Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DefenseBB, post: 2627511, member: 7492"] Actually, I think we are on the same page in most of the discussion. If you have ever been on a committee where consensus is required, alliances are built. So, from the top- yes, members are to leave when their school or schools (if a conference commish) but just like here on the forum, members will “stick up for their alliances” like members logically saying ND derserved a #1. And then when the A-10 discussion comes up, ND advocates for Dayton. That absolutely happens. I am not saying it did here but how coincidental is the questions being raised on certain schools have members on this committee? Not sure what you think I inferred on payout as I only mentioned attendance, however more attendance doe create more revenue for the NCAA to defray the costs-placing games where more fans go, makes sense. Schools do get to keep concession, parking and facility fees. Dawn kept bring up the Shepard transfer vs. Cooper Andrew specifically called out the committee on it. That’s puts ND under more (unjust)scrutiny. So yes, I think bad blood could exist. Does it? No one really knows but given the defensiveness ND is exhibiting this year about Walz, Durr, injuries, their schedule, yeah, I sort of believe that. I do think SC should have been put in KC but considering Texas was in the East 2 of the last 3 years, I can see why Texas went to KC Again, I do think the committtee did a great job with the bracket, better than most years actually. I know our UD colleague above interjected on their behalf (kudos to you), I still think USC and Rutgers deserved in more than them. The A-10was not a good conference this year and did not deserve 2 bids. I also don’t think Creighton deserved a bid. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach