beating UTEP would have put us in College, at least Penders believed that was the case. By not beating UTEP we were forced to have to beat Memphis in the CUSA tourney.

TopCoog Wrote:beating UTEP would have put us in College, at least Penders believed that was the case. By not beating UTEP we were forced to have to beat Memphis in the CUSA tourney.

Well, that's also the same man that says Texas & UCLA (two teams still playing in the NCAA) are afraid to play Houston. Big Perm was not making the decisions on who got in. UTEP was nothing more than a lower level NIT team this season, and while beating them in El Paso is certainly a quality win, UH would have needed more than that. CUSA wasn't getting 3 in.

College, we'll have to agree to disagree. The problem was not that UTEP was such a quality win but more that is was a bad loss. And even if you are correct any other win on the schedule certanily would have done it. The point is though that IMHO bubble teams do nopt have too much room to complain, they missed opportunities and life is not always fair.

wvucrazed Wrote:Seton Hall and California definitely deserved to be in. As others have said, the problem this year was very simple: the committee made 2 egregious mistakes. Air Force and Utah State. Hofstra and Missouri State should have been in either those schools. I would also argue that UC had a better case for inclusion than Alabama, but they had similar resumes.

Another part of the problem is that the NCAA Committee seems to have felt that the MWC and WAC, since they play Division I-A football, should not be one-bid leagues. That also played in favor of Air Force and Utah State. But this line of thinking was not extended to the MAC or Sun Belt.

I also agree on Missouri State and possibly Creighton, as well as Hofstra, but there was probably no way they would give the Missouri Valley six bids. You would have really heard some serious whining from Jim Nantz and Billy Packer if a scenario such as that had ended up coming to pass.

Id just like to throw in that this year's Seton Hall is the worst NCAA Tournament team of all time in terms of getting an At-Large.

Not to add fuel to the fire or anything lmfao

wvucrazed Wrote:Seton Hall and California definitely deserved to be in. As others have said, the problem this year was very simple: the committee made 2 egregious mistakes. Air Force and Utah State. Hofstra and Missouri State should have been in either those schools. I would also argue that UC had a better case for inclusion than Alabama, but they had similar resumes.

I have to strongly disagree on California. Their nonconference performance was mediocre at best, and their conference record, their big selling point, was inflated by a terribly weak Pac-10. Unlike Cincinnati, they didn't take care of the teams they were supposed to beat. They lost to Arizona State at home in mid-February. Neither were they especially inspiring down the stretch--I wasn't impressed by the double-OT win over Oregon or the 18-point loss to UCLA. It was an absolute joke that this team got a 7 seed, and just a further indicator of the committee's bias.

Saint Monday Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:Seton Hall and California definitely deserved to be in. As others have said, the problem this year was very simple: the committee made 2 egregious mistakes. Air Force and Utah State. Hofstra and Missouri State should have been in either those schools. I would also argue that UC had a better case for inclusion than Alabama, but they had similar resumes.

I have to strongly disagree on California. Their nonconference performance was mediocre at best, and their conference record, their big selling point, was inflated by a terribly weak Pac-10. Unlike Cincinnati, they didn't take care of the teams they were supposed to beat. They lost to Arizona State at home in mid-February. Neither were they especially inspiring down the stretch--I wasn't impressed by the double-OT win over Oregon or the 18-point loss to UCLA. It was an absolute joke that this team got a 7 seed, and just a further indicator of the committee's bias.

I was shocked by the 7 seed, but i thought they deserved an at-large. They had a few very big wins, did well in the Pac-10 tournament, and had their worst losses early in the season. They also finished ahead of Zona in the Pac 10 standings.

Krocker Krapp Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:Seton Hall and California definitely deserved to be in. As others have said, the problem this year was very simple: the committee made 2 egregious mistakes. Air Force and Utah State. Hofstra and Missouri State should have been in either those schools. I would also argue that UC had a better case for inclusion than Alabama, but they had similar resumes.

Another part of the problem is that the NCAA Committee seems to have felt that the MWC and WAC, since they play Division I-A football, should not be one-bid leagues. That also played in favor of Air Force and Utah State. But this line of thinking was not extended to the MAC or Sun Belt.

I also agree on Missouri State and possibly Creighton, as well as Hofstra, but there was probably no way they would give the Missouri Valley six bids. You would have really heard some serious whining from Jim Nantz and Billy Packer if a scenario such as that had ended up coming to pass.

Interesting observation on the 1-A football angle, and you are 100% correct. Perception definitely helped those 2 leagues. The committee was simply unable to see them on the same level as the MAC, Big Sky, Sun Belt and WCC - which, of course, they are.

As for the talk about Houston on this thread - they had an excellent chance of getting in had they beaten UTEP; I wouldn't have picked them, but I think the committee may have put them in ahead of Utah State perhaps. It wouldn't have surprised me, at least.

It is kind of strange that Western Kentucky was frequently mentioned. I sure am curious as to the list of the committees last 5 out.

Obviously they wanted to correct some sort of perceived West Coast bias. So far it doesn't seem that these schools have particularly stepped up. The Huskie battle will be a big test.