My Thoughts

[AreYouNUTS]

love’em or hate’em:

1) we got screwed, PERIOD, despite not doing ourselves any favors in that January skid. I and others said it would haunt us and it did. THAT being said there is no way in hell a 16-14 OU from The B12 should get in over ANY 20-12 team from another P5 conference, EVER, especially when you throw into it the fact that we beat 4 other at-large teams while they only beat one?! 8 GAMES OVER .500 vs 2??? Are you ****ing kidding me?! But hey let’s make sure OU’s 18-year streak doesn’t end, right???

2) which goes back to, once more, a serious anti-CVS/RU bias that’s been obvious for a while now IMHO. Look at Men’s Lax getting screwed the last 2 years as well but that’s another story we all know there’s a history of bullshit seeds and now this??!! If I’m Hobbs I’m taking notes because of this keeps happening I’d raise hell!

3) shame on CVS for denying the NIT bid and we all know why; let’s not beat around the bush, okay? Hobbs will take the heat, rest assured, but we all know CVS gets what she wants and that was NOT getting 1000 in the NIT you can bet your bottom dollar on that!

4) I feel for the team, the program, and those of you here who are STILL loyal to CVS. You don’t deserve #1,2, or 3.

SMDH

 

[RC66]

It sure is painful to find myself sliding ever closer to NUTS's opinions.

 

[APKnight]

I doubt she would turn it down if the team told her they want to play. And yes there is a strong and obvious anti Rutgers bias at the NCAA, for whatever reason. Oklahoma in at 16-14. Absurd.

 

[bac2therac]

I doubt she would turn it down if the team told her they want to play. And yes there is a strong and obvious anti Rutgers bias at the NCAA, for whatever reason. I like that the PAC 12 commissioner is publicly criticizing the NCAA for USC’s snub. Oklahoma in at 16-14. Absurd.

USC was 1-11 vs top 50 and 3-11 vs top 100...how could they be complaining, thats absurd

 

[APKnight]

I was referring to their men’s team. I edited the post to avoid confusion.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

I doubt she would turn it down if the team told her they want to play. And yes there is a strong and obvious anti Rutgers bias at the NCAA, for whatever reason. I like that the PAC 12 commissioner is publicly criticizing the NCAA for USC’s snub. Oklahoma in at 16-14. Absurd.

Sorry I just can’t see Hobbs turning it down by HIS choice. Maybe I’m wrong but...we’ll never know. Just my opinion. Also wouldn’t be surprised if the team knew this wasn’t what she wanted, ya’ know, and let it be known as such, WHICH I could accept if it were the case.

 

[bac2therac]

I was referring to their men’s team. I edited the post to avoid confusion.

ah ok....in their case they didnt beat anyone....2nd place in Pac 12 but best win was New Mexico State...went 0-5 vs the other pac 12 schools that made tourney

 

[oldtimer67]

love’em or hate’em:

1) we got screwed, PERIOD, despite not doing ourselves any favors in that January skid. I and others said it would haunt us and it did. THAT being said there is no way in hell a 16-14 OU from The B12 should get in over ANY 20-12 team from another P5 conference, EVER, especially when you throw into it the fact that we beat 4 other at-large teams while they only beat one?! 8 GAMES OVER .500 vs 2??? Are you ****ing kidding me?! But hey let’s make sure OU’s 18-year streak doesn’t end, right???

2) which goes back to, once more, a serious anti-CVS/RU bias that’s been obvious for a while now IMHO. Look at Men’s Lax getting screwed the last 2 years as well but that’s another story we all know there’s a history of bullshit seeds and now this??!! If I’m Hobbs I’m taking notes because of this keeps happening I’d raise hell!

3) shame on CVS for denying the NIT bid and we all know why; let’s not beat around the bush, okay? Hobbs will take the heat, rest assured, but we all know CVS gets what she wants and that was NOT getting 1000 in the NIT you can bet your bottom dollar on that!

4) I feel for the team, the program, and those of you here who are STILL loyal to CVS. You don’t deserve #1,2, or 3.

SMDH

1) you are correct
2) there must also be a serious bias against the lacrosse coach too, huh?
3)it seems the team voted not to go
4) I don't need your sympathy
5) USC also turned down their WNIT bid.
6) it appears that being in the Big Ten doesn't help either mens or womens teams get into the NCAA tournament. Is there an anti-BigTen bias?

 

[SkilletHead2]

Does the NCAA run the NIT tourneys now? If so, that would be cause to turn them down.

 

[oldtimer67]

Does the NCAA run the NIT tourneys now? If so, that would be cause to turn them down.

Yes.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

1) you are correct
2) there must also be a serious bias against the lacrosse coach too, huh?
3)it seems the team voted not to go
4) I don't need your sympathy
5) USC also turned down their WNIT bid.
6) it appears that being in the Big Ten doesn't help either mens or womens teams get into the NCAA tournament. Is there an anti-BigTen bias?

2) stating there's a "bias" against CVS is not an anti-CVS comment, nor was it meant to be taken that way, but apparently you did...

3) if you think the team voted "no" because THEY didn't want to continue to play, and not because they knew CVS didn't want to get here 1000th win that way, that's your choice....but I APPLAUD the team for standing behind their coach (which I clearly state in my 2nd post within this thread)

4) no need to be a jerk; I certainly was NOT being one...

5) USC is not RU. I don't care about what USC did, to be honest, but was well aware regardless.

6) has zero to do with my post

..you DO realize that the majority of my OP was not anti-CVS, correct? Literally 3 of my 4 points were NOT but I guess you just chose to look at it that way which is a shame. Apparently you're the only one who didn't get the gist of 75% of my OP but that's okay I guess.

 

[RUfanDNT]

Yes.

Not that it matters, but according to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_National_Invitation_Tournament, unlike the NIT, the WNIT is not connected to the NCAA.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Not that it matters, but according to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_National_Invitation_Tournament, unlike the NIT, the WNIT is not connected to the NCAA.

Excellent work. Amazing what a moment of research can do to get the facts straight:

"Unlike the NIT, the women's tournament is not run by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), but is an independent National Championship. Triple Crown Sports, a company based in Fort Collins, Colorado that specializes in the promotion of amateur sporting events,[1] created the WNIT in 1994 as a preseason counterpart to the then-current National Women's Invitational Tournament (NWIT). After the NWIT folded in 1996, Triple Crown Sports resurrected the postseason version in 1998 under the NWIT name, but changed the following season to the current name."

 

[Knight Time Fan]

Excellent work. Amazing what a moment of research can do to get the facts straight:

"Unlike the NIT, the women's tournament is not run by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), but is an independent National Championship. Triple Crown Sports, a company based in Fort Collins, Colorado that specializes in the promotion of amateur sporting events,[1] created the WNIT in 1994 as a preseason counterpart to the then-current National Women's Invitational Tournament (NWIT). After the NWIT folded in 1996, Triple Crown Sports resurrected the postseason version in 1998 under the NWIT name, but changed the following season to the current name."

They did, however, come to some sort of agreement with the NCAA regarding the taking of the automatic qualifiers, etc. I forget how exactly that all went down, but I am 99% sure it did involve the NCAA.

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

Not that it matters, but according to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_National_Invitation_Tournament, unlike the NIT, the WNIT is not connected to the NCAA.

good stuff. learned something today.