beat SMU and UAB
still props to get there
but they haven't played any top tier programs or a power conference yet.
I am not sure if he thought they were totally terrible...........or had no potential...
I know he was arguing the Resume....and stating if the committee basis their choices off of things like A.-B.-C., and UCLA sucks at A-b-c, then why are they in?
again I don't know maybe he thinks UCLA had 0 potential or 0 chance to make a run......or if he just thought that based off of what we have been told qualifies a team as a "tournament team", that UCLA had not accomplished any of those things and their resume was a joke.
either way, wonder what he says now.....curious to see if he comments on this subject