PonyFans.com

Charleston Pony wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:Did SMU make the CIT?

SMU had stated no interest in either CBI or CIT but New Orleans is in the CBI and La-Monroe in the CIT. Only 4 of the 12 AAC teams playing in post season this year

I know you have to buy in to those tourneys, but we probably would have started with a home game. Additionally, I'm surprised that we didn't try and take advantage of opportunities for our younger players to get some more in game experience. Sort of like bowl games, they give you in essence extra practice time and some on-field experience.

You shouldn't reward not making the NCAA tourney or the NIT. So glad we made it clear we wouldn't accept a CBI or CIT bid. It was time for the season to end for this team.

PonyLawExpress wrote:You shouldn't reward not making the NCAA tourney or the NIT. So glad we made it clear we wouldn't accept a CBI or CIT bid. It was time for the season to end for this team.

I take no issue with mid-majors participating in the CIT or CBI. Unless they get automatic bids they have no shot at the NCAA or NIT.

mustangxc wrote:

PonyLawExpress wrote:You shouldn't reward not making the NCAA tourney or the NIT. So glad we made it clear we wouldn't accept a CBI or CIT bid. It was time for the season to end for this team.

I take no issue with mid-majors participating in the CIT or CBI. Unless they get automatic bids they have no shot at the NCAA or NIT.

I don't either. I was discussing our program not what USeattle or some team from the SWAC should do. I wasn't clear.

The 2nd place team in the Pac-12 did not get in and the 9th place team in the Pac 12 is in the tournament.

One could argue that the injuries to Shake and Foster kept not only SMU but also USC out of the NCAA tournament.

For the Trojans, the SMU loss went from a "good" loss to a "bad" loss. That couldn't have helped.

One could also argue that the Duke connection to ASU helped the Sun Devils which is also a load of Peruna droppings.

Charleston Pony wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:Did SMU make the CIT?

SMU had stated no interest in either CBI or CIT but New Orleans is in the CBI and La-Monroe in the CIT. Only 4 of the 12 AAC teams playing in post season this year

The CIT is only for schools in low-major (1 bid) conferences.

The CBI initially included an occasional major conference team but 3 years ago the P5 conferences all decided to no longer send teams there. The MWC and AAC followed suit.

PonyTime wrote:The 2nd place team in the Pac-12 did not get in and the 9th place team in the Pac 12 is in the tournament.

One could argue that the injuries to Shake and Foster kept not only SMU but also USC out of the NCAA tournament.

For the Trojans, the SMU loss went from a "good" loss to a "bad" loss. That couldn't have helped.

One could also argue that the Duke connection to ASU helped the Sun Devils which is also a load of Peruna droppings.

So does this give us credit as a first round win?

UC a 2 seed
WSU a 4 seed
UH a 6 seed

AAC is getting more respect.....

I agree. I cannot see justifying UC as a 1 or WSU any higher. And Houston got as high as us after we won our conference and conference tournament.

mrydel wrote:I agree. I cannot see justifying UC as a 1 or WSU any higher. And Houston got as high as us after we won our conference and conference tournament.

Just like the NCAA deciding not to use the death penalty after they put it to SMU, the higher seedings for AAC teams this year are probably the NCAA's backhanded way of saying "we're sorry we screwed SMU the past couple of years"

PonyTime wrote:The 2nd place team in the Pac-12 did not get in and the 9th place team in the Pac 12 is in the tournament.

One could argue that the injuries to Shake and Foster kept not only SMU but also USC out of the NCAA tournament.

For the Trojans, the SMU loss went from a "good" loss to a "bad" loss. That couldn't have helped.

One could also argue that the Duke connection to ASU helped the Sun Devils which is also a load of Peruna droppings.

if true why wasn't Arizona dropped from the field?

dr. rick wrote:

PonyTime wrote:The 2nd place team in the Pac-12 did not get in and the 9th place team in the Pac 12 is in the tournament.

One could argue that the injuries to Shake and Foster kept not only SMU but also USC out of the NCAA tournament.

For the Trojans, the SMU loss went from a "good" loss to a "bad" loss. That couldn't have helped.

One could also argue that the Duke connection to ASU helped the Sun Devils which is also a load of Peruna droppings.

if true why wasn't Arizona dropped from the field?

Arizona won their conference regular season and tournament titles. So, amongst other reasons, they got the PAC12 automatic bid.

got it. i was going to edit the post. however, they are a 4 seed. something is really fishy with this year's set of teams. as noted above the #2 team was left out, but #9 let in. what about 3-8?

Pony81 wrote:UC a 2 seed
WSU a 4 seed
UH a 6 seed

AAC is getting more respect...

Now I hope the AAC can prove that it was deserved... our conference's performance in the tournament has been abysmal. (With one highly notable exception.)

PonyTime wrote:The 2nd place team in the Pac-12 did not get in and the 9th place team in the Pac 12 is in the tournament.

One could argue that the injuries to Shake and Foster kept not only SMU but also USC out of the NCAA tournament.

For the Trojans, the SMU loss went from a "good" loss to a "bad" loss. That couldn't have helped.

SMU playing the long game to get revenge for last year's NCAA tournament...