NCAA tournament 2011 — running thread

[holy bull]

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 heck he was talking about. Or why he was there, other than to make Chuck and Kenny look better than they already did.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

Traditional bed-shirtters doing a lot of bed-shirtting in this tournament. I'd worry if I were a Kansas fan.

Never worried. Illinois had no answer for the Morris twins.

You know, Kansas has more wins in the NCAA tournament since 2000 than any other school. So KU chokes every year, except for when it doesn't.

And coming up in their bracket: Seeds 10, 11 and 12. The kinds of teams Kansas loses to in the tourney (see: Bucknell, Northern Iowa).

Also, I'm with Charles Barkley. He said that Syrcause's loss to Marquette indicates that Syracuse wasn't actually that good.

My bracket is a cluster. One team left in the Southwest (Kansas) and yet I got it right in the Southeast and my Final Four teams are still alive.

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

 

[BrianGriffin]

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).

 

[MartinonMTV2]

Hard to believe that Hansbrough was player of the year in the Big East over Walker.

And if the Big East didn't get 11 in, then Marquette would have been left at home instead of the Sweet 16.

I guess Harvard or Alabama can still be pissed, but it all worked out in the end.

Harvard and Alabama certainly would have put up a better showing than Villanova and Georgetown.

(EDIT: Didn't want to have back-to-back posts)

The problem isn't the good teams; it's the mediocre teams from conferences getting in. There are top three and four teams from smaller conferences getting left at home while the bigger conferences send every team. They need to cap how many teams a conference can send, because at some point these super conferences are going to be taking every big and getting seeds they don't deserve while good teams that consistently win in the first couple of rounds get awful seeds or don't even get invited.

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.

 

[Rhody31]

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).

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Traditional bed-shirtters doing a lot of bed-shirtting in this tournament. I'd worry if I were a Kansas fan.

Never worried. Illinois had no answer for the Morris twins.

You know, Kansas has more wins in the NCAA tournament since 2000 than any other school. So KU chokes every year, except for when it doesn't.

The clock starts ticking now for the first person to say: "It was only one good year."

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-shirtter is not all that far-fetched.

 

[printdust]

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

Blame the Big East hype on ESPN.

 

[KP]

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.

 

[BrianGriffin]

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).

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.

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.

 

[printdust]

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.

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

 

[Rhody31]

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.

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.

 

[BillySixty]

Harvard and Alabama certainly would have put up a better showing than Villanova and Georgetown.

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?