Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jdubs30, post: 2527435, member: 1620"]
It's funny how this works.

When discussing a team that made the field with one of the last bubble spots, people tend to focus on the negatives of the resume - thus contradicting and starting a debate with what the committee chose. But when discussing the team that didn't make the cut, people focus more on the positives of their resume. All I kept hearing about OK State is their B12 wins - but I can't recall anyone on ESPN mentioning their 90 RPI and 290 OOC SOS. Then when people were gripping about USC "having the best RPI never to make the field!" (by the way, OK State would have had the worst RPI to ever make it, by far, but funny how that was never mentioned when discussing them). People ignore that USC beat 1 tournament, and that was New Mexico State and also had a loss to 226 Princeton; they also got swept by the 3 PAC12 teams that did make it (combined 0-5).

Yet when they discuss us, they rarely talked about SOS or non conference SOS.

In short, Oklahoma State and USC both had SEVERE flaws in their resume, worse than our flaws - somewhat ironically OK State's major flaw was USC's strength, and OK State's strength was USC's weakness. But listening to twitter or ESPN, the negatives of those 2 teams were never brought up. Anytime you discuss 3 teams - it's not fair to talk about only the strengths for 2 teams, and for the 3rd team, talk about their strengths and weaknesses - then the average viewer will hear the weakness of Syracuse, but the strengths of OK State and USC then the narrative of becomes we didn't deserve it.

BTW - you can say the same about Oklahoma.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?