Sweet Sixteen by Conference

[LoTrader]

Your logic is very flawed. What if the ACC gets all 3 to the Elite 8 and the other two conferences only get 1 or 2 teams to the Elite 8?

I might say that in the case of the ACC & PAC12, ACC had more opportunities with 8 teams in the field, and, only 6 teams for the PAC12. But, I'm not sure it matters. Let's just watch how this plays out, and enjoy the tournament.

 

[Orangutan]

Really? Go back and watch the game again, and tell me there were no other questionable calls/non-calls from the officiating crew. What about the rest of the tournament games? What is your officiating analysis on the rest of the tournament games?

I didn't realize I had to present a comprehensive refereeing evaluation in order to opine on one specific call.

It's very interesting to me that multiple OSU fans have given me pushback, but none have actually disputed my points, which are:

a) It was a close call between whether the play was a clean tie-up or a foul on Pivec
b) Had it been called as a foul on Pivec, Boise State mostly likely wins the game.

 

[LoTrader]

I didn't realize I had to present a comprehensive refereeing evaluation in order to opine on one specific call.

It's very interesting to me that multiple OSU fans have given me pushback, but none have actually disputed my points, which are:

a) It was a close call between whether the play was a clean tie-up or a foul on Pivec
b) Had it been called as a foul on Pivec, Boise State mostly likely wins the game.

I was at the game. There were multiple suspect calls/non-calls. You are cherry picking the call at the end of the game. As someone pointed out, but you choose not to acknowledge, OSU may have won by a healthier margin had more calls earlier in the game gone OSU's way. But what's the point, referees have good and bad games just like the players. The call was made at the end of the game by the so called experts (the referees). For whatever reason, you want to make sure everyone knows this call was purportedly "questionable". OK by me. What I see is that OSU played well enough in both tight games, and in the end executed well enough to move on to Albany.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I'm with LaChina...I don't know who these PAC-12 doubters are:

There are some on this board. Not a majority, but there are persistent posts about the lack of strength of the conference.

 

[nwhoopfan]

And Oregon State were pretty fortunate to get to the Sweet 16. They probably lose to Boise if Pivec is called for a foul instead of getting the jump ball that enabled the Beavers to tie the game on the ensuing play.

This is rich coming from a Notre Dame fan. The Irish should have one less banner hanging in their gym if the ref properly calls the obvious foul on Mabrey in the closing seconds of last year's Championship game. See what I did there?

 

[triaddukefan]

Its a free for all in this thread... perhaps more like a Battle Royale has broken out

 

[Orangutan]

This is rich coming from a Notre Dame fan. The Irish should have one less banner hanging in their gym if the ref properly calls the obvious foul on Mabrey in the closing seconds of last year's Championship game. See what I did there?

Let's go to the tape for my reaction to that as it happened:

 

[Plebe]

No, the ACC is the runt. Of the four host teams who lost, two ('cuse, Miami) were ACC. One was Big10 (Maryland) and one was Big12 (ISU). The ACC was overseeded (again) at 3/5. The SEC was properly seeded, 3/3. The Pac was underseeded (again) at 5/3.

Actually, a little fact-checking: You neglected to account for the fact that Clemson was a 9 seed and therefore overachieved its seeding by advancing to the 2nd round.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Let's go to the tape for my reaction to that as it happened:
View attachment 41429

Pivec's tie up might have been a foul, but I didn't think it was egregious. I certainly don't think OSU is playing very well, I've got numerous posts the last several days indicating that. They won their two games and advanced, that's about all I can say.

Oregon and Stanford did what they were supposed to. I was impressed w/ both UCLA and Arizona St. They played well enough to beat what I thought were quality opponents on their home floors. Certainly both of those games could've gone either way, but the visiting team came out on top.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

No, the ACC is the runt. Of the four host teams who lost, two ('cuse, Miami) were ACC. One was Big10 (Maryland) and one was Big12 (ISU). The ACC was overseeded (again) at 3/5. The SEC was properly seeded, 3/3. The Pac was underseeded (again) at 5/3.

So because two ACC teams lost at home (one on a steal and layup in the last ten seconds), that means the teams were overseeded, based on their respective bodies of work for the entire season leading up to the NCAAT? I must respectfully disagree.

Not living up to the seed? Yes (as Miami and Syracuse were upset).
Overseeded, based on a loss? Not seeing any logical or linear connection.

 

[SimpleDawg]

Is this a contest to see how many logical fallacies someone can pack into a 3-paragraph essay? If so, you've lodged an admirable entry.

Ohhhhh you totally got me there. 3 paragraphs..... OMG. What an essay. 100 whole words. You really slayed the dragon there.


...

 

[Orangutan]

Ohhhhh you totally got me there. 3 paragraphs..... OMG. What an essay. 100 whole words. You really slayed the dragon there.


...

I really thought the criticism there was that everything was wrong about your post not that it was too long.

 

[SimpleDawg]

I really thought the criticism there was that everything was wrong about your post not that it was too long.

Like what?

 

[triaddukefan]

Like what?

That Syracuse and Miami were overranked/overranked. But what do I know... Im just an ACC elitist

 

[Orangutan]

Like what?

Hey, I don't know. I was just interperting (read - butting in).

For what it's worth, I had the SEC a step behind the ACC and PAC-12 this year, but certainly no worse than the Big 10 or Big 12. And I definitely agree that the SEC looks better than those two now that Maryland and Iowa State are upset victims.

 

[Plebe]

Ohhhhh you totally got me there. 3 paragraphs..... OMG. What an essay. 100 whole words. You really slayed the dragon there.


...

Actually, it was 218 words. One hundred would be a nice goal to strive for in the future.

 

[SimpleDawg]

That Syracuse and Miami were overranked/overranked. But what do I know... Im just an ACC elitist

Syracuse is not a #3 seed to me. They never were. They showed who they were when they got whipped by Notre Dame and Louisville. I don't think it's because of the upset to SDSU. It's because they had 2 good wins the whole year (to #4 seed A&M and #4 seed Miami). And I like Miami. I've been praising Emese Hof all year, but they haven't been the same since they upset Louisville and watching Hof vs ASU, maybe it's better she save herself the embarrassment of being killed by McCowan

Actually, it was 218 words. One hundred would be a nice goal to strive for in the future.

Alright, Plebe man. I get carried away sometimes. I see how I come off though.

...

 

[Plebe]

Yes, some people thought A&M and SC could've been a #3 seed. They got a #4 seed mostly because it was assumed that the whole conference was weak, so it pushed all the teams back one seed. If that was the way they did it, I'm surprised Mississippi State got a #1 seed, since we'd probably get pushed back a seed too just like the rest of the SEC. Or the committee just seems to really like us

Though, I kinda see how the committee does things now. If the whole conference is weak, your best wins are slightly less valued, and puts every team in the conference in danger of dropping down a line.

Good lord almighty. A completely inaccurate representation of the way the committee works.

 

[SimpleDawg]

Good lord almighty.

Another exaggeration from you. Thanks for needlessly inserting a prayer in there. Where did that even come from, lol?

A completely inaccurate representation of the way the committee works.

Do you care to enlighten me this time? I seem to also remember you believing that Mississippi State would be a #2 seed because they were the Baylor of last year. (no elite wins, mostly unchallenged by a weak conference). You were thinking: "Committee did it last year, they'll do the same this year." How did your prediction go, by the way?

...

 

[Plebe]

Do you care to enlighten me this time? I seem to also remember you believing that Mississippi State would be a #2 seed because they were the Baylor of last year. (no elite wins, mostly unchallenged by a weak conference). You were thinking: "Committee did it last year, they'll do the same this year." How did your prediction go, by the way?

Well, they were a #2 seed as of March 4, and somehow Mississippi State's rousing wins over a bubble team, a #7 seed, and a team that didn't even make the tournament were enough to nudge it from a 2 to a 1. So no, clearly nobody was docked because of any "assumption" as to the SEC's weakness. If that were the case, then Tennessee and Auburn wouldn't have gotten into the tournament at all. Sometimes the committee is simply inconsistent from one year to the next and even from one reveal to the next. You'll notice I did correctly predict that Louisville would be not only still a #1 seed, but the #3 overall.

 

[IrishTiger]

Let's go to the tape for my reaction to that as it happened:
View attachment 41429

No Point in even going back and forth with some people when it comes to ND. @Orangutan

 

[Plebe]

THEY'RE NOT AS BAD AS YOU THINK. For multiple reasons I can name, but I don't wanna exceed your 100 word limit.

I NEVER EVEN SAID THAT THEY'RE BAD.

And you exceeded your limit in the first half of your rambling.

 

[SimpleDawg]

I NEVER EVEN SAID THAT THEY'RE BAD.

And you exceeded your limit in the first half of your rambling.

I really fail to understand what your point is then. Because it seems like you have a point to make with all your combative remarks, but yet for someone so clearly invested in a message board, you don't expand on your argumentative intent.

Let's be clear Plebe. I really don't care about your posts, and I'm gonna ignore you from now on. K? To each our own from here on.

...

 

[Plebe]

I really fail to understand what your point is then. Because it seems like you have a point to make with all your combative remarks, but yet for someone so clearly invested in a message board, you don't expand on your argumentative intent.

Let's be clear Plebe. I really don't care about your posts, and I'm gonna ignore you from now on. K? To each our own from here on.

...

Good luck to you and your team!

 

[PAC-12HoopFan]

"

Pivec's tie up might have been a foul, but I didn't think it was egregious. I certainly don't think OSU is playing very well, I've got numerous posts the last several days indicating that. They won their two games and advanced, that's about all I can say." - NWHoopFan

I agree with NWHoopFan's analysis above of the late game tie-up play between Oregon State and Boise State on March 23.

I was at the Oregon State-Boise State on March 23 game in Corvallis and have watched the video replay of the tie-up with under 10 seconds to play multiple times. While I am not surprised that Boise State fans believe that Hodgins may have been fouled, the video and photos taken of the play don't support a foul call. Hodgins had the ball poked free even as she extended her left elbow into Pivec to protect the ball and try to create more separation from Pivec. Hodgins then bobbled the ball and ended up sitting on the ball as she scrambled to try to call a time out without holding the ball. Boise State had trapped Oregon State multiple times earlier in the game in the front court and had at least two tie-ups called in their favor without being called for fouls.

The photo attached below shows the tie-up happening immediately before the Boise State guard had the ball knocked to the floor.

 

[DefenseBB]

I really fail to understand what your point is then. Because it seems like you have a point to make with all your combative remarks, but yet for someone so clearly invested in a message board, you don't expand on your argumentative intent.

Let's be clear Plebe. I really don't care about your posts, and I'm gonna ignore you from now on. K? To each our own from here on.

...

Let me be clear to you- if you were to be banned from the Boneyard for moronic and simpleton posts, NO ONE WOULD CARE BUT MANY WOULD BE GLAD. Plebe on the other hand, IS A HIGHTLY RESPECTED POSTER WHO USES STATS, RANKINGS, FACTS AND LOGIC. All items you have demonstrated as lacking. Please choose to ignore me also, as I will certainly ignore you.

 

[SimpleDawg]

Let me be clear to you- if you were to be banned from the Boneyard for moronic and simpleton posts, NO ONE WOULD CARE BUT MANY WOULD BE GLAD. Plebe on the other hand, IS A HIGHTLY RESPECTED POSTER WHO USES STATS, RANKINGS, FACTS AND LOGIC. All items you have demonstrated as lacking. Please choose to ignore me also, as I will certainly ignore you.

Couldn't care less. This is just an internet site to me. It's not a clique community no matter what how much you try to harbor that attitude here.

...