Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by PORKULATOR on 19 Mar 2017
  • I just can't figure out, WHY, since the ACC is so much better at basketball, then WHY OH WHY are their 1st and 2nd best taking beatings today by the SECs 3&4 teams. Baffling isn't it. Oh, and I DO acknowledge that their #1 was given the best of "odds" to beat our #3.... Still sayin!

    Wps
  • #2 by Dr. Starcs on 19 Mar 2017
  • Every year. Every single year.

    Hawg Red will argue it, but the committee and system favors the act with seeding, location and officiating.
  • #3 by HawgnCorona on 19 Mar 2017
  • That is what you get when you believe er'ry thang you read and hear...
  • #4 by Danny J on 19 Mar 2017
  • Gamecocks...look good...pulling for them rest of way
  • #5 by rzrbackramsfan on 19 Mar 2017
  • Idk why but South Carolina beating duke is some kind of consolation.  I think it improves our narrative.
  • #6 by ShadowHawg on 19 Mar 2017
  • Idk why but South Carolina beating duke is some kind of consolation.  I think it improves our narrative.

    I think there is a legit argument for us being underseeded as well.
  • #7 by Showtimehog on 19 Mar 2017
  • Legitimately should've had 4 SEC teams in the sweet 16
  • #8 by HogFoo on 19 Mar 2017
  • Legitimately should've had 4 SEC teams in the sweet 16
    totally agree.   we should have had 4 teams in the sweet 16.    Who knows, maybe had S.carolina played and beat Duke before we played UNC, who knows, maybe we would have gotten the benefit calls.  Or the No-calls/ charge walks.
  • #9 by PORKULATOR on 19 Mar 2017
  • I thought 4 SEc teams DESERVED sweet 16 births.
  • #10 by Hawg Red on 19 Mar 2017
  • Every year. Every single year.

    Hawg Red will argue it, but the committee and system favors the act with seeding, location and officiating.

    I'll argue what?
  • #11 by ChicoHog on 19 Mar 2017
  • It's a tournament of one and done.  Not the best of 3 or 5 or 7.  Doesn't mean the ACC is over rated or SEC under rated.  Just means SC was better than Duke today.  Same with Villanova losing to Wisconsin.  It's about teams and match-ups and who has it that particular day. 
  • #12 by Hawg Red on 19 Mar 2017
  • It's a tournament of one and done.  Not the best of 3 or 5 or 7.  Doesn't mean the ACC is over rated or SEC under rated.  Just means SC was better than Duke today.  Same with Villanova losing to Wisconsin.  It's about teams and match-ups and who has it that particular day.

    You are right. It lacks completeness to judge solely on NCAA tournament performance. Remember, half of the Final Four last season was from the ACC, too. But I think it's fair to say the SEC has proved they it might have been underrated now that Round 2 is complete. People were trying to crown them yesterday but they removed all doubt today, I think.
  • #13 by Dr. Starcs on 19 Mar 2017
  • I'll argue what?


    You argued with my earlier point about Duke and N Carolina this afternoon.
  • #14 by Hawg Red on 19 Mar 2017

  • You argued with my earlier point about Duke and N Carolina this afternoon.

    So it isn't enough to debate in that thread, you have to call me out in a different thread?
  • #15 by hoglady on 19 Mar 2017
  • When your conference gets 9 teams in and only 1 remains after round 2 - then your conference was overrated and got too many teams in the tournament.
  • #16 by Hawg Red on 19 Mar 2017
  • When your conference gets 9 teams in and only 1 remains after round 2 - then your conference was overrated and got too many teams in the tournament.

    I've asked this of others making similar claims and have yet to track a response. Who do you leave out and who should have been in instead?
  • #17 by moses_007 on 19 Mar 2017
  • It's because basketball is king in the ACC, and the SEC is primarily a football league.  For years a lot of ACC schools didn't even have football programs... or if they did, they were lousy.

    Duke and North Carolina always get the creme of the crop in high school talent on the east coast. No other schools can recruit with them.
  • #18 by Uberanubis on 19 Mar 2017
  • we should have had 4 in the sweet 16. think about that. the sec is branding in basketball and soon will be as dominate in basketball as we are in football.
  • #19 by rude1 on 19 Mar 2017
  • It's a tournament of one and done.  Not the best of 3 or 5 or 7.  Doesn't mean the ACC is over rated or SEC under rated.  Just means SC was better than Duke today.  Same with Villanova losing to Wisconsin.  It's about teams and match-ups and who has it that particular day. 
    NO, it more illustrates how inept the NCAA is at seeding, Villanova got screwed because Wi. should have never been seeded an 8. Figure this, they ended the season with a better record than Mn., they were second in the Big10 to Mn. 4th, they beat  Mn. twice, they went further in the Big10 tourney, results = Mn. 5 seed, Wi. 8 seed. Now make that make sense to me?
  • #20 by hoglady on 20 Mar 2017
  • I've asked this of others making similar claims and have yet to track a response. Who do you leave out and who should have been in instead?

    Wake Forest for certain - Illinois St in their place.
    (9 teams is a lot for one conference - why snub a mid major with an RPI of 33 for a last 4 in team with an RPI of 39 from a conference with already 8 teams in)
    I would rather see that chance given to a mid-major.
  • #21 by Inhogswetrust on 20 Mar 2017
  • When your conference gets 9 teams in and only 1 remains after round 2 - then your conference was overrated and got too many teams in the tournament.

    How anyone can not understand that is baffling.....................
  • #22 by HawgnCorona on 20 Mar 2017
  • When your conference gets 9 teams in and only 1 remains after round 2 - then your conference was overrated and got too many teams in the tournament.

    I dont think you need anymore evidence that this. Overrated is a good word, regardless of who they lost to and it could have been 0 for 9.
  • #23 by PORKULATOR on 20 Mar 2017
  • Should have been 0-9
  • #24 by Hawg Red on 20 Mar 2017
  • Wake Forest for certain - Illinois St in their place.
    (9 teams is a lot for one conference - why snub a mid major with an RPI of 33 for a last 4 in team with an RPI of 39 from a conference with already 8 teams in)
    I would rather see that chance given to a mid-major.

    Illinois State beat Wichita State once and then lost two games to the Shockers by an average of 30.5 (!) points. They did not beat any other NCAA tournament teams and they lost to 15-17 Tulsa, 16-17 Murray State, and San Francisco.

    Wake Forest beat Bucknell, Richmond, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Virginia Tech. Their worse losses on the season were a pair to Clemson. I'm sorry, but they just flat have a better resume than Illinois State. I don't care how many teams the ACC got in, you don't leave a team out just because their conference "already has X number of teams in" if they are better than the alternative. You're usually better than this hoglady.
  • #25 by GoHogzzGo on 20 Mar 2017
  • If we had the home crowd energy USC did against Duke, I think we absolutely win those last two minutes against UNC. Very surprised how the ACC has performed. Agreed with everything you guys are saying.
  • #26 by GuvHog on 20 Mar 2017
  • Illinois State beat Wichita State once and then lost two games to the Shockers by an average of 30.5 (!) points. They did not beat any other NCAA tournament teams and they lost to 15-17 Tulsa, 16-17 Murray State, and San Francisco.

    Wake Forest beat Bucknell, Richmond, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Virginia Tech. Their worse losses on the season were a pair to Clemson. I'm sorry, but they just flat have a better resume than Illinois State. I don't care how many teams the ACC got in, you don't leave a team out just because their conference "already has X number of teams in" if they are better than the alternative. You're usually better than this hoglady.

    Yes you do. No conference, regardless of how good they are, should get more than 7 teams in the NCAA Tournament and the ACC's poor performance in the Big Dance this year proves that.
  • #27 by hoglady on 20 Mar 2017
  • Illinois State beat Wichita State once and then lost two games to the Shockers by an average of 30.5 (!) points. They did not beat any other NCAA tournament teams and they lost to 15-17 Tulsa, 16-17 Murray State, and San Francisco.

    Wake Forest beat Bucknell, Richmond, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Virginia Tech. Their worse losses on the season were a pair to Clemson. I'm sorry, but they just flat have a better resume than Illinois State. I don't care how many teams the ACC got in, you don't leave a team out just because their conference "already has X number of teams in" if they are better than the alternative. You're usually better than this hoglady.

    A power conference school is ALWAYS going to have better wins than most any mid major - because of the conference they play in.
    That can't be the sole criteria. 
    Wake Forest was one of the last 4 in.
    Illinois St was the first team left out.
    Obviously, their wasn't much difference in the committee's eyes between those 2 teams - and despite their schedule Illinois St had the better RPI.
    I always like to see the mid majors given those last few seeds when it's basically a coin toss.
  • #28 by Dominicanhog on 20 Mar 2017
  • this tournament will pay dividends for the next couple years.. UF, UK, SC all win a game or two more and it'll change the view of the SEC for next year ....we'll have 4, maybe 5 teams in preseason rankings and get 5/6 bids next year because of the way things play out this year..
  • #29 by Hawg Red on 20 Mar 2017
  • Yes you do. No conference, regardless of how good they are, should get more than 7 teams in the NCAA Tournament and the ACC's poor performance in the Big Dance this year proves that.

    It really doesn't work like that. They pick teams based on résumé in the regular season. Period. My position here has absolutely nothing to do with how the ACC performed in the NCAA tournament because it isn't relevant to the selection process. So you put Illinois State in, the less deserving team, and they lose to Kansas State in the play-in game. What does that achieve? You reward the team that had the better regular season résumé.

    I get that the ACC had a very poor showing in the NCAA tournament this season. There is no disputing that. But it has nothing to do with at-large selections based on résumé.
  • #30 by Hawg Red on 20 Mar 2017
  • A power conference school is ALWAYS going to have better wins than most any mid major - because of the conference they play in.
    That can't be the sole criteria. 
    Wake Forest was one of the last 4 in.
    Illinois St was the first team left out.
    Obviously, their wasn't much difference in the committee's eyes between those 2 teams - and despite their schedule Illinois St had the better RPI.
    I always like to see the mid majors given those last few seeds when it's basically a coin toss.

    Wake Forest's RPI was 39 to Illinois State's 33. Except Wake Forest played an ACC schedule. It's just not fair to them to go through a much tougher regular season schedule and then reward a team that really didn't play anyone outside of Wichita State simply because they are a mid-major. You're just rewarding a team for playing in a worse league. That's bullsh-t.
  • #31 by jm on 20 Mar 2017
  • It really doesn't work like that. They pick teams based on résumé in the regular season. Period. My position here has absolutely nothing to do with how the ACC performed in the NCAA tournament because it isn't relevant to the selection process. So you put Illinois State in, the less deserving team, and they lose to Kansas State in the play-in game. What does that achieve? You reward the team that had the better regular season résumé.

    I get that the ACC had a very poor showing in the NCAA tournament this season. There is no disputing that. But it has nothing to do with at-large selections based on résumé.

    The resume doesn't mean much because it is based on perception. That is why they have the NCAA championship. There might be a smaller school that has not had the exposure and therefore not percieved to be as good as a more popular school. The ACC sure doesn't look as good as advertised, and the SEC looks much stronger than the perception that Kentucky is the only team that even deserves to be in the tournament.
  • #32 by 3kgthog on 20 Mar 2017
  • After seeing the SEC's top 4 in the tournament, is it possible the league's tight officiating gave us a negatively skewed view of the SEC's quality?

    I'm of the belief that the NCAAT games have been called fairly loosely compared to an SEC game. I have to wonder if the officiating is holding the conference back by disrupting flow, hustle play, etc. I realize those officials do games for other conferences, but SEC games do appear to flow differently compared to other conferences. Once allowed to play, well you see what occurred.
  • #33 by hoglady on 20 Mar 2017
  • Wake Forest's RPI was 39 to Illinois State's 33. Except Wake Forest played an ACC schedule. It's just not fair to them to go through a much tougher regular season schedule and then reward a team that really didn't play anyone outside of Wichita State simply because they are a mid-major. You're just rewarding a team for playing in a worse league. That's bullsh-t.

    We just look at it differently.
    Playing in the ACC gives Wake Forest every opportunity in the world to separate themselves from mid-majors.
    Wake Forest didn't do that.
    You think a school should be punished for not playing in a Power 5 conference.
    I think a mid major with a great RPI should be rewarded.
  • #34 by Pork Twain on 20 Mar 2017
  • I just can't figure out, WHY, since the ACC is so much better at basketball, then WHY OH WHY are their 1st and 2nd best taking beatings today by the SECs 3&4 teams. Baffling isn't it. Oh, and I DO acknowledge that their #1 was given the best of "odds" to beat our #3.... Still sayin!

    Wps
    Probably similar reason why the SEC has not looked great in bowl games recently, but is still considered tops by most.
  • #35 by Hawg Red on 20 Mar 2017
  • The resume doesn't mean much because it is based on perception. That is why they have the NCAA championship. There might be a smaller school that has not had the exposure and therefore not percieved to be as good as a more popular school. The ACC sure doesn't look as good as advertised, and the SEC looks much stronger than the perception that Kentucky is the only team that even deserves to be in the tournament.

    Is the Missouri Valley Conference being overlooked here? That's the issue at hand. We're debating whether or not Illinois State is more worthy of a bid than Wake Forest. They aren't. Their conference is not good. It's literally a two-team conference (at least this year). ACC vs SEC doesn't factor in here, unless you're saying that there was an SEC school that should have made the tournament that didn't (there isn't) because an ACC school did. The ACC crapping the bed in the postseason does not all of a sudden mean that it wasn't a very strong league in the regular season with a large number of NCAA tournament-caliber teams. This is the exact same argument people trying to make when they want to tear down the notion that the SEC is not the best conference in football based on bowl success. The ACC is the best conference in that he has the largest number of good teams. Same as SEC football, expect that SEC football has one dominant program. It's hard for their to be one dominant program in college basketball.
  • #36 by Hawg Red on 20 Mar 2017
  • We just look at it differently.
    Playing in the ACC gives Wake Forest every opportunity in the world to separate themselves from mid-majors.
    Wake Forest didn't do that.
    You think a school should be punished for not playing in a Power 5 conference.
    I think a mid major with a great RPI should be rewarded.

    Yes they did, though!!!! They beat better teams, period.

    This is ridiculous.

    I would have loved to see Illinois State in the NCAA tournament over any of those 16 seed teams, but I just can't cry for them because they got left out with a good RPI (how was it so good if they only had one good win?) when Wake Forest simply did more work in the regular season.
  • #37 by Hawg Red on 20 Mar 2017
  • After seeing the SEC's top 4 in the tournament, is it possible the league's tight officiating gave us a negatively skewed view of the SEC's quality?

    I'm of the belief that the NCAAT games have been called fairly loosely compared to an SEC game. I have to wonder if the officiating is holding the conference back by disrupting flow, hustle play, etc. I realize those officials do games for other conferences, but SEC games do appear to flow differently compared to other conferences. Once allowed to play, well you see what occurred.

    SEC officiating is certainly horrible.
  • #38 by onebadrubi on 20 Mar 2017
  • After seeing the SEC's top 4 in the tournament, is it possible the league's tight officiating gave us a negatively skewed view of the SEC's quality?

    I'm of the belief that the NCAAT games have been called fairly loosely compared to an SEC game. I have to wonder if the officiating is holding the conference back by disrupting flow, hustle play, etc. I realize those officials do games for other conferences, but SEC games do appear to flow differently compared to other conferences. Once allowed to play, well you see what occurred.

    I made a similar comment the other day.  A good example is look at the Arkansas vs ole miss game in the SEC tournament.  Games called like that are better for everyone, teams, fans, tv, etc. 
  • #39 by Youngsta71701 on 20 Mar 2017
  • I made a similar comment the other day.  A good example is look at the Arkansas vs ole miss game in the SEC tournament.  Games called like that are better for everyone, teams, fans, tv, etc.
    In the SEC if you even look like your about to foul they are going to call it.
Pages:
Actions