MGP
Starter
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,442
- Like
- 2,359
Then why did Palm stick with Cal?
USC sucks
- Thread starter Jasoncuse
- Start date
orangecuse
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 8,073
- Like
- 12,591
It would've been interesting to see what would have transpired in 2015 too had the SU powers that be hadn't placed themselves on the tourney ban. Clearly, SU was a bubble team that year as well...so, three straight years now.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
H
HOFCeluck
Guest
Pretty sure we weren't a bubble team in 2008. I don't think there was any question we were going to be left out after we lost to Nova in the BET.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
SU was the first or second-to-last team out in 2008. We were all shocked when that info came out.
We were the first team out in 2008.
If Georgia doesn't go on a miracle run in the SEC tourney we get in.
John Feinstein reported it.
Georgia on My Mind
H
HOFCeluck
Guest
Hm. I don't remember that at all. "Shocked" would not be my feeling on selection sunday 2008. 2007 would be a different story.
djorange1989
Living Legend
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2013
- Messages
- 15,115
- Like
- 42,278
Honestly, only the 2007 team was blatantly stiffed. Those other teams were pretty weak, you can make an argument for us this year or in some other years, but with the exception of 2007 we pretty much did ourselves in. the 2015 team would have been left out, deservedly, if we hadn't self imposed the ban. Smart move, it would have likely been imposed on us for 2016 and that turned out pretty well.
MGP
Starter
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,442
- Like
- 2,359
Not sure, but wasn't he the one who kept insisting on Cal when no one else even had them on the radar?
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,561
- Like
- 33,285
I don't remember anything about 1997. 29 of 30 on the matrix had us in,
In 2002 I don't remember us getting jobbed. We ended the year at 4-9, and back then how you finished your season was a key criteria.
2007 Yes. We should have been in.
2008 - if we were that close to getting in as has been reported it may have been a bit of a gift, so can't really complain about that one.
2016 - We got a committee that decided to take a massive dump on mid majors that benefited all P5 teams. The committee viewed us more favourably than the public.
2017 - It could have went either way. The matrix had us at 20%. But I am not going to mince my words here. The problem is some people here cherry pick criteria, blatantly ignore key factors, and claim we had the same resume as last year (which we did not) and then scream inconsistency which is absurd. You could make a valid point that something should not be a factor, but that doesn't mean you should expect the committee to ignore that factor.
So we have one year where the pubic had us in (2007) and one year the public had us out (2016) per the matrix. I don't really see an agenda. I do see one blatant - that was 2007.
Last edited:
TexanMark
Tailgate Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 24,783
- Like
- 45,991
And they were usually the biggest story each time...Cuse is America's CBB Media Whore.
kirbivore
2019 Cali Award (Passing Yards)
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 14,389
- Like
- 14,872
1997 burgan got suspended and they lost to ND twice. SU later destroyed the Irish in the bet with Burgan. SU lost a crushing final home game to Pitt which put SU in the bet 8/9 game which they won but lost to 1 seed nova
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
Shocked in the opposite way. Surprised that we were as close as we were to dancing.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
Well, to be fair to those posters, that's exactly what our Hall of Fame head coach has said publicly. So it's sort of tough to fault the SU fans who piggy-back off of those comments. Especially those who don't study this stuff as much as others.
Oops.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,561
- Like
- 33,285
I still think the Pac12 as a conference overall sucked, but that doesn't reflect on the top teams. The bottom half of the league was historically awful. That doesn't mean the top 3 were not very good teams.
As I said in a thread yesterday, good teams are good teams. Too many people here look at the depth of a conference to assess the validity of the top teams in that conference.
I agree with all of that. Unfortunately posters like hallcity (and he wasn't alone) had trouble figuring that out.
My focus was on the top three teams although I said at the time that USC was a deserving entrant as well. There have been plenty of instances in history where a team came from a bad conference and did major damage. The three top teams in the PAC-12 were all among the top ten in the country imo. Could never understand why the indexes (BPI, kenpom) had them down in the 15-22 range. I know it's because of the weakness of the bottom half of the Pac-12 but that points out the weakness in their methodology. A casual viewer could watch these teams play and know that they were nowhere 20th ranked.
