Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:47 pm to mograyback
quote:
Also, probably no good way around this... but it's pretty bogus that Kansas just played a home game against UNC in an environment that should be neutral.
Louisville is getting the same treatment. I don't know how far they are from Lexington. Lawrence is about 20-25mi from KCMO.
Michigan and Michigan State are also playing close to home. I don't have a problem with the seedings or where teams play.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:47 pm to mograyback
So let me get this straight.
UNC shouldn't play Kansas because they don't match up well?
Well I'm sorry but matchups don't matter. If you can't beat a team then you aren't better than them and you go home.
UNC shouldn't play Kansas because they don't match up well?
Well I'm sorry but matchups don't matter. If you can't beat a team then you aren't better than them and you go home.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:48 pm to bayou2003
quote:
Michigan and Michigan State are also playing close to home. I don't have a problem with the seedings or where teams play.
There is like 6-8 teams near Auburn Hills, MI.
If Mizzou wants to play in KC, be a #1 seed, its that simple.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:48 pm to BamaNixon
quote:
No. It's the opposite of stupid. It's smart. Why shouldn't a tournament that exists to make money try to make as much money as possible? For fairness? That's adorable. And stupid, which is the opposite of smart.
I guess that I hold the belief that honesty and genuineness always wins out over time. If you just slotted teams in genuinely instead of trying to create specific match-ups you'd still have a very popular tournament with great games. When money and tv ratings drive decisions.. it's usually not the best route.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:50 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
If Mizzou wants to play in KC, be a #1 seed, its that simple.
Your zousession is off the charts today... this is not at all about where Mizzou plays.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:52 pm to GatorReb
quote:
So let me get this straight.
UNC shouldn't play Kansas because they don't match up well?
Well I'm sorry but matchups don't matter. If you can't beat a team then you aren't better than them and you go home.
An infinite amount of question marks could not do this comment justice. I have no idea how you came up with that question.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:54 pm to mograyback
quote:
I guess that I hold the belief that honesty and genuineness always wins out over time.
WTF are you babbling about? There is nothing dishonest about it. You said in the OP that the committee talks about creating matchups. Quit trying to put some sort of morality judgement on your sour grapes.
quote:
When money and tv ratings drive decisions.. it's usually not the best route.
Not the best route for whom? For you? No one cares. For the tournament? It's absolutely the best route for the tournament.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:55 pm to mograyback
WOW! I don't think we've seen a poster this butthurt across the board with everything since maybe me.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:55 pm to BamaNixon
quote:
Number one seeds get as much of a home-court advantage in the first two rounds as possible, by design. Is this the first time you've ever watched a tournament?
Actually, it's 1-4 seeds.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:56 pm to BamaNixon
Apparently no one wanted to see Kansas vs UNC in the bracket then it wasn't fair that the game was played in Kansas City.
Grapes are very sour.
Grapes are very sour.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:57 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Actually, it's 1-4 seeds.
Actually, I wasn't discussing seeds 2-4. I was only referring to his complaint about Kansas. I mean, feel free to be pedantic, but if I said "George Washington was President of the United States," you wouldn't have to reply with a list of all the other Presidents of the United States.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:58 pm to BamaNixon
quote:
WTF are you babbling about? There is nothing dishonest about it. You said in the OP that the committee talks about creating matchups. Quit trying to put some sort of morality judgement on your sour grapes
You seem pretty fired up... not sure why.
The committee specifically will try to match up teams against the type of team they struggled against in the regular season. It's not in every matchup, but they try (by their own admission) to do this when possible. That is manipulating, its disingenuous. Teams should just be slotted in based on their resume, manipulating match-ups to create upsets and close games is not needed for a successful tournament.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:59 pm to mograyback
quote:
I guess that I hold the belief that honesty and genuineness always wins out over time.
What is dishonest or disingenuous about the seedings? Top seeds playing closer to home? Really? They worked all year long to deserve a high seeding and they shouldn't be rewarded for that?
I'm honestly confused by this thread. Do you think the eventual champion won't be deserving because of matchups? Or do you think that a team should have had a more desirable matchup in the first round only to lose in the round of 32? I don't get it.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 6:59 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Actually, it's 1-4 seeds.
Actually it is conferences. ACC gets the best seeds usually never having to sleep away from their own beds.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 7:00 pm to mograyback
quote:
The committee specifically will try to match up teams against the type of team they struggled against in the regular season. It's not in every matchup, but they try (by their own admission) to do this when possible. That is manipulating, its disingenuous. Teams should just be slotted in based on their resume, manipulating match-ups to create upsets and close games is not needed for a successful tournament.
Wow I've never heard of that.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 7:01 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Actually it is conferences. ACC gets the best seeds usually never having to sleep away from their own beds.
No tourney games in N. Carolina this year for the first time in like forever...
We played UNC there last time and beat Duke in Charlotte in 94.
Posted on 3/24/13 at 7:03 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
What is dishonest or disingenuous about the seedings? Top seeds playing closer to home? Really? They worked all year long to deserve a high seeding and they shouldn't be rewarded for that?
I'm honestly confused by this thread.
Probably because you didn't read the OP.
Fairly simple. Main complaint is that the committee will take into account the type of teams a team struggled against during the regular season when making match-ups. As explained in the OP, the committee will try to match a team that struggled with big rebounding teams with a big rebounding team. If that happens without manipulation, that is fine, but that's not the case, they do put an effort into setting up certain match-ups.
This post was edited on 3/24/13 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 3/24/13 at 7:06 pm to mograyback
quote:
Fairly simple. Main complaint is that the committee will take into account the type of teams a team struggled against...
I've no idea whether that's true or not, but if it is, my questions still stand. Do you think the champion isn't deserving because of this? Or are you just upset over a first round loss?
This post was edited on 3/24/13 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 3/24/13 at 7:13 pm to mograyback
quote:
You seem pretty fired up... not sure why.
Because I'm not. I'm just typing words on the internet.
quote:
but they try (by their own admission) to do this when possible. That is manipulating, its disingenuous.
If they do it by their own admission, how is it dishonest or disingenuous?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News