SouthSideRyan

PSU will be the 2 seed when it's all said and done. We'll beat them in the tourney, but I really can't believe this.

xavier beat memphis and mizzou on neutral courts.... that's at least as impressive if not more so. michigan has two road games all year, and those were against northwestern and indiana. if they lose at minneosota they'll be 18-13 and below .500 in the conference. non-conference wins are nice, but they haven't done well enough in conference to get in. That and those wins came extremely early on and don't really show how good that team is. They are capable of beating great teams but play way to inconsistent to be a tourny team at this point. Who cares when the wins came? Teams should make the tournamet based on what they've done, not how good they are. There is no other logical path. It must be an objective, rather than subjective, standard. I guess this comes back to my dislike of the last 12 stat. I don't care if a team lost their last 3 games 80-2 if they hadn't lost a game before that. I don't think there's much of a difference between a team that hobbles into the tourney vs. a team that enters hot. Anecdotally, I think of the Syracuse team that went from bubble to some absurdly high seed by winning the Big East tourney. They proceeded to lose in the 1st round. I want to say Maryland did the same thing. It was my huge issue a few years back when Air Force was given an at large bid seemingly because they created a tough matchup for people. Their resume was complete ass, but the committee thought they'd make for a good game. What's the point of the regular season if what you get done during the first 20 games of it don't matter, and it only matters how pretty you look down the stretch? The same people looked like geniuses when they didn't make Cincinnati the top team overall when Kenyon Martin broke his leg, then lost in the 2nd/3rd round based on their last few games. Injuries are a different issue because the team literally isn't the same team that won those games earlier in the season. I understand the desire to say well this team just didn't find its groove until midseason, they needed to play together for a while before playing to their potential. Well, too bad. It's not the team that beat them's fault for being prepared for a full season rather than taking actual game time to get together. That's good coaching to have your team prepared out of the gate. Sure it puts teams full of upperclassmen at an advantage because they've played together, but why should they be punished?

He sucked for us, but I don't want him to OD or anything.

xavier beat memphis and mizzou on neutral courts.... that's at least as impressive if not more so. michigan has two road games all year, and those were against northwestern and indiana. if they lose at minneosota they'll be 18-13 and below .500 in the conference. non-conference wins are nice, but they haven't done well enough in conference to get in. That and those wins came extremely early on and don't really show how good that team is. They are capable of beating great teams but play way to inconsistent to be a tourny team at this point. Who cares when the wins came? Teams should make the tournamet based on what they've done, not how good they are. There is no other logical path. It must be an objective, rather than subjective, standard. I guess this comes back to my dislike of the last 12 stat. I don't care if a team lost their last 3 games 80-2 if they hadn't lost a game before that. I don't think there's much of a difference between a team that hobbles into the tourney vs. a team that enters hot. Anecdotally, I think of the Syracuse team that went from bubble to some absurdly high seed by winning the Big East tourney. They proceeded to lose in the 1st round. I want to say Maryland did the same thing. It was my huge issue a few years back when Air Force was given an at large bid seemingly because they created a tough matchup for people. Their resume was complete ass, but the committee thought they'd make for a good game. What's the point of the regular season if what you get done during the first 20 games of it don't matter, and it only matters how pretty you look down the stretch?

xavier beat memphis and mizzou on neutral courts.... that's at least as impressive if not more so. michigan has two road games all year, and those were against northwestern and indiana. if they lose at minneosota they'll be 18-13 and below .500 in the conference. non-conference wins are nice, but they haven't done well enough in conference to get in. That and those wins came extremely early on and don't really show how good that team is. They are capable of beating great teams but play way to inconsistent to be a tourny team at this point. Who cares when the wins came? Teams should make the tournamet based on what they've done, not how good they are.

Penn State could end up short due to their terrible OOC schedule as well. Beating NJIT isn't exactly going to win you big points Penn State's problem was losing to Rhode Island and Temple and getting stuck with a nothing to gain matchup against GA Tech in the challenge.

I'm going to fight hard for Michigan. Does any other team in the country(not just bubble teams) have 2 noncon wins as good as UCLA and Duke? That's not even mentioning a solid 8 point loss at UConn. They're being hammered by the computers because they did a horrendous job putting together their schedule playing against 5 RPI killers in Norfolk St., Savannah St.(Who they deserve to be hammered for, getting taken to OT against them), Eastern Michigan, Florida Gulf Coast, and UNC Central.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47 To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's? A, they have at least 3 wins against top 25 teams (Duke, FSU, UNC) and only lost by 4 to Pitt. B, I would say that the ACC (top to bottom) is a better league than the Big 11. What fictional conference is this? Some people consider Indiana as a functioning basketball team. It's a highly controversial school of thought, but one that's prevalent throughout much of the midwest.

I'm trying to figure out what it would take to trade for him. I figure people will hear 10 weeks, and assume he's out for 2.5 months. Also the guy who has him is an older guy and probably thinks he'll suck due to roids.

Illinois Rep LOCKS(In no real order) UNC Duke Clemson Wake FSU Washington UCLA ASU Cal Connecticut Louisville Pitt Marquette Villanova Kansas Oklahoma Missouri Michigan St. Purdue LSU BYU Gonzaga Memphis Texas Syracuse West Virginia BUBBLES (Loosely ranked in order within their conferences) Providence Cincy Maryland BC Miami VA Tech Arizona Washington St. USC OK St. A&M Kansas St. Baylor Nebraska Michigan Minnesota Penn St. OSU Wisconsin Northwestern Tennessee South Carolina Florida Kentucky Auburn Utah San Diego St. New Mexico UNLV Xavier Rhode Island Dayton Creighton Butler St. Mary’s Davidson Siena

That bbstate site is incredible, but they only allow you so many clicks before they require a paid registration.

I think I misinterpreted your post, I thought we were talking schedule, not wins. @ Purdue is probably about equal to Duke at home, but @ UNC is a lot better than @ MSU. It's that Harvard loss. It's killing me. They're not just a bad team. They're a bad Ivy League team. I've got BC 2nd on my ACC bubble behind Maryland, and they woulda been a virtual lock with a win last night. They're pretty safe as long as they don't lose out. And I do think BC has a better case than Northwestern, but I think Northwestern's resume is being underrated by a lot of people.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47 To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's? If you think MSU/Purdue are on par with Duke/UNC I guess, but I don't Northwestern played MSU/Purdue 4 times. BC played Duke/UNC twice.

I'm showing Team B as 7-5 their last 12.

B-A-C

Probably? That game is for seeding, not inclusion. Odds are they both make it, but South Carolina has a total of 0 wins over tourney teams. Tennessee has 1(or 2 if you count South Carolina) Neither are solid enough that they can afford losing out.

What did he do? I turned it off. He had that senior who was scoring all their points shooting 3s every possession after KU had given up. Then finally with 5 seconds and a 20 point lead he calls timeout to get him his standing O from the capacity 1,500 person crowd.

the big ten doesn't stand a chance in the tournament. purdue looks terrible on a fairly regular basis... illinois held to 33 at home... purdue dominates michigan state by 19... really... i don't think anyone in the big ten would be in the top 3-4 in the acc or big east... except the Big 10 actually plays defense. Get Duke or North Carolina away from the ACC refs and see how far their flopping gets them Duke and North Carolina did pretty well on the road in the Big 10-ACC Challenge games on the road. UNC's clearly better than anyone in the Big Ten. They ran MSU off the floor and embarrassed them. MSU was without Suton, though obviously that isn't a 35 point difference. Regardless, a rematch certainly wouldn't be nearly the embarrassment. MSU played like ass and UNC played one of the best games I've seen them play. As bukie said, it's a pace thing. Pretty much every Big Ten coach is content to only take shots with single digits on the shot clock, and since their opponents in conference want to do the same thing, you get the low scoring slug it out games. When they play teams who pick up the pace, they score more points, and allow more points. It's not rocket science. More possessions = more points. Less posesssions = less points.

To clarify I'm a hater of the SEC in that I think the conference is terrible this year, not an irrational hater in that I'll punish them. That's only a football thing for me.

Winner of South Carolina vs. Tennessee probably gets in. I know the committee members aren't allowed to be in the room when talking about their conference/team, but I wonder how Mike Slive(SEC commissioner) being the head of the committee is going to affect things. People speculated that the Colonial commish being the head back in '06 was a big reason behind them getting 3 teams in. It doesn't even have to be a conscious decision, but when you spend so much time in a room with the guy, you start to like him and give his teams some subconscious help since he can't be there to fight for them.

Yeah, I'm an unabashed SEC hater, but I think you gotta keep LSU locked. Vandy's bad, but not terrible. The rest of the SEC and ACC made this a lot more difficult though.

Haha, Jimmy Dykes talks about how the low score is going to hurt the perception of the Big Ten, and gonna cost them. They then ask him in or out and he puts Wisconsin and Minnesota in.

Marquette's gonna be a really interesting case for the selection committee. 0-3 without James, albeit against the 3 best teams in the conference. If they don't get anywhere in the conference tourney, they could drop like a rock. And the College Gamenight guy just asked if all 10 Big Ten teams could get in. Huge slam on Indiana out of nowhere.

Could this day have gone much better for NU?? Kentucky, Florida, Va Tech, BC, and Miami all lose.

Kinda a douche move by Knight.