Oakland goes dancing.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:57 pm

bgsufan1972 wrote:
FALCON FLIER wrote:BG hasn't been in the NCAA's since 1968 but like many MAC teams it's not because we haven't deserved too be. I recall just a few years ago BG was 24-9 with a couple of nice non-conference wins and lost in the MAC finals and ended up in the NIT. If the MAC had been given the at-large bids they deserved over the years there would have had a mcuh better representation in the tournament. I don't see the MAC getting anyone but the tournament champion is again this year. Too bad.
Actually I think we were 24-6

Weren't we 24-6 heading into the Kent State MAC title game? We then went to Butler and lost in the NIT and finished 24-8. I think. THAT team should have been in the Dance....so should the 1999-2000 team.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:15 pm

Falconfreak90 wrote:
bgsufan1972 wrote:
FALCON FLIER wrote:BG hasn't been in the NCAA's since 1968 but like many MAC teams it's not because we haven't deserved too be. I recall just a few years ago BG was 24-9 with a couple of nice non-conference wins and lost in the MAC finals and ended up in the NIT. If the MAC had been given the at-large bids they deserved over the years there would have had a mcuh better representation in the tournament. I don't see the MAC getting anyone but the tournament champion is again this year. Too bad.
Actually I think we were 24-6
Weren't we 24-6 heading into the Kent State MAC title game? We then went to Butler and lost in the NIT and finished 24-8. I think. THAT team should have been in the Dance....so should the 1999-2000 team.

Not sure and too tired to actually check. I thought we were 24-6 after losing to Kent, yes we should have went dancing, but then we got destroyed in the NIT

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:26 pm

I'd be interested in seeing the attencance figures after both those years. I bet that recent success has more to do with anything.