Not really. Most teams play their neutral games in pre season tournies. We already have 2 road opponents. So that means we either need to find a major conference team willing to come to us first or one that isn’t loaded up on neutral games from a pre season tourney.
December 10th Barclays center Triple Header
- Thread starter MCKnight
- Start date
an old local rival? Def not Princeton. Has to be one of the A10 teams, UMASS, St. Joes, Rhode Island
P5 team? Guess that meets those qualifications, South Carolina
The committee suddenly changed the criteria for selection, claiming that our team was performing differently down the stretch because we lost a player to injury. That was never part of the equation, and was not supposed to be part of the selection, but that’s the excuse they gave. The real reason that has been speculated is that they wanted to make sure that the big conferences did not take spots that could be allocated to smaller conferences. At least they should admit that instead of making up a BS excuse.
Take a look at the selection committee members. I can imagine what the conversation was like in the room.
Scarlet Jerry
I thought it was always the case that injuries to a major player would be considered if a team doesn’t perform the same compared to what the team looked like before they lost that player. In our case, I didn’t think the committee would view Mag’s pre-injury stats as that impactful. It wasn’t like on paper we lost a Luka Garza. But the issue was that taking a core rotation player away from an already thin roster had massive impact on us. The committee took note and we didn’t have the resume to carry.
Correct - and it’s impossible to know if Mag played and we still lost that one whether we would’ve snuck in. The point is outside of Temple where we were missing 2 starters, we hadn’t picked up losses like that one in earlier attempts. It gave the committee an opportunity to question if we were different without one of our core players.