Sordid clambake
http://theoneboard.com/board/
Technically North Carolina is a directional school.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:treated North Carolina like they were some hapless directional school.
Yeah, okay, dude.Van wrote:It's easy to admit, just as it's easy to admit that history shows us UCLA gets to the Final Four more often than Indiana does, including more recently. When UCLA is good and playing at Pauley and not the Sports Arena, they tend to get there more frequently than Indiana does. With UCLA back at Pauley and sporting a hellacious recruiting class it's not particularly difficult to envision them coming out of the West again. As Kentucky has shown, these days a team led by underclassmen can get it done. No longer is senior leadership a prerequisite for going deep in the Tourney.
No, I won't. I think I have a pretty good track record of coming correct on this board. I don't think it's possible to get to a Final Four on a fluke -- you have to beat four good teams in a row to get there.The thing is, if UCLA does get there sooner than Indiana (say, this year, for example), you'll likely just call it a lucky fluke. If Indiana gets there first, you'll say, "I told ya so!" What you apparently will not do is admit that you're ignoring history, including recent history.
That's all I need: history (recent and otherwise) combined with talent.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Yeah, okay, dude.Van wrote:It's easy to admit, just as it's easy to admit that history shows us UCLA gets to the Final Four more often than Indiana does, including more recently. When UCLA is good and playing at Pauley and not the Sports Arena, they tend to get there more frequently than Indiana does. With UCLA back at Pauley and sporting a hellacious recruiting class it's not particularly difficult to envision them coming out of the West again. As Kentucky has shown, these days a team led by underclassmen can get it done. No longer is senior leadership a prerequisite for going deep in the Tourney.
Just keep hanging onto that as it's all you've got.
Which is something that UCLA has shown a much greater propensity than Indiana to do, so why would it be such a stretch for them to do it again?No, I won't. I think I have a pretty good track record of coming correct on this board. I don't think it's possible to get to a Final Four on a fluke -- you have to beat four good teams in a row to get there.The thing is, if UCLA does get there sooner than Indiana (say, this year, for example), you'll likely just call it a lucky fluke. If Indiana gets there first, you'll say, "I told ya so!" What you apparently will not do is admit that you're ignoring history, including recent history.
Just barely. Currently sitting 23th in the AP and 25th in the Coaches. Losses are to Georgetown, Cal Poly (ha!) and SDSU. They do have a nice resume win over Mizzou. They'll probably move up a bit in the rankings as they pile up some wins in the atrocious Pac 12. Arizona looks to be the only legit team in that league. Their super frosh, Muhammad, started slow but has since played pretty well. He's going to be one-and-done, so they'd better take advantage of his talents THIS year.Screw_Michigan wrote:Is UCLAme even ranked?
Fucking pathetic. That would be like scU-M losing to Michigan Tech.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Cal Poly (ha!)
Who cares? I wasn't aware that the NCAA Tourney had been moved from March to mid-January.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I'll ask you a question: if both teams played on a neutral court today, who do you think would win?
Keep ignoring history. There's a reason teams like UCLA get there more often than teams like Indiana, just as there's a reason a team like Bama gets there more in football than teams like Auburn or Michigan. Sure, they're all bluebloods, but even among the upper echelons there is still a historical hierarchy that often as not comes to the fore. When UCLA or Bama are good, they're really good. They tend to go further than the Indianas and Michigans of the world.Would UCLA beat them because there's a Final Four banner hanging in Pauly from 2008? It's just a weak argument. I mean, if we were comparing UCLA to, say, Notre Dame, that would be one thing. You talk about Indiana like they're fucking Washington State or something. Jesus, they're one of the bluebloods of cbb. Sure, they've had some flameouts in the tournament, everybody has, especially teams with a long history of getting to the tournament a lot.
Maybe you ought to take another run at that one...Mgo wrote:P.S. I didn't merely say it would be a stretch for UCLA to get to a Final Four again, so stop trying to move the goal posts.
Jesus, could I have possibly written that any more clearly? How did you fuck that up so badly?Van wrote:Which is something that UCLA has shown a much greater propensity than Indiana to do, so why would it be such a stretch for them to do it again?
Of course they will, but we were only talking about who would get there first; a point that I made abundantly clear.They will get back there...someday, I'm sure.
It’s irrespective to this specific argument, I was just curious what your answer would be. So what do you think?Van wrote:Who cares? I wasn't aware that the NCAA Tourney had been moved from March to mid-January.
Even if UCLA is a 5, 6 or 7 seed to IU’s 1, 2 or 3 seed?The bottom line is that both teams will obviously make the tournament. That's all that matters. Once there, yes, I like UCLA's chances of staying home in the West and coming out of that bracket more than I like Indiana's chances of coming out of their bracket.
I'm not ignoring it, I just don’t prioritize it as the single most important factor in this argument like you seem to. I think what’s happening now is more relevant. Indiana has the better program now, and all signs point towards them having the better program in the forseeable future.Keep ignoring history.
Yeah, that reason was primarily John Wooden. Bama, in addition to having an ilustrious history, is also a modern day dynasty. UCLA? Not so much. Plus, Bama has a decided talent advantage over basically everybody in college football. UCLA generally recruits well, but they are not to Indiana what Bama is to everybody else when it comes to recruiting. Bad analogy.There's a reason teams like UCLA get there more often than teams like Indiana, just as there's a reason a team like Bama gets there more in football than teams like Auburn or Michigan.
I'd take the home team. Make it a neutral court game and I'd call it a toss-up because UCLA is playing really well at the moment while Indiana has been better all year.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:It’s irrespective to this specific argument, I was just curious what your answer would be. So what do you think?Van wrote:Who cares? I wasn't aware that the NCAA Tourney had been moved from March to mid-January.
In that scenario, no, but I don't expect UCLA to be such a low seed. They're 14-3 and only getting better. They're an ungodly young team and, like you said, the Pac 12 isn't strong enough to hand them many losses. They could easily end up with a #1 seed. I'll be surprised if they fall any lower than a third seed.Even if UCLA is a 5, 6 or 7 seed to IU’s 1, 2 or 3 seed?The bottom line is that both teams will obviously make the tournament. That's all that matters. Once there, yes, I like UCLA's chances of staying home in the West and coming out of that bracket more than I like Indiana's chances of coming out of their bracket.
It's not the single most important factor. Their top-ranked recruiting class is. Combine the two and add the fact that they're back in Pauley? Now we're talking.I'm not ignoring it, I just don’t prioritize it as the single most important factor in this argument like you seem to.Keep ignoring history.
I disagree. Obviously. Certainly not "all" signs point to it. In the foreseeable future UCLA might very well get there this year. Can't get much sooner than that for any program.I think what’s happening now is more relevant. Indiana has the better program now, and all signs point towards them having the better program in the forseeable future.
It's a perfect analogy, and their #1 ranked recruiting class is solid evidence of this. So too are their recent (very post-Wooden) Final Four visits.Yeah, that reason was primarily John Wooden. Bama, in addition to having an ilustrious history, is also a modern day dynasty. UCLA? Not so much. Plus, Bama has a decided talent advantage over basically everybody in college football. UCLA generally recruits well, but they are not to Indiana what Bama is to everybody else when it comes to recruiting. Bad analogy.There's a reason teams like UCLA get there more often than teams like Indiana, just as there's a reason a team like Bama gets there more in football than teams like Auburn or Michigan.
You responded. Badly. So, I responded back. That's how it's supposed to work on a message board.For a guy who just wants to wait and see things play out, you sure have a lot to say.
Yikes. I think the MAC has games between ranked teams more often.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:BTW, that was the first game between two ranked teams from the Pac 12 in four years.
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Bump. Nice showing by the Pac 12 champs, getting cunt-punted by the 8th best team in the Big Ten.
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So you're saying you don't know the difference between a conference championship and a conferencetournamentcash grab championship?
So, the winner of the NCAA tournament isn't actually the national champion, but just the tournament champion?MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So you're saying you don't know the difference between a conference championship and a conference tournament championship?
UCLA was the regular season champion.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:No, the winner of the tournament is recognized as the "national champ." Where are you going with this? Do you dispute that UCLA was the Pac 12 champion while Oregon was the Pac 12 tournament champion?
Whatever.The winner of the Pac-12 tournament receives the conference's automatic bid to the NCAA tournament and is dubbed the conference champion. Oregon won the tournament in 2013.
So, again, why bother having the tournament at all? Other than as a blatant cash grab, what purpose does it serve?Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid. And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.
I'm not defending it. I just personally don't really GARA.Van wrote:So, again, why bother having the tournament at all? Other than as a blatant cash grab, what purpose does it serve?Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid. And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.
Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid.
Mikey wrote:And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.
OK, I stand corrected.M2 wrote:
It happened just last year in the PAC 12... Washington was the regular season champs and didn't get invited to the NCAA tournament.Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid.
Oregon won the Pac 12 tournament but UCLA and Arizona were both SEEDED higher. Explain that, moron, and then go take another patchouli bath.Colorado and Cal both went to the tournament in 2012 and had a shit load of teams seeded higher than them with worse records.Mikey wrote:And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.
Sudden Sam wrote:That is more important thanMikey wrote: A carnitas burrito and an adobada taco, with about a half pint of the homemade salsa verde. The thought of all this is pretty much what keeps me going today.any silly basketball shitlife itself.
I will see that and raise it with a chile relleno burrito (with rice, not all beans) and some spicy chicken tortilla soup.Van wrote:Sudden Sam wrote:That is more important thanMikey wrote: A carnitas burrito and an adobada taco, with about a half pint of the homemade salsa verde. The thought of all this is pretty much what keeps me going today.any silly basketball shitlife itself.
You have a point where the discussion is limited to low-, and perhaps even mid-majors. As Sam noted, Liberty getting the Big South's auto bid is a prime example.Van wrote:Why even bother to play the regular season when the conference tourney includes every team in the league, they all start from scratch, and the winner is crowned the auto-bid champ, rendering everything else moot.
This garbage almost makes the college football equivalent seem noble.
Yes, they should be ranked as arbitrarily as they are in football. How you haven't managed to accidentally off yourself so far is just mind-blowing.Sudden Sam wrote:The 64 or 65...or whatever it is now...BEST teams should go.