Surely nobody is suggesting South Carolina should have made the tournament. Heck they weren't good enough to warrant an invite to any tournament.

No, not at all. Just showing how ridiculous it was that NC state made the tourney when teams who finished higher than them in their own conference was left out.

You're absolutely right. Their resume's weren't all that good. Unfortunately for SEC fans, the soft resumes that they had were better than the other teams on the bubble.

 

Also, Pitt didn't play in a play in game, they blew out a Colorado team that was most definitely deserving of being in the tournament.

 

As far as being in a bad conference....Does the top 3 of the SEC (UF, UK, UT) matchup well against the top 3 of the ACC (Virginia, Duke, Syracuse)? Absolutely. However it's after that that things swing drastically in the ACC's favor. Look at the records of the next group of SEC teams and ACC teams. The resumes are without fail stronger for every ACC team. Every SEC team had at least one terrible loss. LSU (Rhode Island), Georgia (Temple), Arkansas (A&M, USC, Alabama), Missouri (Illinois, Alabama, Vandy). Pitt and NC State didn't have a single loss as bad as any of those.

Their resumes were certainly better than South Carolina's... come on, man. You're really stretching to suggest that South Carolina or Arkansas should have made the tournament over Pittsburgh. NC State was probably the LAST team to make the field, so that's OK, but it's a pretty fine line.

I gave arguments that LSU, Georgia and even Arkansas deserved a bid before NC State did. Didn't give an argument for SC, was just tossing teams out that were like NC State. The SC was a slip up lol.

You're absolutely right. Their resume's weren't all that good. Unfortunately for SEC fans, the soft resumes that they had were better than the other teams on the bubble.

 

Also, Pitt didn't play in a play in game, they blew out a Colorado team that was most definitely deserving of being in the tournament.

 

As far as being in a bad conference....Does the top 3 of the SEC (UF, UK, UT) matchup well against the top 3 of the ACC (Virginia, Duke, Syracuse)? Absolutely. However it's after that that things swing drastically in the ACC's favor. Look at the records of the next group of SEC teams and ACC teams. The resumes are without fail stronger for every ACC team. Every SEC team had at least one terrible loss. LSU (Rhode Island), Georgia (Temple), Arkansas (A&M, USC, Alabama), Missouri (Illinois, Alabama, Vandy). Pitt and NC State didn't have a single loss as bad as any of those.

But what great wins did NC State or Pitt have? NC State's big win was against Syracuse in the middle of Syracuses big slide and a syracuse that was also knocked out of the tournament already. I don't think it swings dramatically at all in the ACC's favor at all. I think they both are conferences that deserved no more than 4 teams in each. The ACC beyond their top 4 teams were not better or worse than the SEC next couple teams.

 

Pitt's only good win was UNC. Again not that much different from the SEC teams

 

So if you want to talk about quality wins for the ACC teams then why disregard the SEC teams that beat UK? UK is a quality win for an SEC team isn't it?

Let's just look at Georgia and NC State

NC State 19-12 record 9-9 in conference

Georgia 19-13 record and 12-6 in conference

Georgia looks better to me.

 

NC State was 10-3 OOC, and UGA was 6-6...

 

NC State went 9-9 ACC, UGA went 12-6 in the SEC.

 

Which is more important to the selection committee?

But what great wins did NC State or Pitt have? NC State's big win was against Syracuse in the middle of Syracuses big slide and a syracuse that was also knocked out of the tournament already. I don't think it swings dramatically at all in the ACC's favor at all. I think they both are conferences that deserved no more than 4 teams in each. The ACC beyond their top 4 teams were not better or worse than the SEC next couple teams.

 

So if you want to talk about quality wins for the ACC teams then why disregard the SEC teams that beat UK? UK is a quality win for an SEC team isn't it?

 

I didn't mention quality wins in any of my posts....

 

NC State won @Tennessee, won @Pitt, and beat Syracuse (neutral court).

Pitt won @NC State, blew out Stanford (on a neutral court), and beat UNC (neutral court).

 

LSU beat Kentucky, Arkansas, and St. Joe's (neutral court).

Arkansas beat Kentucky twice and LSU once.

 

If anything we can say quality wins was a wash (although I'd tip the needle slightly in the ACC's favor), so as I've said all along, it comes down to bad losses. The SEC teams had them. Not so much for NC State or Pitt.

Georgia coming in and going 12-6 in SEC play did the league's tournament hopefuls no favors because Georgia was TERRIBLE in the non-conference, going 6-6 with losses to Georgia Tech, Davidson and Temple. It brought the whole league down.

 

Arkansas is the closest to having a gripe because they did pretty well prior to SEC play.

NC State got invited because of TJ Warren

I didn't mention quality wins in any of my posts....

 

NC State won @Tennessee, won @Pitt, and beat Syracuse (neutral court).

Pitt won @NC State, blew out Stanford (on a neutral court), and beat UNC (neutral court).

 

LSU beat Kentucky, Arkansas, and St. Joe's (neutral court).

Arkansas beat Kentucky twice and LSU once.

 

If anything we can say quality wins was a wash (although I'd tip the needle slightly in the ACC's favor), so as I've said all along, it comes down to bad losses. The SEC teams had them. Not so much for NC State or Pitt.

But you said after the top teams in the SEC that the ACC after the top teams in that conference you said it swings dramatically in favor of the ACC so if you aren't going by quality wins then what are you going by to determine that the ACC is dramatically better for those teams?

 

Want to talk about Bad Losses, how about NC State losing to NCCU for example or even Miami.

 

As I said, I'm not stating any other SEC shold of gotten in, but there were better teams in the SEC that didn't get in than some that did get in from other conferences, ACC included.

Edited March 24, 201412 yr by Hellbird

But you said after the top teams in the SEC that the ACC after the top teams in that conference you said it swings dramatically in favor of the ACC so if you aren't going by quality wins then what are you going by to determine that the ACC is dramatically better for those teams?

 

As I've said in darn near every post in this thread, it comes down to bad losses. The ACC teams didn't have them. Every SEC team had at least one, in most cases more.

As I've said in darn near every post in this thread, it comes down to bad losses. The ACC teams didn't have them. Every SEC team had at least one, in most cases more.

But I just showed you some bad losses by NC State alone.

But I just showed you some bad losses by NC State alone.

 

Georgia lost to Davidson, Temple, and George Washington...

Georgia lost to Davidson, Temple, and George Washington...

Yet NC State with bad losses still got in.

 

Can't have it both ways. Neither of them should of been in and instead SMU should of been in. It's the bias toward the ACC my friend that is ridiculous.

 

Again SEC 3 teams in 3 teams still playing

ACC 6 teams in 1 still playing

 

about sums it up.

Yet NC State with bad losses still got in.

 

Can't have it both ways. Neither of them should of been in and instead SMU should of been in. It's the bias toward the ACC my friend that is ridiculous.

 

Again SEC 3 teams in 3 teams still playing

ACC 6 teams in 1 still playing

 

about sums it up.

 

You ignored the OOC records I posted. How do you think the committee views those?

I'm a SEC fan, but I just haven't seen anything that looks like a good case for picking any other SEC team over the ACC teams that made it. BYU and maybe 1 or 2 others should have been in the play-in game before UT, and UK should have been at the worst a 7 seed, but other than that, I can't make a case.