SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,601
- Like
- 64,681
I went into this with the attitude that you could make a good argument for us being in and good argument for excluding us and I would just accept whatever decision was made.
We were not chosen and I could see why. it's hard to argue that a team that was 16-3 in the Dome and 2-11 away from it and, since since none of the NCAA games would be played in the Dome, through should, essentially invite a 2-11 team to play in the NCAA tournament. The bad early season losses seemed less relevant because we played so many close games int he best conference in the country after that and won more than our share of them. But we certainly failed the "look test" against St. John's. I think in most other years we would not have been considered for the NCAAs. We were "snubbed" ten years ago but I don't really want to hear that term this year.
I confess it does bug me to look at the ACC standings and see that our conference had 9 teams with winning records in the conference and 9 tams were invited. We were the only team with a winning record not invited. Wake Forest, who was 9-9 and who we beat was invited instead. Yes,w e had some bad losses before the conference season but I didn't hear anything about Wake Forest wowing people in the pre-conference season and we out-performed them in the conference. that doesn't seem right. Jay Bilas' complaint that they emphasized losses over wins seems accurate. I also wonder if there was a backlash after the controversy over our getting last year.
We could have made the decision for them. There were the poor early performances and flat road performances, especially on defense. there were the bobbled passes at the end of the Pitt and Louisville games, the moving screen call at the end of the Georgia Tech game, the 4 point swing on the dunk attempts against Miami and the shot by Gillon at the end of that game where he bent his legs as if clearing a high hurdle and clanged it off the left rim. It didn't have to be this way.
We were not chosen and I could see why. it's hard to argue that a team that was 16-3 in the Dome and 2-11 away from it and, since since none of the NCAA games would be played in the Dome, through should, essentially invite a 2-11 team to play in the NCAA tournament. The bad early season losses seemed less relevant because we played so many close games int he best conference in the country after that and won more than our share of them. But we certainly failed the "look test" against St. John's. I think in most other years we would not have been considered for the NCAAs. We were "snubbed" ten years ago but I don't really want to hear that term this year.
I confess it does bug me to look at the ACC standings and see that our conference had 9 teams with winning records in the conference and 9 tams were invited. We were the only team with a winning record not invited. Wake Forest, who was 9-9 and who we beat was invited instead. Yes,w e had some bad losses before the conference season but I didn't hear anything about Wake Forest wowing people in the pre-conference season and we out-performed them in the conference. that doesn't seem right. Jay Bilas' complaint that they emphasized losses over wins seems accurate. I also wonder if there was a backlash after the controversy over our getting last year.
We could have made the decision for them. There were the poor early performances and flat road performances, especially on defense. there were the bobbled passes at the end of the Pitt and Louisville games, the moving screen call at the end of the Georgia Tech game, the 4 point swing on the dunk attempts against Miami and the shot by Gillon at the end of that game where he bent his legs as if clearing a high hurdle and clanged it off the left rim. It didn't have to be this way.