Five Minutes to Basketballukah (i.e. The March Madness Thread)

[Swaggs]

A whole lot of people had 3 ACC teams in the Final 4 (Wake, UNC, and Duke), so I think it would be pretty bad for them to only put one team past the Sweet 16.

I'm not sure who to root for in this UNC-Nova game. UNC is the only ACC team I like, I live on the Chapel Hill-Durham border, my wife works at UNC, I will probably be going to school there sometime in the next two years, and I definitely like them more than Nova, but I really hate the ACC and love the Big East. I guess I will just enjoy.

[MikeVic]

AHH. How did May miss that.

[cthomer5000]

I picked Carolina to win this game, but I picked Wisconsin to reach the final 4. I'm almost rooting against Carolina now, figuring it gives Wisconsin a better shot to move on.

[JSB]

Based on seeds only
Big East
Should have 8 wins by the Final 4
Currently has 7

ACC
Should have 12
Currently has 8

UNC has some catching up to do

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JSB

Based on seeds only
Big East
Should have 8 wins by the Final 4
Currently has 7

I count 9

UCONN - 15 seed, 10, 6
BC - 13, 12
Cuse - 13, 5
WV - 10
Nova - 12

[TargetPractice6]

State of Kentucky (3 Teams) vs State of North Carolina (5 Teams) in the NCAA tournament.

Kentucky teams 6-1, two Elite 8 teams.

North Carolina teams, 8-4, one Elite 8 team.

[Ragone]

Ref's just handed that game to North Carolina.. i've watched that alledged "travel" 6 times in slow mo now.. and stupid rafferty is like count it with me.. 1.. 2... 3...

yet the 3rd step never comes everytime i watch it..

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Ref's just handed that game to North Carolina.. i've watched that alledged "travel" 6 times in slow mo now.. and stupid rafferty is like count it with me.. 1.. 2... 3...

yet the 3rd step never comes everytime i watch it..

UNC is my favourite team, but I have to agree with you here... I didn't see it in slow mo, but the two times I saw it on normal replay, I didn't see the third step either.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hmm, you mention prior years and next season, but fail to address the point I was making involving THIS season. Hey, if having 6 teams in the tourney and 4 leave after losing to worse seeds or in the first round is your idea of a successful tourney, enjoy your conference's "success". The Pac-10 will probably have just as many teams in the Elite 8 as the Big East, despite having fewer teams in both their conference and the tourney.

West Virginia is a very good team and one I have thoroughly enjoyed watching. But that doesn't change the fact the Big East's three best teams (UCONN, BC and Syracuse) all had embarassing losses to double-digit seeds. You can bring in prior seasons or speculate about next season until you are blue in the face, but that fact makes it pretty clear to me that the Big East laid an egg in this tourney overall.

And I take it the Pac Ten's idea of success is having the same number of teams in the Elite 8 as the Big East? Obviously this tournament was a disappointment for some of the top Big East teams. I was never disputing that. I still think it's the best basketball conference and will be even better next year. If you want to base everything on just this tournament, then you'd have to say the Big Ten is the best conference.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

And I take it the Pac Ten's idea of success is having the same number of teams in the Elite 8 as the Big East?

When you have two fewer teams in the tourney and half your teams are 8 or worse seeds, yeah. I'd say having a team in the Elite 8 isn't a bad showing. Remember, the Pac-10 only has 10 teams and new coaches at a bunch of programs (UCLA, Stanford being the most noteable). The loss by Washington hurts, but not as bad as three top teams losing to such powerhouses as UW-Milwaukee, Vermont and NC State.

Obviously this tournament was a disappointment for some of the top Big East teams. I was never disputing that. I still think it's the best basketball conference and will be even better next year. If you want to base everything on just this tournament, then you'd have to say the Big Ten is the best conference.

I agree that I was probably a little too hard on the Big East, but having the conference's top 3 teams all lose to double digit seeds is quite a disappoinment. And, yeah, I think people need to look at the Big Ten in a different light. They were certainly underrated during the season.

As to next season, you are basically swapping out BC (#4 seed) with Lousville (#4 seed). You add BC to the ACC and you have an unbelievably tough conference.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Arles

As to next season, you are basically swapping out BC (#4 seed) with Lousville (#4 seed). You add BC to the ACC and you have an unbelievably tough conference.

BC has done nothing in their long history of the Big East. In fact, they are the only original Big East team to have never made a Final Four. Louisville is a clear upgrade. I might even say Cincinnati is an upgrade of BC.

BC will go and make noise in the ACC though. If VT and Miami could do what they did in that conference, then BC should immediatly become a top 3 team down there. And lets face it, VT and Miami did not suddenly become good teams this year. VT never even played in the Big East tournament, and suddenly they are #4 in the ACC? I think that speak volumns about how good the ACC really is.

I don't personally give a crap if the ACC is better than the Big East, or if the Big 10 is underrated. Conference records in the tournament is hardly a good indicator of how good a conference is. Teams get hot, other teams get upset, and seedings and matchups are hardly equal down the line.

Can't it suffice to say that the BE and ACC are good conferences that will have national title contenders every single year, along with 4 or 5 or 6 other teams who could make the tournament? Throw the Big12, Big 10 and Pac 10 into that category as well. (sorry SEC lovers. )

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Marmel

BC has done nothing in their long history of the Big East.

No argument there. Still, they won the Big East in 00-01, tied for the regular season title this year and have made the tourney four of the past five seasons. That's a better track record over the past five seasons than Lousville or Cincy. For a guy pimping the Big East, you are knocking a team that finished 13-3 in conference this season. What does that say about your league?

In fact, they are the only original Big East team to have never made a Final Four. Louisville is a clear upgrade. I might even say Cincinnati is an upgrade of BC.

Yeah, Louisville last made the final 4 in 1986 and hadn't made it to the Sweet 16 in a decade prior to 05. Cincinnati is perhaps the most overrated program in college hoops. Since 97, they've made one Sweet 16 despite having numerous high seeds. Again, Louisville is definately a program on the rise and easily makes up for BC, but Cincy is not going to make much noise in the Big East.

BC will go and make noise in the ACC though.

Well, they finished 13-3 in the great Big East this season, so they are not that bad. Still, Duke, UNC, Maryland and Georgia Tech all have better programs right now. BC will fight for that 5th to 6th place spot.

If VT and Miami could do what they did in that conference

If you go by the criteria the NCAA selection committee uses, VT was the 7th best team in the ACC and Miami was the 8th. What - were they supposed to come in and finish dead late behind FSU?

then BC should immediatly become a top 3 team down there.

So, just so I get this straight. A team that finished tied for first in the Big East regular season going to the ACC and being "3rd" (which I disagree with on program strength and talent) is a knock on the ACC?

How about the Big East allowing a team like BC to basically dominate their league in 05?

VT never even played in the Big East tournament, and suddenly they are #4 in the ACC? I think that speak volumns about how good the ACC really is.

If VT was the fourth best team, why weren't they one of the four NCAA bids or even the top bubble team (Maryland)?

Can't it suffice to say that the BE and ACC are good conferences that will have national title contenders every single year, along with 4 or 5 or 6 other teams who could make the tournament? Throw the Big12, Big 10 and Pac 10 into that category as well. (sorry SEC lovers. )

I would certainly agree with that. But I think the ACC is still a level above all other conferences. And it's not like I am a big ACC fanboy

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Arles

No argument there. Still, they won the Big East in 00-01, tied for the regular season title this year and have made the tourney four of the past five seasons. That's a better track record over the past five seasons than Lousville or Cincy. For a guy pimping the Big East, you are knocking a team that finished 13-3 in conference this season. What does that say about your league?

It says they had a good year, with unbalanced scheduling though. They also got knocked out in our quarter finals. This is not a team that competed, or will compete for the top spot in the league in most years.

Originally Posted by arles

Yeah, Louisville last made the final 4 in 1986 and hadn't made it to the Sweet 16 in a decade prior to 05. Cincinnati is perhaps the most overrated program in college hoops. Since 97, they've made one Sweet 16 despite having numerous high seeds. Again, Louisville is definately a program on the rise and easily makes up for BC, but Cincy is not going to make much noise in the Big East.

Cincy is much like Pitt. I think they will fit in nicely in the Big East with their style of play, and be in the upper half of the league table. Then again, Pitt's and Cincy's style of play does not bode well for the tournament. That doesn't make them bad teams, but it makes it hard for them to advance because games are called tighter in the tournament and these guys like to bang.

Originally Posted by arles

Well, they finished 13-3 in the great Big East this season, so they are not that bad. Still, Duke, UNC, Maryland and Georgia Tech all have better programs right now. BC will fight for that 5th to 6th place spot.

How did VT finish ahead of Maryland and Gtech? I think you give those teams a bit too much credit. I can't believe how fast Maryland has slipped and Gtech had a nice run last year, but really are not all that great.

Originally Posted by arles

If you go by the criteria the NCAA selection committee uses, VT was the 7th best team in the ACC and Miami was the 8th. What - were they supposed to come in and finish dead late behind FSU?

Then BS was only the third best team in the BE if you go by the NCAA selection committee.

Originally Posted by arles

So, just so I get this straight. A team that finished tied for first in the Big East regular season going to the ACC and being "3rd" (which I disagree with on program strength and talent) is a knock on the ACC?

I'm not trying to knock the ACC really. They are a great conference, but overrated. Please stop watching so much ESPN. Again, a team that never even made the BE tournament finished 4th in the ACC, or if you want to go by selection committee standard fine. BC is the 3rd team in the BE this year and routinely much lower than that.

Originally Posted by arles

How about the Big East allowing a team like BC to basically dominate their league in 05?

They tied for first, that is hardly dominating the league. Dominating would be winning it by a couple games. And they avoided playing the other 1st place team and the 3rd place team twice this year. Everybody in the country knew they weren't as good as their start indicated, and everyone knew they would quickly fall back down to earth. Does Syracuse, Uconn or Pitt (or many other teams, ACC included need to go 20-0 just to break into the top 5 in the rankings?

Originally Posted by arles

If VT was the fourth best team, why weren't they one of the four NCAA bids or even the top bubble team (Maryland)?

Out of conference schedule. In the ACC they finished 4th, end of story.

Originally Posted by arles

I would certainly agree with that. But I think the ACC is still a level above all other conferences. And it's not like I am a big ACC fanboy

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, though the BE did win the season series and placed just 1 less team in the Sweet 16 despite lower seeds pretty much across the board (I understand tournament results are not the end all, but you seem to like to use the results as proof, so...). They also have the same number of Elite 8 teams, and the ACC is only still in the tournament thanks to an early Christmas gift for UNC.

[Bomber]

BC in 2005 is a product of unbalanced scheduling. Down the stretch they proved that if they had to play UConn, Pitt, and 'Cuse twice (like ND did) they wouldn't have been a Top 15 team. They had the easiest in conference schedule in the Big East. Anyone who thinks they'll make noise in the ACC is crazy. They'll probably make the tourney again though because has VT proved the ACC is extremely weak from top to bottom.

[Bomber]

So did the refs have an agenda in the Nova-UNC game last night, or what?

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Bomber

So did the refs have an agenda in the Nova-UNC game last night, or what?

I thought there was the usual array of bad calls/missed calls both ways, but that last call left a bad taste in my mouth. I didn't have a team to pull for in this game (despite my liking of the BE over the ACC in general). I am not a big fan of 'Nova and I actually like Roy Williams, and I am neutral on UNC. I was just enjoying watching a great, great basketball game, but the ending was pathetic. That game should be in overtime and we should have gotten 5 more minutes of great ball.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Marmel

How did VT finish ahead of Maryland and Gtech? I think you give those teams a bit too much credit. I can't believe how fast Maryland has slipped and Gtech had a nice run last year, but really are not all that great.

I'm not trying to knock the ACC really. They are a great conference, but overrated. Please stop watching so much ESPN. Again, a team that never even made the BE tournament finished 4th in the ACC, or if you want to go by selection committee standard fine. BC is the 3rd team in the BE this year and routinely much lower than that.

Out of conference schedule. In the ACC they finished 4th, end of story.

If you're going to hang so much on this VPI&SU was fourth argument, you should at least correctly point out they finished tied for fourth, as you've done with BC and finishing tied for first. VPI&SU finished 8-8 in conference play this season, a one game improvement over their 7-9 finish in the Big East last season. They had a great season, but they also benefitted from an ACC schedule that had them only playing UNC and Wake once each.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Marmel

It says they had a good year, with unbalanced scheduling though. They also got knocked out in our quarter finals. This is not a team that competed, or will compete for the top spot in the league in most years.

I am having a hard time following your logic. You say that BC isn't all that competitive in the Big East (finish tie for 1st). Then you knock the ACC because VT was competitive - and they finished tied for 4th.

OK, so you bring up the unbalanced schedule. Well, BC played 5 games combined against West Virginia and Villanova (3-2 record). It certainly seems like they are the class of the Big East in the Tourney. They also beat Syracuse by 5 and won at UCONN by 5. So, against the 6 NCAA tourney teams from the Big East, BC was a combined 5-3 and no worse than .500 against any of those teams.

Now, let's look at VT. Here's a team that only played UNC, GT and Wake once during the season (finished 1-3 if you count the ACC tourney), but got to play Clemson, Virginia, and Miami twice. Hard to see how they reached .500

Cincy is much like Pitt. I think they will fit in nicely in the Big East with their style of play, and be in the upper half of the league table. Then again, Pitt's and Cincy's style of play does not bode well for the tournament. That doesn't make them bad teams, but it makes it hard for them to advance because games are called tighter in the tournament and these guys like to bang.

I agree with this. Cincy would struggle in the Big East, ACC or Big Ten.

How did VT finish ahead of Maryland and Gtech? I think you give those teams a bit too much credit. I can't believe how fast Maryland has slipped and Gtech had a nice run last year, but really are not all that great.

Maryland certainly had an off year and GT started off slow. But it didn't help that both these teams played more games against Wake and UNC than Virginia Tech while Virginia Tech got more games against Virginia and Miami.

Then BS was only the third best team in the BE if you go by the NCAA selection committee.

I would agree with that. But do you really think Cincy would have finished 3rd in the Big East? And it's doubtful Lousville would have finished higher than UCONN or Syracuse, but it's hard to tell how they would react to a leap from the track meets in Conf USA to the grueling games in the Big East.

I'm not trying to knock the ACC really. They are a great conference, but overrated.

Replace it with the Big East and I agree

Please stop watching so much ESPN.

No kidding, I watched ESPN and was convinced by Dick, Digger and company to have UCONN and Syracuse go on a long run in the tourney. Next time I'll know better.

They tied for first, that is hardly dominating the league. Dominating would be winning it by a couple games. And they avoided playing the other 1st place team and the 3rd place team twice this year.

But that argument doesn't count when talking about VT, correct? BC has finished first in either the conf tourney or regular season twice in the past five seasons and normally is one of the top 3 seeds in the tourney. They are akin to a Wake Forest in the ACC in team strength in the conference. They have been better than pretty much everyone but UConn and Syracuse.

Does Syracuse, Uconn or Pitt (or many other teams, ACC included need to go 20-0 just to break into the top 5 in the rankings?

That's because BC was "perceived" to be in a down year going into the season. BC didn't get one vote in the week 1 poll - that's a lot of ground to make up. Despite that, they were in the top 10 by Week 10 with a 14-0 record (against a schedule including only 1 ranked team). At that same time, Gonzaga was sitting at No. 20 despite having wins over Washington, Georgia Tech and OK State. I'd say BC got plenty of love by the press.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, though the BE did win the season series and placed just 1 less team in the Sweet 16 despite lower seeds pretty much across the board

The Big East finished 0-4 against the top 5 teams in the ACC by record (including VT). But, yeah, they beat the snot out of teams like Clemson and Virginia. As to the tourney, the Big East is currently 7-5 - with 4 losses coming against seeds 8 or worse. The ACC is 9-4 - with all four losses coming to teams still playing.

[Swaggs]

West Virginia beat Wake Forest (boy, does that feel good to say ) and I assume the Deacons were in the top 5 teams in the ACC.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

West Virginia beat Wake Forest (boy, does that feel good to say ) and I assume the Deacons were in the top 5 teams in the ACC.

Didn't count the tourney, but you can add the win by WV and the loss by Nova to make it 1-5 if you like.

[timmynausea]

By NCAA standards you can put NC State in the top 5 and chalk up a loss to WVU as well. Of course you're counting Wake Forest's win over Providence who barely won any Big East games, and Duke's and Virginia Tech's win over St. John's, another team who barely won any Big East games, so your 0-4 stat is horribly misleading at best. The only real regular season match up top ACC vs. top Big East was UNC's win over UConn. It's really hilarious that you say the Big East teams beat up on Clemson and Virginia and then provide a stat of how the top ACC teams beat the two worst Big East teams. (Of course if you do decide to put NC State in the top 5 you'd count their win over UConn in the tournament along with their loss to WVU.)

[Abe Sargent]

19-5 opening run by WVU? Damn, nobody expected that.

-Anxiety

[bosshogg23]

Ypsilanti is in the house! Used to live about 3 blocks from Eastern.

Anyways im loving WVU at the moment, Louisville down 16.

[Abe Sargent]

40-27 at the half.

-Anxiety

[Swaggs]

I can't take it.

[cthomer5000]

Meltdown city.

[Easy Mac]

Horrible charge call, he barely touched him, you'll see far more pushing than that. The refs really want WVU to win.

[Schmidty]

Come on WVU!!!

[Airhog]

If WVU wins, I will have an excellent chance at winning lathums NCAA challenge

[Schmidty]

My two favorite WVU players are Pigsnoggle and Carebear (at least that's what their names sound like without looking at TV for spelling yet)

[Easy Mac]

Have you ever Pigsnoggled a Carebear? If you had, they wouldn't be your favorite players.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Have you ever Pigsnoggled a Carebear? If you had, they wouldn't be your favorite players.

I'm a risk-taker, so if I ever have a chance to do the deed, I'll definitely take advantage of the situation. Especially for Tenderheart. I love pink. Rowrrrrrrrrrr......

[Schmidty]

PIGSNOGGLES!!!!!!!!!!

[cthomer5000]

Pittsnoglle you m$##@@#$#@$@#$@#

[Chubby]

down 2 with the ball...

[Chubby]

tied

[Chubby]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOvertime

[cthomer5000]

commerical

[cthomer5000]

another commercial

[cthomer5000]

three straight commericals!

[Neuqua]

man i love college basketball

[TLK]

What a damn game.... I don't want this tournament to end....

[Chubby]

as the game slips from WVU's fingers...

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Chubby

as the game slips from WVU's fingers...

They just couldn't keep up that shooting while giving up a ton of easy baskets on defense.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

They just couldn't keep up that shooting while giving up a ton of easy baskets on defense.

nope, and that was their undoing. Ya knew that they weren't going to keep shooting 70% or w/e they were and their defense went to shit.

[Chubby]

93-85 final Louisville.

[Ragone]

Dear god... i think i just about had a heart attack at age 28..

[f1newyork]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

By NCAA standards you can put NC State in the top 5 and chalk up a loss to WVU as well. Of course you're counting Wake Forest's win over Providence who barely won any Big East games, and Duke's and Virginia Tech's win over St. John's, another team who barely won any Big East games, so your 0-4 stat is horribly misleading at best. The only real regular season match up top ACC vs. top Big East was UNC's win over UConn. It's really hilarious that you say the Big East teams beat up on Clemson and Virginia and then provide a stat of how the top ACC teams beat the two worst Big East teams. (Of course if you do decide to put NC State in the top 5 you'd count their win over UConn in the tournament along with their loss to WVU.)

Don't forget St. John's over NC state.

[Arles]

Well, Arizona has thrown the ball away numerous times (8 turnovers), Stoudamire hasn't hit a field goal and Illinois is almost 50% from 3-point land...

And Arizona trails by 2 at halftime. I'll take it

[Ragone]

Ok, My heart's finally slowed down some... I still have no idea how Louisville Overcame wvu hitting 46000 three's..