That was justice. Ohio State wouldn't play Dayton, the NCAA tournament forces them to play each other, Dayton wins.
Closed as a 6.5 point favorite Actually one of the biggest favorites in the first round excluding 1-4 seeds. Most of the non 1-4 seed games had spreads in the 1.5-4 point range.
Are you being deliberately obtuse today? If they were in the same conference, they wouldn't have a choice. They'd have to face one another.
Exactly. So I don't understand why this is "justice". Did Ohio State break some kind of agreement or promise with Dayton by not playing them? Was there a scheduling or rules violation that I missed? I'm not taking anything away from Dayton. The two teams played and Dayton won by one point fair and square. They move on to the next round. But I'm wondering why this is "justice"
Because Dayton has been trying to play Ohio State for years and Ohio State refuses to play them. So now they are forced to play and Dayton won. That's justice.
But isn't that Ohio State's choice? They are free to choose who they play every year, with the exception of their in-conference obligations. Why is this "justice"? You seem to think Ohio State has some kind of obligation to play Dayton. Is there one I am not aware of?
I'm not trying to be obtrusive. I am trying to understand your mindset. Let me try this another way: Villanova plays St. Joseph's EVERY year as part of their voluntary Big 5 Schedule. Should Villanova be fortunate enough to beat Milwaukee tonight and St. Joseph's defeats UConn, they would meet again in the second round. If St. Joseph's were to win that possible game, would that be "justice"?
They voluntarily play each other. Why would that be justice? Completely different scenario. I'm pretty sure you're well aware of the Dayton/Ohio State situation and why it is completely different than teams that do play each other. I didn't ask if you were being obstrusive.
I'm not being obtuse either. I just don't understand your logic. WHY is Ohio State obligated to play Dayton?
They are not obligated to. If they were, they'd have to play each other. It's common courtesy, though, to play local out of conference rivals. Almost everyone does it.
Have those teams repeatedly expressed interest in playing St. John's and been turned down for no apparent reason? There's a big difference here. So yes, you are missing something.
Far be it for me to disagree with Bill Livingston, a "well" known source of College Basketball Authority, but I don't see it as ducking. I see it as a team deciding to play someone else.
I'll give you another example, Yisman. I think you and I can agree that UCLA is one of the most notable, well-known, well-respected college basketball programs in the country, correct? Every school in the country knows that, and would "express interest" in playing against them. There are 24 Division 1 basketball teams in the state of California. How many of them do you feel UCLA should play every year?
