Thursday NCAA Tournament Game Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I'm literally stunned that the announcers aren't talking about that. WTF? The shooter's right fingers were CLEARLY the last thing to touch the ball. How the fuck do they say Aggie Ball?
Why stand there and wait for them to foul you? Run the ball up the court. Man, neither team deserves a win here.
The refs literally changed this game with that call. If SDSU loses this game and gets knocked out of the tournament, that call is the reason, and that's fucking horseshit. They missed the foul call, but the don't have the right to just arbitrarily make up for it and give the ball back to NMSU. I can't remember being this frustrated by a game in a long time, for so, so many reasons.
Cellar, I missed that one. Can't keep up with everything today. The NCAA should take away these guys rights to ref any more games in the tournament for that shit.
To compound it, didn't Gottlieb basically give the refs a pass before they made the call because of the missed foul?Deathofthebambino said:
bankshot1 said:
Tell me what part of their 2013-14 resume qualifies them as one of the top 12 seeds. Seriously. Look at their fucking schedule. Meanwhile, Kansas played 8 non-conference teams that are in the tournament, including Duke, Villanova and Florida. And that's on top of the 6 conference teams they had to play TWICE who made the NCAAs, plus NIT invitee West Virginia. Yet everyone was claiming the Jayhawks were seeded too high. Fuck that shit.
It's about more than raw wins and losses. Records need to be examined in the context of their competition quality. And whatever they did in 2012-13 doesn't fucking matter one fucking bit.
Investor, exactly. Gottlieb actually called it, just like I did in the thread, before the refs made the call. And then they just blew it off like it didn't happen. They were too busy planning their buzzer beater call that the refs were trying to line up for them.
I'm not going to slice and dice their wins and losses from November, nor their strength of schedule. I can't do it. But I watch them play and for the last month of the season they looked pretty good to me. I've got them going to the FF and losing to Florida.mabrowndog said:
I'm not sure why the selection comittee made the decisions they did,but I'm hardly the only person who has questioned the ceding of a 29-5 team and defending champ ats a #4.. .
If you think there are 12-15 teams in the country better than L'ville thats your opinion, and that's fine, but it seems to be at odds with your analysis putting them in the FF. You have them winning the toughest bracket.
bankshot1 said:
Predicting the sequential results of a bracket is based on matchups. Nothing more. It wasn't as if I saw them sitting there and immediately decided they were coming out of that regional. I assessed their style of play, strengths and weaknesses on a case-by-case basis versus their projected opponents round-by-round.
Louisville isn't an awful team. Neither are any of the teams sitting in the top 6 seed lines. But when it comes to splitting hairs between a 4 and 5, or a 3 and 4, the importance of a strong non-conference schedule is greatly magnified. And the indignation of those who took such a personal offense to the committee doing its job fairly and without prejudice was way out of proportion to the debate.
I'm not splitting hairs. I'm straight forward. I think L'ville is better than their #4 ceding. And it seems you do as well.As do lots of other people.mabrowndog said:
You have them winning what appears to be the toughest bracket, and getting to the FF. I agree.
However your L'ville FF selection is inconsistent with your belief that they should be a #4, and there are 12+ teams better than they are.
By your own analysis and selection they are the best team in the bracket.
bankshot1 said:
The other three teams in my Final Four are UCLA, UConn and Oklahoma State. They're seeded 4, 7 and 9 respectively. By your logic, I should be pissed at the committee for not making them #1 seeds as well, which is preposterous. I do believe OSU was seeded a little low, but I'm not going to make a federal case out of it because I understand the constraints the committee must work with. The outrage shown by those who so fervently believed Louisville HAD to be seeded higher shows an utter ignorance of the criteria used by the committee, including overall schedule strength.
Should the committee have made NC State the #1 overall seed in 1983? Or Villanova in 1985? Did they screw up when Virginia Commonwealth, George Mason and Butler made their respective Final Fours in recent years by not originally placing them at the top of their brackets? Are you starting to see how ridiculous this is?
My logic has nothing to do with you being pissed at anyone. I'm not pissed at anyone, nor outraged by the ceding outcome. I have no dog in this fight.mabrowndog said:
I noted that you made two arguments that appear to be at odds with one another, the first that you think L'ville was fairly ceded as a #4, and the second, that in your opinion you believe they are the best team in that bracket (ie. you in fact ceded them #1) I agreed with your receding decision. I made the same one, as did a lot of other predictors. And we are both aware, this tournament is subject to lots of upsets and the selection committee is hardly perfect in their ceding decisions, but they do a reasonably good job..
Good luck with your brackets.
Hambone said:
Having had time to let this sink in and evaluate the entirety. Texas averaged 15 offensive rebounds a game and is known to be very aggressive going after offensive rebounds, so that's why you box out, assholes. Just throw up an elbow to delay him for one second if you can't box out.