PonyFans.com

conference mate twice and we have a 22-9 record and don't make the tourney?? So well done by the committee. #BYU #NCState #Xavier

BYU and NC State are my biggest complaints. At least you can make arguments for most other teams. BYU and NC State, you can't even begin to formulate an argument in favor of them over SMU.

Oh and edit your Subject line....should say "twice" at the end.

Throw Nebraska in that, 19-12 and 1-7 vs top 25. Our resume kills them

SWEPT a sweet 16. Imagine if Memphis beats UVA tomorrow. I NEVER root for Memphis (and my wife and fatherinlaw are both UVA alums), but I'll be pulling for Memphis in this one.

If Memphis takes out UVA tomorrow, SMU will have 3 wins over Sweet 16. . . [deleted] you Ron Wellman

LHS81 wrote:If Memphis takes out UVA tomorrow, SMU will have 3 wins over Sweet 16. . . [deleted] you Ron Wellman

Either way, we will have played either 5 or 6 games against sweet 16 teams. Weak schedule huh?

Smu97186 wrote:

LHS81 wrote:If Memphis takes out UVA tomorrow, SMU will have 3 wins over Sweet 16. . . [deleted] you Ron Wellman

Either way, we will have played either 5 or 6 games against sweet 16 teams. Weak schedule huh?

For what has been discussed ~18,000 times, it wasn't the top 8 teams that was a problem, it was the bottom 10-15.

CoxMustangFan wrote:

Smu97186 wrote:

LHS81 wrote:If Memphis takes out UVA tomorrow, SMU will have 3 wins over Sweet 16. . . [deleted] you Ron Wellman

Either way, we will have played either 5 or 6 games against sweet 16 teams. Weak schedule huh?

For what has been discussed ~18,000 times, it wasn't the top 8 teams that was a problem, it was the bottom 10-15.

KU should have lost to TCU again so we could get in to the tourney

CoxMustangFan wrote:

Smu97186 wrote:

LHS81 wrote:If Memphis takes out UVA tomorrow, SMU will have 3 wins over Sweet 16. . . [deleted] you Ron Wellman

Either way, we will have played either 5 or 6 games against sweet 16 teams. Weak schedule huh?

For what has been discussed ~18,000 times, it wasn't the top 8 teams that was a problem, it was the bottom 10-15.

That does highlight the ridiculous of the selection method. Who played the least terrible teams? Basically that is what they are saying they use as the selection criteria.

CalallenStang wrote:

CoxMustangFan wrote:

Smu97186 wrote:
For what has been discussed ~18,000 times, it wasn't the top 8 teams that was a problem, it was the bottom 10-15.

KU should have lost to TCU again so we could get in to the tourney

Just so I'm clear, KU should have lost the 91-69 game or the 95-65 game? You're right though, both were closer than they should have been (but all KU could do is put in walk-ons in the second half).

Grant Carter wrote:

CoxMustangFan wrote:

Smu97186 wrote:
For what has been discussed ~18,000 times, it wasn't the top 8 teams that was a problem, it was the bottom 10-15.

That does highlight the ridiculous of the selection method. Who played the least terrible teams? Basically that is what they are saying they use as the selection criteria.

I don't believe there is a focus on the bottom teams, but the whole schedule is considered. Not just the top 10 teams.

CoxMustangFan wrote:

Grant Carter wrote:

CoxMustangFan wrote:[quote="Smu97186"]

For what has been discussed ~18,000 times, it wasn't the top 8 teams that was a problem, it was the bottom 10-15.

That does highlight the ridiculous of the selection method. Who played the least terrible teams? Basically that is what they are saying they use as the selection criteria.

I don't believe there is a focus on the bottom teams, but the whole schedule is considered. Not just the top 10 teams.[/quote]
But if you look at the whole schedule then smu's problem was the poor quality of the worst teams they played.

CoxMustangFan wrote:Just so I'm clear, KU should have lost the 91-69 game or the 95-65 game? You're right though, both were closer than they should have been (but all KU could do is put in walk-ons in the second half).

It was a joke

Anyone know what the advancing teams do for the conference in terms of revenue?

CalallenStang wrote:

CoxMustangFan wrote:Just so I'm clear, KU should have lost the 91-69 game or the 95-65 game? You're right though, both were closer than they should have been (but all KU could do is put in walk-ons in the second half).

It was a joke

I figured...shrug!

Just trying to navigate the vitriol that has overtaken so many. You wouldn't think we cheer for one of the 25 or so teams that are still alive, about to play a game at home in front of a sold out crowd (against a pretty good opponent).