ACC 3, City of Richmond 2, Big East 2

[WV Cowboy]

No they aren't. They are better then you might think because they are the top shot blocking team in the ACC and they are third in the ACC in Defensive shooting percentage but this is not even close to the best defensive team Carolina has had in the past. Carolina is the highest scoring team in the ACC but still, I don't think this is a statement of how good Carolina is. This is a statement of how overrated the Big East is this year.

I have liked UNC for quite a while, and follow them each year.

I will say this UNC team is greatly improved over the UNC team that started the season.

 

[peplaw06]

It has been so surprising to me, .. and enjoyably humorous to see all of this Big East bashing.

I for one am of the camp that thinks every team has the same four months to build a resume.

That to me is what each team is about. Those four months tell the whole story of what each team is.

Based on the criteria that people are using to bash the Big East, ... Duke, (a #1 seed) barely got past Michigan to reach the sweet 16, and then got trounced and bounced out of the tournament, ... are we to think Duke is over-rated?

I didn't think so, but based on the way the Big East is being judged, maybe we should.

It's not the same criteria at all. It's completely different looking at one team in a span of two games and trying to label them overrated, versus looking at 10 teams over 15 games or so.

In the end, I guess all #1 seeds who don't make the final four are technically "overrated." But Duke was the last Number 1 seed, and without Irving were known to be vulnerable over their last 25 games. Hard to call a team overrated when they went 22-4 without their best player. They didn't get Irving back in time to hit a stride.

 

[DFWJC]

But Duke was the last Number 1 seed.

???
Kansas?

 

[peplaw06]

???
Kansas?

No... the last team to be seeded as a #1. You know the 4th number one seed.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

To be honest, I don't really think there was a true number 1 seed this year. No team was head shoulders above any of the others. This truly is a year that any team can win.

 

[WV Cowboy]

It's not the same criteria at all. It's completely different looking at one team in a span of two games and trying to label them overrated, versus looking at 10 teams over 15 games or so.

In the end, I guess all #1 seeds who don't make the final four are technically "overrated."

So how is "technically overrated" different than just overrated?

If it is acceptable to judge each Big East team on one or two games, then we can judge Duke on the one or two games we saw.

If a team does not live up to their billing or reputation, then they must be overrated.

I don't agree with that, I think Duke earned the No.1 seed by what they did over the 4 months of the season.

Just because the #1 seeds don't make the final 4 does not mean they are overrated. That is just what sports is about. Anyone can win any game.

Same goes for the Big East, their teams earned their way in by what they did over the 4 months of the season. They didn't play well enough to advance, it's that simple.

Any single elimination tournament can get crazy and take many unexpected turns.

Who would have put money last week on VCU beating Kansas? Who would have bet their paycheck or their house?

Calling teams that make the NCAA's overrated is ridiculous.

Especially in this day and age of parity.

 

[Temo]

It was a weak year for college basketball in general in terms of talented teams. The Big East was able to enter 11 teams by virtue of having a lot of good-but-not-great teams. It's possibly (likely, I'd say) that both UNC and Duke were better than any single Big East team. But beyond those two, the Big East was full of good teams, while the ACC was not.

Was the Big East overrated? Maybe, if you thought they'd put a ton of teams in the Elite 8 or Final four. I for one, despite being a big east fan, did not think that was likely. But did they deserve 11 teams to get bids? Because of the overall lack of decent teams around the nation, yes, they did.

Meanwhile, it's hard not to appreciate the run the Huskies are on right now. It's damn impressive and I'm rooting for them to finish it off.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

It's not the same criteria at all. It's completely different looking at one team in a span of two games and trying to label them overrated, versus looking at 10 teams over 15 games or so.

In the end, I guess all #1 seeds who don't make the final four are technically "overrated." But Duke was the last Number 1 seed, and without Irving were known to be vulnerable over their last 25 games. Hard to call a team overrated when they went 22-4 without their best player. They didn't get Irving back in time to hit a stride.

true, but I wonder if getting Irving back ended up hurting the team. Smith got the ball less and he was the star. Irving played well, don't get me wrong but I just wonder if it screwed up their chemistry.

 

[peplaw06]

true, but I wonder if getting Irving back ended up hurting the team. Smith got the ball less and he was the star. Irving played well, don't get me wrong but I just wonder if it screwed up their chemistry.

It may have, we'll never know. I wish he could have come back a few games sooner to give them some time to get used to having him back.

I don't think it was any kind of animosity, or anything like that. It was probably just Nolan trying to get him involved and taking a backseat, instead of playing like he had been.

 

[DFWJC]

It may have, we'll never know. I wish he could have come back a few games sooner to give them some time to get used to having him back.

I don't think it was any kind of animosity, or anything like that. It was probably just Nolan trying to get him involved and taking a backseat, instead of playing like he had been.

If you will recall, you said Duke should be the prohibitive tourney favorite if Kyrie returned. I said be careful with that (or...maybe they would be better, maybe not) and you took slight offense to that.

True. it's hard to say what the impact was, but certainly inserting a healthy Irving in the lineup did not lock them in as favorites.

 

[peplaw06]

If you will recall, you said Duke should be the prohibitive tourney favorite if Kyrie returned. I said be careful with that (or...maybe they would be better, maybe not) and you took slight offense to that.

True. it's hard to say what the impact was, but certainly inserting a healthy Irving in the lineup did not lock them in as favorites.

I still think they were the favorite going into the tourney. Butler, Kentucky, VCU and UCons certainly weren't the favorites.

What you said was that Kyrie was a wild card. I asked what you meant by that. His performance was definitely nothing to discount. Nolan didn't play well against Arizona, and I wonder if it had to do with Kyrie getting more minutes. I do not know for sure. But Kyrie wasn't a "wild card."

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I still think they were the favorite going into the tourney. Butler, Kentucky, VCU and UCons certainly weren't the favorites.

What you said was that Kyrie was a wild card. I asked what you meant by that. His performance was definitely nothing to discount. Nolan didn't play well against Arizona, and I wonder if it had to do with Kyrie getting more minutes. I do not know for sure. But Kyrie wasn't a "wild card."

I think Duke was a good team but I also think, like all the teams this year, had weakness. This tourney was a one of matchups.

 

[DFWJC]

I still think they were the favorite going into the tourney. Butler, Kentucky, VCU and UCons certainly weren't the favorites.

What you said was that Kyrie was a wild card. I asked what you meant by that. His performance was definitely nothing to discount. Nolan didn't play well against Arizona, and I wonder if it had to do with Kyrie getting more minutes. I do not know for sure. But Kyrie wasn't a "wild card."

I'd say Kansas and Ohio State were the favorites....but they didn't do much better than Duke.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'd say Kansas and Ohio State were the favorites....but they didn't do much better than Duke.

If I had to pick a favorite, it would have been Ohio State but even they had shortcomings. There has not been a real dominating team in College Basketball for the last two seasons.

 

[Temo]

UConn redeeming the Big East a little.

 

[WV Cowboy]

UConn redeeming the Big East a little.

Lots of people have picked on the Big East during this tournament, and that's fine, .. everyone has their own opinion.

But now that the smoke has cleared and we are down to two teams, I have noticed something, .. that is not opinion.

Four Big East teams lost to eventual Final Four teams, and one to UNC, an elite 8 team and yearly powerhouse.

Syracuse got beat by another Big East team, but still an upset.

Villinova was a 9 and lost to an 8 so not an upset.

So all in all, (after sending 11 teams) only four teams got upset by bad teams, or lost to a team that they shouldn't have.

But 4 lost to Final 4 teams, one to elite 8 UNC, and of course UConn will play for the National Championship Monday.

Nothing to be ashamed of, .. and not quite the "failure" that a lot of people are trying to paint.

But like I said, everyone can think and say whatever they like.

 

[Cythim]

Lets see, a 1 seed lost to an 8 seed, 2 lost to 10, 3 lost to 11, 4 lost to 13, and two 6's lost to 11's. More than half the teams in the conference were upset by a seed at least 5 places lower. And all of this happened in just the first two rounds.


O-VER-RA-TED!

 

[WV Cowboy]

Lets see, a 1 seed lost to an 8 seed, 2 lost to 10, 3 lost to 11, 4 lost to 13, and two 6's lost to 11's. More than half the teams in the conference were upset by a seed at least 5 places lower. And all of this happened in just the first two rounds.


O-VER-RA-TED!

:laugh2:

Right, .. we all know the seedings are an exact science.

Since there were no #1's and no #2's in the Final Four along with an #8 and #11 proves the seedings are never wrong.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Lets see, a 1 seed lost to an 8 seed, 2 lost to 10, 3 lost to 11, 4 lost to 13, and two 6's lost to 11's. More than half the teams in the conference were upset by a seed at least 5 places lower. And all of this happened in just the first two rounds.


O-VER-RA-TED!

And yet We have a big east team in the championship.

Hmmm

No SEC team, not ACC team, No big Ten team, No Big Twelve Team, no Pac-10 team.

Hmmm...maybe the others are the overrated conferences.


Maybe people who don't live in the east can just quit whining about the east all the time. :laugh2:

 

[Cythim]

:laugh2:

Right, .. we all know the seedings are an exact science.

Since there were no #1's and no #2's in the Final Four along with an #8 and #11 proves the seedings are never wrong.

Right, because one year proves something. That is why over the past 27 tournaments a #1 seed has won 16 times (59%) and a #1 or #2 has won 20 times (74%). Or how about this being only the 2nd time (4%) in the same span that a team seeded below 6 has made the final, or the 9th time (17%) that a team seeded below 3 has made the final. Final four stats aren't much better. #1 and #2 have occupied 63% of all available spots in the last 27 years. Teams seeded below #4 have only taken 15% of those spots.

If you are a top four seed you are expected to at least make it to the Sweet 16 (historically 61% make it) yet only one of the Big East's five such teams made the trip (20%). But they weren't overrated... no sir, not the Big East. If you look over the last two years the Big East had 10 teams seeded 4 or better with only 3 of those teams making the Sweet Sixteen.

O-VER-RA-TED!