I said before the tournament started that Ohio State should have been in over Kentucky, and I was blasted by the SEC fans. The only good thing about UK's resume was their 12-4 conference record, but I (and people who supported my argument) said that record means nothing when the SEC is probably the worst of the BCS conferences (or at least 2nd worst).

I said it was a travesty that the SEC got 6 bids while the Big Ten only got 4, and that it should have been 5 each. The SEC fans said that teams should be looked at as individuals and not as a member of a conference. Ok then, I guess that 12-4 conference record means jack since we're all individuals.

Ohio State was #49 in RPI, with a record of 19-13. UK was RPI #57 with a record of 18-12.

Ohio State's good wins -- Syracuse (neutral), Florida (home), Purdue (home), MSU (home)
Ohio State's bad losses -- Iowa (road), Michigan (road)

Kentucky's good wins -- Vanderbilt (home), Tennessee (home), Arkansas (home), Miss St (home), Florida (home)
Kentucky's bad losses -- Gardner-Webb (home), San Diego (home), UAB (semi-home), Houston (road), Georgia (semi-road)

Now please, who had the better resume? All UK had was conference record, but the SEC (and UK) proved in the tournament to be a big flop, and the Big Ten did significantly better despite less teams and lower seeds. But if you're only looking at teams as individuals and not as members of a conference, than conference record means nothing and UK has no reason to be in the field of 65.

Ohio State got robbed, and we proved it tonight.

P.S. If you say, "well OSU would have got killed their 1st game anyway" all I have to say to you is that all you need is one guy to get hot and carry you in a single elimination tournament. Anything can happen in March.

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

UK didn't deserve to be there, either. However, I have no remorse for bubble teams. It's the job of a team to win enough games so that there is no doubt. If you leave it up to the committee, then you haven't done your job.

I asked in your thread if it's better to win the NIT (and nothing less than winning) or to get bounced in the first round? I think it's better for recruiting to have won the NIT than to get whacked on the first day of the NCAA.

Sure, Ohio State may have won a game in the NCAA, but most likely they would not have since they would have been a very low seed. However, Kentucky didn't exactly make arses of themselves in the first round. They played a solid Marquette team tough and in a way, that proves they were worthy (and I hate saying that).

Based on the "good wins", I'm not so sure Ohio State even has a better argument. The fact that it can be argued at all means they didn't do their job during the season.

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

Another thing. I think in terms of team development, this experience FAR outweighs getting left out of the NCAA. The experience this team gained against solid teams in a tournament atmosphere will do them immeasurable good next year. Getting whacked on day one in the NCAA tournament, not so much.

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

I agree, I'd personally rather lose in the first round of the NCAA then win the NIT. I also think they should have been in, and thought so at the time, but I can see why they didn't make it.

At least they went out and made the best of it and won the NIT. That can do nothing but good. Hopefully they use it like West Virginia did last year, as a springboard to the Sweet 16.

andrew1316

Click here to learn about sports

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid

Ohio State got robbed of a tournament bid