Quote :

"That is not even close to the way the committee meetings are conducted. Not. Even. Close."

OK then. Elaborate on exactly how it's done. And then explain how they came up with the rankings to give Nova a 9 seed, while Clemson had to win a play-in game just to get to the round of 64.

And then, please give a complete argument as to why you think Clemson should have been in, and Nova should not.

I am very interested to see this.

3/23/2011 9:20:00 PM

Quote :

"The same collection committee that thought UAB deserved a bid I'm not arguing that Villanova shouldn't have gotten a bid I will say I think the selection committee overrated the Big East as a whole, and the fact that only two of their teams remain supports that"

I completely agree with this.

3/23/2011 9:21:33 PM

You need to calm the fuck down. Don't make us sick Jaybee1200 on your ass, son.

3/23/2011 9:22:54 PM

ZOMG ZOMG... ACC doesn't have any teams left, that must mean they were overrated. That is the only explanation that is plausible or possible.

#1 Duke loses by 16 to #5 Arizona
#2 UNC loses to #4 Kentucky
#10 FSU loses to #11 VCU
#12 Clemson loses to #5 WVU

So what does this tell us? Does it mean that Duke and UNC suck? Does it mean that either school really didn't deserve a #1 or #2 seed? No, it doesn't. I mean, if we use some walkmanfades or goalielax logic, I guess that's the only conclusion one can come to. They were sure loving the shit out of it when Butler beat Pitt, or when FSU beat UCONN.

But sadly, as it turns out, this is what the NCAA tournament is all about. There is a single team remaining of the top 8 seeds - so what does that tell us? It tells us that upsets happen. It doesn't mean that the teams that got upset were not tournament worthy, it simply means they had a bad day, or ran into a team that was really really hot.

The Big East deserved to have 11 teams in the field this year. Ten of them are gone. Some played well, some played really bad, some got upset... it's called college basketball. But regardless of how they performed, they deserved to be there by virtue of their regular season accomplishments.

By the way, walkmanfades, I am still waiting for your little bitch-ass to respond and explain to me how the selection committee determines the at-large bids. You said I am "not even close". I am anxious to see just how wrong I am.

3/27/2011 9:18:57 PM

Who the hell rated the ACC highly?

3/27/2011 9:19:59 PM

wait, FSU beat UCONN?? THE BIG EAST SUCKS

3/27/2011 9:45:01 PM

Ahhhh straws.... we both know I meant Notre Dame.

Continue grasping kid.

3/27/2011 10:56:35 PM

I'm not grasping at anything. It's not my responsibility to help you see what's clear to every other reader of this thread - you don't know anything about the NCAA tournament selection process.

FAIRLY RIGID SET OF CRITERIA

3/27/2011 11:10:32 PM

Once again, I would ask you to explain it to me.

I think you are avoiding my question, because for one, you don't know shit about it (or college basketball for that matter). And also, even if what I explained varies slightly from the actual selection process, the concept will still be basically the same, and once again you will be left with nothing to argue.... no point whatsoever.

So what say you, little bitch?

3/27/2011 11:44:24 PM

Calm the fuck down.

3/28/2011 12:06:19 AM

lol clearly the big east and acc were in the same boat going into the tourney

the fact you think this is about the top seeds just further cements your failure to grasp the situation

[Edited on March 28, 2011 at 12:16 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2011 12:14:48 AM

There is something so impressive about the mid majors in the tourney this year that I have stopped worrying about the ACC/Big East conference crown.

Everyone is concerned with how the Mids have made it this far with far inferior talent than the power conferences, but I am struggling to understand how all of these big name schools and players have flopped this bad.

Is talent just over rated these days because guys are advertised well and have youtube fame?

Have the Justin Beibers of this world finally made their way into college basketball?

3/28/2011 12:34:47 AM

Quote :

"FAIRLY RIGID SET OF CRITERIA"

Quote :

"Keep in mind there’s 10 people in the room and everyone in the room has different a emphasis on different criteria. So when we go to vote, everyone selects the criteria they think is important to them and they ultimately vote."

lol

3/28/2011 9:18:20 AM

The announcers and sports writers really hit the nail on the head this year when they said there were no "really great teams" but lots of pretty good ones.

I think in previous years, having the #10 team in the country go against an unranked team would normally be somewhat of a mismatch, but this year.... not so much. Not to say that the ranked teams aren't good, there is just much less of a margin between the #10 team and the #30 team, that it makes for a lot of good games, and a lot of big time upsets.

Quote :

"lol clearly the big east and acc were in the same boat going into the tourney the fact you think this is about the top seeds just further cements your failure to grasp the situation"

So lemme get this straight. The Big East struggles early on in the tournament and fails to beat teams that they were "suppose" to beat, and it's because they were overrated and they actually suck......but..... the ACC struggles against people they were supposed to beat (Duke and UNC VERY easily could have lost to Michigan and Washington, and then did get beat by lower seeds) and yet somehow the same logic doesn't apply?

I will readily admit you're an idiot for thinking that since a conference has a bad tournament, then they didn't deserve the bids they earned during the regular season. I am just really curious why your (retarded) logic doesn't carry over into other conferences too.

3/28/2011 9:26:53 AM

walkmanfades it is very clear you are nothing more than a troll. You try and pick apart my words and/or be funny, and unfortunately, you're not good at either one of these things.

You try and act like I am an idiot because I don't know exactly how they determine who gets a conference invite. You're absolutely right, I don't know exactly how it's done, however on multiple occasions I have asked you to enlighten me, but instead, you just try an pick apart my words more. The sad truth of the situation is, you do not know shit about what you are talking about.

The absolute truth of the matter is, they get 10 guys together to select the at large bids and seedings. While each guy definitely has criteria that are most important to him, by and large, they all use about the same criteria, with minor differences. Like I said before, I am 100% sure that overall records, conference records, quality wins and bad losses, RPI, how they finished, and how they did in conference tournaments are all very heavy factors to each member. Each member may weigh them slightly differently, and have a few other things they look at, but the major selection criteria are always pretty much the same for each dude - and that's why I said they are rigid. It's not like one dude is out there shelling out NCAA invites because he likes a team's mascot or jersey color. You can try and pick apart my words as much as you like, but you are doing nothing more than grasping for straws.

So seriously, if you are anything more than a little bitch, please explain how what I just posted above differs from the actual selection process, and please provide a link. I am 99% sure that either you will once again conveniently ignore the chance to back up your bullshit posts, or that the method you post doesn't really differ that much from what I wrote. But here is your chance to back up your words.

3/28/2011 9:42:52 AM

It's amazing to me that you keep posting these multiple paragraph rants after being as wrong as is humanly possible about something fundamental to your entire argument.

Keep wasting your own time, it's entertaining.

3/28/2011 9:45:24 AM

this could be one of the saddest pages in tww history

jesus christ man, get over yourself

[Edited on March 28, 2011 at 10:11 AM. Reason : PLEASE BELIEVE ME. PLEASE BELIEVE MEEE]

3/28/2011 9:51:21 AM

Quote :

"Yes, I was completely wrong. No, I don't have an argument anymore. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You're a little bitch b/c you dissagree with me. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. The criteria is fairly rigid in a fluid sort of way. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

3/28/2011 10:08:15 AM

Quote :

"Maybe rigid wasn't the perfect term to use. Let me rephrase. Obviously, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. "

3/28/2011 10:09:47 AM

big big fighting on the internets

3/28/2011 10:17:39 AM

Quote :

"Duke and UNC VERY easily could have lost to Michigan and Washington"

but they didn't

Quote :

"The announcers and sports writers really hit the nail on the head this year when they said there were no "really great teams" but lots of pretty good ones. "

except they only said that after their OMG TEH BIG EAST got smoked in the first couple of rounds and the super almighty conference they were built up to be all year long turned out to be a flop unworthy of the hype and 11 bids

the reason why saying the Big East is overrated and didn't deserve 11 bids doesn't carry over to the ACC is because:

1. The ACC wasn't overrated - they were consistently called out for underwhelming performance all year
2. The ACC didn't get 11 bids
3. 3 of the 4 ACC teams made it to the sweet 16
4. Every ACC tourney team won at least one game
5. The teams the ACC did lose to weren't embarrassments like:
a. #1 seed pitt not making it out of the first weekend
b. #2 seed notre dame not making it out of the first weekend (and getting smoked by a 10-seed ACC team, natch).
c. #4 seed louisville losing in the first round

3/28/2011 10:29:00 AM

Quote :

"except they only said that after their OMG TEH BIG EAST got smoked in the first couple of rounds and the super almighty conference they were built up to be all year long turned out to be a flop unworthy of the hype and 11 bids the reason why saying the Big East is overrated and didn't deserve 11 bids doesn't carry over to the ACC is because: 1. The ACC wasn't overrated - they were consistently called out for underwhelming performance all year 2. The ACC didn't get 11 bids 3. 3 of the 4 ACC teams made it to the sweet 16 4. Every ACC tourney team won at least one game 5. The teams the ACC did lose to weren't embarrassments like: a. #1 seed pitt not making it out of the first weekend b. #2 seed notre dame not making it out of the first weekend (and getting smoked by a 10-seed ACC team, natch). c. #4 seed louisville losing in the first round"

Apparently you didn't watch very much ESPN during the regular season. I think I heard almost every episode how great this season was because there were no great teams.

I will agree that Notre Dame's and Louisville's losses were pretty embarrassing. You could also say the same thing about Duke's loss to Arizona. And once again, I don't see anyone in this thread that claimed the Big East was going to roll over people in the tourney. I think the general consensus was, the Big East is a pretty unique conference this year because they have 11 teams whose performance during the regular season warrants them getting into the NCAA tournament. I know you don't think they should have 11 teams, but most (if not all) experts disagree with you.

I think it's pretty much a given that every major conference has underperformed considering VCU and Butler are in the Final Four. I mean - the SEC was the only conference with 2 Elite Eight teams. But I really don't think the committee did a bad job with who they let in. I just think that most of the teams out there are pretty evenly matched this year, which has made for an awesome tournament.

Anyway, I am done with this thread. Obviously you can think what you want. I know where you are coming from - nobody likes when a team or a conference is overhyped, and it's great to see them crash and burn (kind of like the Heat in the NBA).

And thanks walkmanfades for validating what was already apparent last page.

3/28/2011 12:37:04 PM

I'm liking UConn to win it all from this Final 4.

3/28/2011 12:56:18 PM

You are welcome, I am glad to validate that you're a fucking idiot any time it is necessary.

3/28/2011 1:55:39 PM

Quote :

"except they only said that after their OMG TEH BIG EAST got smoked in the first couple of rounds and the super almighty conference they were built up to be all year long turned out to be a flop unworthy of the hype and 11 bids"

Most of the spin I hear now is UConn is in the final four and are favorites to win... and they were only 9 - 9 in their conference.

3/28/2011 2:01:28 PM

they're hot, they're the highest seed left, and 50% of the final four are midmajors. why wouldn't they be favorites?

[Edited on March 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2011 4:19:42 PM

Kentucky is the favorite

3/28/2011 4:24:59 PM

see...that's because the big east is overrated

3/28/2011 4:56:19 PM

i don't think anybody has ever said that Kemba was overrated

3/28/2011 5:08:56 PM

They also beat Kentucky by 17 earlier this year. Jeremy Lamb, their second best player and pretty much a star, had 2 points that game.

3/28/2011 9:37:10 PM

While Kemba may not be overrated, he is certainly no Jimmer.

Can we all agree on that?

3/29/2011 6:45:40 AM

Quote :

"lol clearly the big east and acc were in the same boat going into the tourney"

The Big East is by far the better conference this year.

And Lamb is awesome. Funny that UConn was my "reach" to make it to the Final Four...and now they're the only one I have left...

3/29/2011 6:58:39 AM

Quote :

"he is certainly no Jimmer."

i will agree with that, kemba is at least ten times better

3/29/2011 9:30:36 AM

Kemba plays defense too

Jimmer is half a basketball player

3/29/2011 10:13:41 AM

jimmer is the next adam morrison

clearly

3/29/2011 10:18:08 AM

Quote :

"they're hot, they're the highest seed left, and 50% of the final four are midmajors. why wouldn't they be favorites? "

That wasn't the point they were trying to make. The point was UConn will win it all, being only 9 - 9 in their conference. Now if they are in the middle of their conference imagine how awesome the rest of the conference must be.

3/29/2011 10:23:55 AM

Or perhaps Big East conference wins don't indicate as much as you think they do.

3/29/2011 10:28:08 AM

UConn just wanted to be the first team to win 5 games in 5 days to win the conference tourney and now a possible national title.

3/29/2011 10:30:20 AM

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 10:39 AM. Reason : -never mind]

3/29/2011 10:30:31 AM

Quote :

"Or perhaps Big East conference wins don't indicate as much as you think they do."

BINGO

3/29/2011 12:03:58 PM

http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/negative-comments-about-big-east-fail-to-affect-an,19834/

Quote :

"Negative Comments About Big East Fail To Affect Anybody, Anything 10.20.05 NEW YORK—A recent outpouring of negative criticism levied against the Big East for the conference's poor showing in the NCAA Tournament has had absolutely no affect on anyone or anything, and will reportedly continue to have zero effect on the world due to the fact that being angry at a collegiate basketball conference is a completely worthless endeavour, sources confirmed Thursday. "I think the Big East is the most overrated conference," said a man whose overwhelming disappointment with what basically amounts to 19-year-old boys playing basketball makes one wonder what his priorities are, if he understands that there are millions of things much more interesting to talk about, or whether or not he's aware that such passion could be focused on saying something that actually matters. "The selection committee should never have put 11 Big East teams in the tournament. Never. It's ridiculous." According to sources, a recent wave of opposition from fans and analysts defending the Big East has also had little impact on anything, mainly because this topic is so stupid."

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 6:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2011 6:05:56 PM

Quote :

"...is the best college basketball conference in the nation."

4/5/2011 6:48:16 AM

And time for the Big East fans to come out of hiding again to say the NC makes their conference the best, calling a mulligan on the past 6 years.

4/5/2011 9:38:24 AM

Quote :

"jimmer is the next adam morrison clearly"

Racism

4/5/2011 11:26:42 AM

the big east should not have gotten that many bids, end of story.

the conference had a opportunity to "put up" and they, as a whole, did not. time for them to shut up now.

4/5/2011 8:41:45 PM

Quote :

"time for them to shut up now"

i agree they didnt deserve 11 bids

but they just won the national championship less than 24 hours ago, so i dont agree that its time for them to shut up either

4/5/2011 8:42:51 PM

11 teams in the tournament give you pretty good odds to win it all.

4/5/2011 8:47:09 PM

^ almost a 1 in 6 shot, anyone would take those odds

plus it was one of, if not the, worst game of the entire tournament, much less any other national championship game.

I almost wished that shit was something like 40 - 38.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 8:54 PM. Reason : high school shit]

4/5/2011 8:51:25 PM

Plus, if you take out the first four and seeds 13-16 (they have no real shot) then it's better than a 1 out of 5 chance a Big East team wins.

4/5/2011 8:53:49 PM

they still won it all

just sayin

4/5/2011 8:55:34 PM