Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

WE ARE!

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]
Illinois laid an absolute turd tonight. What a terrible performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really a turd. More like what we should expect.

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]


If you go back and look at the Final Four to 1997, both the ACC and Big Ten each have had 10 teams.


[/ QUOTE ]

Minnesota's appearance does not officially count.

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If you go back and look at the Final Four to 1997, both the ACC and Big Ten each have had 10 teams.


[/ QUOTE ]

Minnesota's appearance does not officially count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither does Ohio State's

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just got back from the Michigan/BC game.

The game was a little more competitive than the final score indicates. Michigan was still in it until there were 7 minutes left. Then they quit rebounding and shot atrociously.

BC didn't impress me very much, but Tyrese Rice is sick [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

Rice's stats this season (including Michigan game)

37 mins/per game
41% 3PT%
3.0 made 3FGs/per game
88% FT%
4.2 rebounds/per game
7.0 assists/per game
2.19 A/TO ratio

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not get carried away here.

If you go back and look at the Final Four to 1997, both the ACC and Big Ten each have had 10 teams.

Nat'l champions is a little too narrow, and just making the tournament a bit too broad.

I suppose you could also look at Sweet Sixteen appearances over that time to determine the number of quality teams between the two conferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, NC is too broad and making the field is too narrow because they dont show what you want them to show. Odds are the Big10 would be better in SOME category that you could arbitrarily define.

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]

Odds are the Big10 would be better in SOME category that you could arbitrarily define.

[/ QUOTE ]

White guys?

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's not get carried away here.

If you go back and look at the Final Four to 1997, both the ACC and Big Ten each have had 10 teams.

Nat'l champions is a little too narrow, and just making the tournament a bit too broad.

I suppose you could also look at Sweet Sixteen appearances over that time to determine the number of quality teams between the two conferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, NC is too broad and making the field is too narrow because they dont show what you want them to show. Odds are the Big10 would be better in SOME category that you could arbitrarily define.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, so agree on one first and then look.

I think Final Four is the best for determining depth at the top. Sweet Sixteen is good for looking at which conference has the best top 5 teams or so.

I don't think anyone would argue that the lower half of the ACC is much better than the lower half of the Big Ten.

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

lol @ Maryland fans chanting "A" "C" "C" toward the end of the Illinois game

apparently, they don't realize most Illinois fans hate the Big11Ten and love making fun of it as well. I'm really glad the Big11Ten sucks as it will allow Illinois to compete most of the season.



anyway, the style of play in the midwest has left it behind in competing nationally

I love midwest basketball, but it's so far from what the rest of the nation plays. It really hurts the Big11Ten and MVC teams when playing cross-sectional matches. The amount of defense allowed varies dramatically. The 'style' has also hurt the Big11Ten in regards to recruiting. Guys don't want to work that hard.

Re: Official ACC-BIG TEN challenge 2007
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol @ Maryland fans chanting "A" "C" "C" toward the end of the Illinois game

[/ QUOTE ]


I thought that was pretty funny.