NCAA Tournament Thread

[Chocolate Milk]

While we are mentioning Big 10 players we don't like, I'll add that I don't like Paul Davis because of his sad eyebrows.

[sweetpeteman]

As for the KU issue,

 

Seeing KU lose kinda really sucked, since the Big XII was stinking up the joint in the post-season.

 

Then again, I am a Wichita St. Fan, and I root for the MVC, which was tough as well.

 

I guess I was more of a neutral site during this game. But I'll tell you what. Having seen that O'Bryant kid play aganist the Shockers in Wichita, that boy has a bright future of playing in the NBA.

 

I was hoping to see all the MVC teams do well so that more players will notice the MVC and want to play there, thats what really needs to happen. Sure, neither of us is going to win the NCAA's, but as long as we make people notice us, its good.

[TruffleShuffle]

I won my pool that year, and my only blunder was picking UK to win it all before they ran into the Dwyane Wade Buzz Saw.

 

Quick quiz... which team came closest to taking Wade and Marquette out before their eventual loss to Kansas?

 

Answer - Holy Cross, which lost to them by 4 points in the first round.

I don't know about that. Mizzou took them to overtime in the second round that year.

 

Ah good point.... I think remembered the final score (Marquette by about 10) but forget that it went into OT.

 

UK - Holy Cross lost to Kentucky in 2001, and the final was 72-68. Prince had a big game or else HC might have pulled it off.

[Coach C]

As for the KU issue,

 

Seeing KU lose kinda really sucked, since the Big XII was stinking up the joint in the post-season.

 

Then again, I am a Wichita St. Fan, and I root for the MVC, which was tough as well.

 

I guess I was more of a neutral site during this game. But I'll tell you what. Having seen that O'Bryant kid play aganist the Shockers in Wichita, that boy has a bright future of playing in the NBA.

 

I was hoping to see all the MVC teams do well so that more players will notice the MVC and want to play there, thats what really needs to happen. Sure, neither of us is going to win the NCAA's, but as long as we make people notice us, its good.

 

Yeah. The only team that got their rear-ends handed back to themselves was Southern Illinois, but then, they don't have much of a offense, you know?

 

Bradley, I knew they were going to be tough coming in. I was struggling, on my bracket fill-them between KU and Bradley, but I knew, no matter who I pick, that I think either Pitts or Memphis was gonna handle them. But still, Bradley is gonna be a solid team for awhile in the MVC.

 

As for WSU, I'm happy they won a game. It's been a long time, way back when I was a pup. I hope they can make it to the Sweet 16. Oh, and their Mascot "Shockers" is a good name to have in the NCAA Tournament. I hope that Sunday's Wichita newspaper will go something like "Shockers Shock Vols." or something like that.

 

Finally, Northern Iowa gave Georgetown all it can handle before falling.

 

2 out of 4 MVC teams advanced. While I would had liked 3/4, I won't complain.

 

Oh, and I hope that Billy "the Fudge" Packer and Jim Nantzy withdraws their sharp critism aganist the MVC teams. Yeah, that's one of those MVC teams (Wichita St.) that didn't deserve to get in, TOTALLY DOMINATING a Big Least team that they hold so near and dear to their hearts. Not to mention that Bradley shocked KU.

[CuseCubFan69]

As for the KU issue,

 

Seeing KU lose kinda really sucked, since the Big XII was stinking up the joint in the post-season.

 

Then again, I am a Wichita St. Fan, and I root for the MVC, which was tough as well.

 

I guess I was more of a neutral site during this game. But I'll tell you what. Having seen that O'Bryant kid play aganist the Shockers in Wichita, that boy has a bright future of playing in the NBA.

 

I was hoping to see all the MVC teams do well so that more players will notice the MVC and want to play there, thats what really needs to happen. Sure, neither of us is going to win the NCAA's, but as long as we make people notice us, its good.

 

Yeah. The only team that got their rear-ends handed back to themselves was Southern Illinois, but then, they don't have much of a offense, you know?

 

Bradley, I knew they were going to be tough coming in. I was struggling, on my bracket fill-them between KU and Bradley, but I knew, no matter who I pick, that I think either Pitts or Memphis was gonna handle them. But still, Bradley is gonna be a solid team for awhile in the MVC.

 

As for WSU, I'm happy they won a game. It's been a long time, way back when I was a pup. I hope they can make it to the Sweet 16. Oh, and their Mascot "Shockers" is a good name to have in the NCAA Tournament. I hope that Sunday's Wichita newspaper will go something like "Shockers Shock Vols." or something like that.

 

Finally, Northern Iowa gave Georgetown all it can handle before falling.

 

2 out of 4 MVC teams advanced. While I would had liked 3/4, I won't complain.

 

Oh, and I hope that Billy "the Fudge" Packer and Jim Nantzy withdraws their sharp critism aganist the MVC teams. Yeah, that's one of those MVC teams (Wichita St.) that didn't deserve to get in, TOTALLY DOMINATING a Big Least team that they hold so near and dear to their hearts. Not to mention that Bradley shocked KU.

 

Yeah, Wichita St. dominated the 10th place BE team. You guys have to get back to me when a M-M wins the NCAA title which a Big (L)east team has done 3 out of the last 6 years.

[Coach C]

As for the KU issue,

 

Seeing KU lose kinda really sucked, since the Big XII was stinking up the joint in the post-season.

 

Then again, I am a Wichita St. Fan, and I root for the MVC, which was tough as well.

 

I guess I was more of a neutral site during this game. But I'll tell you what. Having seen that O'Bryant kid play aganist the Shockers in Wichita, that boy has a bright future of playing in the NBA.

 

I was hoping to see all the MVC teams do well so that more players will notice the MVC and want to play there, thats what really needs to happen. Sure, neither of us is going to win the NCAA's, but as long as we make people notice us, its good.

 

Yeah. The only team that got their rear-ends handed back to themselves was Southern Illinois, but then, they don't have much of a offense, you know?

 

Bradley, I knew they were going to be tough coming in. I was struggling, on my bracket fill-them between KU and Bradley, but I knew, no matter who I pick, that I think either Pitts or Memphis was gonna handle them. But still, Bradley is gonna be a solid team for awhile in the MVC.

 

As for WSU, I'm happy they won a game. It's been a long time, way back when I was a pup. I hope they can make it to the Sweet 16. Oh, and their Mascot "Shockers" is a good name to have in the NCAA Tournament. I hope that Sunday's Wichita newspaper will go something like "Shockers Shock Vols." or something like that.

 

Finally, Northern Iowa gave Georgetown all it can handle before falling.

 

2 out of 4 MVC teams advanced. While I would had liked 3/4, I won't complain.

 

Oh, and I hope that Billy "the Fudge" Packer and Jim Nantzy withdraws their sharp critism aganist the MVC teams. Yeah, that's one of those MVC teams (Wichita St.) that didn't deserve to get in, TOTALLY DOMINATING a Big Least team that they hold so near and dear to their hearts. Not to mention that Bradley shocked KU.

 

Yeah, Wichita St. dominated the 10th place BE team. You guys have to get back to me when a M-M wins the NCAA title which a Big (L)east team has done 3 out of the last 6 years.

 

Heh heh. Actually, Seton Hall is 7th in the BE. And I'm not saying that WSU is going to the final 4, let alone, win a NCAA Title (Would be nice, but I'm being realistic here.)

 

But for the record, WSU has had good success aganist some big league teams (MSU, Illinois) to name a few. Yes, they lost, but at least it wasn't a 20 point blowout, which many people were predicting.

 

And Baylor beat KU. A 13 seed over a 4 seed. That's what my point is about that those two guys who were throwing sharp criticism aganist the MVC teams.

 

MVC teams aren't scared to play anybody, even if they're at their house, or at a nuetral site. The problem is that the big schools are scared to play them during the regular season. And I'm not buying that ole' "Protecting my RPI, or SOS" either.

[bukie]

Yeah, Wichita St. dominated the 10th place BE team. You guys have to get back to me when a M-M wins the NCAA title which a Big (L)east team has done 3 out of the last 6 years.

 

What version of the standings do you look at where Seton Hall finished 10th? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/standings

 

That's a ridiculous argument, too. Nobody is arguing that the MVC gets bids over the first place Big East/Big Ten/ACC teams. They are arguing that their top 6 are just as good or better than the 5th-6th-7th best teams in these conferences, and should get those bids.

 

Maybe the Big West should get at-large teams every year, since UNLV won a championship in 1990 and made the Final Four undefeated in 1991.

 

Or maybe the A-10 should get guaranteed at-large bids every year since UMass made the Final Four in the mid-90's with Calipari.

 

What a conference has done in the past has no bearing on bids in the future, and shouldn't. The MVC got 4 bids this year, easily deserved, and perhaps they deserved more.

[Andy]

No one's saying the MVC didn't deserve all the bids it got. But Seton Hall is really not a very good team at all. ND beat them, and beat them soundly, in their own place. Bradley over Kansas was impressive, but don't tout Wichita State over SHU as the reason the MVC is a strong conference, because the Pirates impressed few. How they got as high as 7th in the Big East is beyond me.

[Coach C]

No one's saying the MVC didn't deserve all the bids it got. But Seton Hall is really not a very good team at all. ND beat them, and beat them soundly, in their own place. Bradley over Kansas was impressive, but don't tout Wichita State over SHU as the reason the MVC is a strong conference, because the Pirates impressed few. How they got as high as 7th in the Big East is beyond me.

 

Fair assessment. I know that Tennessee is overrated at number 2. But I am honestly asking, is that still considered impressive if WSU does beat Tennessee? Just honestly asking.

[Andy]

No one's saying the MVC didn't deserve all the bids it got. But Seton Hall is really not a very good team at all. ND beat them, and beat them soundly, in their own place. Bradley over Kansas was impressive, but don't tout Wichita State over SHU as the reason the MVC is a strong conference, because the Pirates impressed few. How they got as high as 7th in the Big East is beyond me.

 

Fair assessment. I know that Tennessee is overrated at number 2. But I am honestly asking, is that still considered impressive if WSU does beat Tennessee? Just honestly asking.

Any time a mid-major reaches the Sweet 16, it's a great accomplishment.

 

UWM is hanging in against the Gators, down by 4 despie a few questionable calls in Florida's favor.

[sweetpeteman]

No one's saying the MVC didn't deserve all the bids it got. But Seton Hall is really not a very good team at all. ND beat them, and beat them soundly, in their own place. Bradley over Kansas was impressive, but don't tout Wichita State over SHU as the reason the MVC is a strong conference, because the Pirates impressed few. How they got as high as 7th in the Big East is beyond me.

 

Fair assessment. I know that Tennessee is overrated at number 2. But I am honestly asking, is that still considered impressive if WSU does beat Tennessee? Just honestly asking.

 

Don't bother, until a mid-major wins it all, people are going to look down on them and act like they don't belong.

[Coach C]

No one's saying the MVC didn't deserve all the bids it got. But Seton Hall is really not a very good team at all. ND beat them, and beat them soundly, in their own place. Bradley over Kansas was impressive, but don't tout Wichita State over SHU as the reason the MVC is a strong conference, because the Pirates impressed few. How they got as high as 7th in the Big East is beyond me.

 

Fair assessment. I know that Tennessee is overrated at number 2. But I am honestly asking, is that still considered impressive if WSU does beat Tennessee? Just honestly asking.

 

Don't bother, until a mid-major wins it all, people are going to look down on them and act like they don't belong.

 

Look at bukie's post. I think that pretty much says it all.

[sweetpeteman]

Did I just see right? was the MVC referred to as a big conference?

[Coach C]

Did I just see right? was the MVC referred to as a big conference?

 

Hmm strange. I really haven't considered MVC a big conference. Whenever the words "Big Conference" is said, I think of the ACC, Big East, Big XII, Big 10, and the Pac-10.

[CuseCubFan69]

Yeah, Wichita St. dominated the 10th place BE team. You guys have to get back to me when a M-M wins the NCAA title which a Big (L)east team has done 3 out of the last 6 years.

 

What version of the standings do you look at where Seton Hall finished 10th? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/standings

 

That's a ridiculous argument, too. Nobody is arguing that the MVC gets bids over the first place Big East/Big Ten/ACC teams. They are arguing that their top 6 are just as good or better than the 5th-6th-7th best teams in these conferences, and should get those bids.

 

Maybe the Big West should get at-large teams every year, since UNLV won a championship in 1990 and made the Final Four undefeated in 1991.

 

Or maybe the A-10 should get guaranteed at-large bids every year since UMass made the Final Four in the mid-90's with Calipari.

 

What a conference has done in the past has no bearing on bids in the future, and shouldn't. The MVC got 4 bids this year, easily deserved, and perhaps they deserved more.

 

Once again you jump to the wrong conclusion. I didn't say the MVC didn't deserve the bids but that they don't advance to the finals and never take the whole thing. It's just amazing to me that these teams get so much credit for beating a decent BE team while Seten Hall gets beat on for having to play the top tier BE teams and not having a great record. Yeah, W. State is a good team and going to beat Tennessee but I think it's ironic that Many people jump on the BE in football and say they are not that good even though they have played for the championship and but argue that the MVC is just as good as a major conference. History DOES have something to do with it. Are you saying that what teams have done in the past means nothing? You once again exagerate to prove a point. How far has the MVC gone in the past 4 years? Duke has made the sweet 16 what 9 years in a row and you say that doesn't mean anything. Why, because you have to because the MVC has no history. Again, get back to me when they win the whole thing and then we'll talk. They are a competitive conference that can't win the Championship and that's about it.

[bukie]

Once again you jump to the wrong conclusion. I didn't say the MVC didn't deserve the bids but that they don't advance to the finals and never take the whole thing. It's just amazing to me that these teams get so much credit for beating a decent BE team while Seten Hall gets beat on for having to play the top tier BE teams and not having a great record. Yeah, W. State is a good team and going to beat Tennessee but I think it's ironic that Many people jump on the BE in football and say they are not that good even though they have played for the championship and but argue that the MVC is just as good as a major conference. History DOES have something to do with it. Are you saying that what teams have done in the past means nothing? You once again exagerate to prove a point. How far has the MVC gone in the past 4 years? Duke has made the sweet 16 what 9 years in a row and you say that doesn't mean anything. Why, because you have to because the MVC has no history. Again, get back to me when they win the whole thing and then we'll talk. They are a competitive conference that can't win the Championship and that's about it.

 

And once again you completely miss the point. Nobody is saying the MVC is just as good as the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, SEC, even this year, and especially historically.

 

You've made the argument that the MVC shouldn't get as many bids as those conferences because they aren't as good. That argument is baseless, because the number of bids a league gets has nothing to do with relative strength of the league. That the history of a conference should dictate how many bids those leagues get. However, bids aren't given out by league, they are given out on a team-by-team basis, aside from the automatic bid.

 

Counting the number of bids for each league is something done by media outlets as a baseless form of comparison. Just as performance in the tournament says more about individual teams than about leagues. Yes, Wichita State's presence in the sweet 16 says a lot about Wichita State this year. They are a quality team. Just like Syracuse's title 2 years ago said a lot about Syracuse that year. However, a championship for Syracuse 2 years ago should have little to do with not only Syracuse's seeding for this year, but especially the number of bids the Big East should get.

 

Just like Illinois' championship game appearance last year should and does have no bearing on their seeding for this year, and especially their performance this year. To extrapolate that appearance to the entire conference's seeding/performance this year would be incredibly ignorant.

[hawkeyecub]

I don't like Brunner. He complained to the officials a lot and flopped more than any player I've seen since Shane Battier.

 

That's just completely false. Greg Brunner hardly ever complained to officials. Ask any Big Ten fans on this board who actually watched the games for four years, rather than just looking at the stats, seeing a couple games on ESPN and making your assessment off of that. But hey maybe the Big Ten Wonk guy said it once, so it must be true, right? On second thought, how could you make such a claim when it can't be found in any stat sheet? Remember, your eyes can decieve you or you can overreact to one thing you see, so you've got to use the stats.

 

I would be willing to bet that even illiniguy would disagree with you.

[XZero771679666304]

I don't like Brunner. He complained to the officials a lot and flopped more than any player I've seen since Shane Battier.

 

That's just completely false. Greg Brunner hardly ever complained to officials. Ask any Big Ten fans on this board who actually watched the games for four years, rather than just looking at the stats, seeing a couple games on ESPN and making your assessment off of that. But hey maybe the Big Ten Wonk guy said it once, so it must be true, right? On second thought, how could you make such a claim when it can't be found in any stat sheet? Remember, your eyes can decieve you or you can overreact to one thing you see, so you've got to use the stats.

 

I would be willing to bet that even illiniguy would disagree with you.

 

I will admit that I didn't see Brunner complain much, but he always seemed to have a real air of exasperation about him when things didn't go his way. Many of my Hawk fan friends have said the same thing.

 

He was a real good player, though.

[CuseCubFan69]

Once again you jump to the wrong conclusion. I didn't say the MVC didn't deserve the bids but that they don't advance to the finals and never take the whole thing. It's just amazing to me that these teams get so much credit for beating a decent BE team while Seten Hall gets beat on for having to play the top tier BE teams and not having a great record. Yeah, W. State is a good team and going to beat Tennessee but I think it's ironic that Many people jump on the BE in football and say they are not that good even though they have played for the championship and but argue that the MVC is just as good as a major conference. History DOES have something to do with it. Are you saying that what teams have done in the past means nothing? You once again exagerate to prove a point. How far has the MVC gone in the past 4 years? Duke has made the sweet 16 what 9 years in a row and you say that doesn't mean anything. Why, because you have to because the MVC has no history. Again, get back to me when they win the whole thing and then we'll talk. They are a competitive conference that can't win the Championship and that's about it.

 

And once again you completely miss the point. Nobody is saying the MVC is just as good as the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, SEC, even this year, and especially historically.

 

You've made the argument that the MVC shouldn't get as many bids as those conferences because they aren't as good. That argument is baseless, because the number of bids a league gets has nothing to do with relative strength of the league. That the history of a conference should dictate how many bids those leagues get. However, bids aren't given out by league, they are given out on a team-by-team basis, aside from the automatic bid.

 

Counting the number of bids for each league is something done by media outlets as a baseless form of comparison. Just as performance in the tournament says more about individual teams than about leagues. Yes, Wichita State's presence in the sweet 16 says a lot about Wichita State this year. They are a quality team. Just like Syracuse's title 2 years ago said a lot about Syracuse that year. However, a championship for Syracuse 2 years ago should have little to do with not only Syracuse's seeding for this year, but especially the number of bids the Big East should get.

 

Just like Illinois' championship game appearance last year should and does have no bearing on their seeding for this year, and especially their performance this year. To extrapolate that appearance to the entire conference's seeding/performance this year would be incredibly ignorant.

 

Please show me where I wrote that a BE had to be seeded higher than a MVL team? You just inject these things into your arguement that I never said.

 

Was McNamara on theSyracuse team that won the title? The players that were on these teams may still be playing thus having an impact on the current team. If NC returned all their players from last you would you say they wouldn't be considered the favorite to win this year because that was last year? Let's also talk about the coaches that have been at some of these majors that have won it all....should that be disreguarded as well? They are a big reason these top kids go to these schools and continue to do so BECAUSE of their past thus effecting their future.

[bukie]

Please show me where I wrote that a BE had to be seeded higher than a MVL team? You just inject these things into your arguement that I never said.

 

Was McNamara on theSyracuse team that won the title? The players that were on these teams may still be playing thus having an impact on the current team. If NC returned all their players from last you would you say they wouldn't be considered the favorite to win this year because that was last year? Let's also talk about the coaches that have been at some of these majors that have won it all....should that be disreguarded as well? They are a big reason these top kids go to these schools and continue to do so BECAUSE of their past thus effecting their future.

 

However, their past performance has no bearing on their tournament seeding for this year. It simply is stated repeatedly by the committee. Sure, Gerry McNamara was still playing this year, but Carmelo Anthony wasn't, so it's illogical to say "you know, Syracuse won a championship 2 years ago, they deserve to be in this tournament over a team that hasn't won a championship". Just like with Illinois' run last year, it's illogical to say "Illinois went to the championship game last year, so they deserve to be seeded 1 or 2".

 

That is the point I am trying to make. Past performance has no bearing for the committee in terms of selecting teams or seeding teams. Cincinnati, Michigan, Seton Hall, and Louisville's past tournament performance have no bearing this year on their selection or seeding, and shouldn't.

[CuseCubFan69]

Please show me where I wrote that a BE had to be seeded higher than a MVL team? You just inject these things into your arguement that I never said.

 

Was McNamara on theSyracuse team that won the title? The players that were on these teams may still be playing thus having an impact on the current team. If NC returned all their players from last you would you say they wouldn't be considered the favorite to win this year because that was last year? Let's also talk about the coaches that have been at some of these majors that have won it all....should that be disreguarded as well? They are a big reason these top kids go to these schools and continue to do so BECAUSE of their past thus effecting their future.

 

However, their past performance has no bearing on their tournament seeding for this year. It simply is stated repeatedly by the committee. Sure, Gerry McNamara was still playing this year, but Carmelo Anthony wasn't, so it's illogical to say "you know, Syracuse won a championship 2 years ago, they deserve to be in this tournament over a team that hasn't won a championship". Just like with Illinois' run last year, it's illogical to say "Illinois went to the championship game last year, so they deserve to be seeded 1 or 2".

 

That is the point I am trying to make. Past performance has no bearing for the committee in terms of selecting teams or seeding teams. Cincinnati, Michigan, Seton Hall, and Louisville's past tournament performance have no bearing this year on their selection or seeding, and shouldn't.

 

But it does have an effect. I agree that it shouldn't make a team a 1 or 2 seed but the conferences that have won in the past have proven that they were better year after year after year thus proving that the competition is tougher in those conferences. This is why the Majors get the bids and the Louisvilles get the nod over a MVC team. I understand what you're saying but the MVC teams have to start going farther like Gonzaga did to prove they should get the nod.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't like Brunner. He complained to the officials a lot and flopped more than any player I've seen since Shane Battier.

 

That's just completely false. Greg Brunner hardly ever complained to officials. Ask any Big Ten fans on this board who actually watched the games for four years, rather than just looking at the stats, seeing a couple games on ESPN and making your assessment off of that. But hey maybe the Big Ten Wonk guy said it once, so it must be true, right? On second thought, how could you make such a claim when it can't be found in any stat sheet? Remember, your eyes can decieve you or you can overreact to one thing you see, so you've got to use the stats.

 

I would be willing to bet that even illiniguy would disagree with you.

 

Wow, that's quite a reaction.

 

Statistics have nothing to do with whether I like Brunner. I really don't like Redick or Williams for Duke, they're both fabulous statistically, I could list more examples of such. If I had said, "I don't like Brunner, he flops and complains a lot, so he's just not very good", then maybe your fanatical anti-statistic rant would be justified. But I said no such thing. And for what it's worth, I saw plenty of Iowa basketball this year, but apparently you think I just pore over box scores and ignore the actual games.

[hawkeyecub]

Yeah my fault, major overreaction. Still in a fragile state from yesterday's loss.

 

But honestly I'm not sure where you got the impression that Bru complains about officiating.

As far as flopping, he takes a lot of charges and usually it takes a decent amount of contact for him to go down. Doug Thomas flops much more often and that's why he doesn't get as many calls.

 

Seriously I've been to 24 Big Ten home games over the last four years, six road games over the last four years and two Big Ten tournaments, I've never heard anything but postitive about Greg Brunner (and Horner) from opposing fans. In fact I think the worst I've heard is "I hate that he kills us but damn I wish we had him."

Of course you're entitled to your opinion and can dislike whoever you want. But if you can't like a couple of players like Brunner and Horner, who can you like? Especially when you're aware of all the crap they've had to put up with and how they've handled everything.

[NCCubFan]

Any time a mid-major reaches the Sweet 16, it's a great accomplishment.

Like 1990, when a certain MAC school in Indiana made the Sweet 16 and almost beat eventual champion UNLV to advance to the Elite 8.

[Andy]

Any time a mid-major reaches the Sweet 16, it's a great accomplishment.

Like 1990, when a certain MAC school in Indiana made the Sweet 16 and almost beat eventual champion UNLV to advance to the Elite 8.

:D I hear about that all the time. Wish I'd been here for it, sounds like it was amazing to see.