if you play ill for the 1st half you had a winner there.again every year there are teams people think should be in on the bubble and teams that should not get in.this year is no different,work with what we have to pick winners as none of the above team really had a shot at winning the whole thing anyway.do you have a team outside the bubble that did not get in that could win the whole thing etc....ck do you really think cuse could win the whole thing.no
cincy, usually respect your post, but maybe i'm a homer but I do think if not Arkansas, another Sec team should have gotten in. I think 5 is right for Sec this yr. I think it would have benn unfair for pac ten to get 6 and Sec get four. Stanford was your no go. And drexel couldn't get past the first round in the nit
And if you get right to it, back when arkansas was a real winning team, I used to say that about the Cincy Bearcats back in their hay day.
Why even come to the Dance all you have is quickess and no shooters so you can't go deep in the tourny so why bother. You know how many yr people had you picked high and you always failed. You going to bring up van exel but nothing to go with it. Just another team that couldn't live up to expectations from the conference usa
in your hey day we went final four 91, won in 94 and bac in championship in 95, nothing to do with now, but i thought the bearcats should have stayed home back then, why bother
ga
And if you get right to it, back when arkansas was a real winning team, I used to say that about the Cincy Bearcats back in their hay day.
Why even come to the Dance all you have is quickess and no shooters so you can't go deep in the tourny so why bother. You know how many yr people had you picked high and you always failed. You going to bring up van exel but nothing to go with it. Just another team that couldn't live up to expectations from the conference usa
in your hey day we went final four 91, won in 94 and bac in championship in 95, nothing to do with now, but i thought the bearcats should have stayed home back then, why bother
ga
Butler should give Md trouble, I expect a dog fight. The Terps have trouble against these type of teams, Butler is very similar to Miami (who beat Md twice) and FSU (who beat Md)
Maybe a bright spot for Md, they haven't played well or shot well the past two games, maybe they break out today, the spread is fairly low but, this is not the type of team Md matches up well against.
You make good points, and I agree that you needed another SEC team ... but why Arkansas?
Compare Ole Miss to Arkansas ... Ole Miss won their division, and Arkansas had a losing record in the conference. I thought they used to reward people who won their conference (and division).
- Ole Miss lost to Florida in the semi-finals
- Arkansas lost to Florida in the finals
hno: ...guess they're not used to seeing a real defense.Seriously, either team would have been ok with me about equal. The rational i heard i ark was as follows-beat alabama twice, split miss, beat miss st 2/3 and vandy twice.
i think when you get to the last 4 in and 4 bubble teams that didn't get in your not looking at a national champion either way.
ga
Well, at least they had a winning conference record.
Kansas State beat USC on a neutral floor ... and for the life of me, I can't understand why the committee would pair Arkansas with USC ... after two seasons of football and one NCAA tournament, I am sure of one thing (and please don't take this personally, I am just trying to find the humor in all of this):
USC thinks Arkansas is their little bitch.
*cough*FSU*cough*
Kansas State's only OOC game of any value was USC, they play in the shit-ass, top-heavy Big 12, their RPI was 56, SOS was 88, and their one win of any great significance is Texas. They also lost to 13-17 New Mexico by 24, 16-17 Cal by 30 (not exaggerated for dramatization), 15-13 Colorado State, 15-14 Nebraska by 11, and that terrible OKST team who lost to everyone who had a pulse by 14 at the end of the year.
There is no way these bums (or Arkansas, Stanford, ODU) have a better case than FSU. Hell, Arkansas was 7-9 in the SEC West! The SEC-W is horrendous. The ONLY negative on FSU's resumes is the 7-9 conference record (which still isn't that bad considering the depth of the ACC). It's no coincidence that their 5 game slide occurred when pg and key player Toney Douglass went down but apparently the committee didn't take this into account while at the same time using the injury excuse for Stanford. When Toney came back they won 3/4. So, with Toney in the line-up on the year the team was 21-7 with wins over UF, @Duke, VT, and Maryland and 0-5 without him with some really close losses to good teams. It really baffles my mind that the only people making/that made any kind of case for FSU were Bilas and Vitale.
Kansas State's only OOC game of any value was USC, they play in the shit-ass, top-heavy Big 12, their RPI was 56, SOS was 88, and their one win of any great significance is Texas. They also lost to 13-17 New Mexico by 24, 16-17 Cal by 30 (not exaggerated for dramatization), 15-13 Colorado State, 15-14 Nebraska by 11, and that terrible OKST team who lost to everyone who had a pulse by 14 at the end of the year.
There is no way these bums (or Arkansas, Stanford, ODU) have a better case than FSU. Hell, Arkansas was 7-9 in the SEC West! The SEC-W is horrendous. The ONLY negative on FSU's resumes is the 7-9 conference record (which still isn't that bad considering the depth of the ACC). It's no coincidence that their 5 game slide occurred when pg and key player Toney Douglass went down but apparently the committee didn't take this into account while at the same time using the injury excuse for Stanford. When Toney came back they won 3/4. So, with Toney in the line-up on the year the team was 21-7 with wins over UF, @Duke, VT, and Maryland and 0-5 without him with some really close losses to good teams. It really baffles my mind that the only people making/that made any kind of case for FSU were Bilas and Vitale.
