Started By
Message
re: NCAA Tournament Selection - SEC
Posted on 3/14/16 at 10:45 am to CNB
Posted on 3/14/16 at 10:45 am to CNB
The point is if you would have played a legitimate schedule your record would have sucked and you wouldn't be in the conversation anyways.
In addition it hurts that the conference was not very good and wins against Alabama, LSU, Florida, etc didn't count for much. Even Kentucky and Texas A&M were at the bottom of the top 25. It was a bad schedule for South Carolina and they paid for it
To be honest they weren't that good anyways
But putting Tulsa in was a complete joke
In addition it hurts that the conference was not very good and wins against Alabama, LSU, Florida, etc didn't count for much. Even Kentucky and Texas A&M were at the bottom of the top 25. It was a bad schedule for South Carolina and they paid for it
To be honest they weren't that good anyways
But putting Tulsa in was a complete joke
2
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:01 am to RoyalAir
quote:
But yet, Tulsa lost, convincingly, to South Carolina.
And teams change throughout the year.
Blind resume tells you Tulsa is in over SCar, based on 9 top 50 opponents compared to 2. 4 top 50 wins compares to 1.
For every bad loss Tulsa had, they had a good win. For every bad loss SCar had, they didn't have a good win.
It's pretty simple.
Head to head is useless. Otherwise, Ole Miss football should have finished ahead of Alabama, right? According to your logic.
Arkansas beat aTm...it doesn't matter when discussing NCAAt.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:04 am to Hawgeye
I would defend Carolina over Tulsa though.
Tulsa got slaughtered twice by Memphis, a team Carloina beat let alone losing to Carolina also
Tulsa belonged nowhere near the tournament. This committee didn't know what they were doing. They really didn't.
Put freaking Monmouth in for crissakes
Tulsa got slaughtered twice by Memphis, a team Carloina beat let alone losing to Carolina also
Tulsa belonged nowhere near the tournament. This committee didn't know what they were doing. They really didn't.
Put freaking Monmouth in for crissakes
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:06 am to MeatPants
There is nothing to defend.
Tulsa is 4-5 against top 50
Carolina is 1-1
Pretty cut and dry.
Tulsa is 4-5 against top 50
Carolina is 1-1
Pretty cut and dry.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:09 am to Hawgeye
You cant go by computer stuff solely.
It isn't cut and dry. Name those top 50 teams and lets debate it.
They played common opponents and they also played each other. Tulsa came out on the bad end of those. Really bad end. Theres more to it
is someone seriously defending Tulsa inclusion in this tournament They fricking suck balls.
I think Carolina doesn't belong either. they aren't that good. But Tulsa. Awful decision
It isn't cut and dry. Name those top 50 teams and lets debate it.
They played common opponents and they also played each other. Tulsa came out on the bad end of those. Really bad end. Theres more to it
is someone seriously defending Tulsa inclusion in this tournament They fricking suck balls.
I think Carolina doesn't belong either. they aren't that good. But Tulsa. Awful decision
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:09 am to Hawgeye
I get Tulsa's resume, and that's fine. But if you're comparing two teams who are both on the bubble, then yeah, had to head absolutely should play a part.
Look, USC didn't make the tourney. And I don't think they were going to make the tournament sans an SECT championship appearance. But we don't have to argue about who was better between USC and Tulsa based on resume. We have head-to-head and common opponents. USC wins both metrics, and if it were between either team, USC should have taken that slot.
Regardless, if Carolina wants to make the dance next year, they need to focus on winning the SECT and securing that automatic bid.
Look, USC didn't make the tourney. And I don't think they were going to make the tournament sans an SECT championship appearance. But we don't have to argue about who was better between USC and Tulsa based on resume. We have head-to-head and common opponents. USC wins both metrics, and if it were between either team, USC should have taken that slot.
Regardless, if Carolina wants to make the dance next year, they need to focus on winning the SECT and securing that automatic bid.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:10 am to RoyalAir
quote:
had to head absolutely should play a part.
It never comes down to just two teams. The selection process isn't done that way. They have a huge list of bubble teams and make a cut line.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:11 am to Hawgeye
There's nothing to debate man. Tulsa beat SMU, Cincy, Wichita State, and Uconn in the top 50.
Scar beat aTm. That's it. They only played 2 top 50 teams.
Scar beat aTm. That's it. They only played 2 top 50 teams.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:13 am to MeatPants
Syracuse doesn't belong either. There was serious politics there. You give them a break for not having a coach, not because of illness or personal issues, BECASUE HE CHEATED AND HAD TO BE SUSPENDED.
And then they suck anyways with him down the stretch.
Something really weird went on in that committee room this year. Its confused a lot of people who do this for a living. All 59 "bracketologists" on the bracket matrix did not have Tulsa on their sheet. Not one. That's freaking crazy how bad that pick was
And then they suck anyways with him down the stretch.
Something really weird went on in that committee room this year. Its confused a lot of people who do this for a living. All 59 "bracketologists" on the bracket matrix did not have Tulsa on their sheet. Not one. That's freaking crazy how bad that pick was
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:16 am to MeatPants
Actually there is something to debate Which was stated by various posters. A&M is a better win than any of those other Tulsa wins too.
But Carolina schedule sucks.
I would have put 20 teams over Tulsa though. Carolina included. I would rather debate Carolina versus other teams. Tulsa doesnt belong anywhere near this field
But Carolina schedule sucks.
I would have put 20 teams over Tulsa though. Carolina included. I would rather debate Carolina versus other teams. Tulsa doesnt belong anywhere near this field
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:24 am to MeatPants
No, there really isn't, again.
Tulsa had more quality wins, played a tougher schedule than SCar.
aTm is a quality win, but it isn't more of a quality win than what Tulsa had. If you want to get technical, SCar beat an aTm team who was on a 6 game skid and had also lost to a bad Arkansas team, among others during that time.
Tulsa had more quality wins, played a tougher schedule than SCar.
aTm is a quality win, but it isn't more of a quality win than what Tulsa had. If you want to get technical, SCar beat an aTm team who was on a 6 game skid and had also lost to a bad Arkansas team, among others during that time.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:27 am to CNB
quote:
I think losing 4 of our last 5 had more to do with it, but alright. We were a lock according to Lunardi before we lost to UGA the 3rd time.
Meh. Syracuse lost its like 4 or 5 of 6. I'm okay with having suddenly been on the bubble and all that. But Vandy, Tulsa, and Syracuse ahead of us?
quote:
There's nothing to debate man. Tulsa beat SMU, Cincy, Wichita State, and Uconn in
And lost at least 3 games against teams we beat.
This post was edited on 3/14/16 at 11:31 am
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:29 am to CidCock
We did exactly what I thought we would do which was win 10-12 conf games and get an invite to the nit. These committees have no legit criteria for selecting teams come playoff time. their reasoning makes no sense. You can't boost one team over another because team B lost to team A. If Carolina plays Bama on the grid iron the 8th week of the season and their #1 but we're #13 or we are not ranked and LOSE we don't get into the top 25 or vault into the top 10 for LOSING to Bama. Only in Basketball does this happen ijs
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:31 am to Hawgeye
quote:
There is nothing to defend.
Tulsa is 4-5 against top 50
Carolina is 1-1
Pretty cut and dry.
4-5 is a winning percentage of .44, 1-1 is .500. Which is better? Whatever.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:32 am to Cockeee Don
4 > 1
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:35 am to MeatPants
quote:
The point is if you would have played a legitimate schedule your record would have sucked and you wouldn't be in the conversation anyways.
You assume Carolina loses those games. Maybe they don't. Memphis, St. Johns, Tulsa, Clemson would have been adequate most years. SC also played Hofstra who won 24 games, and perennial tournament participate George Mason as well. Can't help it if they falter.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:35 am to Hawgeye
5 > 1.
Again, that actually goes back to the OP. All of those games for us and Tulsa were in conference, we can't help it the rest of the conference is shite
Again, that actually goes back to the OP. All of those games for us and Tulsa were in conference, we can't help it the rest of the conference is shite
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:35 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
And lost at least 3 games against teams we beat
Which means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
aTm beat Arkansas who lost to SCar. Do you think that mattered? No.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 11:36 am to theGarnetWay
No, Tulsa had a top 50 win OOC. They also played 3 top 50 teams OOC.
This post was edited on 3/14/16 at 11:38 am
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:08 pm to Hawgeye
2 weeks ago we were 5-1 against top 50 teams. Not our fault, Hofstra, Tulsa, Florida shite the bed down the stretch.
A team no one is mentioning that really didn't deserve to get in was Wichita St. Someone explain how they got it over us
A team no one is mentioning that really didn't deserve to get in was Wichita St. Someone explain how they got it over us
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News