NCAAT Discussion Thread

[billoliver40]

Final 4 almost set. Unless Michigan State can pull another of its masterful comebacks it looks like for the first time in my memory all #1 seeds make the final 4.
Auburn lead is down to 5....so I'm not sure.

As much as I hate to say it, Duke is playing great basketball in all phases of the game.
Houston is definitely deserving.

This semi and title could be a barn burner.

 

[LouisvilleCardMan]

Don’t do that because then you’ll invite Kentucky fans to say that they beat them

The Dukie freshmen were still new to the college game back then. They are basically veterans now.

 

[earsky]

No mistake we're looking at probably 4 of the top 6 defensive teams in the country in the last 4 if Auburn holds on.
Auburn might be the best shot blocking team of the 4.

 

[LeFors4Ever]

The Dukie freshmen were still new to the college game back then. They are basically veterans now.

True, but that's also when we played them close as the post says (as we did not play them with Flagg in the ACC title game)

 

[LeFors4Ever]

Final 4 almost set. Unless Michigan State can pull another of its masterful comebacks it looks like for the first time in my memory all #1 seeds make the final 4.
Auburn lead is down to 5....so I'm not sure.

As much as I hate to say it, Duke is playing great basketball in all phases of the game.
Houston is definitely deserving.

This semi and title could be a barn burner.

2008 was the last time.

 

[KozmasAgain]

Go Duke!!!

 

[shadow force]

 

[LouisvilleCardMan]

True, but that's also when we played them close as the post says (as we did not play them with Flagg in the ACC title game)

And we essentially didn't have Reyne for that game, which hurt our offense at least as much as Flagg's absence hurt Duke.

 

[LeFors4Ever]

And we essentially didn't have Reyne for that game, which hurt our offense at least as much as Flagg's absence hurt Duke.

Yeah but the original post was saying we gave them a better game than Bama did, and Cooper Flagg is their absolute best player and he played like it today. Yes we had losses, but the point is that you can't compare our ACC title game to Bama today because we didn't play the same team.

Also I'm salty as I had a good amount of money riding on Bama winning today lol

 

[CardinalDave]

I’m still salty about the seeding.
Bubba from UNC being the chair of the committee should have done better by the ACC as chair( as others have shown allegiances to their conference in the past.
Cards were woefully disrespected with an 8 seed, (as was Creighton).We should have been a 5 or 6 and likely would have won one game to finish off our terrific season.
Clemson getting a 5 was way too high and they proved it.
UNC shouldn’t have even been in.
So…. In a historically down year for the ACC he(and the committee) guaranteed a poor showing by the conference. Had Clemson been an 8 or a 9 they maybe could have won one. I believe we would likely have won one if seeded appropriately.
Duke deserved a 1 and are proving it.
Sure happy he got is $100K bonus though.😡

 

[LeFors4Ever]

I’m still salty about the seeding.
Bubba from UNC being the chair of the committee should have done better by the ACC as chair( as others have shown allegiances to their conference in the past.
Cards were woefully disrespected with an 8 seed, (as was Creighton).We should have been a 5 or 6 and likely would have won one game to finish off our terrific season.
Clemson getting a 5 was way too high and they proved it.
UNC shouldn’t have even been in.
So…. In a historically down year for the ACC he(and the committee) guaranteed a poor showing by the conference. Had Clemson been an 8 or a 9 they maybe could have won one. I believe we would likely have won one if seeded appropriately.
Duke deserved a 1 and are proving it.
Sure happy he got is $100K bonus though.😡

I'm going to say this.

We were under seeded, but also we got run off the floor by a 9 seed Creighton. We can't really complain about disrespect when we kind of proved them right. Had we played them close, we could have made more of a case. But we didn't even look like we belonged. We can go on about injuries and such, but at the end of the day if we were a 5 or 6 seed then we don't get embarrassed. I personally think we should have been higher with my Louisville tinted glasses, but we couldn't beat a beatable Creighton team.

We can get on forums and go on about other teams being overrated and such and how we got screwed, but we got beat by generally not a particularly special Creighton team. We didn't just get beat, we got destroyed and run off the court with essentially a home crowd behind us.

 

[KozmasAgain]

We were run off by a 9 seed who was also under seeded. Obviously the SEC was over represented they had 14 teams in the tournament and they only have 2 teams left. sUcK was obviously way over seeded as a 3 seed and it didn’t do them any good. The most confusing seed to me outside of UNC was Clemson. We were ranked higher than them in the national polls, beat them twice and finished higher than them in the cone but yet they get a higher seed.

Something was not right in the seeding of teams and everyone knows it. Take the human input out of the equation and feed all the information in to a computer and let it seed the teams. Use the metrics that the so called selection committee says they are using.

 

[2330859]

Being soundly defeated by Creighton has no bearing on our having been discounted so badly by the Committee.

The political influence in NCAA sports has become so common, that even some UL fans have become accustomed to being abused. Honestly, I am not sure if there is an answer right now.

 

[LeFors4Ever]

We were run off by a 9 seed who was also under seeded. Obviously the SEC was over represented they had 14 teams in the tournament and they only have 2 teams left. sUcK was obviously way over seeded as a 3 seed and it didn’t do them any good. The most confusing seed to me outside of UNC was Clemson. We were ranked higher than them in the national polls, beat them twice and finished higher than them in the cone but yet they get a higher seed.

Something was not right in the seeding of teams and everyone knows it. Take the human input out of the equation and feed all the information in to a computer and let it seed the teams. Use the metrics that the so called selection committee says they are using.

Polls have never mattered for seeding, ever.

The NCAA tournament has too many team in my opinion. A true tournament has the teams capable of winning a title. There might be 5-6 of those on a given year. If those teams make it and are the 1-2 seeds, nothing else matters that much.

Also, there’s only 4 teams left. Would you say that the SEC only had 4 of their 14 teams make the Final Four if it was all SEC teams? People are making way too much about if it mattered that the SEC got 11 or 14 teams in. Did the tournament really miss out not having WVU, IU, and Boise State? No. They weren’t winning a title and would’ve all lost their first game.

At the end of the day, the top teams mostly all made it to the right round. Arkansas was the only outlier in beating the Big East Champions. The 1 seeds were picked correctly. The SEC might have gotten too many, but then again there weren’t many good options that they got in over either.

To pick 68 teams and seed them when there’s hundreds of teams playing unequal level of talent, there’s no real correct or right way to do it.

 

[KozmasAgain]

I don’t think all teams are chosen based on the quality of their team. I would say most teams are but it has been really obvious that politics are involved. Did Georgia, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Oklahoma and Missouri deserve their place in the tournament? They all lost their first round game Missouri lost to a much lower seed when they lost to Drake. The SEC really showed how faulty the selection committee was.

 

[LeFors4Ever]

I don’t think all teams are chosen based on the quality of their team. I would say most teams are but it has been really obvious that politics are involved. Did Georgia, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Oklahoma and Missouri deserve their place in the tournament? They all lost their first round game Missouri lost to a much lower seed when they lost to Drake. The SEC really showed how faulty the selection committee was.

So did the Big East in 2011 deserve 11 teams? It's convenient we didn't rant about that back then and we beat our chests about it, yet didn't bring up only 2 of those 11 made the second weekend.

I mean did we deserve to make the tournament in 2011? I mean we did lose to a OVC team! E$PN CONSIPRACY TO BOOST THE BIG EAST! We had 9 losses going into March but were given a 4 seed due to conference bias!!

Because that's the truth based on your logic.

I just don't get worked up by it. If it was the Big Ten or Big 12, we wouldn't care. We care because you know who is in the SEC and their fans beat their chest about it. So because they get in our heads, we have to go against everything they are involved in. Even going on about how this crappy bubble team deserved it over this crappy bubble team.

And if you're saying Missouri didn't deserve to make the tournament, that's a big LOL from me. You really think WVU and IU just had great resumes? Neither were over .500 in their own league. Both were playing bad heading into the tournament. I mean I'm sure you think Wake Forest and SMU were much more deserving too lol. Or 10 loss Boise State from a Mid Major? That's the one!

And Arkansas actually had a worse resume than some of those you mentioned, you didn't mention them though because they beat the Big East champions and that doesn't help the argument. Arkansas beating them doesn't change my mind, they just were a decent tournament level team that had a good day. But they were a losing record SEC team that was a last second shot from the Elite 8. But that narrative isn't discussed.

But it's a travesty and a conspiracy by the SEC/ESPN (who doesn't air the tournament) to make sure that crap teams don't make it.

It wasn't ESPN bias. Missouri was ranked high on all the metrics. Kenpom, Bartorvick, NET, the polls, etc etc etc etc. But they're SEC and you know who that wears blue is SEC, so they're not good because of that.

 

[KozmasAgain]

My comments were based on your argument when you said some schools were left out because they would have probably lost their first game in the tournament. So I just pointed out using YOUR argument if those teams were left out because of that then the SEC teams that lost the first game weren’t deserving .

 

[LeFors4Ever]

My comments were based on your argument when you said some schools were left out because they would have probably lost their first game in the tournament. So I just pointed out using YOUR argument if those teams were left out because of that then the SEC teams that lost the first game weren’t deserving .

No my argument is that they would've lost also. IT didn't matter to me if it was Texas or Indiana. Both aren't good and both should've done better to not be on the bubble. Everyone is saying that oh they lost so it's proof they didn't need to get in. My point is that I don't care. They're bubble teams and bubble teams don't deserve anything. Texas probably didn't deserve it, but then again Indiana and WVU likely wouldn't have been any better. It doesn't change anything.

What is does change? You know who in blue fans can tout their conference and get on our nerves. That's generally all. It was a tough league. Was 14 too many? I mean maybe but who cares. No one got left out that deserved it.

WVU was .500 in their league. They were 19-13. Maybe they didn't have a losing record like some in their league, but that's just not a resume to be proud of or one to scream about. That's why I don't care as much about UNC getting in either, because they didn't get in over anyone that matters.

 

[KozmasAgain]

If we go by won- loss records then there are quite a few teams who should have been left out. The only reason they are in is because they won their conference tournament however that does not make them credible contenders. Hopefully we get rid of the NCAA governing body and go to a different system.

 

[Rollem Cards]

So if there are only 6-8 teams (i won’t say “schools”) with a chance to win win it all, why are us and 355 others throwing millions away chasing an impossible dream?

If the 6-8 is, in fact, the most probable end…..why play? It’s just like the movie “War Games”.

Play walk ons and give the money to academic scholarships.

Save all of us fans a lot of money.

 

[LeFors4Ever]

So if there are only 6-8 teams (i won’t say “schools”) with a chance to win win it all, why are us and 355 others throwing millions away chasing an impossible dream?

If the 6-8 is, in fact, the most probable end…..why play? It’s just like the movie “War Games”.

Play walk ons and give the money to academic scholarships.

Save all of us fans a lot of money.

I'm saying that if the top 6-8 make it, then that's all that matters. The rest all get their chance. But in terms of being fair and rewarding the best team and champion, a one game scenario isn't really the best way with 68 teams.

 

[LeFors4Ever]

If we go by won- loss records then there are quite a few teams who should have been left out. The only reason they are in is because they won their conference tournament however that does not make them credible contenders. Hopefully we get rid of the NCAA governing body and go to a different system.

Back to wins/losses?
Who replaces them?
If it's straight wins/losses, then should a mid major with a better wins loss record than Louisville just get a bid? That's all that matters, no weighing of strength of schedule? Is that what you're saying.

I know that's not what you're saying, but the point is that if you agree there's a line between conferences, then there is a line to be drawn and record isn't all that matters.

What teams got left out by the overrated SEC? I'll list them for you.

19-13 Indiana? (10-10 conference record)
19-13 West Virginia (10-10 Conference record)
17-15 Ohio State (9-11 Conference record)
24-10 Boise State that finished 5th in the Mountain West?
19-14 Villanova (11-9 in a not all that great Big East
Or our good ACC friends Wake Forest, SMU, Stanford?

Like I'm looking for all these teams that got the shaft from the biased ESPN SEC ESPN? I'm not finding them.

Teams that go 19-13 and 10-10 in conference play might have a case and we'll do the blanket "OMG CONFERENCE LOSING RECORD!!! DISQUALIFY!!!" but it's not like that 19-13/10-10 record is just so powerfully respected.

I mean did March Madness really miss out because we didn't give SMU a bid over Texas? I'm not even saying Texas deserved it, but I'm saying that none of those other teams did either. When you're on the bubble, your fate is in the committee's hands. And in a tournament of 68 teams that's so watered down, it doesn't really matter.