Posted:
#26
@Professor1258
Lol they won their conference tournaments. They are not at large bids.
0
South Florida better than half the field
Posted:
#28
Quote Originally Posted by BigPell:
@Professor1258 Dude Howard and Wagner won their conference tournaments lol
@Professor1258 Dude Howard and Wagner won their conference tournaments lol
that's not the point. I never claimed they were at large bids. Regardless USF waxes both of those teams by double digits. The point is that there is a problem with the tournament structure, especially in a year when there was so many bids stolen.
0
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by mrusso:
@TJZags598 90-86, South Florida wins H to H. But KenPom is more important? Listen, I understand why they didn't get in but they are definitely one of the best 50 teams in the country. With all the automatic qualifiers from the tournament championships and then the upsets on top of that South Florida was doomed without a conference Championship. I live in Tampa Bay and I love what they did for the basketball community here. But go Heels, my team and I have them at +1750 to win it all.
@TJZags598 90-86, South Florida wins H to H. But KenPom is more important? Listen, I understand why they didn't get in but they are definitely one of the best 50 teams in the country. With all the automatic qualifiers from the tournament championships and then the upsets on top of that South Florida was doomed without a conference Championship. I live in Tampa Bay and I love what they did for the basketball community here. But go Heels, my team and I have them at +1750 to win it all.
They are far from top 50.
You will not find one ranking system that even has them in top 75.
Barttovik, who i think is a better gauge than Kenpom, has them at 92
Can South Florida beat anyone in the NCAA tournament? Sure. Are they better than some "auto" bids. Definitely. Are they better than any "at large" bids. No. I can find one independent source that says South Florida is better than any at large bid. If you can, point one out.
I loved the year South Florida had. It was awesome for college basketball. They looked great when i watched them p[lay. But context is everything.
Those were great odds on heels. they definitely have a good shot and the National. Good luck brother!
0
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight:
Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had.
Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had.
As I stated earlier in this thread....this is the exact reason they don't deserve an at large bid
USF was 89th in the Kenpom Rankings, 78th in the Net Rankings, and 103 in Strength of Schedule
0
Posted:
#33
Quote Originally Posted by Professor1258:
Here is the teams South Florida manhandles in the tournament. "Atleast" half of the play in teams +these below Long Beach, Dayton, Akron, Texas, South Carolina, Samford, TCU, Western Kentucky, Oakland, Vermont, Stetson, FAU, Yale, Morehead st, South Dakota state, Mississippi st, and everyone's favorite College of freakin Charleston who plays in a far weaker conference, and lost to Towson and Wilmington on their home floor. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.. USF has shooters all over the floor, and play great defense. They were a possible cinderella story.
Here is the teams South Florida manhandles in the tournament. "Atleast" half of the play in teams +these below Long Beach, Dayton, Akron, Texas, South Carolina, Samford, TCU, Western Kentucky, Oakland, Vermont, Stetson, FAU, Yale, Morehead st, South Dakota state, Mississippi st, and everyone's favorite College of freakin Charleston who plays in a far weaker conference, and lost to Towson and Wilmington on their home floor. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.. USF has shooters all over the floor, and play great defense. They were a possible cinderella story.
Alot of your teams listed are the winners of conf. tour., which has nothing to do with SF not being in, most snubs to teams that were in nut ended up out has to do with teams being in not really trying to win. 5 teams were kicked out as a result of upsets in tour., big east has 3 teams, sure more had the numbers to get in. Colo. and Ore. in finals and story was Ore. had to win to get in and they did so the committee took Colo. out and Ore. got their spot.
And I would guess SF fans do not travel to games, which since money is all the ncaa cares about. BUTTS IN SEATS.
0
Its looks mighty similar.
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by osubucks1:
Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight: Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had. As I stated earlier in this thread....this is the exact reason they don't deserve an at large bid USF was 89th in the Kenpom Rankings, 78th in the Net Rankings, and 103 in Strength of Schedule
Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight: Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had. As I stated earlier in this thread....this is the exact reason they don't deserve an at large bid USF was 89th in the Kenpom Rankings, 78th in the Net Rankings, and 103 in Strength of Schedule
NEVER heard of either of those rankings. Upon looking at the former, it appears to be a persons or peoples interpretation of data to manipulate the figures to yield the results one wants to see. I could use other sites and their statistics to why they should have been selected (but won't). Everyone has the right to their opinion. The selection commit picked who they wanted based upon their factors. My comment/question was more along the lines as to why didn't the head of the process address it after the field was set. An "in general" reason doesn't cut it (with me). The 68 are in and will be ready for battle on gameday. 
with your action.
0
Posted:
#39
Quote Originally Posted by osubucks1:
Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight: Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had. As I stated earlier in this thread....this is the exact reason they don't deserve an at large bid USF was 89th in the Kenpom Rankings, 78th in the Net Rankings, and 103 in Strength of Schedule
Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight: Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had. As I stated earlier in this thread....this is the exact reason they don't deserve an at large bid USF was 89th in the Kenpom Rankings, 78th in the Net Rankings, and 103 in Strength of Schedule
NEVER heard of either of those rankings. Upon looking at the former, it appears to be a persons or peoples interpretation of data to manipulate the figures to yield the results one wants to see. I could use other sites and their statistics to why they should have been selected (but won't). Everyone has the right to their opinion. The selection commit picked who they wanted based upon their factors. My comment/question was more along the lines as to why didn't the head of the process address it after the field was set. An "in general" reason doesn't cut it (with me). The 68 are in and will be ready for battle on gameday. with your action.
0
Posted:
#41
Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight:
Quote Originally Posted by osubucks1: Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight: Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had. As I stated earlier in this thread....this is the exact reason they don't deserve an at large bid USF was 89th in the Kenpom Rankings, 78th in the Net Rankings, and 103 in Strength of Schedule NEVER heard of either of those rankings. Upon looking at the former, it appears to be a persons or peoples interpretation of data to manipulate the figures to yield the results one wants to see. I could use other sites and their statistics to why they should have been selected (but won't). Everyone has the right to their opinion. The selection commit picked who they wanted based upon their factors. My comment/question was more along the lines as to why didn't the head of the process address it after the field was set. An "in general" reason doesn't cut it (with me). The 68 are in and will be ready for battle on gameday. with your action.
Quote Originally Posted by osubucks1: Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackKnight: Have to admit, still stumped as to why South Florida wasn't given an At Large bid. On the Eye Test, to me, they belong in for the high quality season they had. As I stated earlier in this thread....this is the exact reason they don't deserve an at large bid USF was 89th in the Kenpom Rankings, 78th in the Net Rankings, and 103 in Strength of Schedule NEVER heard of either of those rankings. Upon looking at the former, it appears to be a persons or peoples interpretation of data to manipulate the figures to yield the results one wants to see. I could use other sites and their statistics to why they should have been selected (but won't). Everyone has the right to their opinion. The selection commit picked who they wanted based upon their factors. My comment/question was more along the lines as to why didn't the head of the process address it after the field was set. An "in general" reason doesn't cut it (with me). The 68 are in and will be ready for battle on gameday. with your action.
understandle not to have heard of them if you don’t follow college basketball…
0
Posted:
#47
Final score: South Florida 83, Central Florida 77.
There was a brief time in the second half when the Bulls weren't at their best, let alone playing well, but that past. Good teams do that (find a way to win). To me, no surprise USF got the job done tonight. Congratulations to those of us smart enough to wager them straight up and against the spread. 
Go ahead, try to sell me on they aren't a top 68 team. Spoiler alert, no matter how you try to spin it, you will fail. On to the next round. 
1
Posted:
#49
Quote Originally Posted by Stryc9Nine:
What do sports bettors care about the most? Teams that cover. I don't care if South Florida plays in a weak conference. South Florida and North Texas covered a lot of games this season. For that reason alone, I thank the two teams. I'm rooting for both teams.
What do sports bettors care about the most? Teams that cover. I don't care if South Florida plays in a weak conference. South Florida and North Texas covered a lot of games this season. For that reason alone, I thank the two teams. I'm rooting for both teams.
It's true. I guess I didn't mention earlier in the post that South Florida is 20-8-3 ats this year. I am just curious where all the hot shots are bashing this team for literally no reason because they think they are smarter than people who actually watched USF this year, and know they are good. And, for the record. I don't even think UCF is that bad.. Clearly a level or two below, but the American conference in my opinion has some decent quality compared to other mid major conferences etc.
Guys like Finster are supposed to be sharp, but doesn't factor the ats and lets his ego get the best of him. Facts are the facts, and the fact of the matter is this team is good. We still get every sausage eating jabroni in here thinking they know more than us about it though. I just find it funny at this point.
0
Hot Forum Topics
