Just in case you are wondering why the Cards were not even in the first four out!
Barnhart was on Men’s NCAA Committee this year.
- Thread starter Sawyer
- Start date
Sorry but even I can't get behind this. Inbound the freaking ball with .9 to play. Dear God.
Then either you have been living in a cave OR you need reading lessons. Nearly everyone that’s made a comment has indicated that we weren’t getting in regardless. Having Barnhart on the committee just confirms the “ignorance” of the NCAA’s committee and organization.
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
They aren't in the first four out because they couldn't hold onto a 4 point lead with 0.90 seconds left.
They would have been in First Four Out with a win against UVa two weeks ago. However, after bad loss at NC State and 17 point loss to UVa in ACC Tournament I doubt an NCAA selection committee that included the UK AD, and was itching to continue to hammer all things Louisville, would have put UofL in tournament.
Would have gotten #1 NIT seed however. .
Would have gotten #1 NIT seed however. .
I'd say that Virginia victory and maybe 1 in the ACC tourney would have been enough. It probably would have put us up against a different team in the ACC, but that's what it would have taken. As far as Barnhardt, to think that moron would have given us any fair treatment on the committee is laughable, and you just know the guy was getting wood as he was voting us out. Guys a moron. What really kills me, is that TJ ate this guys lunch while here and yet TJ is gone and the moron still leads that farce of a program.
Careful....you will give UK fans something to cheer the AD for....he's getting pilloried the past week for the seed, the location, and the possible second round opponent.
I have stated it more than once: swept by Florida, swept by UT, lost to Kansas, lost to UCLA, finished FOURTH in the SEC and caught fire to win the tournament......
Five seed is really mighty good.
I have stated it more than once: swept by Florida, swept by UT, lost to Kansas, lost to UCLA, finished FOURTH in the SEC and caught fire to win the tournament......
Five seed is really mighty good.
The UVA game is easy to point to. It was dramatic, and it was UofL's last chance to get a big regular season win. There were no guarantees UofL makes the tournament had they held on. The back to back home losses against FSU and Cuse put the Cards up against it. You don't lose winnable home games.
[
And the teams under investigation that got in were poorly seeded.
Yes they did. If UK isn't on that spreadsheet for paying Bam Bam or whatever his name is, then they probably aren't playing a team of Arizona's caliber as a 5. Same applies with Zona's seeding/opponent.
I will be dang but we got Deng and that is why we are in the NIT! Pun intended!
A cynic would say if seeding held, either Arizona or UK would knock each other out then be a prohibitive dog against Virginia
But now UVA suffered a bad blow with an injury to their all conference sixth man.
But now UVA suffered a bad blow with an injury to their all conference sixth man.
UK isn’t on any spreadsheet paying for anyone, to be fair.
The biggest screw job in the bracket is that Virginia having to play UK or zona in second round. Did they cheat or something? Gotta love these wild conspiracies haha
Hundred Dollar Handshakes were never on the spreadsheet either. But I digress.
Uhhhh "to be fair" no individual school is on any report?? Schools haven't paid any kid since the '90s. The shoe companies and agents pay kids. So, the FBI investigation will expose and engulf tons of ineligible kids who got paid by shoe companies and agents. UK players are, in fact, on early reports with Bam taking the largest $$ of the UK players on early spread sheet leaks, and there's more reports to follow.... so there's that if we're "being fair".
Not sure what point you're making with that sentence?
On the unjust NCAA field snub topic, here's two items:
1). The computer picked NCAA field had U of L as a 7 seed and the most grossly missed team in the snub department with emotionless and agendaless computer picks making the selection.
2). U of L doesn't have a single loss to a team not in the Tournament field. They've never left a team out with that profile before. They've also never left a team out with 20 wins and a top 40 RPI from a power conference before.
So, it certainly appears that bias existed.
Morgantown said that UK is on the spreadsheet for paying a kid. That isn’t true and I just pointed it out. Nothing more. That’s what I meant by “to be fair”.
There are former and current UK players implicated in FBI probe. There are a couple on the spreadsheet.
Eh, not really. Knox supposedly had a lunch with an agent in high school and it’s unclear who paid. The lunch was said to be less than $40. Emmert himself stated he isn’t concerned about these lunches. Any meal under $200 can be paid back via charity contribution without recourse
Sandy Bell just laughed her ass off when alerted to this. Within 24 hours UK came out and said their own investigation saw nothing. Say what you want to about ole Sandy Baby, but she sure is good. Or "gives" good.
Dunno if Bell is over the payoff part for us.
In all seriousness, I think Bells is more the academic eligibility part.
Mighty good at that as well.
In all seriousness, I think Bells is more the academic eligibility part.
Mighty good at that as well.
Cards weren't considered. They weren't even one of the last four out because their resume was literally not reviewed. ND was up next LMFAO.
USC ran 2nd in the PAC and they got left out.
It was being the FBI mark.
A few programs received unofficial post-season bans.
Had Auburn and/or AZ been close to the cut line their resumes would have landed in the garbage and not reviewed either. Being in the T 20 forced the committee to take them - to not take them would have put a massive spotlight on the FBI. Teams around the cut line - not so much.
Last edited:
Correct and that was because we performed so poorly against good teams like I said. A win over Virginia changes that.
It had nothing to do with on court performance or game results, that's where you're overlooking the obvious.
The RPI and SOS falls in line with a team that gets a bid traditionally. The resume wasn't bulletproof at all. Of course you can point to something here or there that would keep a bubble team out.
The issue was two strikes - hookers and FBI. I think the FBI was the most important, and if UofL wasn't enough evidence explain Southern Cal. You can't, if you're going to use on court performance and computer rating analysis.
When you see the outright 2nd place PAC team also make the conference final, and get denied a bid while two teams behind them in the standings got the bid, it's time to come to grips with the fact that the results of the games were not considered for FBI teams. It's an elephant in the room you're not seeing.
A win over UVA would not have gotten UofL a bid, it would only have infuriated an already angry fan base even more.
Oh I agree they are not going to do us any favors but I still think we get in if we beat Virginia. Having said that, we would have been in a play-in game and then in a draw that guarantees a quick exit. They didn't necessarily want to keep us completely out of the tournament but we made it easy for them.
You're using on court results in an analytical way to apply to this season's selection process for UofL which doesn't fit this situation. If the NCAA was using standard data analysis, UofL would have either been in the tournament or for sure one of the last four out - and Southern Cal would have for sure been in the tournament.
On court analysis was not applied to FBI teams near the cut. The outright 2nd place team from a Power 5 didn't get a bid when the league got 3 bids. There is no data analysis explanation for that.
I get it, you are very disappointed in UofL's performance this year - you thought there was plenty of talent and you did not like Rick Pitino - and you really wanted this team to show Pitino's worth was overstated by his supporters.
Like all of us, you were hoping for a better product. It makes you feel better to blame the players here, because you thought they should have been a T 20 team and given the committee no opportunity to exclude them.
And that is fine to be disappointed. I just don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious impact the FBI mark had on this team when they didn't even get in the first four out. They probably literally lit the UofL resume on fire without even looking over the things you're pointing out LOL.. But okay!
Last edited:
It was the wrong year to be on the bubble for UofL. Outside of our area, probably most people assume we're the dirtiest program in the country and deserve punishment at every opportunity. Pittsburgh's yahoo coach probably gave the sentiments of the entire country toward UofL. I know it's not fair but it is what it is.
In retrospect, I don't think we'd have gotten in even with the Virginia win. If we were going to get in the Tournament with the kind of reputation we have right now, we had to be in the Top 25 all year and we weren't. With our resume it was easy to leave us out.
In retrospect, I don't think we'd have gotten in even with the Virginia win. If we were going to get in the Tournament with the kind of reputation we have right now, we had to be in the Top 25 all year and we weren't. With our resume it was easy to leave us out.
UofL was not even in the first 4 out. That means they were not even close. The UVA win wouldn't have been enough. Not this year anyway.
Cards would have had to win the ACC Tourney to get in to the NCAAT.
Cards would have had to win the ACC Tourney to get in to the NCAAT.
I think you believe there is some major significant difference between the teams that represent the publicized "first 4 out" and us. There is no major difference and a win over Virginia I believe would have pushed us ahead of the first 4 out and into the tournament. Yes, one game would have been the difference since the reason we were left out was our lackluster performance against quality teams. There is no conspiracy. There is just our failure to perform in key games against quality competition.
Where I see the logic in the FBI argument, you have Arizona....and the champion of the Pac12 along with all the other conference teams proved that the NCAA was correct in that this was just a bad, bad bad basketball conference. (That makes the UK loss to UCLA this year stick in the craw more).
Add Seton Hall to that list. You go 3-13 against tournament teams you don't deserve to be in.
Similar threads
