(03-17-2014 11:35 AM)CD11 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:29 PM)eastside cat Wrote:  SMU, we were there a few years ago in Cincinnati. Really thought you would be dancing. Good Luck in NIT.

Our snub in 06 was a lot worse.

Yes it was

Not to say this one's not a big snub or that I'm insensitive about it. I'm not. I thought you should've been in and still can't believe you aren't. It's, again, the type of bullcrap that's made me gravitate towards pro sports more and more since I left college. Not only is the quality of play vastly superior, but pro sports operate under this crazy notion that if you win more often than you lose, you are rewarded for it. Zany, I know.

(03-17-2014 07:54 PM)CD11 Wrote:  Not to say this one's not a big snub or that I'm insensitive about it. I'm not. I thought you should've been in and still can't believe you aren't. It's, again, the type of bullcrap that's made me gravitate towards pro sports more and more since I left college. Not only is the quality of play vastly superior, but pro sports operate under this crazy notion that if you win more often than you lose, you are rewarded for it. Zany, I know.

Understandable with the comment about gravitating towards pro sports. Equally understandable is pro & college sports has me gravitating to Texas HS Football & Basketball. . . I know high school sports is big in Ohio. But, if you ever have the opportunity to make a roadtrip with the Bearcats to Texas, and it's feasible. I suggest leaving early & take in some Texas high school football games. . . Well worth the hassle.

(03-16-2014 06:07 PM)shadowman Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:02 PM)owlfan2272 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 05:55 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Why the @&$! do you hate SMU?

I like SMU, football and basketball. Wish they had gotten in.

No you don't, you are trolling hard and it is obvious.

All I've done is try to explain why SMU wasn't anywhere near a "lock", like just about everyone around here thought they were, and then explain why they didn't get in.

Hey , I thought we wouldn't make it, we didn't deserve to, we played way too
weak of an OOC schedule, not Larry's fault, he did what he could. We had some good wins in conference, but we limped to the finish line and did not deserve a bid.

I look forward to carrying the AAC banner in the NIT and I know Louisville, Cincy, Memphis and UCONN will do us proud in the big dance.

Right on brother. Might as well win the NIT if you are going to play in it.

(03-17-2014 07:54 PM)CD11 Wrote:  Not to say this one's not a big snub or that I'm insensitive about it. I'm not. I thought you should've been in and still can't believe you aren't. It's, again, the type of bullcrap that's made me gravitate towards pro sports more and more since I left college.

That's putting it too strongly. Can you make a case for SMU over NC State (the reported last team in)? Sure you can. Slightly better RPI, better record versus the top 50, for starters.

But you can make the opposite case as well. The main difference was SOS: Most analysts had NC State at about 40, SMU at around 120. And OOC competition mattered too: Not since 2007 has an at-large team gotten in with an OOC SOS of worse than 250, and SMU's was around 300. And losing your last three games hurts the eye-test big time.

Bottom line is that NCST and SMU were very, very close in terms of worthiness. They both had some things going for them, but each also had big holes in their resumes, so it's not that reasonable to call the NCST selection "bullcrap", etc.

(03-17-2014 09:09 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If SMU had a different name on their jersey's they'd be in.

Disagree...because I think some on the committee and most certainly all of their TV partners would have loved to have Larry Brown coaching in the tourn....as that would have given those games lots of extra pub.

However, those that wanted SMU/Brown in the tourn just couldn't ignore SMU's terrible non-conf schedule that Brown set up...plus their 3 straight losses to end the season...including the last one vs a team ranked above #150 (#157).

I can make a case that SMU doesn't belong, but I can't make any case for NCST. I honestly thought about 5 teams were more deserving than them with SMU leading the charge. Any time they want to justify keeping a team down, they point to the record against good teams. NCST's was 3-9. SMUs was 4-5. The best regular season win NCST got was Pitt. Can you imagine if SMU were going in with their best win being #39 RPI? They wouldn't have gotten a passing glance. Luckily, SMU has 4 wins better than that by RPI.

I actually think this committee did a solid job this year, but they missed this one. On top of that, it does nothing to discourage what people already believe that they try to go out of their way to give a certain number of teams to certain conferences rather than judge teams individually. I wouldn't blame SMU fans for being more disgruntled with the system now.

That's really a bummer for you all, the best in your post season!!