The question for their analysts were who would be the last team in and first team out:
Seth Davis said UAB would be the first team out and Cincinnati would be the last team in.
Greg Anthony swapped it and said Cincinnati would be first team out, and UAB would be the last team in because one of UAB's few quality wins is against Cincinnati.
Two years ago, UAB beat Kentucky, yet come selection time, a Kentucky team with a worse bubble resume got in over UAB
Last year, UAB beat Arizona, yet on Selection sunday, an Arizona team with a worse bubble resume jumped over UAB.
Is it going to be Cincinnati this year???
I saw that too, and as soon as Seth Davis started talking and clips of the UAB-Cincy game started playing, I knew exactly what he was going to say.
If it comes to that, I hope they dig deep and see just how UAB dominated them. We haven't dominated anyone this year like we did Cincinnati.
Maybe our SID should wrangle with these fools? Oh, never-mind...
Just out of curiosity, did they show any DATA to support their picks?
Well, Cinci lost today so they should remain on the wrong side of bubble unless they can finish strong and make a run in the BE Tourney. Rhode Island also lost to a pretty bad St. Bonny team. I know the A-10 is the best Non-BCS conference this season, but these A-10 teams seem to be getting a helluva pass from the media.
unfortunately we need cinci to lose so they dont get in over us..... ridiculous
I saw the same thing. And I thought it was even worse that when he was saying that Cinci should be in over UAB they were showing clips of the game where we beat the crap out of them. They just did that to have something to be different on. It was just a show.
Each year the selection process becomes more and more of a joke. Why don't they just quit trying to fool everyone and tell us only the Big 6 teams will get at large bids? Someone else was saying the mid majors were over rated. (WTF is a mid-major any way, what is the criteria?) Someone else was touting the SEC to get 5 or 6 teams.
How come SEC teams losing to Georgia is considered a good loss and UAB losing to a Marshall team that is better than Georgia is a bad loss?
The notion that UAB is even remotely on the bubble in the first place just proves what a joke the current system is.
Anyone who thinks UC deserves to be in over UAB should be stoned to death for their ignorance and not allowed to reproduce and infect the world with their stupidity.
(02-27-2010 05:37 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote: [ -> ]Each year the selection process becomes more and more of a joke. Why don't they just quit trying to fool everyone and tell us only the Big 6 teams will get at large bids? Someone else was saying the mid majors were over rated. (WTF is a mid-major any way, what is the criteria?) Someone else was touting the SEC to get 5 or 6 teams.
How come SEC teams losing to Georgia is considered a good loss and UAB losing to a Marshall team that is better than Georgia is a bad loss?
The notion that UAB is even remotely on the bubble in the first place just proves what a joke the current system is.
Anyone who thinks UC deserves to be in over UAB should be stoned to death for their ignorance and not allowed to reproduce and infect the world with their stupidity.
+1
Anyone who thinks the mid-majors are overrated needs to take a long look at the Top 25 and the records of the mid-majors represented there.
Morons.
The $EC is mid-major.
Kentucky and the 11 dwarves.
(02-27-2010 07:18 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]The $EC is mid-major.
Kentucky and the 11 dwarves.
Vandy and Tennessee are VERY good.
(02-28-2010 12:24 PM)TheFunk Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2010 07:18 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]The $EC is mid-major.
Kentucky and the 11 dwarves.
Vandy and Tennessee are VERY good.
I was referring to the perception to CUSA while the squid was slithering about.
If C-USA is a one bid league with Memphis dominating then by all rights the SEC should be a one bid league with Kentucky dominating. Just sayin' Before I am slammed by someone who can't recognize what I am doing with this post, I know the SEC is not a one bid league just as I know C-USA should not have been a one bid league the last three seasons. I will argue that point till I die. C-USA has deserved at least two teams and three one year they only received one team. It has become almost as much of a joke as the BCS. The power conferences are getting what they want. If they could figure out a way to rid themselves of the non-big 6 auto bids they would do it.
I would be willing to bet within the next 10 years there is a movement to get rid of the bottom feeder auto bids. That will be the next step.
(02-28-2010 06:16 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote: [ -> ]If C-USA is a one bid league with Memphis dominating then by all rights the SEC should be a one bid league with Kentucky dominating. Just sayin' Before I am slammed by someone who can't recognize what I am doing with this post, I know the SEC is not a one bid league just as I know C-USA should not have been a one bid league the last three seasons. I will argue that point till I die. C-USA has deserved at least two teams and three one year they only received one team. It has become almost as much of a joke as the BCS. The power conferences are getting what they want. If they could figure out a way to rid themselves of the non-big 6 auto bids they would do it.
I would be willing to bet within the next 10 years there is a movement to get rid of the bottom feeder auto bids. That will be the next step.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but you're not making that point by comparing Kentucky and the SEC to CUSA and Memphis. The reason CUSA didn't receive an at large the past three years is not JUST because it was dominated by Memphis. It was also because of our conferences weak out of conference performance. That coupled with Memphis' dominance is what led to there being no at large bids given.
Well one year C-USA had a winning record against the SEC. That was the year Kentucky received their head scratching bid. Take that comparison.
(02-28-2010 06:29 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote: [ -> ]Well one year C-USA had a winning record against the SEC. That was the year Kentucky received their head scratching bid. Take that comparison.
Ok, no...CUSA didn't. In 07-08 the year KY received the WTF bid, which in fact was a WTF bid, CUSA was 4-5 against the SEC. UAB and Houston beat KY, who did earn the BS bid to the Tourney and Tulane beat AU and LSU. Auburn had a final record of 14-16 that year and LSU finished 13-18.
As far as the losses UT beat Memphis, Ole Miss and Alabama beat Southern Miss, Vandy beat Rice and Ole Miss beat UCF. Vandy and UT made it to the NCAA tournament that year, UA and Ole Miss did not.
I'm not defending the SEC. The SEC is a weak basketball league this season and Kentucky did earn a bogus Tourney invite in 08 because they're Kentucky. However, I do not believe that CUSA was screwed out of any bids the last three years. Our teams had opportunities to make statement wins and they failed to take advantage of them. This year is the first time in the last four years that our league has stepped up and made a case for an at large bid. If we don't get one, we got screwed.
Why should the CUSA teams be forced to have a "statement" game when the SEC teams do not have to?
I wish there was an SEC - CUSA challenge every year, but I'm sure the SEC would never go for it.