Tournament spokesman: "we were able to take into account the ACC game.........."

How many games can Duke lose and still get a #1 seed? How obvious can this thing get? If the records don't matter then why not make Duke a #1 seed before the season?

The Dookies were 6-4 in their last 10 games.

my thoughts
 

1. Wisconsin got a poor seed. I would have said #4.
2. Utah State got screwed.
3. UTEP was fortunate, but deserving.
4. It is truly unfortunate that the Big Ten and Big Twelve play their title games so late. It hurt both winners.
5. I believe the Richmond in the same bracket with St. Joe's is a mistake.
6. Duke v. UNC will not happen. Tony doesn't have to worry about losing to them again.
7. Maryland may have gassed themselves this weekend.
8. Gonzaga deserved the 2.

I too don't get it. Duke, #1? What about Okla. St.?

OSU ws hurt by the fact that they're game with Texas did not end until late in the afternoon. The Committee started buikding the brackets around 2:40. They could not possibly have waited until after the Big 10 and Big 12 games were completed before working the brackets.

Why can't they wait?

As much time and consideration as they put into the brackets they could have contengencies to allow for the late games. OSU's win as much as it hurts to say (being an OU student), should have pushed them up to a No. 1 seed. Duke could pretty much go 15-15 and get a #1 seed. I do think as a #2 OSU has the easiest road though. St. Joe's is the easiet #1. Pitt is the 2nd easiest (maybe 3nd easiest) 3 seed and I don't think there are any other teams in that bracket to even challenge them.

Maryland is WHAT!!!!
 

I just think the ACC is the most overrated conference around. You are telling me that Maryland, who was not in the tournament a week ago is not a #4 seed? Maryland struggled all year and now they are a #4 seed? http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...e/cussing2.gif Duke got beat by a weak Purdue team on a neutral site (Alaskan Shootout) and they are a #1 seed, but the Big Ten was weak? Michigan cannot make the tournament, but Conference USA, which Louisville struggled the last half of the season, gets 6 teams? Michigan State played the Top 10, played Kentucky as usual, Indiana played Kentucky as well (got killed btw) and the sorry a$$ ACC never plays anywhere with any big conference on the road and they are considered the best conference around? The Big Ten takes all commers each and every year. When has North Carolina gone on the road and beat someone? But this is the class of the country we are talking about?

I think the Big Ten needs to start playing North Carolina A&T and South Carolina A&M at home, then when they have 5 losses in their conference and undefeated in their non-conference schedule (all at home) then maybe they will be considered elite. Now, I can see why they only got 3 teams in, even thought Michigan probably deserved an opportunity. But to see Maryland a #4 seed and North Carolina a #6 seed and seed Wisconsin that won the Conference tournament a #6 seed, when they were in the tournament supposedly all along and Maryland has been on the bubble sense December is curious.

I just do not understand what the thinking was.

Peace

What's the beef? I'm shocked that you guys think DUKE should not be a #1 seed!:D DUKE! DUKE! DUKE!

Why did they change what they call the brackets? The "East Rutherford" bracket? That's just stupid. Just call it the East, like it always has been. What's the point of changing it? Phoenix bracket = West. Change for the sake of changing it. Bleh.

Re: Maryland is WHAT!!!!
 

I am sorry I missed the early part of the season, where interconference play takes place. I had thought that the ACC clearly established an unprecedented level of superiority over the Big Ten. I'm sorry, you are right about ACC non-conference schedules being weak - 9 ACC teams played 9 Big Ten teams, rather than going after some real competition.

Florida State 71, N'western 53
Wake Forest 100, Indiana 67
Michigan 68, N.C. State 61
North Carolina 88, Illinois 81
Maryland 73, Wisconsin 67 (OT)
Georgia Tech 73, Ohio State 53
Purdue 76, Clemson 64
Duke 72, Michigan State 50
Virginia 86, Minnesota 78
(ACC wins Challenge, 7-2)

From the first line of the Duke - MSU game.
EAST LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Duke's talent, grit and mystique made Michigan State crumble.

Sounds like a 22 point road win against admittedly sub-par competition, but a road win nonetheless. The only quality win by a Big Ten team was Michigan beating NC St - Clemson finished last in the ACC and was clearly worse than any other team.

Non-conference records of the ACC teams that made it to the dance and seeds of the tourney teams they beat/lost to:

Duke, 12-1, beat Liberty (16 :) ), Valparaiso (15 :) ), Princeton (14 moving up!), Texas (3), won at MSU (7), admittedly lost to Purdue (NIT-only non-conference loss)

UNC, 8-1 beat IL and UCONN(2), lost at UK(1 -top seed in Tourney)

UMD, 9-2, won at FL(5), Beat WI(6 -should be higher), lost to Gonzaga(2), W VA (NIT)

G-tech, 13-1, won at UCONN (2), beat Texas Tech (8), La Lafayette (14), Tennessee (NIT), Georgia (NIT) and of course Ohio St

Wake, 10-1, beat Memphis (7), Richmond (11), Cincinnati (4), lost at Texas (3) oh yeah, smoked Indiana

NC State, worst of the lot non-conference, 8-3, beat Washington (8), BYU (12), lost to BC (6) and at Michigan (NIT) - but did finish 2nd in ACC


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!

Took a quick glance at the powerful Big Ten conference, specifically the teams that might have a gripe, the 3 NIT teams (if you didn't make the NIT, don't even speak).

Purdue, 10-3, beat Duke (1 - the best non-conf win in the Big Ten), lost at Oklahoma (NIT), at Colorado St (no tourney), at SMU (no tourney), finished sub-.500 in the Big Ten and lost in first round of tournament - not the NCAA resume

Michigan, 9-2, beat NC St (3), lost at Vanderbilt (6), at BU (NIT)

Iowa, 7-4, beat Lousiville (10), lost at Missouri (NIT), at Texas Tech (8), at Iowa St (NIT) at N. Iowa (14)

I am sorry, but where are those quality road wins? Duke is the single one, but Purdue played its own way out of the Big Dance.

Hmmmm, I thought I answered that question, didn't I? :)

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 BktBallRef on Mar 15th, 2004 at 07:33 AM]

#1, to say that Duke would gewt a #1 seed if they went 15-15 is a rather silly remark.

#2, I'm quite sure if the Committee could have built in copntengencies, they would have. They didn't. Evidently, it wasn't possible.

#3, St. Joes will not make the Final 8, much less Final Four.

#4, Pitt having to play Wisconsin in Milwaukee wasn't real smart on the Committee's part.

#1, who's better, the ACC or the Little 10? Well, let's see, if I remember correctly, the ACC beat the Little Ten, 7-2 in the Challenege. Of course, you can't really call it that, since the ACC doesn't play anybody on the road.

#2, North Carolina, was ranked in the Top 20 all year, so I'm not sure why you're upset that they got a #6 seed. BTW, they beat Illnois regualr season champion Illnois, UConn who was #1 at the time and lost to Kentucky by 5 at UK.

#3, who said Maryland was on the bubble? It wouldn't appear so. If you can beat #3 seed Wake, #2 seed NC State and #1 seed Duke on consecutive days, let's just say that's pretty strong. That's how strong the ACC was this year.

Cry all you want but the ACC was a better conference than the Little Ten this year.

And, even though Duke didn't finish strong, I have no problem with them being a #1 seed, even though I think OSU gets it if the committee waits until all the games are played.

As a Syracuse fan, I couldn't be happier that Maryland was vaulted to a #4. I didn't like Syracuse's chances of getting back to the final four, but with BYU, Maryland, and an overrated Stanford team on the horizon...

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!

Am I the only one who got some perverse joy watching the kid cry at the end of the game?

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.

Hmmmm, I thought I answered that question, didn't I? :)

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]

I would have had no problem with OSU being a #1. I'm certainly no Duke fan. But the fact remains that if you've been in the top 5 all year long, your chances are much better at getting a #1 seed.

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]

Am I the only one who got some perverse joy watching the kid cry at the end of the game?

[/B][/QUOTE]Nope! :D

Nope! :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Double Nope! :D

Why did a team with so many loses remain in the top 5 anyway?

I am from Illinois, spent 20 yrs there, then lived in Michigan for 10 years. I am a big-time, Big Ten fan in ACC country. My family is all-Big Ten.

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.

All but one of their losses were to ACC teams, one each to NC ST, Wake, G tech, and MD, all of hwhom are in, and deserve to be in, the Top 25. They beat 5 tournament teams outside the ACC, and beat each of the above teams at least once. Name another quality conference that plays a double round robin. Oops, there isn't one.

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.

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.?

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.

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.

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.

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).

<b>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!</b>

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

Who cares about their last 8 games? Their last 10 is what the committee supposedly uses to put teams in the tournament and where they seed them. They lost 4 games and did not win their conference tournament. You should not get a #1 seed doing that. At least St. Joes and Stanford only lost one in that period of time. And St. Joes is going to lose really early when they play a team with some size and ability. They live too much by the 3 to win a NC in my opinion. But this is not about the Big Ten for me. They got what they earned and deserve. But to make Maryland a #4 seed and Duke a #1 seed with what they did this year, is rather silly to me.

Peace

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.

Conference games are tough in any conference and to win the Big 12 is not a cake walk. I could be mistaken, But I believe OSU win not only the Tourney but the reg. season as well. I think you give Duke too much credit this yr. But, we shall see in the next three wks. :D

No, then you are telling us that the rankings mean nothing. Because the are suppose to mean something. If that is you point, then Michigan deserves in. What did Duke do during their last 10 games (which is a factor in the selection process according to the NCAA Tournament committee)?

But this is why I say what I say. Purdue beat Duke on a neutral floor and they were terrible this year in the Big Ten. If the Big Ten was so bad as compared to the ACC, why did that even happen? Okla. St. deserved that seed. And I think the committee falls into the hype to always believe that the ACC is so much better, even when they struggle. Remember the sorry Pac 10 team, Washington went into NC State and beat them at home. The ACC is a good conference, but not that much better than everyone else. ;)

Peace

Hawks coach, you really ripped me a new one while I was away. Let me see if I can get back a little.

I'm from Indiana so I take this seriously. I don't care if you win your conference tournament 50 years in a row and win 20 games for 100 years in a row. It is all about who raises the trophy at the end of the year! Coach K has 3 trophies with a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong list of blue chippers during his tenure. The real coach K, the General, has 3 trophies and you can find out a lot about them from your mechanic, or the guy who does your taxes or the grocery store manager. You know why? Because these are the types of guys that won those trophies with coach Knight! Coach K and Dean Smith always get this "he's won 20 games for the past 15 years, been to 8 final fours and won blah, blah, blah." And they get all of the players. With three trophies each? For every one Indiana player on a championship team from Indiana you can name I can name two on a Duke or North Carolina championship team. How can you win a trophy in the "time-out" game, lose Lynch, add Stackhouse and Wallace and not make some noise? The stench from the 1990 Duke vs. UNLV game still hasn't gone away!

You give coach Knight those players and see how many trophies he has!
Jordan, Brad Dougherty and Matt Dougherty (was Kenny Smith on this team too!) and you can't get to the final four?

Hurly, Laetner (spelled wrong but you should get tossed if you stomp on someone's chest), Grant Hill, Thomas Hill, Brian Davis and one of the worst coaching jobs by a coach (Pitino) in the final seconds of a game (Thomas Hill had fouled out, Grant hill still can't hit a long jumper, Bobby Hurley couldn't throw it in the ocean until he was a senior so why don't you put two people around Laetner) and you win two after beating the team that beat you by 30 the year before and is one of the greatest college teams of all time (UNLV, remember they had it all)?

My blood pressure is up :D

Wow, I haven't heard so much crying and whining since I stopped working youth league games every Saturday! :D

I noticed that Rut completely ignored the ACC's domination of the Little Ten in the Challenege. 7-2, Rut, 7-2! :) So get outta here with that "sub-par teams" bull$hit. If the ACC has subpar teams, then the Little Ten must really suck!

Finally, I believe the Chairman of the Committee is the AD at iowa, so I'm sure he really wanted to push those ACC schools to get into the tourney. ;)

BTW Rut, Indiana and Isiah Thomas won the National Championship in 1981, not 1980.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Mar 15th, 2004 at 12:47 PM]

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 :) ).

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.

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.

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.

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?

Re: Maryland is WHAT!!!!
 

Should have been 2 or 3.

Or the latest Duke game.

NCAA tournament
 

This is an officiating forum not a NCAA tournament forum. Since my alma-mater failed to make the tournament, I find this offensive. Please delete this thread. ;) ;)

Why do you continously refer to the Big Ten as the "Little Ten"? You got a problem with the Big Ten or something?

The challenge was way back in November. It is March now. Things change in 4 months.

We'll just have to see how the Atlantic Coast Chumps do in the tournament.



[Edited by LDUB on Mar 15th, 2004 at 01:34 PM]

Re: NCAA tournament
 

Oh, but I'm oh so happpy. ;)

My team got the nod of being <FONT SIZE=+2><B>#1</B></FONT>. :) :)

Maybe that's why they stopped crying & whining?

:p

They set the time for what ever reasons. The conferences can set their tourney time earier if they want. That's basically what the NCAA has said. If the tourney's want their games to matter, the can move the games earlier.

It takes a long time to get agreement on the seedings and an extra 20-30 minutes would probably not do it.

Among the reasons for getting the schedule out early...

The schools must all arrange a lot of logistical issues. Transportation and Lodging for 100+ people (team, staff, cheerleaders, band, administrators, etc.) is not easy to come up with in the 3 days they have as it stands now. When I was a student at Memphis State, we had a chartered TWA jet (not sure what size but it was a regular commercial jet) to go to Boise one year.

Hey Tony, this is not about the Big Ten. As I stated, the Big Ten got what they deserved. They only deserved 3 and earned only 3. But to tell me that Maryland is a #4 seed? Give me a freakin break. Who cares what Duke did in the past? If that is the criteria, Michigan State should be a #1 seed. Hey, they have one a NC in the past 5 years. Can Duke say that? How many Final Fours did they go to in the past 5 year? Michigan State went to 3 in a row. Wisconsin went to 2 in a row, with not so impressive talent. If Duke and North Carolina have the best talent in the country, why has it been so long sense they won a NC. They had Jason Williams and Shane Batea(sp?), you should have won a NC that year. But that is the past, who do you have now? Duke could not beat a middle of the road team like Purdue in the so called Little Ten at a neutral site. Michigan State played the Top 10 for their non conference schedule, why do that if you are going to get beat and not get credit for it. But that is the typical of the ACC. Do not go anywhere and play anyone on the road and then claim you did something. How is North Carolina so good, when they were terrible this past year? And outside of your top 3 (Duke, North Carolina and Maryland), who does anything in the conference? Indiana, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State all have been to the Final Four in the past 5 years. What has NC State done in 20 years? What has Wake Forest done as well? Did they get to the Final Four with Tim Duncan on that team? What has GT done? What has Florida State done since they joined the conference? Are you telling me that Miami is going to be a basketball powerhouse? Let us not go there about history and what conferences have done historically. And yes, this is probably one of the better years that the ACC has had, but out side of Tabacco road, who has done anything in your conference. The Big East has has more NC than the ACC in about a 20 year span of time. Take away Duke from that conference, what have they done? But then again, we will find out how good they are in a week. Tell me in a couple of weeks the same thing when they get beat by the many Mid-Majors that knock them off. Not having parody in your league does not make you a better league than everyone else. I think you have been listening to Dickie V too much.

Peace

Still overrated.
 

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?

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.

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.

<b>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.</b>

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.

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

Re: NCAA tournament
 

Good point, even though you were kidding. What really is the difference between this and a baseball thread? Nada!

Big Ten/ACC seems to bring out the same passion as BoSox/Yankees. Only with different posters.

I haven't said they deserved a #4 seed. Actually, I expected UNC to be a 5 and Maryland to be a 6 or 7.

None of that has anything to do with the seeding in this year's tourney.

But, yes Duke has won a chanpionship in the past five years, 2001. In fact, 2 of the last 3 National Champions have been from the ACC, not that this matters in this year's tourney. But you keep bringing it up, so I figured I'd straighten you out. ;)

Lots of teams get beat by teams that they shouldn't lose to. St. Joes was down 37 to Xavier and lost by 20. Should they be a 4 or 5 seed? one game does not make a season.

It's funny that you keep dwelling on the Duke loss to Purdue but continue to ignore the ACC-Little Ten Challenge. :)


Don't even come here with that "Michigan State played the Top 10 for their non conference schedule" crap! MSU's strength of schedule was 26th in the country. Carolina's? 3rd! Duke? 6th. Also, MSU has an RPI rating of 39. All 6 of the ACC teams that made the tourney are in the Top 20 in RPI, with your friends from Duke leading the way at #1.

What does last year have to do with this year? NOTHING. Why do you keep dwelling on it? If last year meant anything, then Marquette would be in the Final Four instead of in the NIT.

Again, what are you rambling about? Nobody is talking about the past 5, 10 or 20 years. We're talking about this year. But since you brought it up, allow me to give you a little history lesson. In the past 13 years, the ACC has won 5 National Championships! The Little Ten is WAY, WAY down the list with a measley 1 (Thank you Tom Izzo!)!

SEC - 3
Big East - 2
Pac 10 - 2
Little Ten - 1

But again, we aren't talking about the past, are we? We're talking about this year! Stay on the subject please, get your facts straight, and come back when you can make a real argument that the ACC is not the best conference in the country this year! :D

Re: Still overrated.
 

There's my sleeper pick for the Final Four. And I certainly ain't a fan of their's, or an ACC fan. NC State is a #3, they have a good early draw, they probably get UConn in the 3rd round and Okafor is hurting big time, and Stanford is soft and over-rated in the other half of that regional.

No parity in the ACC? I'm sorry, but 6 teams made the tournament for a reason this year, and Duke lost games down the stretch to (who you might ask?) - - four ACC teams. And the year that MD won the championship, as well as the year before when Duke won, the rest of the ACC got hosed because those teams were so powerful that everyone else was viewed as weak. I thought that others could have gone, and others may have showed very well in those years - they just didn't get the chance.

In the post UCLA era, which is precisely 30 yrs, the ACC has won 8 championships with 4 teams, 3 by Duke, 2 by NC St, 2 by UNC, and 1 by MD. In that time, the Big Ten has 6 by 3 teams - IU with 3, 2 by MSU, and UM 1. NC state was down, but so was MSU for 20 years before the Flint kids arrived. and prior to Magic Johnson, when did they win anything? That's right - never. IU had a 15 year gap. All teams and conferences go through this (though we have yet to see this from Coach K at Duke). The Big East was everything, and then crashed hard. they had a 6 year span with no Final Four teams. SEC and ACC have been pretty consistent, but the SEC leans heavily on Kentucky for that consistency.

Final fours I will grant you, the Big Ten has more variety recently, and the Big Ten has been very deep in the past. Not this year. And I am not sure what point you want to make about recent history. sure, duke didn't make the final four last two years. But the ACC has 2 of the last 3 championships.

Your one argument may be best of all - parity may get you lots of strong teams who can advance to a certain degree, but look for championships from conferences where teams have a slightly easier path. Teams from the power conferences without parity are probably a bit mentally sharper at this time of year than teams that have slugged it out in every game during the season. It wears you down.

Hmmm, Pitt probably will play Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Not that easy if you ask me. Wisconsin deservred better than a 6 seed anyway.

MRegor

Tony,

You can call the Big Ten the little Ten all you want to. But win a NC in anything besides basketball. I guess if you want to call Women's soccer a sport you can. But have some credibility in other sports. All those sports are horrible in other sports. Michigan, Michigan St, Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa and even Illinois have had success in both football and basketball. You have to add schools just to get good in football. And let us not include hockey and other sports in this conversation. Or even Women's sports as well. And let us not talk academics. Let not even compare the Big Ten schools and ACC schools the the type of players that go to both conference institutions. Maryland cannot even go to Northern Illinois and win a football game. All you have is FSU (which I am a fan btw) and they have dominated the conference for so long, just like Duke dominates the conference in basketball. And guess what, they do not claim FSU as being in a strong conference in football either? Again, the ACC is over-rated and should be looked in the same manner the football side is when it comes to success. Because FSU has more than one NC game in the last 10 years and no one calls the ACC a powerhouse. And Miami that just joined the league is not was not considered to be in a powerhouse conference either with the Big East either. But for the Big Ten, just like every year there is a darkhorse that comes up makes noise in the conference. I cannot ever remember even in the bad times of Michigan basketball a team falling to the bottom like Duke and North Carolina. Most of the ACC have not seen a bowl game in 10 years. And when they win a bowl game, it is the first time in 20 years that ever happen. And the ACC is mostly in the south, I thought football was the Meca of the country in that sport?

Little Ten my a$$!!!!

Peace

Good argument Jrut. Let's just change the argument completely to try to justify the original position. Genious. Pure Genious.

What does this have anything to do with rebutting any of the facts that Hawkscoach or Bktballref have put forward relative to strength of the ACC conf v. Big 10 in BASKETBALL. And before you go off half cocked (you have already in this thread by erroneously stating that Duke did not win a NC with Shane Battier and Jayson Williams), I live in the heart of Big 12 country not ACC country.

How does Maryland, a bubble team, earn a higher seed than Wisconsin? Something foul there. Wisconsin finished with a 10 or 12 ranking (I think anyway), win the big 10 T-ment, and yet Maryland who wasn't even going to get in, gets a higher seed. At least they put Wisconsin in Milwaukee. This with a team of home state starters. Yes, every starter went to HS in Wisconsin. BTW, did you know that Bo Ryan is the winningest coach in the NCAA? I didn't. So what if 90% of his wins were in D3. He is a great coach and gets the most out of his players. If I was Pitt, I'd be worried.

Mregor

The ACC had Len Bias, Ralph Sampson, Tim Duncan. All played 4 years, how many championship? Even North Carolina had 1 in the 80s and who was on that team? When has Virgina been to a Final Four? When did NC State go to a Final Four sense 83?

When the middle to lower part of that conference shows up in the NCAA Tournament (where we keep referring to btw), then talk to me about how good they are. Of course there are always situations where a team here, at team there is going to win something. But Duke and North Carolina always seem to get the benefit of the doubt and get #1 seed, which is the easiest way to the Final Four. Then they cannot make it because some team that is battle tested beats them. Maybe this will be a break out year. But they do not call the Big Ten conference a good football conference because what they do in the regular season. They call them that way by what they do in the post season. Stop telling me the ACC is great when only Duke and North Carolina does something. You do not judge the Big Ten by Michigan and Ohio State alone in football do you?

Peace

Mregor, we've already covered this ground. Go back and re-read the thread and you'll see why Wisconsin is a 6 seed.

Rut, I bet you're eyes are brown 'cause you're completely full of $hit! :D

Yes, the Big Ten was a better football conference than the ACC was this year. Who cares? We aren't talking about football, we're talking about basketball. And this year, the Little Ten was the runt of the major conferences, sucking hind teat just like runts are forced to do! LOL! :D

ACC! It's awesome baby!! :D

Yep and it happened again this year.

I did not say anything about this being about the Big Ten. I only use the Big Ten as an example of ranking. The Big Ten deserved 3 and got 3. You could make an argument that Michigan could have gotten a knod, but if they were in the ACC no one would bat an eye. And I did not say that Shane Battie did not ever win a National Championship. But they did not win the following year and got beat by a middle of the road Indiana team the following year. And Jayson Williams was on that team if I am not mistaken. If you use Tony's logic, that team should have never made the NCAA tournament and only did so by getting to the Big Ten Tournament Championship game, which they lost that year. Maryland this year was on the bubble. They were only a lock by winning the ACC tournament, then they get a #4 seed. Duke is ranked lower than OSU, and they get an #1 seed. Illinois lost their tournament and got a #5 seed. I would have at least thought Wisconsin would get similar consideration on the seeding. But Maryland was out without that win, why the better seeding. The ACC always gets this consideration and it is funny to me. One team cannot dominate a conference and you call the rest of the conference the best. I do not hear anyone talking about how strong the Pac-10 was when UCLA was dominating. I guess Bob Huggins is a great coach because he got to the Final Four a couple of times. Because that was the crap we heard about Dean Smith for years, when he only had one title in his trophy case. Bobby Knight won 3 in a lesser time and did not need the amount of wins to get to that point, all in the Big Ten.

And I do not care what Tony says, he works in a sub-par state of HS talent. So who cares what he says. :D

Peace

Nonsense. Wisconsin got hosed. They lost to Maryland, on the road, in overtime. Big hairy deal.

The team was ranked #10 in the country coming into this week and is still #10. Their RPI rating is #12 in the country. Somebody wanted to slam the Big 10 and they're taking it out on Wisconsin. The should still be in Milwaukee, but as the 3 seed.

Here are higher seeded teams that did NOT win their conference championship and have a lower RPI than Wisconsin:

Florida
Syracuse
Kansas
Providence (Providence?!?)
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest
Illinois

--Rich

Nonsense what? I never said they didn't get screwed. I simply said we had previously discussed the late game situation. Yeah, they should have been seeded higher had their game ended earlier in the day but it didn't and they aren't. My suggestion is that you write the Little Ten office and express your displeasure to them for playing their game so late.

Further, if you're so silly as to believe that the Committee was intentionally trying to screw the Little Ten, with a Little Ten AD as the Chair, then you're as full of it as Rut! :D

WTF are you talking about? All I've said over and over again is the the ACC is the best conference in the country this year. I have no idea what that has to do with Indiana getting to the Final Four. Why can't you stay focused on the discussion at hand without referring to ancoient history.

Say it, "Little Ten 2, ACC 7"...say it over and over, "2-7, 2-7. 2-7, 2-7..." http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk.../jump_clap.gif


Is that suppose to fire me up or something? I couldn't care less what you think of the HS basketball players in NC. I don't play HS basketball! :p

Yep...for sure...you have brown eyes! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/strain.gif

Ok new question on all of this....Who wants to play Duke, Maryland, NC, NC State, Wake, or Georgia Tech, in the first round....come on hold up the hands, and pick one...I am a MWC fan, but anyone with a real objective, and sane view can see that the ACC is the best conference in the nation this year. Football has nothing to do with who is the best basketball conference...the fact that Duke lost as many games as they did in the last 10 is a testament to the fact that 2 schools are not carrying the conference.. I know it is kind of cheating now that we know 7-2...but I take the ACC against the tiny 10 this year and next and for the foreseeable future... but they better not come out to the MWC or they will get their a$$ kicked....wow....did I type that out loud???.... :D

Thank you, my unbiased friend from Wyoming! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/thumb.gif

I am a Tennessee fan who will never see another good team.

I was as objective as I can be. I could've left the team out and just said #10 in the polls and #12 in the RPI along with the championship of a conference tournament. 8-2 in their last 10, including 7 in a row.

I do respect the ACC -- I have 2 teams coming out in my bracket, along with the national championship, although I'll be glad to lose my entries to see all of them lose.

--Rich

But that's only in football, right!?! ;)

"It's football time in Tennessee!"

http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools...head-t-new.gif

Hey Rich, what do you think about CJ Watson? He is from Vegas. He was a silent assasin in high school. I don't think I've ever heard him say one word anywhere! I think by the time he's a senior he will be a force.

I'm not going to read 4 pages of yours and Rut's little spat. I could hardly make it through the 1st page. Besides, there is no reasonable reason they should be a 6th seed. Its a conspiracy I tell you! Yeah, that's it, a conspiracy. I'm going to dig into this, I'll let you all know what I find out (right after I get another beverage).

Mregor

Spat!?! This isn't close to being a "spat." You evidently haven't ever read some of mine and Rut's more "serious" discussions.

I'm ACC, always have been, good or bad. This year it's good. And Hawks Coach and I have been giving all the cryers and whiners all they want. And that's not limited to Rut! :D

As far as the first page, you evidently didn't read it, so I'll copy and paste for you!

That's why Wisconsin and OSU didn't get the bids they deserved, straight from the first page!! ;)

Not quite - the tourney time is set by one thing and one thing only - the conference's contract with either ESPN or CBS. Neither network is going to want a game to end at 2, then have viewers turn the channel until the women's selection show at 5.

Point is that the conferences know that the Selection Show is at 6pm. If they're really concerned about a late game affecting their teams seeding, then they'll have to put pressure on CBS to either move the Selection Show OR stand firm that they want their games played earlier. CBS is not going to lose those games. There will be a change next year, mark my words.

This year? Can you even think of a year when the ACC was better than the Big 10 in football?

Who wants to play Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa or Michigan in the first round? Who would even want to play Northwestern??? They went 8-8 in league play. So the ACC has several good teams. The Big Ten does also.

That is all good and well, but it is beside the point. The point is when you lose 4 out of you last 10 games you are not a number one seed.

I can't decide whether you sound like kids saying my Dad is better, stronger, or faster because (insert your posts here), or like NCAA football fans arguing over who is the NCAA Champion in D1 football (there isn't one). This is basketball, they play for the championship!!

Who cares where you are seeded? Regardless of your seed, you have to win 6 games to win the championship. If you think your team is seeded too low, just win some games and they will look great. If you think another team is seeded too high, your team still has to win 6 games.

Ok give me a shot at this one.......I will take any one of the last 3...oh wait they aren't in..so actually they and Wyoming could schedule a game...and hey we beat Dayton damn it, and they got in, what is the committee thinking geeeeeeesh.....HEY....we beat Washington too....how in the name of basketball nets can the committee consider Stanford a number one, we beat the team that beat them.....wow we got jobbed........man oh man am I steamed now LOL :D



Well I guess we need to post the bracket because um...oh wait let me check..yep....Duke is a #1 and they fit the criteria above....will wonders never cease....first Wyoming wins it all in '43 with Kenny Sailor, the so called inventor of the jump shot...and now Duke a #1 with such a lousy resume..... :D

[Edited by cmathews on Mar 15th, 2004 at 11:10 PM]

The fact that thre of them are not in the tournament is exactly what I am trying to get across. They are good enough to have teams not want to play them. It means something when teams do not want to have to face the bad teams from your league.

I don't think Maryland should even be in the NCAA tournament. I know everyone will say they won the ACC so they are in. But the won the ACC tournament. Any middle of the road team with a little bit of luck will has a chance at winning a tournament. I'm not putting down the ACC for this. So many confrences have it this way, the Big Ten Included. I believe that the automatic bid should come from the season champion. That is where the better teams come out on top. We all know Duke is better than Maryland, so why does Maryland get the automaic bid?

This espicially hurts the small confrences. Everyone knows before their confrence tournament, that they will only get one team into the NCAA tournament. It should be the team that proved to be the best team durring the season should be getting into the NCAA tournament. Not the team which got lucky over the weekend.

Yeahbut . . .

Winning the NCAA tournament is often about getting lucky 6 games in a row over 3 consecutive weekends.

If you want to do away with tournaments, we'll just go by regular season records to declare a national champion - and we all know how well that goes over.

Luck has very little to do with winning 3 consecutive games over the #1, #2, and #3 seeds in your conference or 6 straight games to win the National Championship. Yeah, luck might help you win 1 game but not 3, 4, 5, or 6.

Sorry, but this isn't a good argument. 1). no one is saying these teams arn't any good. 2) I could name many teams where you wouldn't see a show of hands to play in the first round. 3) the first round is earned for the best to play the worst, which by the way is what we are pointing out. 4) if you want to make that kind of analysis, a better question is; for the championship game, what other teams would you rather pass on playing, to play the teams you mentioned above.

Finally to Tony, just because the AD of a BIG TEN is the chair doesn't mean it wasn't fair. It just means the AD of the BIG TEN has NO nuts.

[obnoxious UK fan mode on]

It brings me great joy to watch you commoners argue and fight over the crumbs that fall from the table of the Kentucky Wildcat's feast. Continue, peasants! :D

[obnoxious UK fan mode off]

[dread of when I'll have to eat my words mode on]

When they are discussing teams in the Big Ten, the chair has to leave the room. He cannot vote or influence the teams that works in his conference or school.

All I am saying is that everyone bought the hype. You have heard all season that the ACC was the best, and they were choosen like they were. But as usually, there will be several of these teams that cannot win 1 or 2 games. This will be another year where the ACC has teams like Georgia Tech that are hyped up to have talent and they are watching after the first site. Maryland will be in that boat too. I will always give Duke credit and Coach K for what he does there. But the rest of the conference is pure garbage. They hardly play anyone on the road. They are always looked as having talent, but they cannot do anything with it. I bet you cannot even remember who was on the Ohio State or Wisconsin teams when they were in the Final Four, but they were there? When has GT been there last? Where will NC State be there next? NC State got beat at home by Washington, who is suppose to be from the sorry Pac-10. I think the Pac 10 is a better conference than the ACC and the Big East. Duke did not deserve a #1 seed. But J.J. Reddick will shot terribly again and they will be out early, one more time.

Peace

The Big Ten AD doesn't have a voice when Big Ten teams are being considered . . . NCAA rules.

Isn't that the same hype the Big 10 had in football this past season? When 8 of their teams had bowl invitations and yet they went 3-5? How is this any different? There is always hype about this conference and that conference...sometimes it pans out, sometimes it doesn't...toss the ball up and let's see how it all falls out.

The conferences agreed to those times. It's been that way for years and they've know that the seeding was done before those games finished. It's nothing new. I doubt they'll change anything. Sure, it may be driven by the networks but they're the ones offering the money. The conferences can take the money and play late or dictate their own time but probably at a lower amount of money. Still the conferences choice. They chose money over time.

Please tell us what Little Ten teams should be in and what teams that are in should be out.

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! :D

And you believe that?

LDUB, kindly explain how on earth MD does not belong in a 64 team field. And while you at it, please summarize the drug testing policies of your current employer - they may be very relevant to this discussion.

Maryland beat Wisconsin, the Big Ten champ. They beat Florida at Florida, when Florida was ranked #1. They beat Duke once, NC state twice (including at NC St), they beat Wake, G tech, UNC. They lost 2 non-conference games in a schedule that included 4 tournament teams. All year, they did not lose any games to teams that are out of the post-season. Their RPI is 18 (probably represents some ACC bias), which would justfiy a solid 5 seed, but you can easily go 1 up or 1 down from your RPI (that means 4 or 6 for the mathmatically challenged among you - there appear to be many out there who lack basic computation skills), based on where the committee finds it best to place you without shaking the overall bracket too much.

I can see an argument against MD being a 4 - I agree that it is a stretch at best. Even the committee chair admitted that the 4 move for MD was based on convenience as well as their win - the brackets worked better for some reason if they did this (maybe because they keep WI at home, a huge advantage compared to being a 4 seed on the road or neutral). Based on the tournaments I have seen, there is a lot of danger for 4 and 6 seeds in the tourney, and it is hard to say who has the easier path sometimes, especailly when you are talking different regions.

I cannot believe that a Big Ten guy like me feels compelled to defend the ACC against the total insanity that passes for debate on this board. I would love for the Big Ten to have put forward some sort of credible product that would justify defending its honor. Unfortunately, this year it did not. It stunk. Deal with it - I realized it months ago and have moped ever since.

Profile For Hawks Coach Search: All posts by this registered user.
Date Registered: Feb 2nd, 2000 Status: Senior Member Total Posts: 1846 Last Post: Mar 16th, 2004 02:14 PM
Tournament brackets Current Email: Click here to email Hawks Coach Homepage: ICQ Number: AOL Instant Messenger Handle: Yahoo Instant Messenger Handle: Biography: Location: Silver Spring, MD


So you are a Big Ten guy? But you are from Maryland? Ain't that ACC country??? Now I know just because you live in Maryland does not mean you can not like the Big Ten. You gotta be somewhat biased.

And then the fact that you are saying to me that Maryland should be in the NCAA tournament even with a 7-9 confrence record. Ok well that is your opinion. But then again you are from Maryland. You say you are a Big Ten guy. But you are from Maryland and you argue for Maryland????

[Edited by LDUB on Mar 16th, 2004 at 03:16 PM]

RPI of Big Ten teams who just missed tournament:
Michigan 55
Iowa 86
Indiana 87
Purdue 107 -

RPI of ACC teams who just missed the tourney
UVA 52
FSU 53

Please note that although the RPIs are higher than any of the Big Ten tournament wannabes, I am not trying to make a case that either of these teams should be in the tournament.

RPIs of ACC teams in the tournament are #1 (my emphasis - it pays to play 24 games against teams in the post season), as well as 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 (in darts we would call this a tight flight, in the area of trip 20).

RPIs of the Big Ten teams: 12, 23, 39

The last, MSU, would be a bubble team in my book, but let's give them a bid based on history of good performances ;) . And by the way, for those that claim MSU faced road hardship, MSU played 10 tournament teams, 4 on the road and 6 at home, going 2-8 in those games. In conference, they did not beat a single team that made the tournament. Non-conference, they were 2-2.

This result varies slightly from that we have already discussed with any ACC team in the tournament. Combined ACC record against non-conference NCAA tournament teams was 20-4, with a total of 12 home games, 7 road games and 5 neutral court games. That's an average of 4 tournament teams, like MSU, with an average record better than 3-1. So much for playing nobody, and playing all games at home. Only half the games against NCAA teams were at home. and the ACC teams all won significant road and home games in the conference, something the Spartans couldn't do, and something my alma mater failed to do.

First off I said nothing about the NCAA tournament. If luck had nothing to do with Maryland winning the ACC tournament, if Maryland actually was the best team in the ACC, why did they lose 9 out of 16 games in the ACC? Once again I am not putting down the ACC. But if luck has nothing to do with it the higher seed should win every game. If Maryland actually was the best team in the ACC then why did they lose 9 games?

The Committee does not consider conference record AT ALL. Heard it directly from the Chairman's mouth last week.

Also, I believe that Hawk's Coach told us earlier in this thread that he attended a Big Ten school, Michigan. That being so, I'm sure he's a much bigger Little Ten fan than an ACC fan. I lived in Tennessee for * years but that didn't turn me into an SEC fan.

Having watched them all year, MD was a young and mentally immature team that got by on some luck and talent early to get some big wins, and only gradually learned how to play ball in a tough conference. Gary Williams did a great job keeping his players focussed and bringing them along even though losses were piling up. MD has tons of talent, but players made a lot of bonehead plays in the early part of the ACC season against experienced teams at critical times during games. They almost put themselves in that situation against Duke, going down 12 with 4 to play.

And yes, there is always an element of luck in any one and done tournament. If Reddick hits the open look in regulation, we have a whole different set of facts. Every coach that wins an NCAA tournament will tell you that. Win one overtime game and a one-point game in the same tournament, you have to have some luck and a lot of skill.

You cannot win a quality tournament on luck alone - you need the skill and mental awareness to take advantage of the breaks that go your way. MD is winning the close games now, and that is critical at this point in the season. Two months ago they were losing these same games. But a little bad luck in a close game or hitting a really hot team, and MD will be out in the NCAAs, just like every other team.

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.

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.

From Maryland, NO! Yes I live in Maryland. Yes, I am a basketball fan - I grew up in what I consider to be the heartland of basketball. You haven't seen HS ball til you have seen it in central Illinois, if you ask me. NC and IN residents results may vary ;)

Am I completely unbiased - no, I never claimed to be. But I side with any Big Ten team (including ohowihateohiostate)over any ACC team any day, exception of UMD, who I will take over anybody except my beloved alma mater. I take Michigan over anybody, anywhere, any time, including UMD.

I also have two functioning eyes and a TV that picks up ESPN - you don't have to watch much ball to see the difference this year. I would say that they are night and day, but that understates it because dawn and dusk are times where the night-day distinctions may get blurred - this never happens when comparing the Big Ten to the ACC this year!

NC State
 

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.

Re: NC State
 

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!!! :D

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]

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

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.

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.

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? :)


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

WE AGREEE!
 

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.

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.

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.


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