|
WE AGREEE!
I would 100% agree that UMD was a bubble team going into the final weekend. I agree, as doesthe selection committee chair, that MD at a number 4 seed is a stretch at best - probably deserved a 5 or 6. I agree that they could lose their first game (as I said about the ACC tourney) or go all the way (as I also said about the ACC tourney). That is the nature of a young but talented team in the NCAA.
And I agree that MD is not better than 49 other teams in the tournament (and I am sure that is what you really meant, because everuybody in the ACC is better than at least 49 teams in the country - starting with the 100+ that didn't make the post season!) MD is better than 46 other teams in the tournament is what their RPI says. And RPI is just one indicator. The polls have them in the top 25, which would make them a solid 6 seed.
jrut, the only reason I listed my Big Ten background is to show LDUB why I say I am a Big Ten guy - but that probably escapes you. I accept that you are a Big Ten guy, you guys just won't believe that a Big Ten guy like me will admit his conference sucks this year. And it does, sad to say. Iowa lost in first round of NIT, and UM got its first round win - I thought they had showed they could beat NIT teams, as you no doubt read.
BTW, before the VA game, I was arguing with MD fans that MD needed to win at least one if not two more games to make the tournament. Most MD fans were assuming they were in after beating NC St. And last week I kept telling people that if MD bombed in the first round and either FSU or Va made an ACC run, MD was looking at NIT.
The only reason I have argued with you and supported the ACC/UMD is because you all continue to offer uninformed comments like "they aren't better than 49 other teams in the country or they were on the bubble at the end of December, or the ACC bias somehow cost the other conferences. Look at facts and do some basic math, it clearly is not true.
|