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the current state of SCU hoops is very similar to the Warriors just before Kerr took over. Mark Jackson had a young talented team and they were decently good - but they just never seemed to jell together and break through. Kerr came in and immediately changed the team (for the better, of course).
Unfortunately, Sendek is like Mark Jackson. He’ll be able to get good players, and nearly every year win 20+ games, but I don’t think he’s the guy to break the Broncos’ Tourney drought.
Okay, I like the comparison but Herb does seem like a good guy. I’m not sure people same about about Mark
I think Herb is a good guy also. And he has dramatically improved the status and stature of SCU basketball after the Keating debacle.
But Herb’s not the guy to get us to the next level.
I looked at the mid-major at-large bids for the past two NCAA tournaments. NOT ONE HAD A QUAD 4 LOSS. At minimum, I think the Broncos would need to win one against SMC or Zags; sweep the rest of the conference (no easy task); AND make it to the conference final game. A tall order.
Looks like WSU gave SMC a bit of a challenge. I believe the Gaels have one of the top defenses in the country, but gave up 82 to the Cougars.
At the 1/3 mark for conference games (for SCU, who is a game ahead of others), here’s the conference-only efficiency. There’s clear separation by the top-3 and the real question is whether SCU and SMC are truly neck-and-neck for second place or if the Bennett special sauce is still worth more than its weight in gold. (It’s the latter until proven otherwise, in my opinion.)
Need to at least split w/ SMC to have a chance for 2nd place. Have to hope GU sweeps SMC. Then comes down to whether we or SMC can run the table vs. the rest of the league.
Next week is critical. Hopefully an easy one vs. Pacific on Thursday and can hopefully keep guys fresh with no one playing 30mins+. Then possibly the most critical game of league play next Saturday vs. SMC at home. Torvik currently has it Broncos -3.4; feels more like a pick-em game. Broncos need to seize the opportunity which they failed to do vs. SLU and ASU. Not only does it build the season resume and maybe get us in to ‘Next 4 out’ discussion (I think an at-large is a distant long shot at best) but more importantly a win over SMC is critical to securing 2nd place. 2nd place (vs. 3rd or 4th) gives you an extra bye in the league tourney and you only need two wins to secure the title…..still a long shot, but currently our most likely path to the NCAA’s.
SMC vs. USF on ESPN2 now.
