Cincy coach had some good comments.

Link?

Wow. ACC henchmen had no idea that ESPN and fans around the country would take notice of or even care about the fact that the ACC just straight up ripped the AAC off. I am beginning to think that Aresco's challenger message is hitting home and the AAC might end up being seen as the conference of the little guy.

(03-19-2014 02:12 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Wow. ACC henchmen had no idea that ESPN and fans around the country would take notice of or even care about the fact that the ACC just straight up ripped the AAC off. I am beginning to think that Aresco's challenger message is hitting home and the AAC might end up being seen as the conference of the little guy.

Well the Big East/AAC was viewed for a long time as "the league that doesn't deserve what it's getting" whether it was true or not. Now the AAC appears to be getting the reputation of "it deserves better than it's getting." Of course we'd all rather be in the first position, but the second position will probably lead to better PR for the league.

Anyone know when this will be rebroadcasted?

Also, does anyone else have a problem with the fact that ESPN is the one not giving the respect yet they are the ones reporting about it? Seems a bit conflicted. They are reporting the very news they help create.

(03-19-2014 02:40 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Anyone know when this will be rebroadcasted?

Also, does anyone else have a problem with the fact that ESPN is the one not giving the respect yet they are the ones reporting about it? Seems a bit conflicted. They are reporting the very news they help create.

The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

(03-19-2014 02:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

NAH... SMU should have been in over NC State, even with their win last night. The seeding issues is probably what OTL was actually addressing anyway.

The A10 had a great season and I have zero issues with the schools from their conference that made the tourney.

(03-19-2014 02:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

NAH... SMU should have been in over NC State, even with their win last night. The seeding issues is probably what OTL was actually addressing anyway.

The A10 had a great season and I have zero issues with the schools from their conference that made the tourney.

Agree. Y'all showed NC State who was boss early on. Their inclusion is garbage and the result of whining to the committee by ACC coaches (or so I hear).

Not sure if it's been posted else where (been to busy to read through all of the threads) but Dickie V has UConn as a sleeper team:

"EAST: No. 7 Connecticut
The Huskies were the last team to beat No. 1 Florida. Shabazz Napier, Ryan Boatright and Niels Giffey will have something to say about this seed. Then again, the American Athletic Conference got short-changed when you look at the seeds of Louisville (4), Cincinnati (5) and Memphis (8) as well as SMU missing the tournament."

(03-19-2014 02:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

NAH... SMU should have been in over NC State, even with their win last night. The seeding issues is probably what OTL was actually addressing anyway.

The A10 had a great season and I have zero issues with the schools from their conference that made the tourney.

Not only the things that you pointed out, but Coach K goes on television talking up how great ACC bubble teams are then a committee headed by an ACC AD goes out and cuts the knees out from under a ranked AAC team to add a very marginal ACC team that was not on anyone's bubble until they beat Syracuse.

Hell Xavier shouldn't have been in the tournament either. ECU played much better against NCSU than Xavier did and that was despite the fact that ECU had a short bench (as in no bench) and short players.

(03-19-2014 03:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Hell Xavier shouldn't have been in the tournament either. ECU played much better against NCSU than Xavier did and that was despite the fact that ECU had a short bench (as in no bench) and short players.

Xavier got in thanks to their marquis wins over UC and Creighton. The Big East was not that good, I agree. X being 3rd in that conference just shows how much that conference lost.

Funny thing is that I'm not sure Xavier would have made it for the 2nd year in a row if they were back in the A10. The A10 was a much better conference than the A10 and they would have probably struggled to make the top 6.

On a side note, the fact that even Coach K's mouthpiece Vitale is not buying what he tried to sell.

It is what it is. . . Like I said. Next year, SMU won't leave the damn decision in the hands of incompetent @$$holes of the NCAA selection committee

It sucks... there are worthy schools left out every year. The first year UC was in the Big East (the greatest basketball conference!) they got left out when everyone thought they were safely in.

(03-19-2014 03:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

NAH... SMU should have been in over NC State, even with their win last night. The seeding issues is probably what OTL was actually addressing anyway.

The A10 had a great season and I have zero issues with the schools from their conference that made the tourney.

Not only the things that you pointed out, but Coach K goes on television talking up how great ACC bubble teams are then a committee headed by an ACC AD goes out and cuts the knees out from under a ranked AAC team to add a very marginal ACC team that was not on anyone's bubble until they beat Syracuse.

Hell Xavier shouldn't have been in the tournament either. ECU played much better against NCSU than Xavier did and that was despite the fact that ECU had a short bench (as in no bench) and short players.

What gets me is that people say "SMU had a lousy finish and that went into play" OKAY? So that discredits everything they've done all season?
L Temple
W UH
W #21 UConn
W UCF
L #11 UL
L#20 Mem
L underrated UH team (Imo- if State's win justifies them as underrated).

Cuse on the other hand,
barely scraped by Pitt/State a total of 3 points
L BC
L#5 Duke
W UMD - by 2
L Uva
L GT
W FSU
L NC State

So then NC States 1 good win over a Cuse team who melted down at the end of the season justifies them as legitimate, but SMU who had a good season and a bit of a meltdown gets shafted.

Makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not here to discriminate the committee... But the committee isn't sexy... They don't pass the eye test.

(03-19-2014 03:32 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 03:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

NAH... SMU should have been in over NC State, even with their win last night. The seeding issues is probably what OTL was actually addressing anyway.

The A10 had a great season and I have zero issues with the schools from their conference that made the tourney.

Not only the things that you pointed out, but Coach K goes on television talking up how great ACC bubble teams are then a committee headed by an ACC AD goes out and cuts the knees out from under a ranked AAC team to add a very marginal ACC team that was not on anyone's bubble until they beat Syracuse.

Hell Xavier shouldn't have been in the tournament either. ECU played much better against NCSU than Xavier did and that was despite the fact that ECU had a short bench (as in no bench) and short players.

What gets me is that people say "SMU had a lousy finish and that went into play" OKAY? So that discredits everything they've done all season?
L Temple
W UH
W #21 UConn
W UCF
L #11 UL
L#20 Mem
L underrated UH team (Imo- if State's win justifies them as underrated).

Cuse on the other hand,
barely scraped by Pitt/State a total of 3 points
L BC
L#5 Duke
W UMD - by 2
L Uva
L GT
W FSU
L NC State

So then NC States 1 good win over a Cuse team who melted down at the end of the season justifies them as legitimate, but SMU who had a good season and a bit of a meltdown gets shafted.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Not since 2007 has a team got a bid with an OOC SOS of less than 250. SMUs was 300.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-19-2014 08:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 03:32 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 03:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

NAH... SMU should have been in over NC State, even with their win last night. The seeding issues is probably what OTL was actually addressing anyway.

The A10 had a great season and I have zero issues with the schools from their conference that made the tourney.

Not only the things that you pointed out, but Coach K goes on television talking up how great ACC bubble teams are then a committee headed by an ACC AD goes out and cuts the knees out from under a ranked AAC team to add a very marginal ACC team that was not on anyone's bubble until they beat Syracuse.

Hell Xavier shouldn't have been in the tournament either. ECU played much better against NCSU than Xavier did and that was despite the fact that ECU had a short bench (as in no bench) and short players.

What gets me is that people say "SMU had a lousy finish and that went into play" OKAY? So that discredits everything they've done all season?
L Temple
W UH
W #21 UConn
W UCF
L #11 UL
L#20 Mem
L underrated UH team (Imo- if State's win justifies them as underrated).

Cuse on the other hand,
barely scraped by Pitt/State a total of 3 points
L BC
L#5 Duke
W UMD - by 2
L Uva
L GT
W FSU
L NC State

So then NC States 1 good win over a Cuse team who melted down at the end of the season justifies them as legitimate, but SMU who had a good season and a bit of a meltdown gets shafted.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Not since 2007 has a team got a bid with an OOC SOS of less than 250. SMUs was 300.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Find me 1, just 1 team with an equally impressive resume.

(03-19-2014 08:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 03:32 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 03:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The A10 has the AAC's money, not the ACC.

NAH... SMU should have been in over NC State, even with their win last night. The seeding issues is probably what OTL was actually addressing anyway.

The A10 had a great season and I have zero issues with the schools from their conference that made the tourney.

Not only the things that you pointed out, but Coach K goes on television talking up how great ACC bubble teams are then a committee headed by an ACC AD goes out and cuts the knees out from under a ranked AAC team to add a very marginal ACC team that was not on anyone's bubble until they beat Syracuse.

Hell Xavier shouldn't have been in the tournament either. ECU played much better against NCSU than Xavier did and that was despite the fact that ECU had a short bench (as in no bench) and short players.

What gets me is that people say "SMU had a lousy finish and that went into play" OKAY? So that discredits everything they've done all season?
L Temple
W UH
W #21 UConn
W UCF
L #11 UL
L#20 Mem
L underrated UH team (Imo- if State's win justifies them as underrated).

Cuse on the other hand,
barely scraped by Pitt/State a total of 3 points
L BC
L#5 Duke
W UMD - by 2
L Uva
L GT
W FSU
L NC State

So then NC States 1 good win over a Cuse team who melted down at the end of the season justifies them as legitimate, but SMU who had a good season and a bit of a meltdown gets shafted.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Not since 2007 has a team got a bid with an OOC SOS of less than 250. SMUs was 300.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

This is the problem with statistics. You can arbitrarily hone in on any one to wrap up in propaganda; while ignoring the countless others that contradict your conclusion.

And we all know where quo is coming from (that being BR)...

(03-19-2014 09:04 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 08:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not since 2007 has a team got a bid with an OOC SOS of less than 250. SMUs was 300.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Find me 1, just 1 team with an equally impressive resume.

By tournament worthiness standards, SMU's resume wasn't impressive. Neither was NC State's or Xavier's. No bubble team's resume is.

You could make a case for any of those three - or Tennessee or Iowa - as most deserving of being "first left out", or vice-versa. Each has major flaws, it all depends on what you choose to emphasize.

I think what tipped it against SMU was losing three straight and having the worst final loss. The loss to Houston was their last impression, and it was the worst last impression.. That hurt their eyeball test worse than anyone else's, and was the difference, given that on paper, all had roughly the same quantitative value.

They beat Houston, and no question they make the field.