More Upsets, and Counting [merged thread] | Page 2 | The Boneyard

More Upsets, and Counting [merged thread]

Boreifs said:
Of course. However, they could fall to number three overall, depending on what Stanford does today.
Expand ...
Yeah, I'll be interested to see what the committee does if Stanford wins today. I would still probably pick SCAR over Stanford for overall #1 seed, but it's weird to be the overall #1 when you aren't even your conference's auto-bid.
 
.-.
Great slate of games today. When I saw what a low scoring affair the game was I felt SC was in trouble. Kentucky kept it close and made it a grind. Wow what a weekend. Now on to the Big Ten game. So exciting!
 
TheFarmFan said:
Yeah, I'll be interested to see what the committee does if Stanford wins today. I would still probably pick SCAR over Stanford for overall #1 seed, but it's weird to be the overall #1 when you aren't even your conference's auto-bid.
Expand ...
Unusual but it's happened before. Somewhere on this board recently the subject of the 2001 tournament seedings came up. Apparently Tennessee was the overall #1 seed that year, after they'd gone 29-2 and 14-0 SEC, but they lost in the semis of the conference tournament to Vanderbilt. I have a feeling the same thing probably happened another time or two with Tennessee.
 
connie said:
#4 Louisville loses to Miami
#6 LSU loses to Kentucky
#10 Michigan loses to Nebraska
#11 Maryland loses to #14 Indiana
#13 OSU loses to #14 Indiana
#14 AZ loses to Colorado
#16 NC loses to #21 VA Tech
#18 Tenn loses to Kentucky
#19 Okla loses to Kansas
#20 ND loses to Miami
#23 Fla loses to Ole Miss
#24 GA loses to Alabama
Expand ...
#1 SC loses to Kentucky

Pretty, pretty, pretty … amazing.
 
.-.
EdSaid said:
Should a team that doesn't receive an automatic bid be a number 1 seed?
Expand ...
To me, it comes down to, what do the seedlings mean. Do they mean the teams with the best body of work for the entire season. Then of course SC is a 1, maybe still the overall 1. In that case, UConn is about what they are projected, 2 or 3. Do they mean, some sort of projection that tries to insure the best matchups throughout the tourney. In that case SC is still a 1 and UConn moves up, based on recent play and extenuating circumstances.
If the NCAA wants greater emphasis on conference tourneys, then they do what you suggest, rewarding the winner with the higher seeding position. Frankly IMO, with a 64 team tournament, why are conference tournaments necessary? Like Geno said, reward the winner of the league over 3 months.
 
Plebe said:
Unusual but it's happened before. Somewhere on this board recently the subject of the 2001 tournament seedings came up. Apparently Tennessee was the overall #1 seed that year, after they'd gone 29-2 and 14-0 SEC, but they lost in the semis of the conference tournament to Vanderbilt. I have a feeling the same thing probably happened another time or two with Tennessee.
Expand ...
One of the ten losses of the 1996-97 Tennessee team was to Auburn in the SEC conference tournament final.
 
Carnac said:
Addendum: I forgot to mention what a pleasure it was to listen to Hall of Fame retired Villanova wbb coach Harry Perreta do the color analysis of the game. The man knows his basketball. He explained what was going on, what should have happend, and what the goal of the team with the ball should be (besides scoring) during a particular possession. All this and what the two coaches were thinking.

He was extremely impressed with Lauren Park-Lane, as were most who watched the game. The smallest person on the court had the biggest impact on the game. Who gave Bembry the ball for a wide open shot to put the Hall ahead by 1 with 2 seconds left? Park-Lane.

Not only was the game entertaining, it was educational too. We look at games from a fan’s point of view. He was explaining the game from a coach’s point of view. I hope he calls our game today.
Expand ...
I take it you feel he's better than Debbie Antonelli coaching from the booth? :cool:
 
.-.
Bills Fan said:
I couldn't disagree with you any more . All he did was criticize every move/decision of both HCs.. That is not the role of a color commentator. Their proper role is to explain what is (or has ) happened NOT to interject his personal opinion of what each coach should be doing! If I was either the SH or Creighton HC and I watched this game the next day, I would be furious. As I stated in another post, even his partner on the telecast had to constantly ignore Perretta's comments and continue announcing the game, especially in the 4th qtr.

Perretta's comments were not "educational" if they were wrong, which many of them were during this game!
Expand ...
Bills Fan said:
I couldn't disagree with you any more . All he did was criticize every move/decision of both HCs.. That is not the role of a color commentator. Their proper role is to explain what is (or has ) happened NOT to interject his personal opinion of what each coach should be doing! If I was either the SH or Creighton HC and I watched this game the next day, I would be furious. As I stated in another post, even his partner on the telecast had to constantly ignore Perretta's comments and continue announcing the game, especially in the 4th qtr.

Perretta's comments were not "educational" if they were wrong, which many of them were during this game!
Expand ...
Content noted.
 
Gus Mahler said:
I take it you feel he's better than Debbie Antonelli coaching from the booth? :cool:
Expand ...
Hi Gus. Yes. Others may not like his style of commenting on games, I do. I can only speak for myself. Some play by play announcers are preferred over others. The same applies to color analysts. I like Doris Burke and Kara Lawson too. :) I’ll be watching the Villanova-Seton Hall game.
Later today. I hope he’s doing that game.
 
Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.
 
JoePgh said:
Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.
Expand ...
South Carolina's body of work is still stronger than Stanford's, even with today's loss. SC has a ridiculous ledger of quality wins, headlined by wins over two of the other #1 seeds. Stanford has a ton of Quad 1 wins as well, but their best wins are over teams that will be 4 seeds or low 3 seeds at best (Tennessee, Maryland, Indiana, Arizona).
 
.-.
JoePgh said:
Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.
Expand ...
Plebe said:
South Carolina's body of work is still stronger than Stanford's, even with today's loss. SC has a ridiculous ledger of quality wins, headlined by wins over two of the other #1 seeds. Stanford has a ton of Quad 1 wins as well, but their best wins are over teams that will be 4 seeds or low 3 seeds at best (Tennessee, Maryland, Indiana, Arizona).
Expand ...
During the Stanford/Utah game, the "experts" said that even with a Stanford win, it would not move SC from the top seed spot.
 
MD#12Fan said:
To me, it comes down to, what do the seedlings mean. Do they mean the teams with the best body of work for the entire season. Then of course SC is a 1, maybe still the overall 1. In that case, UConn is about what they are projected, 2 or 3. Do they mean, some sort of projection that tries to insure the best matchups throughout the tourney. In that case SC is still a 1 and UConn moves up, based on recent play and extenuating circumstances.
If the NCAA wants greater emphasis on conference tourneys, then they do what you suggest, rewarding the winner with the higher seeding position. Frankly IMO, with a 64 team tournament, why are conference tournaments necessary? Like Geno said, reward the winner of the league over 3 months.
Expand ...
Conference Tournaments=$$$$
 
For any controversial seeds or placements, it will be interesting to see what the committee says. Was it the entire season's body of work? How the team ended the season? Rambling about the intersection of quad/massey/SOS/something/something?
 
JoePgh said:
Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.
Expand ...
If UConn beats Villanova by more than 10-15 points they should get the overall 6 seed or even the 5 seed.
 
Carnac said:
Hi Gus. Yes. Others may not like his style of commenting on games, I do. I can only speak for myself. Some play by play announcers are preferred over others. The same applies to color analysts. I like Doris Burke and Kara Lawson too. :) I’ll be watching the Villanova-Seton Hall game.
Later today. I hope he’s doing that game.
Expand ...
I liked him ... the "analysts" I don't like are the ones talking about anything but the play on the court. You know the ones who go on and on and completely ignore who scored, who committed the file etc
 
CajunHusky said:
I liked him ... the "analysts" I don't like are the ones talking about anything but the play on the court. You know the ones who go on and on and completely ignore who scored, who committed the file etc
Expand ...
I like commentators that can also offer insights as to what I am seeing and highlight something I may not have seen or known.
Jim Kaat (retired) and Ron Darling doing baseball games come to mind.
There are others.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,417
Members
10,466
Latest member
agiglax


Top Bottom