1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running 2018 college rings postseason thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Cosmo, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    Well, my (somewhat predictable) nominee would be Western Kentucky. They lost to Southern Miss in the C-USA tourney after a very good conference season, and so were one of those teams who didn't get in when they should have because they're in a one bid conference. They went NIT, and beat Boston College, USC, and Oklahoma State to make the NIT Final Four. They advanced in the last two NCAA's as well.
     
  2. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    But that's pretty much kind of how it validates picking a bubble team, no? If a mid-major gets in and wins two games, we hear "let's take more mid-majors, they get overlooked."
    Now Syracuse wins two games and is very competitive in a loss to Duke and we should still say they shouldn't have gotten in?
     
  3. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    I took those as two seperate statements.
     
  4. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Syracuse beat BC twice, pounded them twice. I'm not a Cuse fan, just think it's stupid to say they didn't deserve to be in after they way they played.

    edit: Syracuse lost at BC.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  5. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    OK. It's two separate statements. Those statements were given as a reason to keep them out. Those are good reasons?
     
  6. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Syracuse does a great job of making games ugly and forcing opponents play their style.

    That is not a negative. That's one way to win.
     
    cjericho likes this.
  7. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member



    I hear you - but damn near every last in/first out, who shouldn't have gotten in column after the bracket announcement featured both Syracuse and Oklahoma as teams who really should not have gotten in. Oklahoma was severely pounded on this board, and 'Cuse wasn't far behind.
     
  8. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    I think if we are going to claim the regular season means anything, we have to at least consider Syracuse might not have deserved to be in those games, even if it got hot and won.
     
  9. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    Shrug. I wasn't pounding the drum about BC. It was a first round matchup. I just listed their NIT wins.
     
  10. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    Circus said he thought Syracuse played a terrible style. He also said it shouldn't be in the tournament. He didn't say his opinion on its style was why it shouldn't be in the tournament, rather just another reason to "fuck Syracuse."
     
  11. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    But a mid-major who has a better record, but doesn't play Duke, UNC, UVA, FSU does deserve it? And when they win, we have to say more mid-majors should
    get in, they always get screwed for the power conferences. But when a bubble team with pretty good record from a power conference gets in and they make
    a good run it proves nothing.
     
  12. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Almost game time for Loyola, so this feels obligatory.

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page