bukie

Oh, please, that's not what you're doing. You chime in after every bad shooting game saying he has no business even trying to shoot 3's, and are completely silent when he has a good game. You act as if he's killing the team with his shot selection, which is just factually baseless.

Don't forget Carmelo and Durant, too.

You're right, they'd never beat a decent team, especially on the road, with a shooting night like that. yes because winning one game in the regular season is exactly the same as beating a team 4 out of 7 times in the postseason great post You specifically asked if they could beat boston/miami/orlando with Rose going 8-21 or similar...and he and they did exactly that against both Orlando and Miami this year. The Bulls have been absolutely cruising for 4 solid months now, so I think you're just begging for something to bitch about. Go for it, if you want to choose to be ignorant about things.

You're right, they'd never beat a decent team, especially on the road, with a shooting night like that.

Apparently Rose needs to stop trying to shoot 3's, because it's been absolutely killing the team since the All-Star break.

his fg% dropped below 44% tonight (now .438) i'm officially worried, even though everyone seems to want to pretend that he hasn't been horribly inefficient for a while now. also, 0-5 from 3 again. Yeah, because everyone's pretending he's been super efficient the last month. That's the argument I can't read enough of everywhere.

Bulls now playing .800 basketball over their last 50 games.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things. Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter. Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling. With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad. There are so very many faulty assumptions posed as fact in this post, there isn't a good place to start dealing with it. Good show. And would you care to explain exactly where he's wrong? - Assuming many folks leap to the conclusion that the other poster is an idiot. - Assuming they attack the poster and not the post. - Assuming that instantly sends the thread to the gutter. - Assuming the other side is simply "contrarians". - Assuming the popular side "abuses" the "contrarians". - Assuming moderators just look the other way when stuff goes on. - Assuming when moderators join in, it's belittling. - Assuming he knows the "solution" to the "problem" of "group think" "abusing" the "contrarians" - Assuming Meph was very bright. - Assuming this place is perpetually hostile for no reason. Do you see how the faulty assumptions just continue to build on each other until he reaches a supposed factual conclusion based on complete nonsense?

And the bracket opens up for Illinois....I mean, Kansas.

Jeff Brooks dislocated his shoulder and is out for PSU. Not looking good.

Butler fouls up 2, gets last shot, wins. That is an actual strategy, but not exactly sure if they meant to do it.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things. Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter. Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling. With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad. There are so very many faulty assumptions posed as fact in this post, there isn't a good place to start dealing with it. Good show.

I'm just realizing this now, but...what the hell, committee? You put Clemson in the first overall game on Thursday?

Vitters?

On a side note, damn it, Saint Mary's. That's not the way to show you deserved to be in the real tournament.

If Northwestern had beat MSU in the BTT, they'd have garnered the league's auto bid, so then yes, they'd have been in the tournament. ;) Seriously, though, I doubt it would have been enough to get them into the tournament, but if they had held on vs. OSU, they'd have at least been in the same discussion as USC, VCU and UAB.

I can assure you that I will not draft David DeJesus.

Or maybe it would be fun to somehow have the same 8 teams, but have the last 4 at larges each play the last 4 automatic qualifiers. At least you could have some drama there with tiny schools playing major programs. It probably sucks for these schools to win their conference tournament and then have to play another crappy school no ones heard of before to really "get in" Texas-San Antonio vs. UNC Asheville really doesn't do it for me at all. Texas-SA vs. Clemson might get me to watch to see if the little guy can stay competitive against a major conference team. Just a thought...not my preferred way but another idea. The problem there is...where do you stick the winner? It's essentially a 12 seed vs. a 16 seed. A 1 seed has earned better than to play the 12 seed in their first game, and the 16 seeds chosen for the First Four haven't earned the right to play a lower seed. It would essentially make it so you'd want to be one of the worst four auto-bids so you could avoid the 1 seeds. I know...its not a well thought out plan. I'm just throwing ideas out there that would specifically make those play-in games slightly more interesting. I'm all for letting all automatic qualifiers into the tournament and letting the last 8 at large teams play for the four 12 seeds. I still think the only thing that will gather interest for an extra opening round is by expanding the tournament to 96 teams so the top 8 seeds get a bye and everyone else gets a vaguely winnable game. It'd be easy to incorporate it into the bracket pool, it would give every team a reasonably winnable game, and it would make the first round meaningful.

Damn sold on the Big Ten I guess? Nah, I always do a homer bracket every year for fun, just in case the Big Ten goes berserk. I think it actually worked a couple times. 05 with MSU and Illinois? Yeah, and I think 2000 where Wisconsin made it as an 8 seed. My rational bracket has a final four of Ohio State, San Diego State (geographical advantage!), Kansas and Florida (more geographical advantage!). OSU over Kansas in the final.

Or maybe it would be fun to somehow have the same 8 teams, but have the last 4 at larges each play the last 4 automatic qualifiers. At least you could have some drama there with tiny schools playing major programs. It probably sucks for these schools to win their conference tournament and then have to play another crappy school no ones heard of before to really "get in" Texas-San Antonio vs. UNC Asheville really doesn't do it for me at all. Texas-SA vs. Clemson might get me to watch to see if the little guy can stay competitive against a major conference team. Just a thought...not my preferred way but another idea. The problem there is...where do you stick the winner? It's essentially a 12 seed vs. a 16 seed. A 1 seed has earned better than to play the 12 seed in their first game, and the 16 seeds chosen for the First Four haven't earned the right to play a lower seed. It would essentially make it so you'd want to be one of the worst four auto-bids so you could avoid the 1 seeds.

Damn sold on the Big Ten I guess? Nah, I always do a homer bracket every year for fun, just in case the Big Ten goes berserk. I think it actually worked a couple times.

It's not much different from the bracket I have with a final four of Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. ...what?

I'd say that at the very least, the last three weeks of action has thinned out the number of teams that can realistically make the playoffs from 14 to 10, as Colorado, St. Louis, Columbus and Minnesota are a ways back now.

It'll never catch casual fan interest until there is enough push to get the games included in bracket pools. That won't happen as long as there are games involving two teams nobody ever heard of. The NCAA is never going to cut at-large bids, though, so the only logical thing would be to either go to 96 teams, or make all four of the "First Four" games between at-large qualifiers. Well, that and don't make terrible selections for the last four at-large teams.

Certainly possible. Tone is the hardest thing to convey in text.