Sure there are other paths. But winning the ACC is the most obvious way for this or any ACC team to get a 1/2-seed. That will be proven when the ACC season is over and you see the seed that its champion receives...
Here's the hypothetical standings with two more ACC wins for us (UVA and ND):
I can't take full credit, but I'll be glad to undertake the debate...
I think it was Howie who originally raised this "either/or" issue when the games were played. You can probably take it up with him.
That's in YOUR mind... This was and continues to be a highly relevant issue as it illuminates the issue of how the games on our schedule--and not just in men's basketball--are prioritized and with respect to departmental goals. Even gets at how the athletic department is managed. That's fundamental stuff, but you can think of it as something else if you don't wanna debate it. Your reality, not mine.
The same chump who, without provocation, referred to me as "professor" a couple days ago?...
Oh, I did. In fact, I was way too smart to accuse SOMEONE ELSE of launching personal attacks...
What's not factual about pointing out where teams are ranked and which ones we beat and lost to?...
Well, at least that's presumably good data...
Tell that to Howie... He posed the original question.
No one's gonna argue with that! But since we've never finished a season undefeated...
I don't think you have to worry about anyone's perception of ACC strength. They're currently ranked #1 in conference RPI, and have the #1 conference SOS. And five ACC teams were seeded in the Top 16 on Sunday.
Actually had me waiting for what was coming...
You're not "little brother", but your reasoning has everything to do with not being able to consistently beat LPT? Is that a joke? WHY does that matter so much to you??
When has anyone directly connected with U of L basketball claimed that playing LPT in the regular season is a good prep for playing them in the postseason? I listen to the AD and coaches talk all of the time, and I'm not sure I've ever heard that rationale given.
"Anyway" is not the proposition. Sure, we all wanna win every game. But that's not realistic. And the proposition was which wins would you rather have? That's a choice.
I've always acknowledged that Petrino is the one U of L coach who plays up the rivalry. He also competes in a sport with one of the shortest seasons, in which the players are coached to be "high" for every game. (Not the "no highs and lows" approach we hear from, for example, Dan McDonnell in baseball...) In fact, Petrino would otherwise look for a reason to keep his players up for this game--makes it easier calling it a "rivalry".
They were a disappointment that year at the time of our game too... Already out of the AP Top 25 by the time of the game. In fact, their best wins were AFTER Noel's injury.
You can't have it both ways... You can't want 'em on your schedule as a marquee OOC opponent, and then pull for them to lose every week. That's insanity. If they're important enough to schedule every year OOC, they're important--period--or they're not. Which is it?
That's simple slapd!ck logic... The problem is it doesn't work in football where I wanna drop them too. More to lose each year than win, which is becoming true in most sports with them.
No, ears' logic was we SHOULD schedule them to prepare, or SHOULD keep them on the schedule to prepare. That's a forward-looking consideration which is what you do with a schedule.
