Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
--Fumble (1961-2009), RIP --Fumble (1961-2009), RIP Cider Jim wrote:I will admit that Marshall was outcoached by Huggy's in-game adjustments. And WVU's Carter is an amazing player. But Konate didn't impress me at all--with his 8 points, ONE blocked shot, and technical foul; Marshall's Penava clearly outplayed him. And Huggy was smart for benching Konate after his technical.Carter is tough!
olldflame wrote:There are as many 11 seeds and 9 seeds in the sweet 16 as there are 1 seeds.I like it when this happens. I think NCAA tries to give #1 seeds too much of an "easy road". It's even worse in women's BB than men's.
ballcoach15 wrote:You have no idea how seedings work, do you? Glad to see you are starting off the week strongolldflame wrote:There are as many 11 seeds and 9 seeds in the sweet 16 as there are 1 seeds.I like it when this happens. I think NCAA tries to give #1 seeds too much of an "easy road". It's even worse in women's BB than men's.
They let some teams play in their backyard, while sending other teams 2000+ miles away.
Purple Haize wrote: Go back and watch the game.No thanks. Watching it once was painful enough, but those first few minutes when Marshall had the comanding lead were amazing!
--Fumble (1961-2009), RIPCider Jim wrote:I had to order an Adult Ice Tea when that was going onPurple Haize wrote: Go back and watch the game.No thanks. Watching it once was painful enough, but those first few minutes when Marshall had the comanding lead were amazing!
--Fumble (1961-2009), RIPballcoach15 wrote:I know how seeding works, but often times it doesn't make sense, and often times some teams gets shafted.So a 1 seed should play a 4 seed?
Brackets are pretty logical not sure how you can argue with thatCider Jim wrote:I could hear you sweating all the way from Arizona.Could have been the jalapeño bacon
Purple Haize wrote:Here is an example of why seeding in NCAA tournament doesn't make sense sometimes:ballcoach15 wrote:I know how seeding works, but often times it doesn't make sense, and often times some teams gets shafted.So a 1 seed should play a 4 seed?
ballcoach15 wrote:Because they received an At Large bid. Auto Qualifiers don’t mean you are a better team than an At Large team. Syracuse is certainly a better team than RadfordPurple Haize wrote:Here is an example of why seeding in NCAA tournament doesn't make sense sometimes:ballcoach15 wrote:I know how seeding works, but often times it doesn't make sense, and often times some teams gets shafted.So a 1 seed should play a 4 seed?
Syracuse was the "last" team to be selected for tournament. Then they were given a #11 seed, why not 16 seed if they were last in ?
Purple Haize wrote:Auto Qualifiers don’t mean you are a better team than an At Large team. Syracuse is certainly a better team than RadfordPurple is showing off that WVU education: he's using logic AND dropping a Radford example. Even Ballcoach will have to agree with that (I think).
--Fumble (1961-2009), RIPCider Jim wrote:Well, based on their scores against Nova, Alabama is only 3 points better than Radford.Purple Haize wrote:Auto Qualifiers don’t mean you are a better team than an At Large team. Syracuse is certainly a better team than RadfordPurple is showing off that WVU education: he's using logic AND dropping a Radford example. Even Ballcoach will have to agree with that (I think).
Cider Jim wrote:Also used ‘than’ appropriatelyPurple Haize wrote:Auto Qualifiers don’t mean you are a better team than an At Large team. Syracuse is certainly a better team than RadfordPurple is showing off that WVU education: he's using logic AND dropping a Radford example. Even Ballcoach will have to agree with that (I think).
SuperJon wrote: I love dc Talk.
- By ECC29