Acceptance.

[Saulbadguy]

Looking at the other snubs, I do not think we really deserved to be in the tournament.  Florida State and Syracuse, IMO, had better resumes than we did.  Even if Stanford and Arkansas did not deserve to be in, i'd have a hard time putting KSU ahead of FSU and SU. 

Down the stretch we lost too many "winnable" games, like @NU, @OSU, and even vs ku.  Win any one of those 3 and I think we are in.  It pains me to say this, but no, we did not deserve the NCAA tournament.  However, this will probably end up being my favorite season of the Huggins era. 

[~WabashRoll~]

FSU = 7-9.

[sys]

Looking at the other snubs, I do not think we really deserved to be in the tournament.  Florida State and Syracuse, IMO, had better resumes than we did.  Even if Stanford and Arkansas did not deserve to be in, i'd have a hard time putting KSU ahead of FSU and SU. 

Down the stretch we lost too many "winnable" games, like @NU, @OSU, and even vs ku.  Win any one of those 3 and I think we are in.  It pains me to say this, but no, we did not deserve the NCAA tournament.  However, this will probably end up being my favorite season of the Huggins era. 

lol at you for believing the comm.  those guys are just a bunch of number crunching mediots.  trust me on this one, ksu is IN.

[Saulbadguy]

FSU = 7-9.

They play in the ACC.  Harp about media bias and ESPN all you want, but the ACC is much much better than the Big XII. 

[snart]

You don’t have to reach as far as Arkansas or Florida State for my unacceptance of the NCAA’s choices.  If only one team between Texas Tech or Kansas State were to get in it should have been Kansas State.  The NCAA says it puts stock in the conference Tourneys but it is mere lip service...

[~WabashRoll~]

Yeah, no media bias with the ACC.  I particularly liked Duke getting a 6 seed, who just happened to be a 7 seed in the conference tourney and lost in the first round.

Yeah, no media bias.

And make an argument if you want for Texas Tech, a team we clearly displayed our superiority against at the end of the season, but ARKANSAS.....ARKANSAS, making the field of 64 is the biggest abomination possibly in tournament history.

[ksuno1stunner]

It still kills me.

[michigancat]

Looking at the other snubs, I do not think we really deserved to be in the tournament.  Florida State and Syracuse, IMO, had better resumes than we did.  Even if Stanford and Arkansas did not deserve to be in, i'd have a hard time putting KSU ahead of FSU and SU. 

Down the stretch we lost too many "winnable" games, like @NU, @OSU, and even vs ku.  Win any one of those 3 and I think we are in.  It pains me to say this, but no, we did not deserve the NCAA tournament.  However, this will probably end up being my favorite season of the Huggins era. 

Purdue?

[WildGunman]

If only one team between Texas Tech or Kansas State were to get in it should have been Kansas State.  The NCAA says it puts stock in the conference Tourneys but it is mere lip service...

Come on, they were tuckered out from that epic battle they had with the buffs. You can't expect them to win two days in a row...that's almost impossible.

[Super PurpleCat]

FSU = 7-9.

They play in the ACC.  Enough said.  They also just got back a player they lost early on.  FSU is good, probably better than us.

[cireksu]

I'm not totally convinced that we would have been a lock with 11 regular season big 12 wins.

[ksu_FAN]

FSU = 7-9.

They play in the ACC.  Enough said.  They also just got back a player they lost early on.  FSU is good, probably better than us.

And their worst losses were to RPI 55 and RPI 52.  They really had no "bad" losses.

[fatty fat fat]

curse me for reading an actual saulbadguy post.

[Houstoncat93]

FSU = 7-9.

One change that I'd like to see is the NCAA require a winning conference (or at least .500) in your league to be eligible for an at large.  I just don't get how you can finish in the bottom half of your league and still deserve a chance at the national championship.

[Kat Kid]

Houston, these things happen:

See NU 2001 National Championship game.

[hemmy]

? you mean vs Miami?

They didn't win even the North but weren't in the bottom half thats for sure

[Kat Kid]

? you mean vs Miami?

They didn't win even the North but weren't in the bottom half thats for sure

it is the football equivalent.

[Houstoncat93]

No the football equivalent is a sub .500 team making a bowl.

[sonofdaxjones]

What's funny to me is the committee apparently put all kinds of "credence" in the SEC's post season tourney, but absolutely none in the Big 12's postseason tourney. 

[Kat Kid]

No the football equivalent is a sub .500 team making a bowl.

That happens frequently.

See ku 2005.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=2305&year=2005

[sonofdaxjones]

Toss in needing a D1AA win for good measure for ku in 2005.

[Houstoncat93]

No the football equivalent is a sub .500 team making a bowl.

That happens frequently.

See ku 2005.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=2305&year=2005

[Kat Kid]

No the football equivalent is a sub .500 team making a bowl.

That happens frequently.

See ku 2005.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=2305&year=2005

Was Florida St. sub .500 overall, or in-conference?

Do you have an IQ abover 60?

[Houstoncat93]

No the football equivalent is a sub .500 team making a bowl.

That happens frequently.

See ku 2005.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=2305&year=2005

Was Florida St. sub .500 overall, or in-conference?

Do you have an IQ abover 60?

My IQ is way "abover" 60.

Let me be more explicit in my comments.

In football a team with a sub .500 overall record should not make a bowl game.  Note: this is already mandated by the NCAA

In basketball a team with a sub .500 league record should not make the tournament as an at-large bid. 

[Kat Kid]

No the football equivalent is a sub .500 team making a bowl.

That happens frequently.

See ku 2005.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=2305&year=2005

Was Florida St. sub .500 overall, or in-conference?

Do you have an IQ abover 60?

My IQ is way "abover" 60.

Let me be more explicit in my comments.

In football a team with a sub .500 overall record should not make a bowl game.  Note: this is already mandated by the NCAA

In basketball a team with a sub .500 league record should not make the tournament as an at-large bid. 

Here is how argumentation works.

Make a statement, then provide reasons why.

hth