|
Bucknut, I know you're upset that Ohio State was denied an at large bid, but it wasn't UA that took their spot. There were four at large teams selected after UA (all have lower seeds) - Kentucky, Baylor, Villanova and Kansas State. So, if you want to bang on a team for keeping OSU out, go bang on one of those teams. I'm also guessing you don't know much about Pac 10 hoops, because if you did, you'd know that -
- Arizona was missing Jerryd Bayless in the first game against ASU, and Nic Wise in the second game. Give UA their best player and PG, and the outcome of at least one, if not both, of the games would likely have been different.
- Against the other eight Pac 10 teams, Arizona was 8-8. ASU was 7-9.
- I've heard the argument that UA got credit for losing to better teams than ASU beat (in regards to the SOS factor), but consider that UA had a greater number of quality wins than ASU. Arizona beat Texas A&M, Washington State twice, USC (road), UNLV (road) and Houston (road). ASU beat Stanford, USC and Xavier.
- UA lost three games by more than 10 points this year. ASU lost eight by more than 10 points.
- ASU was 5-10 in their last 15 games. Arizona was 7-8.
- ASU was jobbed by the refs against USC, taking away the putback that would have tied the game with :16 left. UA was jobbed by the refs against Stanford, calling a foul on a clean block against Brook Lopez with the UA ahead by 1 with :23 left.
I know I'm not going to get any love on this board, and honestly I'm not trying to stir the pot. I'm just really, really tired of hearing that ASU deserved the bid over UA due to conference standings and head-to-head competition. Had UA played Florida Gulf Coast and St. Francis, PA instead of Kansas (in Kansas) and Memphis (in Memphis), we wouldn't be having this argument because UA would be 21-12 instead of 19-14 (hence the weight of SOS).
I personally believe both teams deserved a bid, but I'd have left out Baylor, not UA.
|
