Syracuse not in the field of 65?

funny thing those mid majors you were just dissing on are going to own a lot of those big conference teams. George Mason anyone? Mid majors have narrowed the gap a lot between BCS conferences and themselves.

I understand your rant but I think any team in any league that doesn't have a .750 winning percentage in conference should not be included. I am just not excited about seeing a team that finishes 4th in their conference. They add nothing to the excitement of the tournament. A no name does.

R....y.... wrote:

I understand your rant but I think any team in any league that doesn't have a .750 winning percentage in conference should not be included. I am just not excited about seeing a team that finishes 4th in their conference. They add nothing to the excitement of the tournament. A no name does.

The Big East has 16 teams in that conference so placing 5th like Syracuse did is a big deal. The Chairman of the Selection Committee was a pompous ass who wouldn't answer any questions directly. Syracuse had a 10-6 record in a major conference.

It was a mistake not to include them.

I agree with the other post. No team that is fifth in the conference adds anything to the tournament. Even if they were to advance to the final 8. Not interesting. It is like watching the college bowl games where the 4th team in the Big Ten plays the 5th team from the ACC. No one other than their alumni (and many times not even them) care.

They were 5th in conference and you think they deserve a chance at a National Championship. Why? Please don't say because they are one of the top 65 teams in the country. That is the lamest argument on the planet. What other sport does a 5th in the conference warrant a shot at a national championship? They have spent the last 3 months proving that they were the 5th best team in the conference. If you think that is good, then great. Buy them a banner to put up that proudly states 2007 5TH IN THE BIG EAST. Or better yet, start producing foam fingers with all five fingers up stating "WE'RE NUMBER 5". Those should be huge sellers.

You realize NC ST was the 5th best team in the ACC when they won their title

Tim Goldsack wrote:

You realize NC ST was the 5th best team in the ACC when they won their title

And the dumb people are silenced

but that's the ACC - they're special

I wouldn't go quite as far as the other poster but I find anyone beyond second in any conference boring. Even if a 5th place NC State team wins it all. I think that if you left them out it would make the regular season far more exciting because you would know that every game mattered. Now you have teams feeling like they can finish 4th or 5th in a power conference and that is "good enough". I would like the tornament to be better than including the "good enough".

Improvement is key wrote:

I wouldn't go quite as far as the other poster but I find anyone beyond second in any conference boring. Even if a 5th place NC State team wins it all. I think that if you left them out it would make the regular season far more exciting because you would know that every game mattered. Now you have teams feeling like they can finish 4th or 5th in a power conference and that is "good enough". I would like the tornament to be better than including the "good enough".

Well that's why you're an idiot. There isn't a huge difference between first and fifth in the major conferences. Particularly a team like Syracuse who made key changes in their game and have won 6 out of the last 8 including 2 nailbiting losses. Also, if 5th isn't good enough, then say goodbye to duke, maryland,and the acc # 6 seed. Face it... omitting Syracuse was one of the biggest snubs in all of sports. Drexel was too (a team that beat Syracuse in December). However, Syracuse would run over Drexel at this point of the year after changing things up. Also.. Duke a six seed = PATHETIC!

i think arizona was 5th place in the pac-10 when they won their nat'l championship

oh and before anyone starts spouting about not going on the road....

this is something that i never understood. when a team goes on the road, is their basket smaller or something? its like running track at an opponent's home -- SO WHAT? there shouldn't be a difference between playing at home and playing on the road. that is unless, the ncaa committee is admitting that their officiating crews are biased. and no fans yelling either way doesn't change anything. its loud at home and away. so separating teams on home/away basis is another pathetic means of differentiation.

1. Cuse had 3 good wins: @MU, GT and Nova

2. They were "unlucky" insofar as the teams that they lost to early in the season TANKED (WSU and OSU)

3. They had an ugly loss at SJU and an ugly loss at UConn

4. Unbalanced BE slate doesn't mean anything anymore; 10-6 is nothing special

5. Their "stretch run" was illusory; they beat a lot of so-so teams

Bottom line: 'Cuse needs to quit bitching to the NCAA Selection Committee and get on the phone with Commish Mikey Tranghese and get a better schedule sorted out for the "better" BE teams.

1. Cuse had 3 good wins: @MU, GT and Nova

2. They were "unlucky" insofar as the teams that they lost to early in the season TANKED (WSU and OSU)

3. They had an ugly loss at SJU and an ugly loss at UConn

4. Unbalanced BE slate doesn't mean anything anymore; 10-6 is nothing special

5. Their "stretch run" was illusory; they beat a lot of so-so teams

Bottom line: 'Cuse needs to quit bitching to the NCAA Selection Committee and get on the phone with Commish Mikey Tranghese and get a better schedule sorted out for the "better" BE teams.[/quote]

1. Right. So didn't many other dancing teams.

2. Right. They were better when they actually played them, and shouldn't effect cuse's sos.

3. Right, however, they greatly improved their game. These losses wouldn't happen again, and they beat UCONN in the BE tournament. Teams should be awarded for improvement. I agree they were not a tourney team in january.

4. Wrong. Top to bottom the Big East is the deepest conference. 10-6 has never been snubbed. And they beat Georgetown anyway.

5. Wrong.

I'm not saying that Cuse should be ranked 10th in the country, however, they should have been selected into a field of 65... particulary because they were getting hot at the right time. They could have actually won some games.. unlike Stanford.

1. Cuse had 3 good wins: @MU, GT and Nova

2. They were "unlucky" insofar as the teams that they lost to early in the season TANKED (WSU and OSU)

3. They had an ugly loss at SJU and an ugly loss at UConn

4. Unbalanced BE slate doesn't mean anything anymore; 10-6 is nothing special

5. Their "stretch run" was illusory; they beat a lot of so-so teams

Bottom line: 'Cuse needs to quit bitching to the NCAA Selection Committee and get on the phone with Commish Mikey Tranghese and get a better schedule sorted out for the "better" BE teams.

Short memories in Big East!

Not one, but two 10-6 teams from the BE were left out in 2003. Seton Hall and BC.

That is simply the exception that proves the rule.

Yeah alright whatever. In my opinion, Syracuse got snubbed. I just realized how useless posting on a message board is though. It's like the special olympics.. even if you win, you're still retarded. I'm laying my argument to rest.. I've got better things to do than argue on a board about the fortunes of other athletes anyway.

celeriter wrote:

What the F#*%?!?!?

Is this Jake Crothhamel talking from the grave?

That NCAA Basketball Chair sounded so smug in his interview with ESPN I wanted to smack him...

saying mid majors are evaluated at the same level as

Big Conf. Like ACC and Big East...my ass.

THe NCAA is a bunch of namby pamby liberal "level the playing field" affirmative action driving SOB's.

had to vent

You do realize that the last team in was Arkansas from that mid-major conference the SEC. The mid-majors that got in had no effect on Syracuse, it was teams like the above and Stanford - and Drexel has a bigger beef than SU does.