(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

Weren't most of those wins in the last three years?

He won one game against ranked opponents with Tic's talent right?

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

I'm talking about after Cal got the program rolling. Not the Price/Jones disaster that Cal inherited. Pastner inherited the greatest run in Tiger history that Cal built. The one that was a top 10 program when he arrived.

(01-14-2013 09:47 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:25 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  Are you kidding? Cal had 2 straight Elite 8's, a title game appearance and a Sweet 16. That's 4 runs in this exact same conference. And oh yeah, he won 65 straight CUSA games to boot.

It easier to do such things when you have a first team All-American (CDR), one of the best all-around players in Tiger history (Anderson), a top pick in the draft (Rose) followed by a lottery pick in the draft (Evans). Pastner has talented teams, but they are not at the same level of Calipari's last four seasons.

But they are still beyond anything else in the conference. Would Cal have lost any conference games in 11,12, & 13 with the same rosters that Pastner has had?

Judging by Calipari's first five seasons at Memphis when he had lesser talent and didn't really do much of anything and the fact that he is not that good of a bench coach, yes I think he would have lost multiple C-USA games during the last three years, especially last year when the conference was as strong as it has been since 2004-05.

(01-14-2013 09:49 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

I'm talking about after Cal got the program rolling. Not the Price/Jones disaster that Cal inherited. Pastner inherited the greatest run in Tiger history that Cal built. The one that was a top 10 program when he arrived.

Pastner inherited a mess when Calipari left. Calipari inherited a pretty talented team in 2000-01 and still lost 15 games.

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:25 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  Are you kidding? Cal had 2 straight Elite 8's, a title game appearance and a Sweet 16. That's 4 runs in this exact same conference. And oh yeah, he won 65 straight CUSA games to boot.

It easier to do such things when you have a first team All-American (CDR), one of the best all-around players in Tiger history (Anderson), a top pick in the draft (Rose) followed by a lottery pick in the draft (Evans). Pastner has talented teams, but they are not at the same level of Calipari's last four seasons.

Ok. And Cal recruited every single one of those players. What is your point?

No one is asking for a National Championship. But how about 1 top 25 win and 1 tourney win in 4 years? Is that too much to ask? Or does Pastner need talent equal to Rose, CDR, AA and Dorsey to beat one nationally relevant opponent?

(01-14-2013 09:49 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

I'm talking about after Cal got the program rolling. Not the Price/Jones disaster that Cal inherited. Pastner inherited the greatest run in Tiger history that Cal built. The one that was a top 10 program when he arrived.

You're kidding right? JP inherited a mess......and was left by Cal with very few players & nothing but a past with unreasonable expectations that he had to compete against.

(01-14-2013 09:49 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

I'm talking about after Cal got the program rolling. Not the Price/Jones disaster that Cal inherited. Pastner inherited the greatest run in Tiger history that Cal built. The one that was a top 10 program when he arrived.

You're kidding right? JP inherited a mess......and was left by Cal with very few players & nothing but a past with unreasonable expectations that he had to compete against.

(01-14-2013 09:51 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:47 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:25 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  Are you kidding? Cal had 2 straight Elite 8's, a title game appearance and a Sweet 16. That's 4 runs in this exact same conference. And oh yeah, he won 65 straight CUSA games to boot.

It easier to do such things when you have a first team All-American (CDR), one of the best all-around players in Tiger history (Anderson), a top pick in the draft (Rose) followed by a lottery pick in the draft (Evans). Pastner has talented teams, but they are not at the same level of Calipari's last four seasons.

But they are still beyond anything else in the conference. Would Cal have lost any conference games in 11,12, & 13 with the same rosters that Pastner has had?

Judging by Calipari's first five seasons at Memphis when he had lesser talent and didn't really do much of anything and the fact that he is not that good of a bench coach, yes I think he would have lost multiple C-USA games during the last three years, especially last year when the conference was as strong as it has been since 2004-05.

Despite the current rosters have been more talented than anything that CUSA had over the last three seasons?

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

Cals last year his team didn't win anything outside of conference unless you want to count Gonzaga and UT.

That team had 15 top 100 RPI wins. That team was on a 27-game winning streak on Selection Sunday. That team got a #2 seed. Whole different animal compared to any of Pastner's teams.

It is much easier to get that first win and get on a roll in the Dance (even if you are coming out of a weak conference) when you are seeded #1 or #2.

1 top 25 (#25) wins 4 top 50 wins. They were 4-3 vs. the top 50.

This team could end up with 8-9 top 25 wins...That could get us a 3-4 seed. They just have to prove they deserve it by winning.

(01-14-2013 09:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

Weren't most of those wins in the last three years?

He won one game against ranked opponents with Tic's talent right?

Calipari was 0-4 vs. ranked teams in 2000-01.

Calipari was 0-3 vs. ranked teams in 2001-02.

Calipari was 2-2 vs. ranked teams in 2002-03.

Calipari was 2-5 vs. ranked teams in 2003-04.

Calipari was 3-8 vs. ranked teams in 2004-05.

(01-14-2013 09:52 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:49 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

I'm talking about after Cal got the program rolling. Not the Price/Jones disaster that Cal inherited. Pastner inherited the greatest run in Tiger history that Cal built. The one that was a top 10 program when he arrived.

Pastner inherited a mess when Calipari left. Calipari inherited a pretty talented team in 2000-01 and still lost 15 games.

Are you trying to say that Cal inherited a better situation than Pastner? LOL!!

You can't be serious.

(01-14-2013 09:54 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

Cals last year his team didn't win anything outside of conference unless you want to count Gonzaga and UT.

That team had 15 top 100 RPI wins. That team was on a 27-game winning streak on Selection Sunday. That team got a #2 seed. Whole different animal compared to any of Pastner's teams.

It is much easier to get that first win and get on a roll in the Dance (even if you are coming out of a weak conference) when you are seeded #1 or #2.

1 top 25 (#25) wins 4 top 50 wins. They were 4-3 vs. the top 50.

They still received a #2 seed. That's my whole point. A #1 or #2 seed from a crappy conference is in a much better position to win games in the Dance than a #12 or #8 seed from a crappy conference (or any conference for that matter).

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Winning big "games" is different than winning in March and I think Pastner will get there. Besides do u want to see the tigers keep playing in C-USA? It's like hitting a piñata without a Blindfold.

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Cal’s team of that era didn’t look spectacular when they arrived either. Joey constantly on the bench with fouls, guard play suspect, (ect). Although the core group had won the HS ring they didn’t gel in D1 until CDR arrived, remember. Then Rose. Then Reek.

The Tiger’s current team is similar but IMO better and I have this gut feeling they are about to prove it too. Not for the fans but to themselves.

There’s a difference.

Hell no I don't want to stay in CUSA.

(01-14-2013 09:56 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:52 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:49 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

I'm talking about after Cal got the program rolling. Not the Price/Jones disaster that Cal inherited. Pastner inherited the greatest run in Tiger history that Cal built. The one that was a top 10 program when he arrived.

Pastner inherited a mess when Calipari left. Calipari inherited a pretty talented team in 2000-01 and still lost 15 games.

Are you trying to say that Cal inherited a better situation than Pastner? LOL!!

You can't be serious.

As far as returning talent, absolutely. Calipari had Kelly Wise, Marcus Moody, Shannon Forman, Scooter McFadgon, Shyrone Chatman, Earl Barron, Shamel Jones, Courtney Trask and Paris London sitting there waiting for him when he arrived.

Pastner had Wesley Witherspoon, Roburt Sallie, Doneal Mack, Willie Kemp and Pierre Henderson-Niles.

It's not even close.

(01-14-2013 09:54 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:51 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:47 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:25 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  Are you kidding? Cal had 2 straight Elite 8's, a title game appearance and a Sweet 16. That's 4 runs in this exact same conference. And oh yeah, he won 65 straight CUSA games to boot.

It easier to do such things when you have a first team All-American (CDR), one of the best all-around players in Tiger history (Anderson), a top pick in the draft (Rose) followed by a lottery pick in the draft (Evans). Pastner has talented teams, but they are not at the same level of Calipari's last four seasons.

But they are still beyond anything else in the conference. Would Cal have lost any conference games in 11,12, & 13 with the same rosters that Pastner has had?

Judging by Calipari's first five seasons at Memphis when he had lesser talent and didn't really do much of anything and the fact that he is not that good of a bench coach, yes I think he would have lost multiple C-USA games during the last three years, especially last year when the conference was as strong as it has been since 2004-05.

Despite the current rosters have been more talented than anything that CUSA had over the last three seasons?

Just because you have more talent than anyone else doesn't mean you are going to automatically steamroll everyone and go undefeated every season. That just doesn't happen. You have to be in a situation like Memphis was from 2005-06 to 2008-09 where the conference is as bad as it has ever been as a whole and one team has not just better talent, but future NBA level talent, some of which is made up of players that would either win or challenge for NBA rookie of the year.

(01-14-2013 09:58 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:54 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

Cals last year his team didn't win anything outside of conference unless you want to count Gonzaga and UT.

That team had 15 top 100 RPI wins. That team was on a 27-game winning streak on Selection Sunday. That team got a #2 seed. Whole different animal compared to any of Pastner's teams.

It is much easier to get that first win and get on a roll in the Dance (even if you are coming out of a weak conference) when you are seeded #1 or #2.

1 top 25 (#25) wins 4 top 50 wins. They were 4-3 vs. the top 50.

They still received a #2 seed. That's my whole point. A #1 or #2 seed from a crappy conference is in a much better position to win games in the Dance than a #12 or #8 seed from a crappy conference (or any conference for that matter).

This is the first team that has margin for error in conference...they should be able to easily survive all conference games even if someone gets in foul trouble or is off...They could very possibly go undefeated to finish the season which sets them up for the second weekend without having to face a dominating team.

(01-14-2013 09:56 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

Weren't most of those wins in the last three years?

He won one game against ranked opponents with Tic's talent right?

Calipari was 0-4 vs. ranked teams in 2000-01.

Calipari was 0-3 vs. ranked teams in 2001-02.

Calipari was 2-2 vs. ranked teams in 2002-03.

Calipari was 2-5 vs. ranked teams in 2003-04.

Calipari was 3-8 vs. ranked teams in 2004-05.

Calipari inherited a train wreck. Pastner inherited a legacy. Memphis was NOT a brand name when Cal came to town. Not even close. Memphis was when Josh took the team. How do you think Josh got the recruits he did? Barton came here thinking Josh was a "wiz kid" (That's what his bio was----remember?) and Memphis was MEMPHIS!

This idea Josh had nothing to work with is just not true. Yeah he had Cals leftovers somewhat and a great player from Duke. Josh was Cals waterboy. He came into a great situation for him. Nobody expected anything. That's what they got. Four years running. Great recruiting and less than mediocre coaching and handling of player personnel.

I'm still stinging from how he got the team prepared for the Bahamas. Its like Deja-Vu all over again.

(01-14-2013 10:08 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:58 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:54 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:43 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Cals last year his team didn't win anything outside of conference unless you want to count Gonzaga and UT.

That team had 15 top 100 RPI wins. That team was on a 27-game winning streak on Selection Sunday. That team got a #2 seed. Whole different animal compared to any of Pastner's teams.

It is much easier to get that first win and get on a roll in the Dance (even if you are coming out of a weak conference) when you are seeded #1 or #2.

1 top 25 (#25) wins 4 top 50 wins. They were 4-3 vs. the top 50.

They still received a #2 seed. That's my whole point. A #1 or #2 seed from a crappy conference is in a much better position to win games in the Dance than a #12 or #8 seed from a crappy conference (or any conference for that matter).

This is the first team that has margin for error in conference...they should be able to easily survive all conference games even if someone gets in foul trouble or is off...They could very possibly go undefeated to finish the season which sets them up for the second weekend without having to face a dominating team.

That's the goal.