Regional?

[GoneGolfin]

After hosting in 2002 a former AD stated (I think 2005) UL was overlooked due to facilities.

That may have been the reason they gave you ... but UL did not have the RPI to be a #1 seed. They had an RPI rank of 35 in 2005 (though they were 51-10). Since the 2003 season, the Cajuns have not had a Top 16 RPI at selection time. So what I am getting at ... according to the selection criteria used by the NCAA ... UL has not qualified as a #1 seed during that time.

This year they have.

Brian

[Cajun90]

After hosting in 2002 a former AD stated (I think 2005) UL was overlooked due to facilities.

Well the AD was wrong. The NCAA has a document that the school fills out regarding hosting requirements and it is akin to a pass or fail. You either meet the minimum criteria or you don't. If you meet the criteria and you submit the minimum bid then you are in the pool for a possible host site. End of story.

No one cares after that point if team X has better facilities than team Y. Way to many other factors come into play. To this day Texas A&M constructs platforms out of plywood to accomodate the extra media. Other teams have had to bring in portable lights. UL did not submit a bid knowing that the facilities were inadequate. That would be foolish.

[GoneGolfin]

To this day Texas A&M constructs platforms out of plywood to accomodate the extra media.

Not any more ... they opened play in the new facility this season.

Brian

[Turbine]

That may have been the reason they gave you ... but UL did not have the RPI to be a #1 seed. They had an RPI rank of 35 in 2005 (though they were 51-10). Since the 2003 season, the Cajuns have not had a Top 16 RPI at selection time. So what I am getting at ... according to the selection criteria used by the NCAA ... UL has not qualified as a #1 seed during that time.

This year they have.

Brian

Thanks for making us RPI aware.

My 2005 memory is victim to poll gazing.