Tournament brackets

[icallfouls]

JRut

So you know, NC State beat Washington 77-72, your point about the Pac 10 is lost. The Pac 10 was terrible this year. Pre-season #1 Arizona was 20-9 with conference losses to USC (13-15), Cal (13-15), and OSU (12-16). Include in that the first loss to Washington (7-8 going into that game, then lost 3 times to UW) when Washington hadn't hit their stride.

Before UW got hot the last month, the Pac 10 was looking at only sending Stanford and Arizona. Oregon (15-12) was inconsistent at best and were in the NCAA's last year.

Put UA in the ACC and they aren't much more than a couple of games above .500 if that. Put NC State in the Pac 10 and they finish #2.

[BktBallRef]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read John Feinstein's article on AOL entitled,

"Picking Apart the Committee's Picks
The 'Exalted Ten' Does Better Than Last Year...But That's Not Saying Much"

In the story, John blasts the Committe for eliminating the names of the regions, for failing to select Utah St., the pod system, and for failing to consider the Wisconsin and OSU wins into the seeding.

But the best part of the story was his praise for the Committee:

"The ET (Exalted Ten for those not paying attention) also did right by taking Richmond and Texas El-Paso and not giving into the temptation to award the weak Pac-10 or Big-10 a fourth bid. Richmond won at Kansas and lost in the A-10 semifinals by two points to Dayton -- at Dayton.

The Spiders are another team none of the powers want to play, and the committee's decision not to reward Michigan, which played a typical power schedule (two non-conference road games) and beat no one significant away from home, was the right one.

Purdue did play a more difficult schedule but was awful down the stretch after a great start. Notre Dame finished fairly well but, again, the Irish didn't beat anyone significant away from home."

I love it!!!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JRutledge
NC State got beat at home by Washington, who is suppose to be from the sorry Pac-10.

Rut,
This is not correct. The game was close, but NC State did win.


Oh, I just saw that icallfouls already stated this. That's what I get for posting before finishing reading the whole thread.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 16th, 2004 at 08:33 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach


Father was UM, 1959
Born: Bloomington, Il, 3/6/62
All known relatives lived in MI while growing up
Graduated: University HS, Normal, IL, 1980
Enlisted: USN, orders to NAF Detroit, 1982
Discharged USN: Detroit, August, 1987
Wife graduated UM in 1987
Season ticket holder, UM football & baskeball, 1985-1991
Attended regional final in 1989, UM's only National championship
Graduated: UM, 1991
Moved to Maryland - my first step into ACC country after 30 years in Big Ten country - and boy, I still miss real football. But this ain't football we are talking.\

Mother got Ph.D from Michigan in 1974.
She got her Masters from Wisconsin.
Parents met at U of M.
Attended my first football game in Ann Arbor.
Sister went to U of M for Nursing degree.
Brother Graduated from Michigan State in 1981.
Brother lived across the hall from Magic Johnson at MSU.
Brother went to Michigan to get his Masters (not sure of the year).
Lived in Illinois since I was 4 years old.
Grew up and advid Michigan fan and a closet Wisconsin fan all my life.
Sung "Hail to the Victors" the day after Michigan won in 1989 at my High School, when Michigan won the NC.
Right now I am seriously comtemplateing applying to law school at U of M.

None of this proves anything. Maryland was on the bubble to a #4 seed. I do not care what you say, that is not right. And they will prove it by getting beat early in the tournament.

Peace

[LDUB]

Originally posted by JRutledge

None of this proves anything. Maryland was on the bubble to a #4 seed. I do not care what you say, that is not right. And they will prove it by getting beat early in the tournament.

This is what I was saying earlier. They were a bubble team going into the final weekend. How do you go from a bubble team to a number 4 seed? All you have to do is be in the ACC. There is no way that Maryland is better than 49 other teams in the tournament.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

As for Rut, 2-7, baby, 2-7. That league that isn't worth a crap and iisn't as good as the PAC-10 won 7 out 0f 9 games in the ACC Little Ten Challenege!

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Just because a team wins a tournament does not mean they're lucky. That's ludicrous. A team can hit a streak and be playing the best basketball of their season at tournament time. Was Villanova the best team in 85? NC State the best team in 83? Kansas in 88? No, but they found a way to win. luck has very little to do with it.

I saw every game of the ACC tourney and I can assure you that Maryland did not win because they were lucky.

You continously talk about the Big Ten ACC challenge and how it was 2-7. Yet later you try to defend Maryland by saying even though they were bad durring league play, the are playing their best basketball right now. What if the several of the Big Ten teams struggled the week of the Big Ten ACC challenge? So they lose and it ends up 2-7. But the season goes on and they begin to play better and become much better teams. On one hand you say that you can not judge how good a team is on their confrence record, a mark established over 2 months. But on the other hand you judge the Big Ten on what happned in a single week.


You say Maryland is playing their best basketball at this time of the season. So because they are playing so well they jump up to a 4 seed. Ok. Well then where does this leave mighty Duke? When you go 6-4 in you last 10 games that does not sound like you are playing very good basketball. But then the brackets come out and what a suprise. Maryland gets judged in their last week of play, while Duke does not. Why you ask? Because the ACC is being favored.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by LDUB
You continously talk about the Big Ten ACC challenge and how it was 2-7. Yet later you try to defend Maryland by saying even though they were bad durring league play, the are playing their best basketball right now. What if the several of the Big Ten teams struggled the week of the Big Ten ACC challenge? So they lose and it ends up 2-7. But the season goes on and they begin to play better and become much better teams. On one hand you say that you can not judge how good a team is on their confrence record, a mark established over 2 months. But on the other hand you judge the Big Ten on what happned in a single week.

I'm not judging the Little Ten by what they did in one week. They sucked all year long! The season goes on and they DON'T begin to play better and they DON'T become better teams. Look at PPurdue, they got WORSE!

BTW, I continue to bring the Challenege because my buddy Rut continues to ignore it, even though he says the ACC is crap. If the ACC is crap, then what does that make the Liuttle Ten?

You say Maryland is playing their best basketball at this time of the season. So because they are playing so well they jump up to a 4 seed. Ok. Well then where does this leave mighty Duke? When you go 6-4 in you last 10 games that does not sound like you are playing very good basketball. But then the brackets come out and what a suprise. Maryland gets judged in their last week of play, while Duke does not. Why you ask? Because the ACC is being favored.

Hello? McFly? I've already said I didn't think Maryland deserved a 4 seed. Can you read?

[Hawks Coach]

I would 100% agree that UMD was a bubble team going into the final weekend. I agree, as doesthe selection committee chair, that MD at a number 4 seed is a stretch at best - probably deserved a 5 or 6. I agree that they could lose their first game (as I said about the ACC tourney) or go all the way (as I also said about the ACC tourney). That is the nature of a young but talented team in the NCAA.

And I agree that MD is not better than 49 other teams in the tournament (and I am sure that is what you really meant, because everuybody in the ACC is better than at least 49 teams in the country - starting with the 100+ that didn't make the post season!) MD is better than 46 other teams in the tournament is what their RPI says. And RPI is just one indicator. The polls have them in the top 25, which would make them a solid 6 seed.

jrut, the only reason I listed my Big Ten background is to show LDUB why I say I am a Big Ten guy - but that probably escapes you. I accept that you are a Big Ten guy, you guys just won't believe that a Big Ten guy like me will admit his conference sucks this year. And it does, sad to say. Iowa lost in first round of NIT, and UM got its first round win - I thought they had showed they could beat NIT teams, as you no doubt read.

BTW, before the VA game, I was arguing with MD fans that MD needed to win at least one if not two more games to make the tournament. Most MD fans were assuming they were in after beating NC St. And last week I kept telling people that if MD bombed in the first round and either FSU or Va made an ACC run, MD was looking at NIT.

The only reason I have argued with you and supported the ACC/UMD is because you all continue to offer uninformed comments like "they aren't better than 49 other teams in the country or they were on the bubble at the end of December, or the ACC bias somehow cost the other conferences. Look at facts and do some basic math, it clearly is not true.

[tomegun]

I still think it is hard to argue that the ACC gets treated very well by the committee. Specifically Duke and North Carolina are the Atlanta Braves/Dallas Cowboys of college basketball. You should not be able to go 6-4 in your last ten, lose your conference tournament to Maryland and still get a "solid" #1 seed with teams like OSU, Wisconsin and even Pitt or UCONN around. IMHO it is tough to argue that. If this is the case then why don't you make them a permanent #1 seed. We all know they will have the talent to be a #1 seed!
If you compare the Big Ten with the ACC why don't you look at talent and coaching? If you look at wins and loses alone it is like someone saying the Sunbelt conference is good just because it is the Sunbelt conference. The Big Ten does not have the talent that the ACC has right now. Historically, the Big Ten has not had many teams that did not do what they were supposed to do. Fab 5, UM 89', Illinois 89', Michigan State (championship year), Indiana 76' 81' (or 80' I get them and Louisvilles championship mixed up sometimes) 87'. Given the talent the Big Ten makes noise. Period. I said makes noise because they still do not get as much talent as the ACC. The ACC has championship talent on Duke and/or North Carolina every year and they do not come through the way they should. Just think about all of the Blue Chippers that have came through Duke and North Carolina and you will see that they should win and win big! But they don't. This is the fuel that feeds my utter dislike of these two programs. Dickie V pumps them up and they don't win like they should. What has Roy Williams ever won to earn him the reputation he has? Nothing! Coach Knight had a very good season given the talent he has. Indiana were bums and they should have been. They would have a great recruiting class if this one kid wasn't going to the NBA. So, I guess Duke will have the #1 recruiting class again and be the pre-season #1. What else is new.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
BTW, I continue to bring the Challenege because my buddy Rut continues to ignore it, even though he says the ACC is crap. If the ACC is crap, then what does that make the Liuttle Ten?

Hey McFly, the NCAA Committee is not judging or should not be judging an entire season based on one week. What did you do those other years during the Big Ten/ACC Challenge? And I have never used this as a pure comparison of leagues. The ACC is still over-rated and you have not addressed why the other teams in the league stick it up during tournament time, other than the teams in North Carolina. And of course we are not talking about NC State.

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Hello? McFly? I've already said I didn't think Maryland deserved a 4 seed. Can you read?

Well that is the point Tony. And when they are out in the first weekend, tell me how good the ACC is. That is the tournament champion.

Peace

[BBall_Junkie]

I don't believe that the Big 10 has ever one the ACC/ Big Ten Challenge... However, I am not totally sure on this.

Hawkscoach, you seem to be able to your hands on all of the stats... can you confirm this? What is the History?

[Hawks Coach]

tomegun
1. You speak of failing to win the entire championship with talent as though that should determine a 1 seed. Fab Five went to two consecutive NCAA finals with arguably the most talent ever on one team. They lost to . . . Duke and UNC. Hmmmm - is that a pattern?

2. How many times do I have to agree that Duke could be lower than a 1 seed because of both the 6-4 finish and the conference final loss? I could go with OSU or UCONN as a sub for Duke. With that in mind, Duke still is #1 in the RPI, which is a very strong determining factor, and should mean a 2 seed at a minimum (remember 1 up, 1 down as a rule of thumb). and Duke played a stretch run schedule that was far stronger than any othe contender for the #1 seed, something the committee must have considered.

3. Past performance. You say Duke is overrated traditionally. I say there are 4 #1 seeds every year, and Final Four appearance is the sole factor to consider when validating a 1 seed. All 1 seeds should arguably make the Final Four every year. GUESS WHAT - Duke has more consistently made the Final Four under K than any other team in the entire history of NCAA basketball with one exception - John Wooden's UCLA teams. Not just current teams, we are talking about all teams for all time. I wasn't a UCLA fan when they were at the end of their run, but I wouldn't think of arguing that they were overrated. Similarly, I am not a Duke fan, but they clearly are not overrated - they are consistently better than any other team currently playing, and better than any other team in history other than UCLA. How a team with that track record can be overrated is beyond me.

As for UNC this year, they are Top 20 RPI (which justifies a 5 seed), they are a 6 seed, which again can be defended from the 1 up, 1 down theory - but should be defended in terms of why they are lower than their RPI justifies, not why they are too high.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Hey McFly, the NCAA Committee is .......Peace

BLah, blah, blah Rut, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Face it, the Little Ten sucked this year, getting only three teams in. A couple of years ago, the ACC only got 3 teams in. It happens, things run in cycles. But nobody in the media, or on sports talk radio is crying about the great injustice done to the Little Ten or complaining about how many teams the ACC got in. Yes, MD and Wisconsin could easily be swapped in the seedings and would be better. I agree with that point. But it's a down year for the Little Ten, no question.

As for the first weekend, we'll see hwo's still standing.

[Bart Tyson]

and Duke played a stretch run schedule that was far stronger than any othe contender for the #1 seed, something the committee must have considered.
[/B]

But, they lost 40%. MS did their stretch run of good teems early in the season... and lost, They didn't get a #1.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
tomegun
1. You speak of failing to win the entire championship with talent as though that should determine a 1 seed. Fab Five went to two consecutive NCAA finals with arguably the most talent ever on one team. They lost to . . . Duke and UNC. Hmmmm - is that a pattern?

2. How many times do I have to agree that Duke could be lower than a 1 seed because of both the 6-4 finish and the conference final loss? I could go with OSU or UCONN as a sub for Duke. With that in mind, Duke still is #1 in the RPI, which is a very strong determining factor, and should mean a 2 seed at a minimum (remember 1 up, 1 down as a rule of thumb). and Duke played a stretch run schedule that was far stronger than any othe contender for the #1 seed, something the committee must have considered.

3. Past performance. You say Duke is overrated traditionally. I say there are 4 #1 seeds every year, and Final Four appearance is the sole factor to consider when validating a 1 seed. All 1 seeds should arguably make the Final Four every year. GUESS WHAT - Duke has more consistently made the Final Four under K than any other team in the entire history of NCAA basketball with one exception - John Wooden's UCLA teams. Not just current teams, we are talking about all teams for all time. I wasn't a UCLA fan when they were at the end of their run, but I wouldn't think of arguing that they were overrated. Similarly, I am not a Duke fan, but they clearly are not overrated - they are consistently better than any other team currently playing, and better than any other team in history other than UCLA. How a team with that track record can be overrated is beyond me.

As for UNC this year, they are Top 20 RPI (which justifies a 5 seed), they are a 6 seed, which again can be defended from the 1 up, 1 down theory - but should be defended in terms of why they are lower than their RPI justifies, not why they are too high.

1. Although they were very talented, if you think the Fab 5 had the most talent ever you need help my friend. Let me throw some teams out there: UNLV 90', UNC 82', G'town (all Ewing years), Illinois 89', UM 89', Kentucky 84' and on and on. In my lifetime I think the most college talent was either G'town 84' or UNLV 90'.

2. Michigan State played a tough schedule. Where are they?

3. Duke has had the most talent in the history of college basketball other than maybe UCLA and North Carolina. They are supposed to win with talent for crying out loud! For me, getting to the Final Four is not enough. I guess Coach Knight sort of spoiled Indiana fans by winning it when he went. UCLA had talent and won a lot of championships. Duke and North Carolina has had talent and IMHO their championships are not in line with their talent pool. Jordan, Worthy, Black, Dougherty, Doherty, Stackhouse, Montross, Wallace, Vince Carter, Jamison, K. Smith, Rick Fox, Hubert Davis, Williams, Sam Perkins, Haywood, Popson, Wolfe................Laetner, Hurley, B. Davis, G. Hill, T. Hill, the guy on ESPN, Dawkins, Ammaker, Brand, Battier, Burgess, Ferry, Wojohoweveryouspellit, Jay Williams and many others. Name me one other program that has had the level of talent that North Carolina and Duke has had in the last 20 years? Talent + so-called coaching greatness + not enough trophies = overated!