NCAA to Longhorns:

[MusicMan]

BOHICA. Have a 4 seed.

[drew corleone]

Weak.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

So I guess the selection committee thinks there are at least 12 better teams.

[austro]

BOHICA? No way. It's more like "Fuck You". What a crock of shit. And Colorado got completely screwed (not to mention Missouri St and Harvard and several others). Do we really need to see the 11th best team in the Big East? Of the lame-o's out of the bottom of the SEC?

[HudsonHawk]

BOHICA? No way. It's more like "Fuck You". What a crock of shit. And Colorado got completely screwed (not to mention Missouri St and Harvard and several others). Do we really need to see the 11th best team in the Big East? Of the lame-o's out of the bottom of the SEC?

All the seeding is a crock of shit.  The only thing worse than whining about your team not making the tournament is whining that they were seeded too low.  Only one teams wins it.  Beat the teams you play, and that will be you.  Period.

[roadrunner]

All the seeding is a crock of shit.  The only thing worse than whining about your team not making the tournament is whining that they were seeded too low.  Only one teams wins it.  Beat the teams you play, and that will be you.  Period.

Yeah that's how I feel.  UT *should* get to the Sweet 16, and at that point I guess you can complain about having to play Duke.  But at the end of the day you just need to win, so shut up and do it.

[Mr. Happy]

All the seeding is a crock of shit.  The only thing worse than whining about your team not making the tournament is whining that they were seeded too low.  Only one teams wins it.  Beat the teams you play, and that will be you.  Period.

Amen!

[Lurch]

All the seeding is a crock of shit.  The only thing worse than whining about your team not making the tournament is whining that they were seeded too low.  Only one teams wins it.  Beat the teams you play, and that will be you.  Period.

Are you suggesting seeding doesnt matter?

[HudsonHawk]

Are you suggesting seeding doesnt matter?

I'm not suggesting, I'm flat out saying it. If you're the best team, then beat the lesser teams. It's pretty simple.

[Lurch]

I'm not suggesting, I'm flat out saying it. If you're the best team, then beat the lesser teams. It's pretty simple.

That's a pretty simple minded attitude. The best team does not always win.  It's a percentage game, and the odds of winning are clearly impacted by seeding, and the ramifications of it.  It does matter, as it does in every other sports playoff system.  Otherwise, we'd simply pull the 68 names out of a hat and randomly place them.

[HudsonHawk]

That's a pretty simple minded attitude. The best team does not always win.  It's a percentage game, and the odds of winning are clearly impacted by seeding, and the ramifications of it.  It does matter, as it does in every other sports playoff system.  Otherwise, we'd simply pull the 68 names out of a hat and randomly place them.

If you're not the best team, then you have even less of a gripe about the seeding. And seeding is about keeping the marquis teams in the tournament longer from a marketing standpoint, not about competitive fairness.

[Lurch]

If you're not the best team, then you have even less of a gripe about the seeding. And seeding is about keeping the marquis teams in the tournament longer from a marketing standpoint, not about competitive fairness.

Absurd.  That's simply not true, and it's too obvious to debate.

[Mr. Happy]

That's a pretty simple minded attitude. The best team does not always win.  It's a percentage game, and the odds of winning are clearly impacted by seeding, and the ramifications of it.  It does matter, as it does in every other sports playoff system.  Otherwise, we'd simply pull the 68 names out of a hat and randomly place them.

Wrong. The best team in the tournament wins every time.

[sporadic]

That's a pretty simple minded attitude. The best team does not always win.  It's a percentage game, and the odds of winning are clearly impacted by seeding, and the ramifications of it.  It does matter, as it does in every other sports playoff system.  Otherwise, we'd simply pull the 68 names out of a hat and randomly place them.

Having played in quite a few seeded match play events, I can honestly say that favorable seeding can work against you.  You get complacent beating inferior competition, then you get beat by a guy that has produced in a more high pressure match.  If you are in it to win the whole thing, it should not matter who you play.  If you have no chance of winning then it does.  A team like A&M has NO chance of winning, but geting through the first two rounds would be a huge positive for them and their fans, therefore seeding is absolutely relevant.  Duke, Ohio State, Texas, whoever you want to throw in as contenders...if they flame out early then they clearly were not good enough to win anyway, regardless of how they were seeded.

[Lurch]

Wrong. The best team in the tournament wins every time.

That's cute.

[sporadic]

That's cute.

Initially I was in line with a comment like this.  But, think about it...whoever wins a tournament is the best team of that tournament.  They are the only team that did not lose. 

[Lurch]

Initially I was in line with a comment like this.  But, think about it...whoever wins a tournament is the best team of that tournament.  They are the only team that did not lose. 

"Best" is of course completely subjective.  If you want to be simple and say "winner" = "best", sure, have at it, but we all damn well know the best (as in quality of talent and play) team does not always win, especially in a single elimination tournament.  Match-up styles, refs, lucky/unlucky breaks, schedule (morning games, night games, near home, the other side of the country), injuries, foul outs... Shit happens.  It may be 1 out of 1000 times (maybe a #1 vs a #16) or one out of 4 times (maybe a #1 vs a #4), but the "best" team(s) can lose in this tourney.  And, that DOES NOT mean "if they flame out early then they clearly were not good enough to win anyway, regardless of how they were seeded" to me.

[Mr. Happy]

Lurch: I don't disagree with much of what you said. But every team that wins it all has to contend with subjective seeding, lucky or unlucky venues and lucky or unlucky matchups, not to mention the regular vicisissitudes of college basketball (inconsistent youngsters, coaching, referees, etc.), so the team that wins overcomes a lot ot win.

[Ron Brand]

I always thought the team that won the tournament was the winner or the champion. When did they become the best? Especially in NCAA basketball, where any team has a good chance to beat any other team?

[Bench]

I always thought the team that won the tournament was the winner or the champion. When did they become the best? Especially in NCAA basketball, where any team has a good chance to beat any other team?

I always thought the team that won the tournament was a team.

[Ron Brand]

I always thought the team that won the tournament was a team.

What have you done to be a champion today?

[Lurch]

Lurch: I don't disagree with much of what you said. But every team that wins it all has to contend with subjective seeding, lucky or unlucky venues and lucky or unlucky matchups, not to mention the regular vicisissitudes of college basketball (inconsistent youngsters, coaching, referees, etc.), so the team that wins overcomes a lot ot win.

Agree.  And I would go so far as to say the truly best team probably wins the whole thing 50-75% of the time.  If your goal is "being the best", seeding does not matter.  If your goal is winning the tournament, however, regardless of how good of a team you are or have been during the season, it sure as fuck does.  I'm pretty sure teams don't want to "be the best", they want to hang that banner.

Of course you still need to perform, but it's completely reasonable to want the most favorable odds going in, because (again) the better team can lose in any one game.

[Duke]

I don't mind thew Horns being a 4 seed.  Pretty much the same as a 3 and I'd like the chance to play Duke should we get that far.  That being said, how the hell do you look at Florida and Texas' resume and make Florida a 2 and Texas a 4?  Texas schedule was damn sure tougher.

[HudsonHawk]

Absurd.  That's simply not true, and it's too obvious to debate.

You can't debate it because you have no legitimate argument.

[Lurch]

You can't debate it because you have no legitimate argument.

"And seeding is about keeping the marquis teams in the tournament longer from a marketing standpoint, not about competitive fairness."

Seriously?  You're going to stand behind that statement?  That may be the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

[MusicMan]

And seeding is about keeping the marquis teams in the tournament longer from a marketing standpoint, not about competitive fairness.

San Diego State as a 2 seed vs. UT as a 4 seed pretty much shows that this is bullshit.

You really think the NCAA finds San Diego State a more "marquis" team than Texas?  Which one do you think draws more marketing dollars?

[HudsonHawk]

"And seeding is about keeping the marquis teams in the tournament longer from a marketing standpoint, not about competitive fairness."

Seriously?  You're going to stand behind that statement?  That may be the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

Oh come on.  It's not nearly as dumb as half the shit I post, right?

Bottom line...if being the top seed mattered as much as you think, then a #1 seed would almost always win the tournament.  As a matter of fact, only once has the top 12 seeds all made the Sweet Sixteen.  The facts simply don't support your argument.

[HudsonHawk]

San Diego State as a 2 seed vs. UT as a 4 seed pretty much shows that this is bullshit.

You really think the NCAA finds San Diego State a more "marquis" team than Texas?  Which one do you think draws more marketing dollars?

"marquis" as in "better", not "sells more tshirts".  The purpose of seeding is so that you don't have the top teams playing each other in the first round, not because the simple act of assigning them numbers fundementally changes a team's chances of winning the tournament.

[Rebel Jew]

Bottom line...if being the top seed mattered as much as you think, then a #1 seed would almost always win the tournament.  The facts simply don't support your argument.

That's like Yankee fans saying "if higher payroll mattered as much as you think then the Yankees would always win the world series."

[sporadic]

San Diego State as a 2 seed vs. UT as a 4 seed pretty much shows that this is bullshit.

You really think the NCAA finds San Diego State a more "marquis" team than Texas?  Which one do you think draws more marketing dollars?

Not that I fully support HH's thoery, but I think SDSU has more of a "Cinderella" feel about them, even being a #2.  Texas will NEVER be the darling that the Gonzagas of the world have become, even thought those "Cinderellas" are good teams and may have earned high seeds.  From a marketing standpoint, that is a plus.  "Litte XYZ university, with a lowly enrollment of 4500, takes on the goliath that is Ohio State University".  Cant you just hear some schmuck analyst saying something like that, even though they are pretty damn equal on the hardwood?  Average Joe watching the tourney pulls for the little guy (in the absence of having their alma mater in it), seeding be damned.  They don't associate San Diego State with the Dukes of the world so I do not believe it matters what number you put in front of their name.  

[HudsonHawk]

That's like Yankee fans saying "if higher payroll mattered as much as you think then the Yankees would always win the world series."

If being assigned some random number at the end-of-year tournament were somehow remotely analogous to having the financial resources to acquire better players before the season starts, then you might have a point.  But since it isn't, you're babbling.

[Bench]

Presumably, Mike Tyson doesn't think being a four seed will hinder the Longhorns. 

[sporadic]

Presumably, Mike Tyson doesn't think being a four seed will hinder the Longhorns. 

translation:  I have never seen so many hot girls in one place in my entire life.

[MusicMan]

translation:  I have never seen so many hot girls in one place in my entire life.

A 6 on the UT campus is a 9 most anywhere else.

[chuck]

A 6 on the UT campus is a 9 most anywhere else.

Anywhere else in Travis County maybe.

[MusicMan]

Anywhere else in Travis County maybe.

In general:
UT campus coeds > Texas women > Southern women > Manhattan women > California girls > rest of the country

[HudsonHawk]

In general:
UT campus coeds > Texas women > Southern women > Manhattan women > California girls > rest of the country

Ummmmm....no.

[MusicMan]

Ummmmm....no.

The only thing worse than whining that your women didn't make my list is whining that your women were ranked too low.

[HudsonHawk]

The only thing worse than whining that your women didn't make my list is whining that your women were ranked too low.

The problem with your list isn't who *didn't* make it.

[hostros7]

The only thing worse than whining that your women didn't make my list is whining that your women were ranked too low.

Manhattan definitely trumps UT.  It's where the truly hot UT women go after graduation and once they actually have learned how to work a dick.

--Alkie

[MusicMan]

The problem with your list isn't who *didn't* make it.

I can't belive you're even debating this.  This is settled science.

[Rebel Jew]

If being assigned some random number at the end-of-year tournament were somehow remotely analogous to having the financial resources to acquire better players before the season starts, then you might have a point.  But since it isn't, you're babbling.

#1 seeds make the final four, sweet sixteen, etc. at a FAR higher rate than any other seed, including the second seed, and have never lost a first round game. If it were random, and if seeding brought no advantage, then the numbers would not play out so drastically.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/history/finalfourseeds

[HudsonHawk]

#1 seeds make the final four, sweet sixteen, etc. at a FAR higher rate than any other seed, including the second seed, and have never lost a first round game. If it were random, and if seeding brought no advantage, then the numbers would not play out so drastically.

Geez, you need a seriousl lesson in causality and basic logic.  The #1 seeds advance farther because they're typically the better teams, not because of the seeding number they've been assigned.  I guarantee you that if you change the seeding and give Ohio St, Duke, Kansas and Pitt #16 seeds, and UTSA, Hampton, Boston and UNCA #1 seeds, you'd see some #1's lose, probably at a pretty fucking high clip.

[HudsonHawk]

I can't belive you're even debating this.  This is settled science.

My research has shown that as I get older, the chicks everywhere get hotter.

[Bench]

The #1 seeds advance farther because they're typically the better teams

Random numbers, forsooth.

[subnuclear]

A randomly generated bracket would result in more frequent losses of the top 4 poll-ranked teams in the first round than the system they use now. Whether it would be a big difference is anybody's guess.

[Rebel Jew]

Geez, you need a seriousl lesson in causality and basic logic.  The #1 seeds advance farther because they're typically the better teams, not because of the seeding number they've been assigned.  I guarantee you that if you change the seeding and give Ohio St, Duke, Kansas and Pitt #16 seeds, and UTSA, Hampton, Boston and UNCA #1 seeds, you'd see some #1's lose, probably at a pretty fucking high clip.

Thanks, I didn't realize that the #1 seeds are typically the better teams and that if the worst teams were #1 seeds then they wouldn't do as well. Finally an argument on your level!

[Bench]

Thanks, I didn't realize that the #1 seeds are typically the better teams and that if the worst teams were #1 seeds then they wouldn't do as well. Finally an argument on your level!

Next step:  Hawaiian shirts!

[chuck]

Manhattan definitely trumps UT.  It's where the truly hot UT women go after graduation and once they actually have learned how to work a dick.

--Alkie

And this is all true. What you are neglecting to consider is that the women in south Florida smoke any other group of US American chicks.

[MusicMan]

And this is all true. What you are neglecting to consider is that the women in south Florida smoke any other group of US American chicks.

south Florida = Southern women.

[Ebby Calvin]

And this is all true. What you are neglecting to consider is that the women in south Florida smoke any other group of US American chicks.

You're totally right.

[Bench]

south Florida = Southern women.

I wouldn't consider Miami culturally "southern."

[HudsonHawk]

Thanks, I didn't realize that the #1 seeds are typically the better teams and that if the worst teams were #1 seeds then they wouldn't do as well. Finally an argument on your level!

Well, we have to start you out with baby steps. 

[MusicMan]

I wouldn't consider Miami culturally "southern."

Well, it's culturally "Cuban", but I wasn't getting into that level of subdivision, barring Manhattan, which was simply throwing Alkie and chuck a bone.

[EasTexAstro]

And this is all true. What you are neglecting to consider is that the women in south Florida smoke any other group of US American chicks.

<required>Except my wife</required>

[HudsonHawk]

A randomly generated bracket would result in more frequent losses of the top 4 poll-ranked teams in the first round than the system they use now. Whether it would be a big difference is anybody's guess.

Of course.  If it were random, you'd end up with #1's against #1, guaranteeing that one would lose.  That's the purpose of seeding.  No one wants to see Duke and Kansas in the first round and end up with Wofford and Butler in the Final Four.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

"marquis" as in "better", not "sells more tshirts". 

Kinda like how the star actors and/or directors have their names above the movie title on the marquee in front of a theater, but you have to wait until the opening credits roll to find the co-stars names.

[HudsonHawk]

Kinda like how the star actors and/or directors have their names above the movie title on the marquee in front of a theater, but you have to wait until the opening credits roll to find the co-stars names.

On a totally unrelated  note...I recently read and article that talked about the significance of "above title" billing in Hollywood.  And how big a deal it is to have your name in all caps, first on the list, ect.  There's a significant amount of money at stake.  It was really interesting.

[Gizzmonic]

What's this about chicks smoking chicks?

[JimR]

I will never get the time back I wasted readding this thread. I loved Jay Bilas' comment about the committee: "I do not think some of them know that the ball is round." 

[Mr. Happy]

I will never get the time back I wasted readding this thread.

Couldn't this be said of virtually every thread on SnS?

[austro]

Ok, I'm through 1 1/2 games on TruTV, and if I see another one of their stupid commercials I may blow up my television.

[TheWizard]

So was the end result of this thread that the NCAA was correct in its seeding? The team went from being in the running for #1 in the nation to being bounced before even reaching the Sweet 16 by a good, not great, Arizona team - that's the "fun" of the NCAA tourney.

[Ron Brand]

You must have missed that other thread where it was shown that the NCAA reached an agreement with the refs to continue their plum employment in return for validating their seedings.

[JimR]

So was the end result of this thread that the NCAA was correct in its seeding? The team went from being in the running for #1 in the nation to being bounced before even reaching the Sweet 16 by a good, not great, Arizona team - that's the "fun" of the NCAA tourney.

yes, lord. it is clear what game you did not watch. it is also clear what team you dislike.

[Duke]

So was the end result of this thread that the NCAA was correct in its seeding? The team went from being in the running for #1 in the nation to being bounced before even reaching the Sweet 16 by a good, not great, Arizona team - that's the "fun" of the NCAA tourney.

So did the NCAA get it rigtht with Pitt? 

[TheWizard]

yes, lord. it is clear what game you did not watch. it is also clear what team you dislike.

Is it clear which team I don't like?

Obviously not, if you are inferring what I think you are, that I dislike UT.

And while the refs did hose them at the end, they were down by 15 in the 1st half. Valiant effort coming back. Whether they squeaked out that close game or not, they weren't going to make much more noise in this tournament in my opinion.

[JimR]

Is it clear which team I don't like?

Obviously not, if you are inferring what I think you are, that I dislike UT.

And while the refs did hose them at the end, they were down by 15 in the 1st half. Valiant effort coming back. Whether they squeaked out that close game or not, they weren't going to make much more noise in this tournament in my opinion.

who gives a shit what your opinion about the future is or how far they were down. the only thing that matters, especially in tournament play, is the final score. there are no style points; win and advance. they were down 11 at the half, down 13 in the second half, and led by two when the official screwed them.

answer the fucking question about Pitt. did the NCAA get that seed right? they're gone also.

[TheWizard]

who gives a shit what your opinion about the future is or how far they were down. the only thing that matters, especially in tournament play, is the final score. there are no style points; win and advance. they were down 11 at the half, down 13 in the second half, and led by two when the official screwed them.

answer the fucking question about Pitt. did the NCAA get that seed right? they're gone also.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't give an opinion of how far down they were, that is a fact, not an opinion. And my opinion is that they weren't gonna go very far in the tournament if they did go further along - and my opinion matters just as much as anything else in here, its a sports forum of fans spouting off opinions. These are all opinions! And no there aren't style points - what REALLY matters, is that they got a loss and are out of the tournament. Bitching about it, while making you feel better, doesn't change that fact. Games are won over the course of 40 minutes, not the last minute. It seems from reading this board that years ago you were some sort of baseball coach, but maybe basketball isn't your game? No bball coach I've ever had would have given us the benefit of crying about losing a game from that ending, they would have drummed in our head that we should have beaten a team they were better than over the course of 40 minutes. Its cliche, but the older you get, you realize its true.

And I didn't think that the Pitt question was a question I needed to answer, it seemed like a rhetorical "how bout that" type of question. But if you want my opinion on it, even though you didn't before (since no one gives a shit), I think that PITT deserved the #1 because they won arguably the best conference in the NCAA this year and got unlucky in that they had to face Butler, who deserved to be ranked higher especially considering they had a good season and have done well in the past few seasons.

[Rebel Jew]

who gives a shit what your opinion about the future is or how far they were down. the only thing that matters, especially in tournament play, is the final score. there are no style points; win and advance. they were down 11 at the half, down 13 in the second half, and led by two when the official screwed them.

answer the fucking question about Pitt. did the NCAA get that seed right? they're gone also.

Getting it "right" is not really the point. It's just about getting a decent idea of where everybody stands after the regular season and conference tournaments. When you consider that they are tasked with numerically ranking 60-whatever teams (and determining an overall hierarchy among 300-whatever), they actually do a pretty remarkable job if you ask me, particularly of mixing hard stats like strength of schedule with subjective factors like injuries and how well a team appears to be playing at the time of the tourney.

[austro]

Getting it "right" is not really the point. It's just about getting a decent idea of where everybody stands after the regular season and conference tournaments. When you consider that they are tasked with numerically ranking 60-whatever teams (and determining an overall hierarchy among 300-whatever), they actually do a pretty remarkable job if you ask me, particularly of mixing hard stats like strength of schedule with subjective factors like injuries and how well a team appears to be playing at the time of the tourney.

I still think they're somewhat blinded by the big conferences, to the detriment of the mid-majors. There are a lot of good basketball players in the country nowadays, more than can fill the rosters of 25 or 30 major colleges. I would have much rather seen, for example, Missouri St or Harvard in this year's tournament than a couple of those Big East teams that we've already seen a dozen times this year. None of those teams are going to win the whole thing, but more exposure for these other leagues would be a good thing, in my opinion. The BCS conferences already get all of the football money; do they have to get the basketball money too?

[jbm]

7 seconds to go. Score tied. "If your BYU, Do you foul?"

One reason why seedings are important is to have relatively balanced brackets. The UConn/SDSU game looks to be a much higher caliber match than BYU/UF.

[MusicMan]

I'm confused by the BYU/UF game.  I was told Jimmer Fredette was good.

[Mr. Happy]

I'm confused by the BYU/UF game.  I was told Jimmer Fredette was good.

Jimmer Fredette is a ball-hog!

[JimR]

Tell me about Arizona now, Wizard.

[MusicMan]

Tell me about Arizona now, Wizard.

That was more fun than a little bit.

[JimR]

Williams struggles against UT, and he destroys Duke.

[MusicMan]

Williams struggles against UT, and he destroys Duke.

Coaching defense doesn't count.

[JimR]

And, hey, Wizard genius. Yes I was "some sort of baseball coach," and you do not win a game over 9 innings or 40 minutes. You win it on the scoreboard and it dos not matter how you played up to the 9th or the last minute. UT led with 14 seconds to go, and that official, maybe intentionally, screwed them.

Now, take your opinions and fuck off.

[Rebel Jew]

I still think they're somewhat blinded by the big conferences, to the detriment of the mid-majors. There are a lot of good basketball players in the country nowadays, more than can fill the rosters of 25 or 30 major colleges. I would have much rather seen, for example, Missouri St or Harvard in this year's tournament than a couple of those Big East teams that we've already seen a dozen times this year. None of those teams are going to win the whole thing, but more exposure for these other leagues would be a good thing, in my opinion. The BCS conferences already get all of the football money; do they have to get the basketball money too?

If the committee is biased toward big conferences it's wayyyy less biased than it used to be, and the trend is only going in the other direction. Up until fairly recently, it was almost unheard of for a mid-major to get an at-large bid, especially one above an 11 or 12 seed. You'd need to have an unreal season, like 29-2 or something like that, and get upset in your tournament final-- and even then you'd have to sweat. Now mid-majors are commonly getting seeded in the top half of the brackets, and you're commonly getting first round matchups that are mid-major against mid-major.

[ybbodeus]

I'm confused by the BYU/UF game.  I was told Jimmer Fredette was good.

Jimmer Fredette is a ball-hog!

As I watched him last night, at times I thought I was looking at a combination of Lloyd B. Free and Pete Maravich with a lot more of the former but a dash of the latter.  

[TheWizard]

Tell me about Arizona now, Wizard.

Arizona played a helluva game, it was fun to watch. Plus I hate Duke. Its what makes the tournament great to watch, upsets can happen at any time.

It doesn't change anything that was said earlier though. Like was mentioned by others, seeding isn't meant to determine who is going to win the tournament, its meant to be a barometer of you regular season accolades and strength of the team.  Duke deserved a#1 seed, just like Pitt did. That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to beat every team ranked lower (obviously). If Duke and Arizona play 10 times, does Arizona win 5 games or more? Who knows, but I'd say most likely not. Single game elimination puts a lot of importance on coaching staff making adjustments NOW, not after watching game tape.  Its reasons teams like Purdue get elimated when their coach gets shell shocked after VCU throws something at them they weren't expecting. Plus, to get back to seeding and better teams - FSU beat Duke earlier this year. Does that mean that FSU is a better team? Absolutely not, but they can compete with them. Any team in the field can show up and beat another Div1 school, espcially if they match up well.

And your opinion is completely garbage or you just don't want to admit I'm right for some sort of message board e-macho reason.  Games are won over 40 minutes.  And yes, the scoreboard indicates victory, but you win games over the course of the ballgame, not in one play.  And the refs intentionally hosed us??? Comon, you gotta be shitting me. That is the argument some 14 year old kid would give when their team loses. So take your opinions also, and shove them. Who raised you to believe that no one else's opinions who are different than yours don't matter? Haha. Message board macho-ism at work I guess.

Great games last night though.

[JimR]

Arizona played a helluva game, it was fun to watch. Plus I hate Duke. Its what makes the tournament great to watch, upsets can happen at any time.

It doesn't change anything that was said earlier though. Like was mentioned by others, seeding isn't meant to determine who is going to win the tournament, its meant to be a barometer of you regular season accolades and strength of the team.  Duke deserved a#1 seed, just like Pitt did. That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to beat every team ranked lower (obviously). If Duke and Arizona play 10 times, does Arizona win 5 games or more? Who knows, but I'd say most likely not. Single game elimination puts a lot of importance on coaching staff making adjustments NOW, not after watching game tape.  Its reasons teams like Purdue get elimated when their coach gets shell shocked after VCU throws something at them they weren't expecting. Plus, to get back to seeding and better teams - FSU beat Duke earlier this year. Does that mean that FSU is a better team? Absolutely not, but they can compete with them. Any team in the field can show up and beat another Div1 school, espcially if they match up well.

And your opinion is completely garbage or you just don't want to admit I'm right for some sort of message board e-macho reason.  Games are won over 40 minutes.  And yes, the scoreboard indicates victory, but you win games over the course of the ballgame, not in one play.  And the refs intentionally hosed us??? Comon, you gotta be shitting me. That is the argument some 14 year old kid would give when their team loses. So take your opinions also, and shove them. Who raised you to believe that no one else's opinions who are different than yours don't matter? Haha. Message board macho-ism at work I guess.

Great games last night though.

so, if UT had won that game, it would not have counted because UT sure as hell did not win it over the full 40 minutes. ludicrous. a team can play like shit for most of the game, and win at the end.

ESPN's Pat Forde in his blog last Sunday night: that call very well could have been "the mother of all makeup calls" because the AZ coach went to the baseline after the TO and screamed at the official handling the in-bounds play for not calling a foul on Williams' last shot. he's 14 also, i guess.

plenty of opinions of others matter to me. not yours, though.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Pete Maravich averaged 44 points a game for his college career. Just sayin'.

[Mr. Happy]

Pete Maravich averaged 44 points a game for his college career. Just sayin'.

Without a three point line to boot and playing with a marginal team too. I had the privilege of watching him play both at LSU and with the New Orleans Jazz. He was truly one-of-a-kind. He was the hardest worker in the game back then. Drills, drills, drills, etc. I saw a horse game at Joe Dean basketball camp between Maravich and Joe Dean, Jr. when I was a teenager. You should have seen the array of trick shots that these two guys displayed, shots they'd obviously practiced!

[ybbodeus]

Again, a "dash of the latter (Maravich)", not a carbon copy.  He's more Lloyd Free in that once the ball is his, odds are it's his for good. 

[Mr. Happy]

Again, a "dash of the latter (Maravich)", not a carbon copy.  He's more Lloyd Free in that once the ball is his, odds are it's his for good. 

Who you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

[ybbodeus]

Jimmer there, Arnold.  

Another guy I enjoyed watching play in that era was Ernie DiGregorio of Providence, who came along a few years after Pistol Pete.  Pete was a taller more complete player than Ernie--passing, shooting, dribbling--but Ernie D was as original a passer as I'd ever seen at that point--I was only 9 when I saw Pistol Pete, 13 with Ernie D.

Butchered the spelling of his name....fixed.

[Mr. Happy]

Jimmer there, Arnold.  

Another guy I enjoyed watching play in that era was Ernie DiGregorio of Providence, who came along a few years after Pistol Pete.  Pete was a taller more complete player than Ernie--passing, shooting, dribbling--but Ernie D was as original a passer as I'd ever seen at that point--I was only 9 when I saw Pistol Pete, 13 with Ernie D.

Butchered the spelling of his name....fixed.

I too enjoyed watching Ernie D!

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Ernie D could light 'em up like a poor man's Calvin Murphy.

[drew corleone]

The first time I watched Jimmer play, I couldn't help thinking, "Brandy Perriman with ball-handling skills."

[ybbodeus]

The city of Memphis became an Ernie D fan.  The then Memphis State Tigers knocked them off in the semis, but Ernie put on a show that folks talked about for years...behind the back passes from halfcourt to Barnes for alley-oop type plays--no dunking in those days--and dribble/passing exhibitions that had the whole place whooping (no offense, Aggies).

The Friars were up 7 at the half, I believe, but their incredible power forward Marvin Barnes got hurt, and they couldn't hold on.

Then Walton went nuts a couple nights later.  Still hard to believe that game was tied at the half.  Walton untied the shit out of it.

[MusicMan]

The first time I watched Jimmer play, I couldn't help thinking, "Brandy Perriman with ball-handling skills."

Holy shit that man could shoot.

[sporadic]

The first time I watched Jimmer play, I couldn't help thinking, "Brandy Perriman with ball-handling skills."

I think of Seinfeld.  JIMMER CAN SHOOT FROM LONG RANGE!  JIMMER CAN SCORE!!

[ybbodeus]

Holy shit that man could shoot.

Better'n Krivacs?  (favorite basketball horn during my college years)  

[MusicMan]

Better'n Krivacs?  (favorite basketball horn during my college years) 

Better than anyone I've ever seen wear the burnt orange.  Absolutely no other basketball skills, but he could shoot like Jimmy Chitwood.

[Rebel Jew]

Better than anyone I've ever seen wear the burnt orange.  Absolutely no other basketball skills, but he could shoot like Jimmy Chitwood.

brandy perryman?

[MusicMan]

brandy perryman?

Yes, that's who I'm talking about.

[Rebel Jew]

Yes, that's who I'm talking about.

I just read back in this thread enough to see that's who you were indeed talking about. i'm an idiot or esp or both

[drew corleone]

Was it Perryman? My bad. Anyway, in pregames, dude would hit half-court shots like they were mid-range jumpers. I don't think I've ever seen a guy that could hit them from deep the way he could. And watching Fredette play, that was who popped into my mind, because I saw Jimmer hit some pretty crazy shots, too. And he could actually create them himself.

[JimR]

Perryman was a spot up catch and shoot guy. He had no other skills. He was a prime target for Penders' drunk calls.

[MusicMan]

Perryman was a spot up catch and shoot guy. He had no other skills.

Quite so.  But that one skill... my oh my.

He was a prime target for Penders' drunk calls.

/shudders

[ybbodeus]

Missouri fans sure do hate them some Kansas.

http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=8282001

[MusicMan]

Missouri fans sure do hate them some Kansas.

http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=8282001

"Good, good... let the hate flow through you..."

[Rebel Jew]

Quite so.  But that one skill... my oh my.

/shudders

I remember being in Chicago watching UT-Wisconsin in the first round of the '97 tourney with a room full of Wisconsin fans. Mid-second half, UT with a solid 8 or so point lead, Wisconsin fans starting to get nervous. UT on offense, Wisconsin player fails to rotate over and Perryman gets the ball wide open on the wing. Before he even got the ball everybody in the room was like "no, not him!" He hadn't even taken a shot so far in the game but they could just tell by his body shape and the way UT kept trying to force the ball to him on the perimeter.