March Madness

[msgkings322]

Huh, guess we have different definitions..

Yep, correct and incorrect

 

[logic]

Whoa whoa.

Ok, I was wrong. They only won the play in.

But they did not get curb stomped. They lost by 7.

And like I said, there was a legit case to be made for them to be in the field. This isn’t an open and shut case.

And of course the ACC should have more than 3 teams. I don’t care how far down they are.

The final score was only 7, but the game wasn't ever close. It's only because Ol' Miss let the Heels go on a huge run at the end it was even that close. It was 44-26 at the half.

 

[logic]

Yep, correct and incorrect

Glad you admit you are incorrect.

 

[tlance]

The final score was only 7, but the game wasn't ever close. It's only because Ol' Miss let the Heels go on a huge run at the end it was even that close. It was 44-26 at the half.

Ok?

Basketball is a game of runs.

Not like Ole Miss stopped trying at halftime.

They were clearly better. They were supposed to win. But losing by 7 to a higher seed after winning a play in game does not tell the story you want it to.

 

[logic]

Ok?

Basketball is a game of runs.

Not like Ole Miss stopped trying at halftime.

They were clearly better. They were supposed to win. But losing by 7 to a higher seed after winning a play in game does not tell the story you want it to.

It was one wrong pick on a low seed, in my opinion, with scents of nepotism. It's not like any team that got that spot was going to make any kind of run.
I agree that the committee this year did an excellent job with the picks and seeding overall.
I guess I just have a higher standard for the term 'nailed it'. I would never use it unless I got everything 100% correct (which is actually impossible with the NCAA tournament). I was just pointing out a couple of things that I believed were flaws which would have kept me from saying nailed it if I had made the selections.

 

[msgkings322]

Glad you admit you are incorrect.

I did?

 

[msgkings322]

It was one wrong pick on a low seed, in my opinion, with scents of nepotism. It's not like any team that got that spot was going to make any kind of run.
I agree that the committee this year did an excellent job with the picks and seeding overall.
I guess I just have a higher standard for the term 'nailed it'. I would never use it unless I got everything 100% correct (which is actually impossible with the NCAA tournament). I was just pointing out a couple of things that I believed were flaws which would have kept me from saying nailed it if I had made the selections.

There ya go...it's impossible to 'nail it' by your definition, so mine is correct since it communicates something meaningful and possible. They crushed it, nailed it, whatever word you want to use.

 

[tlance]

It was one wrong pick on a low seed, in my opinion, with scents of nepotism. It's not like any team that got that spot was going to make any kind of run.
I agree that the committee this year did an excellent job with the picks and seeding overall.
I guess I just have a higher standard for the term 'nailed it'. I would never use it unless I got everything 100% correct (which is actually impossible with the NCAA tournament). I was just pointing out a couple of things that I believed were flaws which would have kept me from saying nailed it if I had made the selections.

And my point from the beginning is that it is deeply flawed to use tournament results to measure how well the selection committee did in making the field.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

This tournament was boring. I suspect NIL deals and changing the transfer rule has ruined the tournament for regular spectators forever. Gone are the days of players like Steph Curry playing at small schools for more than 1 year. Now, anybody that excels at a mid major will transfer to a major conference the following year. The magic of the tourney is gone and the people who were pushing payment for the players only have themselves to blame. I bet revenue for the tourney starts to decline over the next few years.

 

[logic]

And my point from the beginning is that it is deeply flawed to use tournament results to measure how well the selection committee did in making the field.

And my point is that while the committee did an excellent job, they did not do a good job in seeding Michigan. Based on the regular season results they should have been the second highest seeded Big10 team, yet they were the 5th highest seeded out of the Big10. That was all.

 

[msgkings322]

This tournament was boring. I suspect NIL deals and changing the transfer rule has ruined the tournament for regular spectators forever. Gone are the days of players like Steph Curry playing at small schools for more than 1 year. Now, anybody that excels at a mid major will transfer to a major conference the following year. The magic of the tourney is gone and the people who were pushing payment for the players only have themselves to blame. I bet revenue for the tourney starts to decline over the next few years.

It might but this year's TV ratings are strong for whatever that's worth. No Cinderellas is boring but all top teams matching up is not the worst thing

 

[logic]

There ya go...it's impossible to 'nail it' by your definition, so mine is correct since it communicates something meaningful and possible. They crushed it, nailed it, whatever word you want to use.

Or, since it is impossible to nail it by my definition there should be another term used, as you stated. They crushed it. Did an excellent job. Outstanding.
But, whatever. Arguing semantics to this detail is useless and boring. Great job committee.

 

[logic]

This tournament was boring. I suspect NIL deals and changing the transfer rule has ruined the tournament for regular spectators forever. Gone are the days of players like Steph Curry playing at small schools for more than 1 year. Now, anybody that excels at a mid major will transfer to a major conference the following year. The magic of the tourney is gone and the people who were pushing payment for the players only have themselves to blame. I bet revenue for the tourney starts to decline over the next few years.

There have been some very good games. Is it boring just because there were so few upsets because the committee did a good job? I hope the day of the mid major upset isn't gone with NIL, but only time will tell that.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

There have been some very good games. Is it boring just because there were so few upsets because the committee did a good job? I hope the day of the mid major upset isn't gone with NIL, but only time will tell that.

The few upsets. I wouldn’t say it’s because the committee did a good job. It’d be more along the lines of the rule changes helped the committee. They don’t need to know as much about the small schools that will be 12 and 13 seeds because their best players are leaving for the bigger schools every year. Hopefully I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

All one seeds in both brackets… Kind of a snooze fest.