(03-19-2018 10:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  far from me to defend Syracuse but they did have 6 Quad 1 wins on Selection Sunday. 2 More than USC, 4 more than Notre Dame, 4 more than St Mary's, and 2 more than Baylor(those 4 were the first 4 out).
Syracuse 6-8
USC 4-6
Notre Dame 2-9
St Mary's 2-1
Baylor 4-12

So I think the committee did just what they said they were going to do.

Quad 1, schmod 1. Syracuse beat Miami and Clemson, and that's it. They beat no one else who could have earned an at-large bid to the tournament.

(03-19-2018 10:21 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 09:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, it's fair to claim 'Cuse didn't belong.

Your opinion.... I think OU was the fraud

Both you and them were questionable as was pretty much everyone 10 and lower except maybe Butler, Texas and Providence

(03-19-2018 11:41 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:21 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 09:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, it's fair to claim 'Cuse didn't belong.

Your opinion.... I think OU was the fraud

Both you and them were questionable as was pretty much everyone 10 and lower except maybe Butler, Texas and Providence

I can agree with that...but to single out Syracuse is ridiculous. Quo...can back me up. I said you could make a case for about 10 teams for the last 4 slots every year. Cuse has been on the bubble three years in a row. The two years selected garnered a F4 and a Sweet 16 and maybe more.

OSU fans should be pissed at OU, not Cuse.

(03-19-2018 07:10 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 10:50 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  So, this what one half of the NCAA bracket looks like. One of these 8 teams will be playing for a National Title:

9 Kansas State vs 5 Kentucky
11 Loyola Chicago vs 7 Nevada

9 Florida State vs 4 Xavier
7 Texas A&M vs 3 Michigan

Kentucky and Michigan are the only blue bloods on this side. If they lose, we'd be guaranteed a surprise finalist


Other side has gone more to chalk outside of Syracuse

4-seed is obviously Gonzaga.

And to think Houston should be on that bracket. And how is Gonzaga a surprise?

Sorry, I had Xavier on the brain. I don't consider Gonazaga a blue blood because they've never won a title, and until last year had never made a Final Four.

They would probably earn that distinction with a repeat trip. Though I'm going to say this now. If A&M plays like they did Sunday, they are going to be tough to beat in that bracket.

(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:41 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:21 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 09:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, it's fair to claim 'Cuse didn't belong.

Your opinion.... I think OU was the fraud

Both you and them were questionable as was pretty much everyone 10 and lower except maybe Butler, Texas and Providence

I can agree with that...but to single out Syracuse is ridiculous. Quo...can back me up. I said you could make a case for about 10 teams for the last 4 slots every year. Cuse has been on the bubble three years in a row. The two years selected garnered a F4 and a Sweet 16 and maybe more.

OSU fans should be pissed at OU, not Cuse.

Yes, I hate to admit it, and I "hate" the way Syracuse is grunging its way to possibly another Final 4 with that "active 2-3 zone", but there's no use in whining about their getting in to the tournament.

Syracuse's resume was right there with the other top bubble teams. Could they have reasonably been left out? Sure. But it's also reasonable that they got in, and in those kinds of cases surely the committee is warranted in feeling justified by their performance.

Those who said it was a joke that Cuse got in should be silent, because Syracuse has silenced them on the court. They were given the benefit of the doubt and proved worthy of it.

BTW, I was thoroughly impressed with Boeheim's coaching vs Izzo. The mantra in college basketball these days is "defend the 3-point line!" but Boeheim basically conceded the 3, dared MSU to knock it down, and it paid off. Brilliant.

It wouldn't surprise me if it wound up helping Syracuse out that it had unanticipated "good" games on the schedule. I wouldn't call Iona or Texas Southern as "good," but if they win their respective conference's AQ, now you've beaten tournament teams. So, Iona, TSU, Buffalo...there's three wins. Wins against Tech, Miami, and Clemson in the conference.

All the losses to tournament teams speak for themselves. They've got eight of those.

Now, comparing THAT to Notre Dame (the next team out), Wichita State is STILL the only good thing on that non-conference slate. USC has Fullerton and NMSU and a dreadful PAC-12 conference slate.

Ironically, if Bonnie could get in, it probably aided 'Cuse. Conversely, if MTSU gets in as an at-large, USC is probably in, too, given the head-to-head.

Cuse belongs, just imo. And, really, it fits with NC-SOS getting the nod here.

(03-19-2018 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:41 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:21 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 09:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, it's fair to claim 'Cuse didn't belong.

Your opinion.... I think OU was the fraud

Both you and them were questionable as was pretty much everyone 10 and lower except maybe Butler, Texas and Providence

I can agree with that...but to single out Syracuse is ridiculous. Quo...can back me up. I said you could make a case for about 10 teams for the last 4 slots every year. Cuse has been on the bubble three years in a row. The two years selected garnered a F4 and a Sweet 16 and maybe more.

OSU fans should be pissed at OU, not Cuse.

Yes, I hate to admit it, and I "hate" the way Syracuse is grunging its way to possibly another Final 4 with that "active 2-3 zone", but there's no use in whining about their getting in to the tournament.

Syracuse's resume was right there with the other top bubble teams. Could they have reasonably been left out? Sure. But it's also reasonable that they got in, and in those kinds of cases surely the committee is warranted in feeling justified by their performance.

Those who said it was a joke that Cuse got in should be silent, because Syracuse has silenced them on the court. They were given the benefit of the doubt and proved worthy of it.

BTW, I was thoroughly impressed with Boeheim's coaching vs Izzo. The mantra in college basketball these days is "defend the 3-point line!" but Boeheim basically conceded the 3, dared MSU to knock it down, and it paid off. Brilliant.

As long as they said it at the time, that's fine. It's fair to say Oklahoma State, for example, had a better resume. But it's well past time to move on if anyone is caught up on it. Everyone had the chance to win one or two more games or the conference tournament to get in.

(03-19-2018 02:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:41 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:21 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Your opinion.... I think OU was the fraud

Both you and them were questionable as was pretty much everyone 10 and lower except maybe Butler, Texas and Providence

I can agree with that...but to single out Syracuse is ridiculous. Quo...can back me up. I said you could make a case for about 10 teams for the last 4 slots every year. Cuse has been on the bubble three years in a row. The two years selected garnered a F4 and a Sweet 16 and maybe more.

OSU fans should be pissed at OU, not Cuse.

Yes, I hate to admit it, and I "hate" the way Syracuse is grunging its way to possibly another Final 4 with that "active 2-3 zone", but there's no use in whining about their getting in to the tournament.

Syracuse's resume was right there with the other top bubble teams. Could they have reasonably been left out? Sure. But it's also reasonable that they got in, and in those kinds of cases surely the committee is warranted in feeling justified by their performance.

Those who said it was a joke that Cuse got in should be silent, because Syracuse has silenced them on the court. They were given the benefit of the doubt and proved worthy of it.

BTW, I was thoroughly impressed with Boeheim's coaching vs Izzo. The mantra in college basketball these days is "defend the 3-point line!" but Boeheim basically conceded the 3, dared MSU to knock it down, and it paid off. Brilliant.

As long as they said it at the time, that's fine. It's fair to say Oklahoma State, for example, had a better resume. But it's well past time to move on if anyone is caught up on it. Everyone had the chance to win one or two more games or the conference tournament to get in.

C2

The horse is dead...lol

We'll move on...BTW, glad to see some life back in Houston for hoops.

Life isn't back so much as they finally put it together in the regular season. They had some better teams than this one under Tom Penders that choked in the regular season while on the bubble. They were just as good the last two years but choked in the conference tournament and didn't get many big wins. So it's good to see them finally not just get back in but get in with ease, a high seed and be very disappointed over not winning over a Final Four contender.

That A&M-Houston Sweet 16 game would have been huge around here. Sigh, 'twas not meant to be, c'est la vie.

(03-19-2018 04:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Life isn't back so much as they finally put it together in the regular season. They had some better teams than this one under Tom Penders that choked in the regular season while on the bubble. They were just as good the last two years but choked in the conference tournament and didn't get many big wins. So it's good to see them finally not just get back in but get in with ease, a high seed and be very disappointed over not winning over a Final Four contender.

That A&M-Houston Sweet 16 game would have been huge around here. Sigh, 'twas not meant to be, c'est la vie.

Houston didnt deserve a bid!

We didn't deserve a 6-seed...you can argue it either way.

Doesn't Xavier usually overachieve? Here they are with their best team, yet they blew it/choked in the second round.

(03-19-2018 09:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Doesn't Xavier usually overachieve? Here they are with their best team, yet they blew it/choked in the second round.

The refs blew it when they called Macura with a fourth foul with 9 minutes to go and X in control. It was a clean steal but the refs blew the whistle.

Then the X coach blew it by overreacting and taking him out of the game. That's what led FSU to closing the gap. With 9 minutes left he should have left Macura in the game. Big blunder.

Yep, the refs are the reason every team lost ever.

They honestly need to eliminate the foul out rule in basketball. If you wanna play physical, then make them shoot technical foul shots in increasing numbers after certain numbers, just like the bonus or double bonus. If not, at least call things consistently and not try to protect players trying to avoid a foul out.

(03-19-2018 10:22 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yep, the refs are the reason every team lost ever.

They honestly need to eliminate the foul out rule in basketball. If you wanna play physical, then make them shoot technical foul shots in increasing numbers after certain numbers, just like the bonus or double bonus. If not, at least call things consistently and not try to protect players trying to avoid a foul out.

The ABA used a no-foul-out rule in its last season. Every foul on a player after the sixth counted as a technical foul, and the fouled team got two free throws plus possession after the free throws. And because it was a technical foul, the fouled team could choose any of its 5 players on the floor to shoot the free throws, as with any "regular" technical foul. Keeping a player with 6 fouls in the game meant running the risk of giving up 4 or 5 points on a possession if that player committed another foul.

I'm not sure that's enough dis-incentive for a team that loves to hack its opponents, and I really dislike foul-fests, so how about that ABA no-foul-out rule plus, in addition to the technical foul if a player who is over the limit commits another foul, a player who has hit the limit (6 in pro, 5 in college) has to sit out for two minutes of game time before he can re-enter the game.

Or you can make single technical foul shots count worth more. All good ideas.

just saw the game that had the highest cable viewership for the first weekend was none other than UMBC vs Kansas St. drew 4.597 million viewers. 1st game got about 3.533 million viewers.

(03-21-2018 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  just saw the game that had the highest cable viewership for the first weekend was none other than UMBC vs Kansas St. drew 4.597 million viewers. 1st game got about 3.533 million viewers.

Here are the ratings...that game was the top rated cable game but behind all the CBS games.

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/sk...-2018.html

(03-21-2018 07:55 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  just saw the game that had the highest cable viewership for the first weekend was none other than UMBC vs Kansas St. drew 4.597 million viewers. 1st game got about 3.533 million viewers.

Here are the ratings...that game was the top rated cable game but behind all the CBS games.

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/sk...-2018.html

even ahead in the 18-49 of 2 of the CBS games.

And #5 looking at the chart of all 1st round games. Behind only the prime time CBS games. And #3 in 18-49's for rd 1.

(03-21-2018 08:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 07:55 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  just saw the game that had the highest cable viewership for the first weekend was none other than UMBC vs Kansas St. drew 4.597 million viewers. 1st game got about 3.533 million viewers.

Here are the ratings...that game was the top rated cable game but behind all the CBS games.

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/sk...-2018.html

even ahead in the 18-49 of 2 of the CBS games.

And #5 looking at the chart of all 1st round games. Behind only the prime time CBS games. And #3 in 18-49's for rd 1.

A whole lot of parsing there...not exactly sure what you are saying. I just went off the rating.