Skip to main content

Robert Morris' upset of Kentucky is being overblown

In the 1st-round of the NIT, last year's national champion - Kentucky - fell to Robert Morris by the final score of 59-57 last night, and it's being hailed by some talking heads in the media as one of the biggest upsets in the history of college basketball. I'm sorry, but that's absurd.

For those that don't know about the NIT, many jokingly say it stands for the Not Invited Tournament. The NCAA Tournament selects the 68 best teams to play in a single-elimination tournament. There are four play-in-type games to condense the field to 64 teams when the tournament really gets underway. The next "best" batch of 32 teams play in a similar-style single-elimination tournament by the name of the NIT. So, teams ranked between 69 and 100 play in the NIT. These are teams whom showcased they were better-than-average, but not good enough to get invited to the NCAA Tournament.

Given that, Kentucky's loss to Robert Morris last night, while sure, it was an upset, was not near an upset of such grand magnitude that some are calling it. Again, this game was played in the NIT (Not Invited Tournament), between teams ranked somewhere between 69 and 100. If this were a game played in the NCAA Tournament, when Kentucky was a 1-, 2-, or 3-seed, and Robert Morris was a 14-, 15-, or 16-seed, then we could start talking about it being one of the biggest upsets in the history of college basketball. However, that's not the case. Also, let's not forget that Kentucky had lost three out of their previous four games going into last night and five of their previous nine. This is not a great basketball team. They lost to 18-15 Texas A&M by 12 points at home earlier this year, NIT-bound Tennessee by 30 on the road, 15-17 Georgia by 10 on the road, and 16-17 Vanderbilt by 16 at home, among others. Just because Kentucky has the big name doesn't mean their falling to a small school in the first-round of the NIT is anything very newsworthy. Five years from now, in a greatest-upsets-in-college-basketball-history countdown, I can bet almost anything that there won't be an NIT game listed in the countdown; and that includes Kentucky's loss last night to Robert Morris.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"