NCAA tournament 2011 — running thread

Anybody who can provide an explanation/translation about Pitino's claim that the ref in the Texas-Arizona game made a "mechanical" error on his 5-second call, please have at it. Pitino kept hammering the point, but I was never sure what the hell he was talking about. Or why he was there, other than to make Chuck and Kenny look better than they already did.

 

Stop the clock at minus-30 seconds. Happened even before my post was done.

 

And I'll add: The Big East DESERVED most of the teams that go in. It had a very good regular season out of conference.
But I do agree with those who say a winning CONFERENCE record should be a pre-requisite to getting an at-large. Place a sense of urgency on conference games and conference tournament games. Sorry UConn, you did great in in Hawaii, but you need to do better than .500 in the Big East.

You can even include conference tournaments in the conference record so a team with an 8-8 conference record in the regular season KNOWS it has to win two conference tournament games to be tournament eligible (9-9 doesn't cut it).

 

No, they wouldn't have.

The tournament is just fine the way it is. The right teams made it. The seeds are a little shaky. Stop searching for huge rips where there are only small creases.

 

Brian, I agree with your sentiments - however, a team that wins the conference tourney deserves to be in as well. UConn won the Big East tourney this season.

Martin, I think the tournament is fine. I just don't see how people can justify 11 teams from the Big East getting in while most other conferences get one or two, especially when every year the bottom half of the big-conference teams fail miserably to against the teams they're supposed to beat.

 

Three times in the Bill Self Era, Kansas has lost to a team seeded at least eight spots lower, so grouping them in as a traditional bed-shitter is not all that far-fetched.

 

So how does that right side of the bracket look for everybody? LMAO.

Blame the Big East hype on ESPN.

 

Just watched the replay of the Arizona-Texas game, interesting that the ref who called the 5-second call felt it was necessary to hold up his hand with the 5 and point in Arizona's direction three times. Looks like someone decided he wanted to be the show.

 

True. I shouldn't have used UConn as an example. That's what conference tournaments are for. But the points is still valid. Their second game (round of 8?) would have been basically for a bid.

 

He is, after all, a Pac-10 official.

 

I didn't see it that way at all.
The guy is like 5-8. When he made the call and signal, players on both teams started walking toward the benches because everyone thought it was a timeout. His job is to make sure his signal is seen by everyone, including the official timer, who's keeping track of timeouts - and i believe Arizona was out of them by then and Texas had one.
So he's not seen and when he sees players walking to the benches, he has to make his signal clear. He did.
But you just go along with your theory, because logic isn't as fun.

 

You mean the same Harvard that lost by 17 points to Oklahoma State (which went 6-10 in the Big 12) in the NIT? Or an Alabama team that lost to Seton Hall, one of the worst teams in the Big East?

Did the Big East lay a turd in the NCAA tournament? Of course it did. But which one of those 11 teams didn't deserve a spot?