Running 2010 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament thread

Once again, those concussions you got playing toughman football are severely hurting your ability to follow along.

First - anybody who said "unathletic" about Cornell's teams is an idiot who never watched them play. That team has very good athletes even though they are, gasp, white. But then again - this is you creating a stereotype you think exists then trying to argue against it.

Second - Did I say or even hint that Temple and Wisconsin were EASY games or matchups -- or did I say that Cornell MATCHED UP VERY WELL WITH THEM and thus the draw was favorable for them to advance?

Yeah, that's what I thought, but again, you have no clue when it comes to basketball plus you are concussed so I can understand why you are having such a tough time understanding the concepts of matchups.

Wisconsin and Temple would indeed be nightmare matchups for certain teams -- Cornell is not one of them. Cornell actually matches up very well with both of them.

There are other teams who wouldn't be such a great matchup for Cornell based on what they do well. There are also other top teams who don't match up well against Cornell.

Matchups in basketball mean something, a lot, actually.

Oh, but I forgot - Temple is ranked in the top 15 in the AP poll and that is as deep as your analysis is able to go..... :

 

This from a man who IS an idiot savant......

 

It is not 100 percent wrong.

You are right, Temple is better statistically against the 3-pointer than I actually thought they were, but they had games were they were very vulnerable to it and it usually was teams who had a good inside-outside combination (like Kansas, Richmond and Cornell) and teams who could score from multiple positions.

And more importantly, beyond the 3-point shooting, Temple is not a very good offensive team and that makes them a very good matchup for teams, like Cornell, that can score.

One of the worst cliches in sports - particularly college basketball -- is that defense wins championships because if you look who gets to the final four, it ain't generally teams that play style like Pitt, Wisconsin and Temple, but rather, it is teams that can score.

So yes, Temple's numbers defending the 3-pointer overall are better than I thought, but I notice you cherry picked that one out of the overall point which is a point many people have made since the minute the brackets came out -- except for dunces who have suffered multiple concussions and compare themselves to pro football players because of it -- and that is that Temple was a very good matchup for Cornell.

And when looking at matchups it doesn't matter how bad Cornell defends the 3-pointer, it matters how well Temple shoots it.

 

It doesn't matter, West Virginia is ranked in the top ten and ranked higher than Washington, so they will win [/concussion man]

 

Lucas was B10 player of the year last year and the Spartans were 0-3 without him in the lineup earlier this season. That and Kori Lucious is a turnover machine and another guard, Chris Allen, hurt his ankle.

 

Suton was huge for the Spartans last year and they have this huge hole in the post because their 7-footer never panned out. In fact, the Spartans 2006 class of Herzog, Dahlman and Morgan pretty much fizzled all together.

They are very young, and without their point guard they are dead in the water. We can talk as much as we want about how good Tom Izzo is as a coach and blah blah blah, but the fact remains the Spartans blew a huge lead to an overrated Maryland team. Game should have never been that close.

 

But, but, but matchups don't matter - the only thing that matters is AP rankings...... :

 

Nope, didn't cherry-pick. I had just looked up that particular stat to refute that particular point. A previous post discussed other reasons this was not universally perceived as a favorable matchup for Cornell, as you claim. In fact, several analysts I watched and read on various outlets said Temple was one of the worst first-round matchups Cornell could have drawn (other than the obvious No. 1 seed). A couple showed game tape to break down why, pointing to Temple's adept switching on perimeter screens, allowing the Owls to contest virtually every 3-point shot.

They also pointed out Fran Dunphy's nearly perfect record against his former assistants (22-1 prior to the tournament, including 12-0 against Donahue), the fact Temple would not be taken by surprise by Cornell's system and that it played a similar disciplined style with better athletes. Plus, the overwhelming consensus was that while Cornell was probably underseeded, Temple was way underseeded and should have been a three or a four.

In hindsight, obviously, you can say it was a wonderful matchup for Cornell, since it won big. But don't act like everyone with half a brain was saying that beforehand, and if you weren't, you were a "dunce."

I've been on the Cornell bandwagon since January, telling everyone I know for months that the Big Red would win at least one and probably two games in the NCAA tournament and would be dangerous in the regional. But when I saw the draw, I almost backed off for the reasons already stated.

That said, once Cornell had stomped Temple, I felt pretty certain it would take out Wisconsin.

Anyway, maybe you're the genius you seem to claim you are, and Cornell over Temple was an easy pick. To most of the rest of us "dunces," including some guys who are paid huge bucks to figure this stuff out, it was nowhere near that clear.

 

I would try and find out who the refs are callingthe game. If they are prone to calling tight games and getting big men in foul trouble, that does not help Cornell.

 

Gotta figure Kentucky has an 85 percent chance of winning and covering. At peak or near-peak efficiency, they are the best remaining team in the tournament by a mile. So if they're not an AAA-rated investment, they're at least AA+.