The inclusion of three mid- to lower-majors as at-large teams is a huge departure and largely historic. Recently, history has told us that one or two of these bids is rare enough, but three? It's just not done. The WAC, Sun Belt and Horizon have never all gotten multiple teams in the NCAA tournament in the same year since the birth of the 64-team field. Twelve conference sent at least two teams to the Big Dance.

He goes on to say he concurs with Fresno being in, gives UALR a "maybe", but it pretty harsh in criticizing Green Bay being picked over USC. I never have studied the women's selections before, and thus I pretty much took the lead from him in saying our ladies were "toast" when several tournament upsets occurred this weekend. He believed (apparently based on history) that the committee would choose 12 to 14 loss teams from "power" conferences over midmajors who won their league during the regular season. He was clearly wrong.

Truth of the matter is, we better win one to show we belong.

(03-15-2010 09:39 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Truth of the matter is, we better win one to show we belong.

He didn't even mention, Hartford, from the America East getting an at large bid. That's another mid to low major.

(03-15-2010 09:38 PM)mjs Wrote:  The inclusion of three mid- to lower-majors as at-large teams is a huge departure and largely historic. Recently, history has told us that one or two of these bids is rare enough, but three? It's just not done. The WAC, Sun Belt and Horizon have never all gotten multiple teams in the NCAA tournament in the same year since the birth of the 64-team field. Twelve conference sent at least two teams to the Big Dance.

He goes on to say he concurs with Fresno being in, gives UALR a "maybe", but it pretty harsh in criticizing Green Bay being picked over USC. I never have studied the women's selections before, and thus I pretty much took the lead from him in saying our ladies were "toast" when several tournament upsets occurred this weekend. He believed (apparently based on history) that the committee would choose 12 to 14 loss teams from "power" conferences over midmajors who won their league during the regular season. He was clearly wrong.

So called experts don't like being shown up as clearly wrong, and will rarely admit they missed the boat. Just as true in sports as it is in politics.

(03-15-2010 09:38 PM)mjs Wrote:  The inclusion of three mid- to lower-majors as at-large teams is a huge departure and largely historic. Recently, history has told us that one or two of these bids is rare enough, but three? It's just not done. The WAC, Sun Belt and Horizon have never all gotten multiple teams in the NCAA tournament in the same year since the birth of the 64-team field. Twelve conference sent at least two teams to the Big Dance.

He goes on to say he concurs with Fresno being in, gives UALR a "maybe", but it pretty harsh in criticizing Green Bay being picked over USC. I never have studied the women's selections before, and thus I pretty much took the lead from him in saying our ladies were "toast" when several tournament upsets occurred this weekend. He believed (apparently based on history) that the committee would choose 12 to 14 loss teams from "power" conferences over midmajors who won their league during the regular season. He was clearly wrong.

Creme gets surprised every year. He's a dime-store hack who could give two hoots about the so-called mid-majors. He is an ESPN shill for the money conferences.

Have you guys ever looked to see how many road games against non-money conference programs the UNC's, Georgia's, UCLA's, etc play ? They don't play many road OOC games at all.

Tonight was a victory for all of us po` folks.

Check out the very popular RebKell women's hoops forum. Lots of UALR talk over there:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewforum.php?f=2