I think they should have been seeded alot higher, everyone knows the SEC rules college basketball and is the toughest league.
But it doesn't matter if there are 64, 80 or 128 teams in the NCAA's.
There will always be 3 or 4 teams bitching that they got left out.
The only way they could ever stop the bitching, is to invite everyone with a winning record.
You would still have teams with losing records saying they are better than teams in, but atleast that way, they could point out, everyone knew what you had to do, to get invited, you didn't do it.
2007-03-13 21:29:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Arkansas deserved to go to the tourney more than a lot of teams. I remember the "great" Dicky V. screaming that Drexel should have gone instead of Arkansas and Drexel got put out in the first round of the NIT. I also saw how Vandy won by over 30 in their first round and Arkansas beat them not once but twice. And one of those wins was at Vandy. Sure Arkansas had a 7-9 record in their conference, with a young team that has 0 seniors and uses several freshmen, but I think people are going to be surprised at how well the SEC does in this tournament. The SEC is a lot tougher than the experts think. Also Arkansas had the 10th toughest schedule in the country and an RPI of 35. Just compare that to some of the other teams that are crying foul play and see where they ranked. Arkansas may very well lose to USC but it should be a great game. And if they lose, I still think they deserved to be there. No doubt!!
2007-03-16 08:48:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by littledel 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel they should have been considered but not put into the tournament. I felt that this year the committee put extra emphasis on the conference tournaments. This can be seen when they put UCLA as a two seed because they lost in the quarterfinals when their body of work says one written all over it, they dropped Nevada down to a seven, and teams like arkansas got in. However if you look at the regular season there were a couple of teams that had better resumes than arkansas including drexel and floria state. By putting in Arkansas it totally discredited the good season drexel or any of the above mentioned teams had. Also, SEC as a conference is weak. Florida is the premier team but after that its so-so, even the committee thinks so. They gave Florida a one seed and the next closest SEC team is Tennessee-a five seed. So there is only one SEC team ranked in the top four seeds of the tourney as compared to the ACC with 3 (UNC, Maryland, Virginia), PAC-10 with three (UCLA, Washington St., Oregon), Big 12 with three (Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M), Big East with two (Pitt and Georgetown), and Big 10 with two (Ohio State and Wisconsin). The champion of the tournament may be from the SEC (Florida), but the conference sucks as a whole. By the way, Arkansas went to 21 wins with a 7-9 record in the easy division of the SEC (the west) with its best wins are at Vanderbilt twice. Compare that to Florida State who went 7-9 in an ultra-competitive ACC with their best wins being Florida, Duke, Virginia Tech.
2007-03-14 07:36:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by jmagicr 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Arkansas is in the SEC West. The West doesn't rule jack. Not a single team in the SEC West had a winning record in the SEC. That is a joke that you can get into the NCAA tourny without a winning record in your own conference. Arkansas lost to Missouri twice this year, and Missouri didn't even make it to the NIT. Syracuse, Air Force, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Vermont all deserved bids over Arkansas.
2007-03-14 08:47:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by bonedoggroadie 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think they were deserving; certainly not more deserving than Syracuse. The absolute crap the SEC West was this year should have outweighed Arkansas' run to the SEC title game. Frankly, I'd have put Syracuse, Clemson, Florida State, Drexel, and Air Force all ahead of Arkansas.
2007-03-14 04:36:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by tromboneguy0186 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think every year there are teams that get in that can't be explained over other teams that are left out that can't be explained. the only difference being the officials from which schools who happen to be on the selection committee. I'm not saying this is a problem but it needs to be addressed so that the appearance of impropriety isn't so obvious. thus was the case
with several schools , including arkansas.
2007-03-14 12:38:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by tennis4746 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It makes me really angry with the people that pick who gets in and who doesnt. Come on, they put Arkansas in but they snubbed Kansas State, Syracuse, and Missouri State, which are all better teams.
2007-03-14 09:17:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They belonged in. The team that I would most question is Stanford.
2007-03-14 09:10:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm okay with it. There is always a few teams that have legit gripes about being left out. Can't please all of them every year.
2007-03-14 08:23:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by Drunk365 7
·
0⤊
0⤋