Buehrle>Wood

OSU WSU Maryland UCLA For one.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:01 PM) because he has a cool last name. /thread

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 06:21 PM) I must be one of the few that has Georgetown going out relatively early. Moi too.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 01:24 AM) The write in team. Kansas won't have enough time to prepare for them. You act like Bill Self prepares for games anyway. For one of my picks: New Mexico State over Texas

THANK GOD

http://tcaa.puretecmo.com/nit06.html

Apparently they are having a NIT Selction show on ESPN2.

This bracket just has all the storylines: Kansas/UK- The battle of storied programs UI/SIU/Kansas- 3/4 of the great coaching carousel of 2003 IU/Gonzaga- Rematch of last year's pod final UCLA/Weber St- Howland's old school vs. his coaching job UCLA/Pitt- Howland left Pitt not too long ago And Duke getting a 6 seed is a storyline in itself.

I'm liking TAMUCC as my big time upset special. Still not going to pick it in my bracket though.

So Arkansas and Illinois both got in as I said they should. I can die a happy man.

Syracuse had a terrible resume. I don't know why people are going nuts over thi. RPI of 50, lost early in conference tourney, scheduled a very weak non-con schedule, etc.

Wow, Marquette an 8. Assuming Jerel is healthy. UNC may be in trouble.

So the SC is obviously putting a lot of emphasis on conference tourneys. MSU??

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 09:28 PM) I thought he had them as the last team in? Also, to add to the leak issue I suggested earlier, Lunardi now has Arkansas in the tournament. Someone on another board said they were an 11 seed on there. I was assuming there was at least one at-large with a 12 or 13. If not, then I'm wrong.

So the most accruate bracketologists(collegeRPI.com) have Illinois in with room to breathe.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 07:47 PM) SI has (2) Kansas vs (15) Belmont. If only. If the SC had any sense of humor, it would happen.

Yeah, if this keeps up, no way do they deserve one. They were borderline anyway, so I don't think they get one(again, is this keeps up).

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 07:20 PM) I dare you to rationalize KState over Illinois... Or ODU. Or Drexel. Or Stanfraud. Still haven't seen a logical explanation for any of these teams over Arkansas or Illinois. I'd also like to know how a team could play so terrible yet beat a team that is apparently a lock above them. Anyone?

Awesome

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 05:58 PM) If you're going to use the injury excuse for Illinois you must for Stanford as well. They were missing Brook Lopez at the beginning of the year(when they got blown out by Air Force) and they were missing Andrew Goods for this bad stretch they've had, now they're both back. I was only using it to begin with because of Stanford. To me, the SC should not be able to grant a team phantom wins just because of injuries. It's stupid and it makes no sense at all. There is no guarntee any one player could have made a difference in any one loss. Besides, weren't they all back for their last game vs. USC? I'm not sure they were, but I do know they lost. If they wanted to actually use the flawed argument of injuries, then they had to win this game, but they didn't. QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 05:58 PM) They also have an insane amount of good wins compared to other bubble teams: Texas Tech, @ Virginia(only team to win there this season), Washington State, USC, UCLA, Oregon. This is what is so flawed about the selection process. Apparently it's better to be strong in one part of your resume and be terrible in every other field than it is to be solid in every part of your resume. Again, dumb logic. QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 05:58 PM) They also have 0 bad losses(just like the Illini). Stanford belongs in the field. Apparently you missed this: "Home losses to Santa Clara, Gonzaga, and California. Loss @ Washington. Oh yeah, did I mention they lost by 35 to Air Force at home?" Now I'm going to get lectured on how each one of those isn't. But in the end there is no denying that tourney teams should be losing to teams like these consistently. And Illinois lost @ Iowa too. That's one bad loss, albeit a better loss than any of Stanford's bad losses.

QUOTE(Brian @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 05:47 PM) I don't know much about Stanford, but they are 18-12. Teams with better records should get in over them. What is their RPI and such? I'll post what I did in another thread: 18 wins RPI of 66 12 losses 4-6 in their last ten 4-8 against the RPI top 50 1st round conference tourney loss Home losses to Santa Clara, Gonzaga, and California. Loss @ Washington. Oh yeah, did I mention they lost by 35 to Air Force at home? How teams like Stanford and Kansas State are even being considered is beyond me.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 05:24 PM) Katz has arkansas in also. I'm fine with that. They have a way better resume than all of these bubble teams other than maybe Illinois. Lunardi doesn't even have them close.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) Even though I think Illinois should be in, there seems to be a lot of momentum towards them being out right now. And based on what(Not to you, but to those leaving them out)? They have a much better resume than all of these perceieved bubble teams. They are very stong in the 3 most important factors(RPI, SOS, L10). Many of their losses came with their best players out. Anyway, their going to be in. Their not going to leave out a top 30 RPI team from a major conference out.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) How are they terrible? They might not be great but they won at Villanova, at Syracuse and at Creighton, all 3 will be in the tournament. They took 4th place in the Colonial. They've lost to Penn. They've lost to Hofstra. They've lost to William and Mary. They've lost to Rider. Any wins they may have had should be voided upon further review.