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.

As I said, SEC got who they deserved to get in. ACC got 4 teams that should of been in and 2 teams in that shouldn't have.

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

 

Georgia had 4 losses worse than the worst NC State loss.

 

LSU had 3 losses worse than the worst NC State loss.

 

Arkansas had 3 losses worse than the worst NC State loss.

As I said, SEC got who they deserved to get in. ACC got 4 teams that should of been in and 2 teams in that shouldn't have.

 

You keep saying that, but who deserved to be in over them?

 

Seriously, how can you say Pitt didn't deserve to be in? The worst loss they had all season was #54 in the RPI.

If nothing else, it makes Coach K's derisive remarks towards other conferences look a bit out of whack. 2 of the 3 ACC dynamos housed by Mercer and getslow's boys from Dayton.

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?

SMU played 22 of their 32 games against teams ranked 100 or lower in the RPI....They played half their entire schedule against teams ranked 150 or lower. You can't play that weak of a schedule, lose 9 games, and expect to make the tournament. They lost 2 games to teams outside the top 150. That's a resume killer.

This thread is exhibit A as to why a 4 or even 8 team play off in football solves nothing.

This thread is exhibit A as to why a 4 or even 8 team play off in football solves nothing.

 

Sure it does. Makes sure you've at least got all the undefeated teams in.

 

You're right that there will always be argument about who is the last team in/first one out, but I'd much rather argue about teams 60-70 than 1-4.

I agree. Arkansas, Georgia, LSU, etc. all got exactly what they earned based on the season they had. Are they better teams than some of the teams that made the tournament? Maybe so, but making the dance is a reward for a successful season. None of those teams had a season that warranted inclusion in the field.

 

The SEC team that should have been in the tournament is Missouri. I agree that the 3 above didn't do enough to get in.

I gotta agree. As hard as I am on UK, they should have been a 6.

 

UK wasnt a 6 because they wanted to keep them away from Duke until Eight Game.

SMU played 22 of their 32 games against teams ranked 100 or lower in the RPI....They played half their entire schedule against teams ranked 150 or lower. You can't play that weak of a schedule, lose 9 games, and expect to make the tournament. They lost 2 games to teams outside the top 150. That's a resume killer.

So what? They finished in the top 25 in both AP and Coaches poll while the other teams we talked about didn't.

 

You can't always crucify a team that can't get bigger schools to play them. You do know there is a reason a lot of mid majors SoS isn't that great don't you?

 

I'll give you an example and use Dayton in this example. Why do you think Ohio State doesn't play Dayton? Dayton would love to play them, but OSU doesn't because OSU has nothing to gain by playing them and everything to lose by playing them if Dayton beats them. Dayton on the other hand has nothing to lose if they lose because they were "supposed" to lose. If They beat OSU then it makes national media etc. SMU is one of those schools just like a Dayton that if they aren't in a big conference will always have trouble finding games. Remember when Xavier was in bad conference back in the 90's? They were a really really good team but couldn't get teams outside the conference to play them during the season because the big teams couldn't afford to lose against a Xavier at the time.

 

SMU had a horrible out of conference schedule but it waasn't all of SMU's fault it turned out that way. Coaches and the AP knew they were good and is why they had them as high as 23rd in the polls at the end of the season.

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

The committee already showed they have no rhyme or reason for any of the seedings they did so who knows how they view the OOC for any team in any conference. You keep ignoring the fact that NC STate shouldn't have been in, and as I said already but keep getting ignored is the fact I have no problem with SEC only getting 3 teams in as long as the committee used the same criteria for every team.

The committee already showed they have no rhyme or reason for any of the seedings they did so who knows how they view the OOC for any team in any conference. You keep ignoring the fact that NC STate shouldn't have been in, and as I said already but keep getting ignored is the fact I have no problem with SEC only getting 3 teams in as long as the committee used the same criteria for every team.

 

OOC conference games will matter more than conference games. NC State out performed the SEC teams you have previously mentioned out of conference.

So what? They finished in the top 25 in both AP and Coaches poll while the other teams we talked about didn't.

 

You can't always crucify a team that can't get bigger schools to play them. You do know there is a reason a lot of mid majors SoS isn't that great don't you?

 

I'll give you an example and use Dayton in this example. Why do you think Ohio State doesn't play Dayton? Dayton would love to play them, but OSU doesn't because OSU has nothing to gain by playing them and everything to lose by playing them if Dayton beats them. Dayton on the other hand has nothing to lose if they lose because they were "supposed" to lose. If They beat OSU then it makes national media etc. SMU is one of those schools just like a Dayton that if they aren't in a big conference will always have trouble finding games. Remember when Xavier was in bad conference back in the 90's? They were a really really good team but couldn't get teams outside the conference to play them during the season because the big teams couldn't afford to lose against a Xavier at the time.

 

SMU had a horrible out of conference schedule but it waasn't all of SMU's fault it turned out that way. Coaches and the AP knew they were good and is why they had them as high as 23rd in the polls at the end of the season.

 

Top 25 rankings are absolutely meaningless when it comes to the tournament.

 

They lost 2 games to teams that aren't in the top 150. That's why they missed out on the tournament. If you play that many bad teams you can't lose to them and expect to make the tournament, you just can't. Win any one of their 3 atrocious losses (USF, Temple, and Houston) and they're in the field. They didn't and they have no one to blame but themselves for missing out.

The committee already showed they have no rhyme or reason for any of the seedings they did so who knows how they view the OOC for any team in any conference. You keep ignoring the fact that NC STate shouldn't have been in, and as I said already but keep getting ignored is the fact I have no problem with SEC only getting 3 teams in as long as the committee used the same criteria for every team.

 

How is it a fact that NC State shouldn't have been in, when there is nothing to support that claim but your own personal opinion?