17-14. Absurd. And Maryland is a 3 seed? They should have been a 1 or 2. Lack of respect for B1G.
NCAA - how did Auburn get in?
- Thread starter APKnight
- Start date
While the Maryland is arguable - the deciding factor touted for quite a bit was that they played a funky OOC schedule. Good wins against their good competition, but they played a bunch of really terrible teams otherwise. And the B1G didn't get a lot of respect - no bid for Michigan. OTH, not sure Purdue really belonged. In general, the B1G was tracked throughout the year as the #5 conference. As Charlie Creme said, Maryland could have been a 2 but would most likely have been in Bridgeport anyhow.
Also as Creme said, the committee appeared to value post season more heavily than conference season is a surprise.
As to Auburn, and this I was looking at on a thread a while ago on the BY, the truth was that the bubble teams all had serious flaws. I have no idea how they chose Auburn (or Cal) as worthy over, for example, Michigan or GW. The bottom line was, as someone said, it was a very soft bubble.
True, but in looking I was surprised to see they beat Louisville, Washington State and Arizona State. As you say, however, 8 of their other 9 games were fairly putrid, and with the B1G having a down year that did it.
Actually, though, some of the committee's decisions this year do boggle the mind. I was much surprised when they included 2 teams from like the 16th ranked conference, and placed them on the same (low) seed line when one is ranked in the top 25 and their records have little resemblance.
I suspect they had some different viewpoints - almost sounds like politics - that they followed this year.
67....do u go out of your way to criticize my posts. I was feeling pretty good the way the season ended w all the posters...then you have to be....I guess.....you. It was a simple post. Not like by saying" this year", I was saying the committee has been great all other years. I'd appreciate it if you would leave me alone and I would be very happy to do the same. BTW...I think my post deserved at least 5 "?"'s instead of the 3 you gave me. LOL
Last edited:
Don't be so sensitive. I didn't even look at who had posted the comment. The statement was "Ridiculous committee this year". I totally agreed. My response was intended to emphasize that the post was not only correct but that it's been a lot more than only this year. Are you looking for reasons to complain?
I got what '67 meant - didn't think it was a federal case.
That said, the point I noticed "this year" was some really inexplicable decisions. Other years, you could often at least see how they got somewhere - even if you disagreed; a few decisions this year are unfathomable.
Don't think my reply made it on the thread. I will try to repeat it. Here we go
My reply was a lot bigger than a reply to a specific post. Whether 67's criticism was a big deal or a little quibble is not the issue. Why be critical at all. I'm sure 67 agreed that the NCAA committee messed up this year.
It is a time to be united. Time to look to the future.
The games will begin soon enough when we find out who will be coaching next year,
We need to remember that we are all ONE in the fact that we all are Big Time RU fans.
Go RU: The players; coaches and the fans!
My reply was a lot bigger than a reply to a specific post. Whether 67's criticism was a big deal or a little quibble is not the issue. Why be critical at all. I'm sure 67 agreed that the NCAA committee messed up this year.
It is a time to be united. Time to look to the future.
The games will begin soon enough when we find out who will be coaching next year,
We need to remember that we are all ONE in the fact that we all are Big Time RU fans.
Go RU: The players; coaches and the fans!
That's not true. Ohio State's men's team had 17 wins and didn't even get an NIT invitation.
(a) Usually, but not always. I've actually looked at it. 17 is sort of a cut off for having a good chance to get in.
(b) The women's committee thinks of these things differently than the men's committee. It's part of the broader tilt towards major conference teams compared to the men's committee. (Not saying it's right or wrong, as the circumstances differ, but it's definitely real.)
(b) The women's committee thinks of these things differently than the men's committee. It's part of the broader tilt towards major conference teams compared to the men's committee. (Not saying it's right or wrong, as the circumstances differ, but it's definitely real.)
Similar threads
