NCAA Tourney Thread

[MB73]

Dude if you're gonna say it's random that marquette made the sweet 16 how is it not random that the other teams didn't? Big East was still a really solid conference. Maybe not the best ever but super deep and really great teams at the top too. In a 1 game and you're out format, weird things can happen.

No, that is not it at all.

Think.

Part of the "random" is that Marquette beat Syracuse, another Big East team, to get to the Sweet 16. I know it can be argued both ways.

Another part of "random" is purely "numbers", if you put in enough teams in from a conference, someone might get a good bracket draw and / or get hot and get to the Sweet 16. (OK, I'll say it... Alabama, VT, Colorado... they might have gotten a good draw and made it if they got in). NUMBERS.

The other Big East teams, that did not play each other in the 2nd round, got beat fair and square, by much lower seeds / non-power league teams / and / or by large point margins. All of them losing in this manner clearly is not random.

Example: Florida State took apart Notre Dame. No contest. AND without their superstar player Singleton, he came off the bench, played 10 minutes, did not score.

[jbizzle09]

I didn't care about changing your opinion. I only cared about giving mine. There's a difference. If you keep your opinion, change to mine or another altogether, I really don't care...no offense intended.

You said you didn't care about my opinion one way or the other. I am stating that to be a false statement. Otherwise, why respond to my Big East post at all then? Obviously, you cared enough to to pointedly disagree with what you felt was a differing opinion. Whether or not you felt like changing it, you obviously cared enough about what I had to say to offer your opinion and then start this monster of a thread.

Seriously, you are now getting into such ridiculous semantics that there really is no way anyone can have any kind of reasonable debate/argument/discussion with you. We have now reached the levels of the ridiculously sublime in this thread. First you state that KShoe contradicted himself in a post when he clearly didn't (and you know he didn't) and now you are acting like you don't care what anyone's opinion is of the Big East in a thread where you have made dozens of posts arguing with those who feel the Big East is overrated!

I, for one, am REALLY glad that there are more NCAA games going on tonight. Of course, I now know that these games don't mean a whole lot, but it is a fun little diversion nonetheless.

[courtside]

You said you didn't care about my opinion one way or the other. I am stating that to be a false statement. Otherwise, why respond to my Big East post at all then? Obviously, you cared enough to to pointedly disagree with what you felt was a differing opinion. Whether or not you felt like changing it, you obviously cared enough about what I had to say to offer your opinion and then start this monster of a thread.

Seriously, you are now getting into such ridiculous semantics that there really is no way anyone can have any kind of reasonable debate/argument/discussion with you. We have now reached the levels of the ridiculously sublime in this thread. First you state that KShoe contradicted himself in a post when he clearly didn't (and you know he didn't) and now you are acting like you don't care what anyone's opinion is of the Big East in a thread where you have made dozens of posts arguing with those who feel the Big East is overrated!

I, for one, am REALLY glad that there are more NCAA games going on tonight. Of course, I now know that these games don't mean a whole lot, but it is a fun little diversion nonetheless.

What you seem to consistently struggle with as do some others here...is the all or nothing approach. I never said the NCAA's weren't important or don't mean a whole lot. I said they weren't the only thing. That opinion hasn't changed. I also stated that the Big East wasn't overrated this season. That opinion hasn't changed. The top part isn't as good as recent years but the depth is better. And the improvement is in part to some teams and leagues being even worse as opposed to the Big East being better than ever.

[courtside]

No, that is not it at all.

Think.

Part of the "random" is that Marquette beat Syracuse, another Big East team, to get to the Sweet 16. I know it can be argued both ways.

Another part of "random" is purely "numbers", if you put in enough teams in from a conference, someone might get a good bracket draw and / or get hot and get to the Sweet 16. (OK, I'll say it... Alabama, VT, Colorado... they might have gotten a good draw and made it if they got in). NUMBERS.

The other Big East teams, that did not play each other in the 2nd round, got beat fair and square, by much lower seeds / non-power league teams / and / or by large point margins. All of them losing in this manner clearly is not random.

Example: Florida State took apart Notre Dame. No contest. AND without their superstar player Singleton, he came off the bench, played 10 minutes, did not score.

I see you've mentioned your three teams. And which three would you not have included from the Big East?

[MB73]

I see you've mentioned your three teams. And which three would you not have included from the Big East?

That is the tougher question, isn't it? I know you have counter arguments to support any that I would exclude.

I am merely stating that The Big East should not have 11 of 16 teams in the NCAA's and the first two rounds results prove it.

Seven were ousted early by other conferences, including some non power conferences, lower seeds. Embarrasing.

The only two that survived beat another Big East team to get to the the Sweet 16.

I choose not to quibble over what teams should not have been included, etc. Argue with yourself, have fun.

(Hey, and do you still think there is a 100% chance that the Cardinals sign Pujols?)

[courtside]

That is the tougher question, isn't it? I know you have counter arguments to support any that I would exclude.

I am merely stating that The Big East should not have 11 of 16 teams in the NCAA's and the first two rounds results prove it.

Seven were ousted early by other conferences, including some non power conferences, lower seeds. Embarrasing.

The only two that survived beat another Big East team to get to the the Sweet 16.

I choose not to quibble over what teams should not have been included, etc. Argue with yourself, have fun.

(Hey, and do you still think there is a 100% chance that the Cardinals sign Pujols?)

The ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Southeastern Conference, etc..all lost games to non-BCS schools. And many BCS schools won games vs other BCS and non-BCS schools.

The teams are selected based on the regular season, not the results of the post-season. I must have missed your post questioning the 11 teams "prior" to the NCAA's. And, I must have missed your post "prior" to the NCAA's where you name the three you'd exclude.

Every school has lost games. There aren't any undefeated teams.

Albert Pujols? Not sure where that is coming from...? But yes I do believe he'll re-sign with the Cardinals.

[jbizzle09]

That is the tougher question, isn't it? I know you have counter arguments to support any that I would exclude.

I am merely stating that The Big East should not have 11 of 16 teams in the NCAA's and the first two rounds results prove it.

Seven were ousted early by other conferences, including some non power conferences, lower seeds. Embarrasing.

The only two that survived beat another Big East team to get to the the Sweet 16.

I choose not to quibble over what teams should not have been included, etc. Argue with yourself, have fun.

(Hey, and do you still think there is a 100% chance that the Cardinals sign Pujols?)

MB, the way to really look at it is like this. The Big East accounted for 9 of the top 24 seeds of the tournament. That is 37.5%. Despite having such a large percentage of the top seeds, the conference was only able to move one of those 9 onto the Sweet 16. Other BCS conferences were represented as such:

Big 10 - 3 of 24 (12.5%). Two made Sweet 16.

SEC - 3 of 24 (12.5%). Two made Sweet 16.

Big 12 - 3 of 24 (12.5%). One made Sweet 16.

ACC - 2 of 24 (8.3%). Two made Sweet 16.

Pac-10 - 1 of 24 (4.2%). One made Sweet 16.

The remaining 3 teams came from the MWC (2) and A-10 (1). The two MWC teams made the Sweet 16.

The Big East had as many top seeded teams than the Big 10, SEC and Big 12 COMBINED. Of the 11 teams seeded 1-6 to move onto the Sweet 16, 10 came from conferences other than the Big East. This gave the other conferences a success rate of 66.7% while the Big East was at 11.1%. I know that we both agree that the Big East was overrated this season, so I am not arguing at all with you. Just offering you some stats for thought and maybe to help clarify your position.

[MB73]

The ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Southeastern Conference, etc..all lost games to non-BCS schools. And many BCS schools won games vs other BCS and non-BCS schools.

The teams are selected based on the regular season, not the results of the post-season. I must have missed your post questioning the 11 teams "prior" to the NCAA's. And, I must have missed your post "prior" to the NCAA's where you name the three you'd exclude.

Every school has lost games. There aren't any undefeated teams.

Albert Pujols? Not sure where that is coming from...? But yes I do believe he'll re-sign with the Cardinals.

Sure, other BCS conferences suffered some upsets.

But the Big East es-ploded. 7 teams got beat by other conferences. Embarrasing, some were pounded by lower seeds, mid majors, etc.

So there is no comparison. And you know it. Nice try.

(& you DID say there was a 100% chance that The Cardinals will sign Pujols. On the OT Pujols thread.

100% = quite a number. Do you deny it? 100%, you wrote!)

[courtside]

MB, the way to really look at it is like this. The Big East accounted for 9 of the top 24 seeds of the tournament. That is 37.5%. Despite having such a large percentage of the top seeds, the conference was only able to move one of those 9 onto the Sweet 16. Other BCS conferences were represented as such:

Big 10 - 3 of 24 (12.5%). Two made Sweet 16.

SEC - 3 of 24 (12.5%). Two made Sweet 16.

Big 12 - 3 of 24 (12.5%). One made Sweet 16.

ACC - 2 of 24 (8.3%). Two made Sweet 16.

Pac-10 - 1 of 24 (4.2%). One made Sweet 16.

The remaining 3 teams came from the MWC (2) and A-10 (1). The two MWC teams made the Sweet 16.

The Big East had as many top seeded teams than the Big 10, SEC and Big 12 COMBINED. Of the 11 teams seeded 1-6 to move onto the Sweet 16, 10 came from conferences other than the Big East. This gave the other conferences a success rate of 66.7% while the Big East was at 11.1%. I know that we both agree that the Big East was overrated this season, so I am not arguing at all with you. Just offering you some stats for thought and maybe to help clarify your position.

Connecticut and Marquette were not the two best teams in the Big East this season. Regular season and NCAA's are two different, separate things. Their NCAA results don't make them underrated this season.