NCAA tournament 2011 — running thread

Well, like I said we are basically talking about two of those teams - Butler and George Mason. And Butler probably will be scratched off the list historically next year when three players from that squad are on NBA rosters, including one - if not two - who were lottery picks.

So really we're talking about one of those teams.

And if we're talking ratio, I am quite sure that far more than 2/80ths of the field have been mid-majors, considering, about 25 of them automatically qualify for every tournament which means, even if there is never an at-large from a mid-major, about 40 percent of the field is mid-major.

So let's review - 2 out of 80 Final Four teams come from a group that makes up about 40 percent of the field.

It is not a trend. It is not even a blip on the radar.

It is a rare occurence.

Now what was that you were talking about ratios?

 

Wake me up the first Monday of April.

 

Now you have a legitimate argument. I was being an apologist for logic, which supports your view.

 

Friendly reminder: In Gonzaga's current run, which we will define as 1999-present, the closest they got to the Final Four was...their first season, taking UCONN to OT in the West Regional Finals. Second closest was the choke against UCLA in the '06 Sweet 16. (They've been to more Sweet 16s, but that's the only one they most certainly should've pulled off.)

Not really making a point, mind you. Just find that interesting.

 

Speaking of Gonzaga - every time I try to take the women's tournament seriously I am reminded what a farce it is - like last night when I see a No. 3 seed UCLA team playing against a No. 11 seed Gonzaga and the word GONZAGA is written in the middle of the floor, meaning, it was on their home court. Ditto for No. 3 DePaul having to play No. 6 Penn State at the Bryce Jordan Center.

Until that changes, the women's tournament is mostly a farce.

 

I'm pretty sure it would remain farcical no matter what changes are made.

 

Reasonably sure they play at sites with interest that have shown attendance in the past or during the season. Yes, that means higher seeds get home games. Just the way it goes.

 

The old system wasn't perfect but at least it made sense - the top four seeds in every region hosted the first two rounds. You got good attendance and at least the home teams earned it by being a top four seed.

Then some of the more militant types demanded the tournament go to a bidding system like the men - even though there was no evidence that it could support this kind of system - and ever since we've had empty arenas and tons of lost money for most teams that host the first two rounds - and on top of it we have 11 and 12 seeds playing at home.

It is a farce

 

Completely agree with this.

 

Fuck Butler.

 

How can you not love a face like that?