Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
jrutledge
What in my quote leads you to beleive Michigan earned a spot? That makes no sense from any line of reasoning I have used here. I am a UM alum, Bo is God and Woody is Satan, but UM is not, repeat NOT, an NCAA tournament caliber team (maybe cause a Duke alum coaches them  ).
|
Michigan deserved a spot over UAB. You are telling me that Conference USA deserved 6 spots? A conference that cannot sell out the arena for the team that won the league? I would put any Conference USA team in the Big Ten and they would not be in the top 8 of the league. And that includes Cincinnati. Utah State got jobbed too. 17-1 in their league and they cannot get a bid over UAB?
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
UM played 8 (by my quick count) games against NCAA tournament teams, going 2-6. They went 2-1 against the NIT Big Ten teams, so maybe they have a chance in the losers bracket tournament.
|
Never said they earned it, but if the critiria is about the league, the Big Ten is a tougher league from top to bottom than the ACC. The ACC does not sell out their arenas like the Big Ten. Northwestern and Penn State are about the only exceptions to that. And Penn State a couple of years ago went to a sweet 16 for God Sake.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I am merely saying that I thought that OSU and Duke were a close call, could go either way depedning on how you slice up the seaon and what factors you value most, but I lean toward OSU.
|
No it was not. You cannot honestly tell me that Duke would have been passed over if OSU went 6-4 in their last ten game, was ranked higher than OSU and OSU would have ended up with a #1 seed. That would not have happen and you know it.
As for last 10 games, yes they do count. Please show me any team other than Duke who played nothing but post-season teams for their last 10 games, and we can start comparing records. Oh that's right, Maryland came close - 8 of their last 10 were against legitimate NCAA teams, 1 was against an NIT team. Oh, and they won 5 straight against postseason teams.
I do not if they are NCAA teams or not. If you over-rate the conference, of course they are going to be seen as NCAA teams. What is so impressive about winning 5 straight, when you lose 4 other games. You are ranked higher to the teams you lose to.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
And by the way, UM was 5-5 and had only 2 games against NCAA tournament teams during that stretch, both losses, and were 1-3 vs all postseason teams. See the difference?
|
Again, my post in not about Michigan. But Michigan was in a similar situation as Indiana a few years ago, and they played for the National Championship? So why is today so different? My point is not about who made it, it is the seeding I have the most problem with. You do not barely make the tournament and make a #4 seed. Then be ranked lower than another team and then get a #1 seed after you have tanked many games in a 10 game window at the end of the year. The ACC is not that good. Winning 20 games does not mean anything if your league is not worth those wins. The problem is that many of these teams were so over hyped, then got beat, then someone thinks they are the still the better because they were not as good as everyone thought they would be. If I am not mistaken, NC State was suppose to be all world. Georgia Tech was suppose to be the conference champion? Just like the BCS. If you were considered good at the beginning and you lose a couple of games, you have a better chance as compared to teams that might have done better than you did all year long. Just because it is not the BCS, does not make it BS.
Peace