Pitt did make the tournament & I totally agree that Vandy shouldn't have made the cut, but there are arguments to be made for & against most of the other bubble teams that did or didn't make it. Kentucky may make a run, but they split with A&M, only beat 4 tourney teams & had some bad losses to Auburn, Tenn & a semi-bad one to UCLA. A&M had a couple bad losses to Arkansas & ASU. They beat 6 tourney teams & actually 8 if you count the small conference tourney winners (UNC Ash & Florida GC). South Carolina had a nice looking record, but only beat 1 top 50 team, 3 tourney teams total & had bad losses to Missouri, Miss St. Tenn & Georgia 3x. Texas Tech beat 6 top 50 teams & 7 tourney teams, but also had bad losses to TCU & Arkansas, while Monmouth had two nice wins against ND & USC & decent win against UCLA, but that win is only decent when you consider it was Monmouth. That win wouldn't be used to make a case for a team like Tech, Michigan or any other major conf team. If Monmouth only had 1 or even 2 bad losses they might have gotten in, but losing to Army, Manhattan & Canisius killed them. Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions, but just posting some things to consider. I guess it all depends whether you take the stance that the best teams should get the at-large bids or if some feel good small conference teams should get in.
I can actually understand South Carolina not getting in. Their OOC schedule was awful. It's been known now for about 4 years that the SEC conference schedule can hurt a bubble team and they need help before the season. SEC office had a huge meeting with coaches 2-3 years ago about improving it for the better of the conference.
Monmouth did everything the committee wants and everything in their control and won doing it. They are an example of how fluid and wishy washy the committee is
Monmouth did everything the committee wants and everything in their control and won doing it. They are an example of how fluid and wishy washy the committee is
