|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 09:32am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hawks Coach let's look at these "facts."
Whining coach + the best recruiting for the last 15 years by far (followed by North Carolina) + TV analysts that are clearly biased = Duke - only 3 championships in this time frame = WE ARE SICK OF THEM! Let me look into my crystal ball, the pre-season #1 team will be uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Duke! 
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 09:42am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Actually am in Madison now, so I've been following Wisconsin pretty closely. I think the committee gave Wisconsin the #6 seed to put them closer to home. Kind of a backhanded reward. They also get Richmond and then (likely) Pittsburgh, provided they past the Spiders. Not a bad draw, really. I really thought that winning the Big 10 tourney would get them a 3 seed, though. The fact that Illinois was seeded higher shows that the committee clearly didn't wait until the late games were done, as some suggested earlier in the thread.
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 10:17am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 The Big `10 game didn't end until 5:35pm. The show was at 6:00. CBS has to receive the brackets in time to prepare their TV graphics and [re[are their analysts. My guess is that CBS gets the brackets at least an hour before the show starts, maybe longer. I bet we see a change next year, since the Chairman admitted such on live TV. [Edited by Bart Tyson on Mar 15th, 2004 at 10:07 AM]
__________________
foulbuster
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 10:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The #1 seeds were chosen the very first thing, when the hardcore seeding began at 2:40pm. At that time, Duke still had not lost to Maryland. That game endedalmost any hour later. According to the Chairman, the seedings were complete by 4pm, at which time they started the bracket placements. The Big 12 game was over until later. The Big 12 routinely gets good seeding. Look at Kansas and Texas this year. As for the PAC-10, they deserve the short end of the stick. Outside of Arizona and Stanford, the PAC-10 doesn't consistently placed teams in position to be high seeds. [Edited by BktBallRef on Mar 15th, 2004 at 10:08 AM]
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 10:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Nope! 
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 10:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Double Nope! Why did a team with so many loses remain in the top 5 anyway?
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 11:40am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I attended Michigan, as did my wife and father. My brother, sister, and bother in-law all attended Illinois. My cousins and uncle, MSU. So I am a Big Ten fan, but I am also a realist. As for Duke. . . I HATE Duke. (see part about attending the university of C-Web) As for your post. . . I missed the part of your list that showed the other teams with 3 NCAA championships in the past 15 years. I also missed the part in your post about the fact that Duke won an unprecedented 5 straight ACC championships. I also missed the part about Coach K being second on the list of consecutive Final Four appearances (and I believe that making the Final Four is validation of your 1 seed). I also missed the part about how Duke has made the Final Four 8 times since 1988, and elite 8 one additional year. Thats better than anybody else in that same time. KU - nowhere close under Roy Williams. Kentucky has 4 FFs and 4 regional finals. Arizona has 4 FFs and 2 regional finals. Please, for the Duke hater in me, tell me what team has done better than Duke in the NCAA over the past 15 years, and what current coach with more than 15 appearances has a record anywhere near Coach K's. Hate all you want, but do so knowing the facts. He may whine, but he also wins more, and more consistently, than anybody.
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 11:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Duke lost one game outside of conference, went 13-3 in the toughest conference in the country (especially given you get every team twice), and lost an overtime tournament game. Again, I hate Duke, like nothing better than to see them lose, but I recognize success when I see it. Name one other team that has consistently justified it's #1 seed.
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 11:56am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hawks Coach, since you go by facts, and I do respect you for pointing out the facts, please point to the facts that put Duke ahead of Okla. St.?
__________________
foulbuster
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 12:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
Well Bart, yes and no!
OSU game time and NCAA screwy arrangements. I can't defend the non-selection of OSU as a 1 seed beyond what was said here already and admitted last night by the chair of the selection committee. I can say that Duke should be a 1 or 2 seed, doesn't matter much to me.
I heard it suggested today that CBS air 60 Minutes first and run the selection show later, which I think is a great idea. Either that, or finish the conference tournaments in time to count all games. It is ridiculous to have two finals that counted for nothing unless a bubble team was going to win (which wasn't the case this year). The other oddity of this year's bracket was the politically correct decision of making St. Joes a #1 seed. It appears that Duke was not the lowest on the "S Curve," but it was a choice between Duke and OSU because they held spots for Stanford and St. Joes as sacrosanct. If Duke is higher on the S curve, then why is it a choice between Duke and OSU? The whole thing is political in the end, and anybody with a 1, 2, or 3 seed this year is pretty powerful, and there is a lot stacked after that level as well. This is an extremely balanced year and should make for interesting brackets by the end of the weekend.
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 12:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The point is Duke went 6-4 in their last 10 games. How can you go 6-4 in the last week and a half or whatever and still be one of the top 4 teams in the country. If you are not even your confrence champion that is one team ahead of you.
The comitee is just like Dick Vitale. They are both all about the ACC. You listen to Vitale call a game between an ACC school and a non ACC school. It is so obvious that he is rooting for the ACC.
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 12:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
what story do you want to tell? Duke went 6-2 in their last 8 games, and that was the last 3 weeks. All of their last 10 games (beginning 2/15) were against tournament teams, 2 NIT, 8 NCAA. Again, please show me a team that played this schedule during this last month?
Against teams that are playing this week, they went a combined 19-5. How many teams played a schedule that had 24 games against post-season teams? I'm sorry, I forgot they had an easy road. I still think they are a two seed, but that also means 1 is not the strech you make it out to be. As for the ACC bias of the commitee, I wonder how they do that with representatives of all the conference. I guess the Big Ten guys really just want to see ACC teams up there. Vitale biased - absolutely. The committee biased toward one major conference - not. And this year, 12 non-majors got at large bids, so I think that the major conference bias in general is getting to be less and less.
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 12:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
Give me a break!!!
A conference is should not be built on one team. If you are truly a great conference, you should not have one team that dominates it. Take Duke out of the ACC, you do not have much to speak for. There has been no kind of domination in the Big Ten, because every year a different team gets much better and makes an impact. Wow, Duke has 3 NC. So does Indiana. Michigan has been in the Final Four many times, outside of the Fab 5. They lost to Isiah Thomas when Indiana won in 1980. Indiana has been several times. Wisconsin was and Michigan were there two years in a row, recently. Oklahoma State won their conference tournament, they should have the #1 seed. Duke only got the seed because of history and making some fans happy. They did not deserve it. How many teams could lose 4 of their last 10 and get a #1 seed? Would they even consider Stanford #1 seed if they lost their last 4 contests? Duke deserves all their accomplishments that happen in the past, they earned them. But to make North Carolina and Maryland such great programs, no matter what they do is really silly. I am tired of hearing about how great this conference is when they have sub-par teams. Duke went undefeated in their conference play and lost to sorry Indiana on their way to the National Championship game. Indiana has never won a single Big Ten Tournament under Bob Knight or Butch Davis. But they were good enough to beat Duke on the way to the Final Four. I cannot think of when a Big Ten team has ever gone undeafeated in conference play. And I am talking about National Championship teams (Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana). When Michigan won the National Championship in 1989, they were not a very good team in conference, but ran the table in the field of 64 and won it all (FAB 5 was not their yet).
And what is this about Maryland? From the Maryland scedule, courtesy ESPN.com 12/2 No. 10 Wisconsin W 73-67 4-0 12/10 at Florida W 69-68 5-2 From the last poll in December, at which time Maryland was a "bubble" team: 25. Maryland 6-2 62pts (next team had 29 points - not exactly close) Last Week: This Week: Def. NC Greensboro 85-58 (12/23), Lost to Florida State 79-75 (12/28) Oh, I am sorry. Let's not bring facts into the argument! The facts are that almost everyone said that Maryland was not going to make the tournament. If they did not win the ACC Tournament, they were not making it, just like Florida St. They made it because of an automatic bid, but to seed a team 4th that not right and you know it. Maryland had beat Florida when they were #1 I believe, but where are they now in the rankings? But remember, before Maryland won the NC, they used to be a cronic first round casuality. It used to be a given that Maryland would be watching after their first game. And it might happen this year as well. But then again I see a lot of ACC teams that might not survive the first or second rounds. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 12:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2004, 12:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
To satisfy my own curiosity, I took a quick glance at OSU. I see 16 games vs postseason teams, with a 13-3 record. Of those games, 7 were against NIT teams, 9 against NCAA teams, against whom they were 7-2. Duke played 8 NCAA teams in the last month of their schedule alone, and admittedly went 4-4 - not that impressive. However, they played 18 games and went 13-5 overall against NCAA competition - in other words, they played twice as many NCAA teams as OSU, and they played more NCAA teams than OSU had NCAA and NIT combined.
OSU played 7 out of their last 10 against tournament teams, but 3 were NIT, so they had 4 games in one month against NCAA tournament competition. Duke played 4 NCAA teams in a row during this same stretch. The only time OSU played any b2b games against NCAA teams was in their conference tournament. Slightly different situation, wouldn't you agree? Still think OSU earned a 1 seed, but again, there are many sides to this.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
