Started By
Message
Tournament Chair: SMU got the nod over AU an OK because it had “better quality wins”
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:03 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
Committee chairman Keith Gill said SMU was the last team in because it had better quality wins than Oklahoma or Auburn.
SMU wins vs. NCAA field with seeds
6. UNC
6. Louisville
10. Texas A&M
Auburn
1. Florida
4. Arkansas
5. St. John's
7. Kentucky
11. Texas
11. NC State
15. Queens
Oklahoma
5. Vanderbilt
8. Georgia
10. Missouri
10. Texas A&M
11. Texas
Who knew that 3 > both 5 an even 7?
This post was edited on 3/15/26 at 8:06 pm
10
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:05 pm to Darth_Vader
Muh quality wins.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:06 pm to Darth_Vader
Real reason: We didn't want to let another SEC team in
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:44 pm to HailToTheChiz
Real reason - Auburn lost 16 games 
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:45 pm to Darth_Vader
Real Reason:
The REC
The REC
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:46 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:48 pm to Darth_Vader
extend young steven! he was treated very unfairly by the liberal ncaa imo. you owe bruce an extension.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:48 pm to Darth_Vader
What about losses? Hell we beat them in New Orleans!
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:49 pm to Darth_Vader
The OP left out that Auburn is 17-16 while SMU is 20-13.
You can argue strength of schedule. But when you go 17-16 you go to the NIT.
You can argue strength of schedule. But when you go 17-16 you go to the NIT.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:49 pm to jangalang
quote:
Real Reason:
The REC
You ask your dad to check for Big Al under your bed before you go to sleep each night, don't you?
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:50 pm to Darth_Vader
Auburn must have some quality losses in that resume.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:59 pm to Darth_Vader
The committee does a pretty good job with selections but they always do the worst job explaining them.
Auburn's strongest argument was their high end Q1 wins like Florida and St John's. Guy said the exact opposite of what I'm sure the committee discussed.
All that needed to be said was
"AU and SMU were close, almost dead even in most metrics and both were awful down the stretch.
We had to get to 68 teams though and valued SMU avoiding so many Q2 losses or any Q3 losses more than the couple of extra high end wins."
Auburn's strongest argument was their high end Q1 wins like Florida and St John's. Guy said the exact opposite of what I'm sure the committee discussed.
All that needed to be said was
"AU and SMU were close, almost dead even in most metrics and both were awful down the stretch.
We had to get to 68 teams though and valued SMU avoiding so many Q2 losses or any Q3 losses more than the couple of extra high end wins."
Posted on 3/15/26 at 9:32 pm to Darth_Vader
Nothing personal against Auburn, but Auburn had a 51.5 percent winning percentage. No team with a damn 51.5 percent winning percentage has a pot to piss in.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 10:07 pm to AHM21
quote:
Real reason - Auburn lost 16 games
Valid
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News