Your Nomination for the Team That Got Absolutely Cornholed in the Tourney
- Thread starter KYtotheCore
- Start date
Is it really unreasonable to say that two, P5 conference regular season and/or tourney champs shouldn’t meet in the round of 32 game?
Because that’s getting exhausting to see every other year.
Because that’s getting exhausting to see every other year.
Penn is a good team. I agree 100%. No chance in hell they should have been a 16.
Yes it is unreasonable. Especially when one of those teams comes from the PAC-12 which at this point is only considered a P5 because otherwise we have to listen to everyone west of Texas cry about east coast bias.
I don't think Arizona is as good as people think. The Pac 12 was really bad. For example, people talk about how bad the B10 was this year, but check this out. The average Kenpom rating for the B10 was 60.8. Just for comparison, the average rating for the ACC is 53.1. The Pac 12 is 92! Arizona played in a really poor conference.
I don't get the MSU love. Who have they beat? UNC when UNC was playing poorly. Purdue by a last second 3 at home while Purdue was slumping. They lost to Michigan twice (Purdue beat them twice) and Ohio St. Yes they are good, but they will lose to either TCU or Duke. Mark it down.
Yeah, it’s not like they had a team in the final 4 last year, or a 2018 champ loaded with blue chip talent and the likeliest #1 NBA draft pick.
PAC12 isn’t great, but the top tier is usually stacked with talented teams.
No doubt-OSU. And there is no logic or excuse the fat heads at the NCAA can give that is satisfactory to the honesty and credibility of the tournament.
Self's logic on Dok on that game was good coaching. It worked out well for Dok and KU. It hurt KU in that with that victory instead of loss we could have been a higher number one. The dildo in the game were the 3 refs that did not call off ball fouls.
I don't see how VA got a raw deal, or MSU for that matter. VA only has to beat the winner of UK/AZ and those 2 don't have easy games. Once teams get to the sweet 16 all teams have to play a tough 2 games. I don't think any of the top seeds got a raw deal.
Of the 1 seeds, Kansas got cornholed the worst. In the EE if we get there, we basically have two teams that are 1 seed caliber. By far the toughest 2/3 combo. And our second round game is by far the toughest. Everybody’s talking about how Virginia got screwed by having Arizona as a 4 seed, but KU’s 8 seed beat that Arizona team....as well as DUKE and UNC. That is a team KU can and will lose to if they don’t shoot well. Where as Virginia will be able to coast through their second game.
I do think we have a favorable S16 matchup if we get there, but I think I may be more worried about our second game. NC State is as good or better than our 4 and 5 seeds and has better wins. NC State has shown they can beat the best teams and they will be playing with nothing to lose. I also think ACC teams are being undervalued this year. IMO, it’s the toughest league there is.
I do think we have a favorable S16 matchup if we get there, but I think I may be more worried about our second game. NC State is as good or better than our 4 and 5 seeds and has better wins. NC State has shown they can beat the best teams and they will be playing with nothing to lose. I also think ACC teams are being undervalued this year. IMO, it’s the toughest league there is.
Arizona has by far been the most underachieving team in the NCAA tournament over the last decade. They have seven losses this year. Five of those losses were against non-tournament teams and they won a conference that managed a whopping three bids with two of those bids being in the play in games.
This season the PAC-12 received the same amount of bids as the AAC and the A-10 and half as many bids as the Big East. Seems pretty mid major-ish to me.
Last time I checked, KY finished FOURTH. Even if you move the goalposts and try to claim that the conference tourney is more important, the committee makes their selections before the last game ends.
Calipari has nothing to bitch about. He had far and away more talent than anyone in that league and finished fourth. Quit bitching about how young your team is and win more games. 98% of the nation would trade rosters.
Cal is such a d-bag. Sometimes entertaining, but a d-bag nonetheless.
Has to be the Izzo factor or eye test. Certainly isn't their list of accomplishments. They won 2 of 6 vs tourney teams and weren't even competitive in half those losses.
And expecting them to get by a Duke team that beat them convincingly without Bagley seems unreasonable.
3 of those losses came in a noncon tourney in November, and another 3 were conference road games.
People used to make that same argument about the SEC. It never changed the fact that the top tier had great, talented teams.
Outside of Nova, there isn’t a single Big East team with the kind of talent Zona has, and anyone with Xavier as their #1 seed should be ecstatic.
Yikes. Triggered much?
His point was there are a few teams with amazing talent, playing their best ball right now, all grouped together in the top half of this bracket. Stop being so angry.
It’s true, three of their losses came against teams in a non conference tournament in November. It’s also true that they faced just as many NCAAT teams in that non conference tournament as they did throughout their entire conference schedule.
I don't feel bad for teams that don't play anyone. you want in the tourney, play somebody good out of conference.
I don't have a problem with saying it sucks. I wouldn't want to play Arizona in the 2nd round either. But they weren't "jobbed." Virginia was jobbed. Duke/Michigan St were arguably jobbed.
UNC was playing poorly? They were 5-0 and had just stomped Arkansas before losing to MSU by 18. Then they stomped Michigan, won 4 more in a row including at Tennessee (who beat Purdue). Then beat Ohio State 2 games later.
Who did Purdue beat? Their only good wins are against Michigan twice, when Michigan wasn't playing as well. The 3rd meeting, Michigan worked them most of the game. Marquette not a tournament team. Louisville not a tournament team.
So Purdue has 10-seed Butler and an Arizona team that was missing it's 2nd best player as their 2 best wins?
3 seed Michigan twice. Michigan very well would have still won the 3rd matchup, but V. Edwards not being full speed hurt. I highly doubt Arizona having their extra player would have made up the 30 point difference in that game. We put our scrubs in with 6 minutes to play and still won by 25.
Still much better than MSU's
Last edited:
Not the same. That is more or less in place for non-P5 conference's. I mean how many P5 Conference reg. season champs have you seen not get an at-large, afteer losing in their conference touney? Now.......How many non P5 conference reg. season champs have you seen not receive an at-large after losing in their conference tourney?
See the difference?
WInning a conference over an 18 game schedule is much more relevant, and important, than winning three games in a tourney. Hell half the time, you don't even play anyone worth a shit until the semi's. Even then, it's not a given.
This! Oklahoma or Syracuse in over Louisville is crazy. I would even argue that ND deserved it over those two.
So UT should have to play Arizona in second round game? Got it.
Personally I wish they would stop having conference tourneys.
Barcus was nit picking anyway.
UT was co-champs in thre regular season. Hence them getting a 3-seed , and UK who finished 4th, yet won the SECT, got a 5.
Again----see the difference?
I can agree, somewhat. Not a huge difference in the two though. But that's not the "argument". He's saying the conference tourney, since it has the auto bid, is more relevant than the regular season; simply b/c of the auto bif that comes with winning the conference tourney.
Just not true.
SHould be a fun, fun tourney.
The argument shifts to asking if the committee should reward conference tournament champs more, effectively taking into account the teams that have figured it out down the stretch and are playing above what their resume suggests. Unless they factor that in, you're going to continue to see teams like '14 Witchita St. or UVA this year playing teams seeded lower but playing their best ball of the year in March because they're usually just younger and take longer to mesh. And they should be taken into account anyway considering they're mandatory to determine automatic qualifiers. You can say UK "should have just won more" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that teams like UVA this year are getting screwed by potentially having to face underseeded and incredibly talented teams in Zona or UK.
Exactly how is UK or AZ, under seeded? What seed should UK have been? Or AZ? UK is 15th in the RPI. AZ is 17th. Or in other words, pretty much on par with their seed. UK was 0-4 vs RPI Top 25 teams until Sundays win over UT. Arizona has zero Top 25 wins. Ok, so they have played better the last few weeks. And? It doesn't change the whole; And lets not forget, UK got hammered just a weekj or so ago at Florida. UK's best win(via RPI) is UT. AZ's is Texas AM.
Exactly where do you seed them? Do you feel UK or ZOna should've been 3 seeds or better?
Yep, that was certainly a full strength Arizona team and Purdue is at least 25 points better than them. Just disregard that they didn't have their 2nd best player, and you played them after they were already in a 2 game tail slide.
Last edited:
Did you even read my post? I said, yeah, their resumes may be lacking but it's only because they're both extremely young teams who took longer to mesh. And as long as people like you, and the committee apparently, don't recognize that dilemma for teams like UVA then you're going to continue to get teams getting screwed over. Both UK and Arizona are playing better than their seed indicates. If you can't see that then that's on you.
Arizona’s top 5 players are a senior, two juniors, a sophomore and a freshman. They were the pre-season #1 ranked team in the country. Is that really what passes as “extremely young” these days?
You seem to be getting Arizonas players mixed up.
Arizonas two best players are very clearly Alonzo Trier and Deandre Ayton. They both played vs Purdue.
Rawle Alkins is who Arizona was missing. He has the worst Ortg of any Arizona starter at 106 while the next worst is 115, and has more turnovers on the year than assists. He also has the worst true shooting % of any Arizona starter that I can find. He is the least efficient starter.
It would be like someone arguing Josh Langford is MSUs 2nd best player(although tbf to Alkins, he is not a net negative player like Langford).
Here are the undeniable facts:
MSU beat both Purdue (close) and UNC (rather handily)
MSU won regular season title
Purdue and UNC no titles this season
MSU has better overall record than both
MSU has no bad losses (4 total)
Purdue has 2 bad losses (WKy and Wisc) (6 total)
UNC has 1 bad loss (Wofford) and 10 overall losses (10 losses = 2 seed?)
It isn't MSU's fault most of the Big10 sucked but they did what they had to do going 16-2. Michigan sure seems to be a bad matchup for MSU and had their number twice. But they lost a couple games they shouldn't have and were never a factor in the race. My point being, MSU deserved a 2 seed before Purdue or UNC, and that's not a knock on either team. The results pretty much speak the truth. The committee got it wrong in my opinion.
Similar threads
