The 2007-08 Hurricanes finished 8-8 in the ACC. This team is classified as a "lock" to make the NCAA Tournament. However why weren't the Hurricanes teams of 1994-95, 1996-97, and 2000-01 which had similar .500 league records in an arguably tougher conference in those particular years even classified as "bubble" teams? Is it blatant ACC bias?
The 2000-01 Canes are particularly instructive. This team was coming off three consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances and finished 6-1 in its last seven Big East games after a horrid start to the conference slate. The lone loss was a double OT game to Omar Cook and St John's broadcast live nationally on ABC. Included in this run were road wins at Syracuse, Providence and Villanova, all teams that made the NCAAs. Yet this team was always destined for the NIT. I'm just posing the question as to why a Miami team that has just three "pure" road wins all year against Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech and Mississippi State (all three are decent teams but c'mon winning at Mississippi State isn't like winning at Syracuse) is a "lock" but a Hurricanes team that won four road games against NCAA bound teams was locked into an NIT position. Does the RPI have a specific bump up for all ACC teams, that allowed below .500 Florida State and Virginia teams to finish some years in the RPI ahead of Big East and SEC teams with winning records? Just posing the questions.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
ACC Bias? Why Weren't the 1995, 1997 or 2001 Canes "on the bubble?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
The answer is YES.
The ACC benefits from outright bias in the media and an RPI system rigged towards its teams. I've believed that for years, but now we are reaping the benefits whereas in the Big East we sued to have to go overboard to even get a mention, in this league one decent win gets the nation talking.
Post a Comment