|
|
#111
03-20-2007, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Maryland covered 1 and losing to a Butler team ranked in the top 10 earlier this year is not choking. UNLV just better than Tech. Oh, Tech was the 10 seed. [/ QUOTE ] Maryland losing a game where they were -5.5 and Bulter was +200 something is choking. Tech was a 2.5 point favorite, ie, better than UNLV. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you keep pointing out the line, does that make your argument that much stronger? Cause the team that's always favored is the better team? Did you watch the tOSU-UF National Championship football game? Guess who was favored there? Guess who was wrong. +2.5 before the game doesn't mean GT was better than UNLV. [/ QUOTE ] What sort of terrible logic is this? 1. Terribly results oriented 2. Did you seriously just argue that because of an upset in football a line in basketball was wrong? Would pointing out a time the favorite won be a valid response to that? [/ QUOTE ] What sort of logic is his? Oh b/c GT was a 2.5 point favorite, it means they were better? I don't understand why pointing out a line before the game validates his point? My point was vegas isn't always right. They don't know who is always right, his proof was b/c Vegas said, GT was 2.5, that his argument was correct. How is that even possible? GT wasn't that good. The ACC and NCAA tourneys proved this. I don't think GT +2.5 proves anything. UNLV beat GT on a neutral court. GT might not have deserved a 10 seed, but they obviously weren't that much better. 
|
|
#112
03-20-2007, 01:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
Thoughts on the S16 teams.
UNC looks good but eminently beatable (who doesn't). Giving up a big run to the 8th grade team and then getting a run for their money from a horrid MSU team while playing at home don't instill me with a lot of confidence. That said, Tyler is a freaking man, and if they keep feeding the monster, they obviously could win it all. USC has simply looked awesome. It'll be interesting to see if they can play their game vs. a UNC team that has superior athletes. Everyone loves 'Town. They certainly have looked good lately, so I'm thinking BC was just a speedbump. Vandy is a good matchup for them. Vandy really played a gritty game vs. a WSU team that probabaly should've won. That said, it's tough to sell any SEC team short right now. tOSU got lucky, plain and simple. Tough not to like Tennessee and Satan in the rematch. In the other half of that regional, A&M with a gritty win against Louisville on the road. Memphis had a pretty easy path to this point. Aggies just look a little better, more battle tested, and they are playing at home. Florida looked shaky vs. Purdue, and they really suffered in the first half with Noah in foul trouble. Hoford saved them in the 2nd half. That said, lord knows they should crush Butler. I recommend they run the "give the ball to hoford for a dunk" play early and often. Rebels and the Ducks are teams I liked coming into the tournament. I think Lon gets it done here with a team that has really executed well down the stretch. Ducks obviously have a shot vs. any team in the country with their style. KU has looked great. But the Salukis are likely underappreciated. Their road win at Butler late in the season is looking better and better. They've got a shot depending on the officiating. UCLA vs. Pitt, or is it Pitt vs. UCLA. Isn't this the same team? Are you allowed to play yourself? Makes it easy for Kansas to advance scout.
|
|
#113
03-20-2007, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
[ QUOTE ]
Thoughts on the S16 teams. UNC looks good but eminently beatable (who doesn't). Giving up a big run to the 8th grade team and then getting a run for their money from a horrid MSU team while playing at home don't instill me with a lot of confidence. That said, Tyler is a freaking man, and if they keep feeding the monster, they obviously could win it all. USC has simply looked awesome. It'll be interesting to see if they can play their game vs. a UNC team that has superior athletes. Everyone loves 'Town. They certainly have looked good lately, so I'm thinking BC was just a speedbump. Vandy is a good matchup for them. Vandy really played a gritty game vs. a WSU team that probabaly should've won. That said, it's tough to sell any SEC team short right now. tOSU got lucky, plain and simple. Tough not to like Tennessee and Satan in the rematch. In the other half of that regional, A&M with a gritty win against Louisville on the road. Memphis had a pretty easy path to this point. Aggies just look a little better, more battle tested, and they are playing at home. Florida looked shaky vs. Purdue, and they really suffered in the first half with Noah in foul trouble. Hoford saved them in the 2nd half. That said, lord knows they should crush Butler. I recommend they run the "give the ball to hoford for a dunk" play early and often. Rebels and the Ducks are teams I liked coming into the tournament. I think Lon gets it done here with a team that has really executed well down the stretch. Ducks obviously have a shot vs. any team in the country with their style. KU has looked great. But the Salukis are likely underappreciated. Their road win at Butler late in the season is looking better and better. They've got a shot depending on the officiating. UCLA vs. Pitt, or is it Pitt vs. UCLA. Isn't this the same team? Are you allowed to play yourself? Makes it easy for Kansas to advance scout. [/ QUOTE ] How does UNC win by 14, scoring 81 when MSU had only given up 75 at most all year long. Hold MSU to 38% from the field (they hit 18 or 22 from the line) but UNC instills the least confidence. You guys are incredible. Wasn't MSU a top 20 team by every math model? I guess they weren't that good.
|
|
#114
03-20-2007, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
I've got to say, as a Ducks fan, I am loving all the attention UNLV is getting. Most of it is because they're the highest remaining seed, but it's still nice for our team to be able to fly under the radar.
The same thing happened against Winthrop, they got all the press as the underrated team. Everyone talked about Oregon being dependent on the 3-ball and soft on D. Then our guys got a chip on their shoulder, shut down their big man with great interior defense, and ran the lead up to 19 in the 2nd half. Here's hoping for a repeat performance. It sure is fun being the underdog twice in a row as the 3 seed vs an 11 and 7.
|
|
#115
03-20-2007, 03:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Kansas 66 SIU 57 (84%) =============================== No way Kansas is that % to win. SIU is very good. [/ QUOTE ] SIU is definitely NOT good. They will get crushed. SIU looked terrible against VTech, but VTech happened to be that much worse. [/ QUOTE ] Bet the ranch on Kansas at -500 then, you're doing that with all your money, right? [/ QUOTE ] I am betting on it. They didnt even play good D really, they had a ton of fouls and Tech was open all game they just cant shoot. It really wasnt hard to see, Ive watched them a couple times, they just arent good.
|
|
#116
03-20-2007, 05:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
[ QUOTE ]
UCLA vs. Pitt, or is it Pitt vs. UCLA. Isn't this the same team? Are you allowed to play yourself? Makes it easy for Kansas to advance scout. [/ QUOTE ] These teams are very similar in that they both play a defense first style of ball. However, Pitt has a 7'0" center and a 6'10" "back-up" while UCLA fields no one taller than 6'8". UCLA is dominated by sophomores and Juniors while Pitt has 3 seniors averaging over 26 min a game. UCLA has 3 players averaging 12.8ppg and better while Pitt spreads it out a bit more with only Gray at 14+ and Cook at 10. Other similarities: Both average 71.7(71.8)ppg, shoot 37-38% 3pfg, have 220+ 3pters on season, shoot 66% and 65% FT, 3.5 blks, 16.3(16.4) fouls, 48% FG. Yeah, their numbers are very similar, I'd say. Again though, having 2 true big men is a substantial difference. As is the talent level possessed by UCLA's gaurds, Shipp, Afflalo, and Collison. I look forward to the game, but am confident in a Bruin win.
|
|
#117
03-20-2007, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
Clark, I continue to look forward to meeting you. Like you, UNLV has become my second team. Very nice to see them acquit themselves well this tourney. Sadly, next year should be painful as we lose4 starters and 5 players who get significant time (anthony/Essengue)
|
|
#118
03-20-2007, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
Oh, and how funny was it listening to the idiot announcer on CBS saying, "WITH WHITE ON THE BENCH, WHERE IS UNLV GOING TO GET THEIR POINTS?!?!?!?"
White avgs 14.6ppg Adams, 14.1 Kruger, 13.4 I look forward to the Ore-UNLV game as well, but with less confidence. Brooks, Taylor, and Porter probably all have more talent than Kruger, Adams, and Umeh. White is better than Hariston, but Leunen is better than Anthony/Essengue. This game, like UCLA/PITT, is a game of two teams with very similar styles playing each other.
|
|
#120
03-20-2007, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: March Madness: Sweet 16 discussion thread
[ QUOTE ]
lol at touchy UNC fans OMG UNC = GREATEST TEAM EVER NO ONE CAN PICK THEM TO NOT WIN CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!!!!! [/ QUOTE ] This is the March Madness thread Duke fan, go to the offseason thread. ^^ All I was saying is his post doesn't make much sense. tOSU, Florida both struggled a lot more than UNC did with equally "unimpressive" teams. Honestly, I don't mind if you don't pick UNC for the title. I think we are going to be in trouble against USC and G'town. Odds are, we probally won't win the title this year with 3 freshman starting but Clark's reasonings were pretty weak.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
