OSU, USC, and St. Marys got screwed.

[oketex]

Guys I can't stand OSwho, my perfect season would be for them to lose every game in every sport but that said they played very good ball down the line and they should have gotten in. Listening to the talking heads at espnsec I think the committee used their early games against them and therefore left them out. O well they can always say "wait till next year".

 

[mict085]

The committee put osu exactly where they belong. You can’t take a snapshot of a few games and say a team played better during this stretch of games. OU played like a #1 seed in December. Does that mean they should be a #1 seed? No.

You take the whole season. All the games matter. Based on all the criteria, osu did not deserve to get in. They are exactly where they should be, exactly what their season has earned them. The NIT.

 

[skyvue]

Same record, better wins, and they beat us twice.

I don't know how anybody looking at this objectively could not see that OSU was the better team the second half of the season. It doesn't make you a bad OU fan to admit truth.

They both went 8-10 in conference, and both lost their SEC challenge games. That's a toss-up. Since the committee (rightfully) looks at the entire season, perhaps you should consider doing the same.

 

[cowboysooner]

If you don't give any weight to playing better late, but instead look at the entire year, OU had a better year. Ou had a better record against stiffer competition. OSU won 2 of 3 head to head, would be their best argument.

Fact is that OU got in ahead of OSU and ASU got in ahead of USC, for the same reason. In both cases, the records were similar and the committee just put the team that didn't buy their players in over the schools that did.

USC and OSU couldn't be directly or openly punished because the proper process hadn't been followed, but they both had assistant coaches ARRESTED BY THE FBI for buying or trying to buy players. Enough smoke that the committee just decided between fairly equal teams to give the benefit of the doubt to the teams that weren't involved in the scandal.

 

[skyvue]

If you don't give any weight to playing better late, but instead look at the entire year, OU had a better year.

You didn't need to go any further than that, since the committee does not, in fact, give any weight to playing better late and does instead look at the entire year.

 

[allday92]

The NCAA likes money. One team has Trae Young, the other does not. End of story.

 

[Zimwillett]

If you don't give any weight to playing better late, but instead look at the entire year, OU had a better year. Ou had a better record against stiffer competition. OSU won 2 of 3 head to head, would be their best argument.

Fact is that OU got in ahead of OSU and ASU got in ahead of USC, for the same reason. In both cases, the records were similar and the committee just put the team that didn't buy their players in over the schools that did.

USC and OSU couldn't be directly or openly punished because the proper process hadn't been followed, but they both had assistant coaches ARRESTED BY THE FBI for buying or trying to buy players. Enough smoke that the committee just decided between fairly equal teams to give the benefit of the doubt to the teams that weren't involved in the scandal.

That simply isn't a "fact." It's a conspiracy theory, and frankly kind of a silly one. I mean, KU was implicated in that same scandal. They were "punished" with a #1 seed in Wichita. UNC has been implicated in that scandal and others as well. They got a 2 seed in Charlotte as a 10 loss team. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Moreoever, OSU's RPI was around 90. There has NEVER been a team get an at large bid with an RPI in that range. Ever. So even if it's true that the committee (which is comprised of athletic directors---not NCAA officials), did somehow decide it wanted to punish the teams implicated in the NCAA/FBI scandal, that almost certainly wasn't the reason OSU didn't get in. It's because their RPI was 90.

 

[WaymanFan]

Those OU fans who are trying to convince other OU fans that OSU got screwed are wasting their time. If you are looking for someone to blame, voice your frustrations out at the RPI. As long as the tournament committee uses the RPI as a factor for getting an at-large berth, no one with an 88 is going to be selected. NO ONE...not Duke, not North Carolina, and definitely not Oklahoma State.

In fairness, no objective OU fan should be arguing that Oklahoma State has been better than OU (even if by a small margin) in the 2018 calendar year.

 

[152219]

Those OU fans who are trying to convince other OU fans that OSU got screwed are wasting their time. If you are looking for someone to blame, voice your frustrations out at the RPI. As long as the tournament committee uses the RPI as a factor for getting an at-large berth, no one with an 88 is going to be selected. NO ONE...not Duke, not North Carolina, and definitely not Oklahoma State.

In fairness, no objective OU fan should be arguing that Oklahoma State has been better than OU (even if by a small margin) in the 2018 calendar year.

In fairness? No one in this thread has argued that last point at all. It has repeatedly been pointed out that the entire season matters for the NCAA committee and rightfully so. The NCAA committee also highly values quality wins and that is where USC was bit (their only top 50 RPI wins for the season are MTSU and New Mexico St). That is it.

 

[MsProudSooner]

http://newsok.com/article/5586857?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NIC-Facebook

 

[kansasooner]

Never understood the concept of a team getting screwed. There are 68 teams in the thing. You can find a criteria to put just about anyone in.

A group is given the task of deciding who gets in. They do it.

Pretty much means that is who deserved it.

yessir