MSU Getting Jobbed | The Boneyard

MSU Getting Jobbed

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was an incredible run of the most outrageous calls ever.......about 3 minutes of whatever your choice is....."suck K's a**" or "Izzo's a pc of ".......it was awful and the NCAA should be ashamed to allow this crap......guys falling all over the place on one side and touch fouls on the other end.......as long as the Beak is happy!! WTF
 
The 3 offensive foul calls early in this half basically gave Duke their working margin. The last one should have been an and-1 to cut the lead to 3.
 
The refs are kissing coach k's as$ so much they need chapstick
 
Granted, Michigan State has been terrible in this half, but they're calling every touch foul and every charge. That sort of officiating only works to Duke's advantage.
 
Let's be real Michigan St. is beating themselves too...you can't go 13 minutes without scoring and expect to win. Doesn't really matter, Louisville is going to crush Puke like a peep.
 
Brilliant job by the committee placing Louisville and Duke in the same region. They are arguably the 2 best teams in the entire tournament as most of Duke's losses were without Kelly.
 
ASweet3781 said:
Brilliant job by the committee placing Louisville and Duke in the same region. They are arguably the 2 best teams in the entire tournament as most of Duke's losses were without Kelly.
Expand ...
I thought Duke should have been a two seed...but they should have been a 2-seed in Ohio State's or region (Strongest 2).

Honestly, the committee feels like it worries itself about stupid procedural things. They need to make sure 1-8 are S-curved well more than anything...and them work damn hard to make sure 9-16 are as well. After that, I don't care if you have to drop a team a line or two procedurally who's a 7 and suddenly has to be a 9. But you should try to avoid having Duke-Louisville (who most people think with Florida are the best three teams) in the same region.
 
tzznandrew said:
I thought Duke should have been a two seed...but they should have been a 2-seed in Ohio State's or region (Strongest 2).

Honestly, the committee feels like it worries itself about stupid procedural things. They need to make sure 1-8 are S-curved well more than anything...and them work damn hard to make sure 9-16 are as well. After that, I don't care if you have to drop a team a line or two procedurally who's a 7 and suddenly has to be a 9. But you should try to avoid having Duke-Louisville (who most people think with Florida are the best three teams) in the same region.
Expand ...
UConn got killed by that in '98 when we were probably the best or maybe second-best 2-seed, but were put in the same bracket with Carolina, which was not only the No. 1 team but had the regionals in their home state. There was no way we should have been in their bracket that year.
 
Inyatkin said:
UConn got killed by that in '98 when we were probably the best or maybe second-best 2-seed, but were put in the same bracket with Carolina, which was not only the No. 1 team but had the regionals in their home state. There was no way we should have been in their bracket that year.
Expand ...
Was that also what happened in 1995 with UCLA?

They have weird preferences when bracketing. Seems logical to me your desire should be to assume your best 16 teams make the final 16, and imagine, then, that is its own region. Then work backwards from there.
 
No, UCLA was just a better team and they beat us at our own game. No sour grapes from me on that one.
 
dogpause said:
No, UCLA was just a better team and they beat us at our own game. No sour grapes from me on that one.
Expand ...
Well, UNC was also better than us. And we also played UCLA in California (Oakland). That 1995 UConn team had 4 losses going into the tournament--compared to UCLAs 1. They certainly were the #1 overall seed (Other 1s: Kansas had 5 losses, Kentucky had 4, Wake Forest had 5).

The other 2 seeds:
UNC - 5 losses
Arkansas - 6
UMass - 4

I don't remember what people were saying, but I remember we were ranked #1 that year at one point, and we were probably in discussion for a 1 seed until the blowout loss to Villanova.
 
I think all things equal Dook is the better team, but the refs hurt Mich. St. In the first half.
 
tzznandrew said:
Well, UNC was also better than us. And we also played UCLA in California (Oakland). That 1995 UConn team had 4 losses going into the tournament--compared to UCLAs 1. They certainly were the #1 overall seed (Other 1s: Kansas had 5 losses, Kentucky had 4, Wake Forest had 5).

The other 2 seeds:
UNC - 5 losses
Arkansas - 6
UMass - 4

I don't remember what people were saying, but I remember we were ranked #1 that year at one point, and we were probably in discussion for a 1 seed until the blowout loss to Villanova.
Expand ...
Right, that's the point. Of course the 1 seeds are supposed to be better, but they should do their best to match up the best 1 with the worst 2, etc. I don't remember 95 as well, but I remember seeing the bracket on Selection Sunday in 98 and knowing we got jobbed.
 
Inyatkin said:
Right, that's the point. Of course the 1 seeds are supposed to be better, but they should do their best to match up the best 1 with the worst 2, etc. I don't remember 95 as well, but I remember seeing the bracket on Selection Sunday in 98 and knowing we got jobbed.
Expand ...
Agreed. They do a terrible job of that.

I also remember feeling that way. 1996 is the first season I remember really watching (I was 12), so 1995 is hazy to me. Even now, I had no idea how absurdly good UCLA was in the regular season. But looking at those things, UConn should have probably been in Wake's bracket, with one of the other 2s in the West.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
1,674
Total visitors
1,872
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,105
Messages
4,382,369
Members
10,184
Latest member
ronmk


.
..
Top Bottom