It's clearly better than you thought.
And that's what I'm doing, so I'm not sure what you're ranting about.
B12 computer tricksters?
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
It's clearly better than you thought.
And that's what I'm doing, so I'm not sure what you're ranting about.
I never said Purdue got anything out of it. What would Kentucky get out of the rest of the teams in their conference getting blasted in the tournament?
That sounds like a you problem. I don't "hate" any school to that degree. Some of their fans might suck, but other than that...
Again, sounds like a you thing. MOST people care to some degree how their conference stacks up with the rest because it makes them think/feel they have some sort of view into how their team will do in the tournament.
I think we all need to admit we are all biased to some extent.
While some might say they want their conference to lose, there are times those guys defend their conference while under attack from fans of other conferences.
We're dudes, we all have a competitive edge.
Me, yeah, I want to see the SEC do well, because it sort of proves that my team didn’t have an easy road and those tough wins were legit. See, I don't want things handed to me, I want to earn what I get. I don't want a ref helping UK win a game either, I would rather see UK win a game where the calls favored the other team and I don't want to get a high seed because my conference sucked and we piled up a bunch of easy wins.
Now, my loyalty to the SEC only goes so far, I damn sure don't want certain teams to win a title, because every time certain fanbases taste a little success, in their minds, it means they are a better program as a whole, because they did something more recently. Again, we're all at least a little competitive.
The bottom line is, the SEC was a damn good conference, it was tough to win games home, or away, but, the tournament is a different beast. Some teams rise to the challenge (Bama, NCST, Clemson, Creighton, UConn, UT etc… ) and some teams peed down their leg (UK and Auburn), doesn’t mean UK and Auburn sucked, both teams had great seasons and earned their seeds.
How UK can win @Auburn, unc, @UT and have Alabama down by 37 points, then lose to Oakland, is a head scratcher, but, that’s why they play the games.
Still been a great tournament though.
While some might say they want their conference to lose, there are times those guys defend their conference while under attack from fans of other conferences.
We're dudes, we all have a competitive edge.
Me, yeah, I want to see the SEC do well, because it sort of proves that my team didn’t have an easy road and those tough wins were legit. See, I don't want things handed to me, I want to earn what I get. I don't want a ref helping UK win a game either, I would rather see UK win a game where the calls favored the other team and I don't want to get a high seed because my conference sucked and we piled up a bunch of easy wins.
Now, my loyalty to the SEC only goes so far, I damn sure don't want certain teams to win a title, because every time certain fanbases taste a little success, in their minds, it means they are a better program as a whole, because they did something more recently. Again, we're all at least a little competitive.
The bottom line is, the SEC was a damn good conference, it was tough to win games home, or away, but, the tournament is a different beast. Some teams rise to the challenge (Bama, NCST, Clemson, Creighton, UConn, UT etc… ) and some teams peed down their leg (UK and Auburn), doesn’t mean UK and Auburn sucked, both teams had great seasons and earned their seeds.
How UK can win @Auburn, unc, @UT and have Alabama down by 37 points, then lose to Oakland, is a head scratcher, but, that’s why they play the games.
Still been a great tournament though.
Results are proving otherwisel
Again, results are proving otherwise. At least for the B12.
Not really, no.
Last edited:
You're telling me that Auburn losing to Yale and Kentucky losing to Oakland is no worse than Tech losing to NC State and BYU losing to Duquesne? LOL.
Most SEC teams were gone after the first round, with some major faceplants, and they went 3-16 vs ranked teams in the non-con. Somehow this adds up to proving they were a better league than the Big 12. Again, make it make sense.
Aside from McCullar/Dickinson, Baylor was w/out one of their best guards, Tech was missing multiple key players, Houston's missing multiple players and has no depth now.
I already did. You made a plethora of excuses for the Big 10 and SEC, but didn't apply the same logic to the Big 12.
Last edited:
I was not aware of the players that were out for those teams. It wasn't an intentional overlook. That said, I'm still not certain of these multiple players missing for Baylor, Tech and Houston (meaning I don't know who they are). It apparently didn't affect their seeding like it did for Northwestern and other teams in the past. Or were these missing players not major contributors?
I don't follow each of them closely enough to know the full impact, but Houston lost three rotation players over the last few months, and some of their fans feared their season was over prior to the tourney. One of the Texas Tech regulars on this board said that the injuries were a huge blow, especially the most recent, and he didn't expect to win a tourney game. And Love was definitely an important piece for Baylor. One of their best scorers.
@mcnicKY91
The ACC is now 10-2 in the tourney after an 11 seed dominated a 2 seed.
You sure the league sucks?
The ACC is now 10-2 in the tourney after an 11 seed dominated a 2 seed.
You sure the league sucks?
Yep...there is a reason why only 4 teams were selected by the committee (I don't count UVA as a first four, but you can include them if you would like).
Reminds me of 2017 when the ACC was loaded, and the SEC blew. Yet UNC was the only ACC team to get out of the first weekend, meanwhile 3 SEC teams went to the Elite 8. Guess what, the ACC was still the far superior conference to the SEC that year...
But I am glad I am the first thing that comes to your mind when an ACC team wins a tourney game.
Ah…so results don’t matter. What matters is the infallible committee’s selections. Got it.
Doubling down even though the 10th place team (with a losing conference record) just steamrolled their way to the Elite 8.
Curious…what makes the SEC better than the ACC? Much worse performance in the tourney so far and a terrible record vs good teams in the non-con.
Pitt, Syracuse and Wake Forest could have beaten some teams in this tournament if they had gotten in.
No, I just remain consistent. See my comments on the 2017 tourney. The SEC was awful that year and got 3 teams to the Elite 8. The ACC was loaded and had a great year. Only UNC made it out of first weekend. I would never say the SEC was better. Would you?
And to your comment about the infallible committee, fine, throw their selections out. Feel free to look at the hundreds of other bracket projections. Every single one averaged 4-5 ACC teams. I guess all of these ppl, plus the selection committee are wrong, and you are right. What else is new with your posts...
But again, glad you feel the need to come running directly to me to pound your chest over an ACC win.
So all that matters are the projections of people like Lunardi. What happens on the court is meaningless. All righty then.
Yep, you’re consistent all right. 🤣
The selection got it wrong my giving UVA a invite but not to Pitt and Wake. I seen enough of those teams this year to say they should of got in.
More times than not the ACC has always performed well in the tourney but the narrative was already written before conference play. Personally the strength of a conference is determined how well you do in March, not in Nov/Dec.
More times than not the ACC has always performed well in the tourney but the narrative was already written before conference play. Personally the strength of a conference is determined how well you do in March, not in Nov/Dec.
No, you are misrepresenting what I am saying...I am consistent in my approach.
I clearly said in 2017 I wouldn't consider the SEC better then the ACC, even though three teams went to the Elite 8. I am using that same logic consistent with the ACC this yr in comparison to the SEC. You still haven't answered, would you say the SEC was better then the ACC is 2017?
Second, I said hundreds of bracketologists. Not just Lunardi. I will go with what hundreds of bracketologists, along with the selection committee say, over what you say, in regards to the ACC.
Please stop twisting and misrepresenting what I have said in this thread.
I don’t remember the 2017 SEC or ACC well enough to say. Did the SEC win 92% of their tourney games entering the Elite 8? And how’d they do in the non-con?
The ACC has been solid in the tourney almost every year, even in their allegedly shitty seasons. Meanwhile, the SEC has a losing record in the tourney the last three years and a poor record in the non-con this year and most seasons. If one of these leagues deserves the benefit of the doubt, it’s not the SEC.
The idea that there are only a few good teams at the top isn’t supported by the fact that their 10th place team rolled to the Elite 8.
You realize that a bracketologist projecting more tourney teams for a given league doesn’t equate to saying the league is superior, right? You’re seriously saying we should ignore the results on the court because some dudes decided the SEC deserves to put a few more bubble teams in the field? That’s asinine.
Last edited:
The big 12 OOC wasn’t that great. Ku and Baylor played very tough schedules. Houston was ok. Conference sos was #3. So yes I think net was elevated without reason somewhat.
Iowa state OOC was not good.
The big 12 sec challenge being done was not a good thing for SOS for either leavue.
We did win the big east big 12 challenge tho.
Houston was really the one beacon of light for the league this year and Shead’s injury ruined a natty possibility. Houston was only team that could beat UConn.
Iowa state OOC was not good.
The big 12 sec challenge being done was not a good thing for SOS for either leavue.
We did win the big east big 12 challenge tho.
Houston was really the one beacon of light for the league this year and Shead’s injury ruined a natty possibility. Houston was only team that could beat UConn.
Similar threads
