Friday's NCAA Tournament Thread
- Thread starter I.I.
- Start date
As a new Alabaman with the UAB situation, yes it would, but they won't do it...they want a big name the go up against Bruce Pearl, it's a never ending competition between auburn and bama , this does complicate the bigger issue, which is where should uab go conference wise? Can/should they stay in CUSA without football
8 games were decided on the last possession ! Great day of basketball !
Days like yesterday make the NCAA tournament what it is. That why even the greediest P5 advocates won't ruin this event.
So far Friday is a snoozer. KU and Self's weave up comfortably on NMSU and Mich St is handling Georgia. Speaking of UGA, is Juwan Parker still there and does he play at all? I keep looking for him but haven't seen him on the court
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Parker was starting until he hurt his achilles in his 17th game. He hasn't played since. After the injury Fox said it wouldn't heal until after the season. Was avg about 5.5 pts and 3.8 rebs.
Exactly, who wants to see two middling power fives play each other, give me the no names against the bigs that is what makes the tourney great.
I love the argument from the bigs "that team can't compete in our league" and then the "little engine that could" goes out there and wins the game.
Thursday and Friday are the two best days of the basketball season.
GO TU!!!!
Those facts aren't mutually exclusive. Georgia St and UAB could not compete in the Big12. They would have finished in the bottom 2 or 3 of the league. That doesn't mean they can't beat the league leaders on a given day. Texas Tech beat ISU this year. The worst TCU team in forever beat a #1 seed KU a couple of years ago. Anything can happen on a given day.
I think the argument is more that the top teams in some of these mid-major leagues are better than the Texas' and OSU's this year. NCAA just needs to come out and make the rule, no .500 in your own conference, no NCAA tournament. If they can make the argument that their league is tougher, we all can make the argument that they need to play better in that conference to show they're worthy of a spot in the tourney. Teams like Texas, OSU, Indiana, UCLA getting in just smacks of a money grab.
When we joined the AAC Tulsa was not supposed to finish second, when Florida State joined the ACC years ago they walked into the conference and immediately were relative in that league. Butler in the Big East,etc.etc.
The conventional thought is that usually new teams can't compete with the teams a step up but that is not true at all.
Good basketball programs can compete in any league.
Not too many B-12 fans would ever admit that TCU could play in their league in football, mind you TCU has been good for years, but in B-12 fans minds not good enough for their league. Well guess what TCU was the best program in the league last year. I think its harder in football than basketball.
The perception is just wrong that programs in lower conferences can't compete with the bigs, teams like Wichita State, Creighton, Xavier, Tulsa, Butler, Temple, VCU etc. can play in any conference given the chance. IMHO.
GO TU!!!
No its friggin UCLA no shame in losing to one of the greatest basketball programs of all time. Did UCLA's body of work really deserve a bid? Maybe maybe not. Using your own logic anyone can win a game in the NCAA. Isn't that what you have been posting?
When Bradley beats Kansas, in your mind Kansas just lost. Kansas is still the better team.
When SMU loses to UCLA on a BS call you justify that the Big Conference team as better.
You can't have it both ways Phoggy.
GO TU!!!
Tu Geo posted on 3/20/2015...
The conventional thought is that usually new teams can't compete with the teams a step up but that is not true at all.
Good basketball programs can compete in any league.
Not too many B-12 fans would ever admit that TCU could play in their league in football, mind you TCU has been good for years, but in B-12 fans minds not good enough for their league. Well guess what TCU was the best program in the league last year. I think its harder in football than basketball.
__________________________
To be fair TCU couldn't compete in the Big12 it's first two year (losing record both years). Once TCU had an opportunity to recruit to the better conference it not only became competitive but won the league last year. It also helps that the Frogs have a great coach. Great coaches in both football and basketball will be successful regardless of league affiliation. To TCU's credit they have thus far found a way to keep Patterson in Fort Worth. They're going to be very good again this year btw.
When we joined the AAC Tulsa was not supposed to finish second, when Florida State joined the ACC years ago they walked into the conference and immediately were relative in that league. Butler in the Big East,etc.etc.
The conventional thought is that usually new teams can't compete with the teams a step up but that is not true at all.
Good basketball programs can compete in any league.
Not too many B-12 fans would ever admit that TCU could play in their league in football, mind you TCU has been good for years, but in B-12 fans minds not good enough for their league. Well guess what TCU was the best program in the league last year. I think its harder in football than basketball.
__________________________
To be fair TCU couldn't compete in the Big12 it's first two year (losing record both years). Once TCU had an opportunity to recruit to the better conference it not only became competitive but won the league last year. It also helps that the Frogs have a great coach. Great coaches in both football and basketball will be successful regardless of league affiliation. To TCU's credit they have thus far found a way to keep Patterson in Fort Worth. They're going to be very good again this year btw.
That is my point. I was responding to TU-BLA post where he seems to want to argue it both ways. An upset in the tournament does not mean that Team A is better than Team B or that Team A could compete in Team B's conferenece. It simply means Team A played better than Team B on that particular day. It is no different than Texas Tech beating ISU in a regular season game. It doesn't mean Texas Tech is better, it just means they played beter on that day.
To also be fair TCU had just graduated the best players from its rose bowl team and were looking at a rebuild. That team would have had no problem in the Big12
Not sure how the fact that TCU's was able to run the table in the MWC during it's rebuilding year proves your point but ok.
Anyway, back to the thread topic. Any ideas on what's going on with the Shockers? They've been down the entire first half and currently down 6. Have them going to the sweet 16 so need them to snap out of this funk.
Anyway, back to the thread topic. Any ideas on what's going on with the Shockers? They've been down the entire first half and currently down 6. Have them going to the sweet 16 so need them to snap out of this funk.
Rebuild is relative to how good that team was. With no Dalton, Kerley, and Carter they weren't the same team. Pretty easy to understand. They also were quite competitive in their first year in the big 12 despite your assertion that they weren't competitive in the first two years.They beat ranked Texas and WVU and lost closely to ranked Tech and OU to finish 4-5 in conference. The Rose Bowl team was much better and would have been favored in almost every Big12 game. But yeah enough football.
This post was edited on 3/20 3:00 PM by URedskin54
This post was edited on 3/20 3:00 PM by URedskin54
Not at all. Everyone thinks because a team who shouldn't have been in the tournament all of a sudden validates their inclusion by winning a game. Happens all the time...Maybe all those questionable teams should be forced to play one another in those play-in games which always seem to end up pitting mid-majors against one another. Maybe UCLA and Texas should have played one another on Tuesday. Why does Dayton have to play that game? Why does BYU? Its the same power garbage that ended up with Wichita St. having to go through a gauntlet of teams that were grossly misplaced by the committee last year.
Wichita St. up 6 and the ball at the under 8 (65-59). WSU's defense inside has been better. I think Indiana's quickness threw them off at first. But, this is the way Indiana has played much of the year. Unlike a lot of teams, they are quick starters and poor finishers.
UCI vs the 'Ville is very entertaining. We need a 7'6" player. He's not UCI's only big player though. tacko for UCF next year will be around that tall but I don't think he'll have the bulk.
I think it's officiating. Isn't it true that in this tourney, you don't move up to make more money wearing the stripes unless you do well according to a group that reviews your game?
If that is the case, then I don't think it's an "Any Given Sunday" situation it's a "Finally on a Even Playing Field" with the big boys situation.
Thoughts?
Missing the point again. UCLA should not have been in the tournament regardless of how they do. My point is that you have been stating that these upsets mean the little guys could be competitive in the big guy's conferences. Yet, you don't acknowledge the inverse when someone like UCLA beats a non-P5 conference champ.
OSU and Oregon look like the Sherbert Bowl. By the way how many All Americans transferred from Houston?? Young is another one ! They would be #1 in the conference if all had stayed.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
OSU always has trouble beating OU, although this time it is Oregon. OSU ends season losing 7 of 8 ! You rarely hear that bad of a finish for an NCAA team. They need to go back to looking at a team's last 10 games as part as their resume. They only removed it to help P5 schools.