random thoughts thread

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

CU definitely got screwed.

Perhaps if they didn't schedule so many shit OOC games and hadn't fucking lost to Harvard and San Fagcisco, they'd have made the tournament. It doesn't help that the Big 12 had a down year either. Did Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Iowa St, and Nebraska have any conference wins except against each other?

I am not saying that UAB or VCU deserved to be in over Colorado, but is this resume really a "lock?"

Date Opponent Opp. RPI Rk Results
11-12 Idaho St. 7-20 (4-12) 302 88-80 W
11-20 at San Francisco 15-14 (11-5) 120 81-83 L
11-23 Alcorn St. 4-24 (4-14) 337 91-51 W
11-28 at Harvard 21-6 (12-3) 35 66-82 L
11-30 Texas Pan Amer. 3-25 (2-11) 343 83-64 W
12-17 Citadel 8-22 (6-13) 294 89-61 W
12-19 Longwood 8-19 (4-4) 318 104-59 W
12-29 MD Eastern Shore 7-22 (6-12) 323 92-65 W
01-02 at CSU Bakersfield 9-19 (0-2) 310 85-73 W

[Mace]

Complaining about which mediocre team didn't make it is a bunch of bullshit. The last several picks into tournament are all mediocre teams. Play a better schedule and win more games and then you'll have a legitimate bitch if you're not selected.

Oh, and Colorado also lost to Iowa State.

[King Crimson]

the thing i've been telling white-hot mad CU fans is....even with the expansion, an rpi in the 60's is going to be a low % invitee anyway. even in the 50's in years past is dodgy. and i've been saying since November (and for years) around here that the OOC CU plays is historically horrible because it's a schedule made by coaches who are trying to pad the W column and keep their job. and this year (the Jeff Bzdelik schedule)....it bit them in the ass. i've sat in the CEC in December to see CU-Stetson or Longwood before....but now that they don't serve beer....i wait until conference play to buy my GA ticket. everybody plays cupcakes, just not 6-7 rpi 300 types. that kills your rpi.

i think they are a better team than many that got invited, but rpi (and the committee's use of it) isn't really a measure of "better", it's a statistical value.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Perhaps if they didn't schedule so many shit OOC games and hadn't fucking lost to Harvard and San Fagcisco, they'd have made the tournament.

I agree with the OOC point, and I don't necessarily think CU is a tournament team, but if a VCU gets in over them, yeah, they got screwed. VCU finished 4th in the Colonial. The Colonial. And I don't care how good the Colonial is for a mid major conference. A 3-bid league still isn't tougher than the Big 12. Take VCU's best wins, compare them to Colorado's best wins, and tell me which team YOU'D rather face on a neutral floor in a tournament setting. They beat Mizzou, Texas, and K-State three times. They beat a 5 seed three freaking times.

[War Wagon]

Not only that, but they won their first 2 games in the conference tourney before losing to Kansas in the semi-finals in a respectable showing.

Anybody who thinks CU didn't get screwed also believes Texas really deserved a 4 seed.

And for anybody who's never seen Alex Burks play, your loss. He'll be playing in the NBA next year as a lottery pick.

[Goober McTuber]

Colorado did not get screwed. Their OOC schedule was an absolute abomination. If they had beaten any decent teams OOC, they'd be in.

[King Crimson]

Colorado did not get screwed. Their OOC schedule was an absolute abomination. If they had beaten any decent teams OOC, they'd be in.

CU's OOC did suck, let's get over the straw-man argument. CU beat CSU which finished with an rpi of 50. Penn State's best rpi OOC win is Fairfield at 97. who did Penn State beat OOC that didn't suck? because they lost to a lot of mediocre teams too. harvard has an rpi in the 30's.

USC? they are a lesser version of Colorado. good wins, bad losses in a weak OOC.

[Screw_Michigan]

Something sweetly ironic about Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg calling these shit games in Dayton. Nantz is probably just thinking of his 30 y/o g/f and Augusta.

[Goober McTuber]

Colorado did not get screwed. Their OOC schedule was an absolute abomination. If they had beaten any decent teams OOC, they'd be in.

CU's OOC did suck, let's get over the straw-man argument. CU beat CSU which finished with an rpi of 50. Penn State's best rpi OOC win is Fairfield at 97. who did Penn State beat OOC that didn't suck? because they lost to a lot of mediocre teams too.

I wasn't arguing for PSU. But they didn't play the string of 300+ RPI teams that Colorado did. They did lose to Maryland and Va Tech, so at least they made an effort. Colorado got exactly what they deserved.

[King Crimson]

Colorado did not get screwed. Their OOC schedule was an absolute abomination. If they had beaten any decent teams OOC, they'd be in.

CU's OOC did suck, let's get over the straw-man argument. CU beat CSU which finished with an rpi of 50. Penn State's best rpi OOC win is Fairfield at 97. who did Penn State beat OOC that didn't suck? because they lost to a lot of mediocre teams too.

I wasn't arguing for PSU. But they didn't play the string of 300+ RPI teams that Colorado did. They did lose to Maryland and Va Tech, so at least they made an effort. Colorado got exactly what they deserved.

maryland's rpi was 96, va tech is a team that didn't make the tournament and was in the 60's. not sure what your point is here.

i posted that Harvard's rpis was in the 30's and that CU beat CSU (rpi 50).

seems to me you are misguided.

[Goober McTuber]

CU's OOC did suck, let's get over the straw-man argument. CU beat CSU which finished with an rpi of 50. Penn State's best rpi OOC win is Fairfield at 97. who did Penn State beat OOC that didn't suck? because they lost to a lot of mediocre teams too.

I wasn't arguing for PSU. But they didn't play the string of 300+ RPI teams that Colorado did. They did lose to Maryland and Va Tech, so at least they made an effort. Colorado got exactly what they deserved.

maryland's rpi was 96, va tech is a team that didn't make the tournament and was in the 60's. not sure what your point is here.

i posted that Harvard's rpis was in the 30's and that CU beat CSU (rpi 50).

seems to me you are misguided.

My point is that CU played a ridiculously bad OOC schedule. Historically awful. That's why they are not in the tournament. Seems to me that you are an idiot.

[King Crimson]

My point is that CU played a ridiculously bad OOC schedule. Historically awful. That's why they are not in the tournament. Seems to me that you are an idiot.

an idiot. the one that thinks playing (not beating), playing Maryland is a tough OOC. the same terps that are 96 rpi. no one doubts CU's bad OOC, but they are 5-6 against top 50 rpi. i posted above about being in the 60's rpi, get it?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Something sweetly ironic about Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg calling these shit games in Dayton. Nantz is probably just thinking of his 30 y/o g/f and Augusta.

Since you brought it up (sort of), I'm not a real big fan of putting two at-large teams into the play-in round, only because you have a bunch of much lower-seeded teams who are not required to play in that round. I get why they did it that way -- Clemson-UAB and USC-VCU will command at least a little bit of national interest, as opposed to throwing Hampton, Boston University and maybe UCSB and Akron into the opening round. That doesn't make it the right decision, though.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

They beat Mizzou, Texas, and K-State three times. They beat a 5 seed three freaking times.

And 35% of their wins came against teams with an RPI of 294 or worse. It seems to me that they were relying solely on their 'Meatgrinder' Big 12 schedule. Fuck them.

At least VCU tried to schedule some decent OOC games; UCLA, Wake (hey... at the time it was scheduled, it looked good on paper ), Richmond, UAB, and Tenn.

[SunCoastSooner]

They beat Mizzou, Texas, and K-State three times. They beat a 5 seed three freaking times.

And 35% of their wins came against teams with an RPI of 294 or worse. It seems to me that they were relying solely on their 'Meatgrinder' Big 12 schedule. Fuck them.

At least VCU tried to schedule some decent OOC games; UCLA, Wake (hey... at the time it was scheduled, it looked good on paper ), Richmond, UAB, and Tenn.

I'm not going to defend Colorado because they are a bubble team but Marquette played four real OOC games, lost all four (one by double digits on a neutral court, two others at home), finished tied for 9th in the Big East (11th seed in the tourney after tie breakers were applied), had fewer wins, more double digits losses than Colorado, and had one meaningful road win the entire season.

[Goober McTuber]

Marquette also played in a significantly tougher conference, for whatever that's worth.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'm not going to defend Colorado because they are a bubble team but Marquette played four real OOC games, lost all four (one by double digits on a neutral court, two others at home),

Huh? http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/teams/maf

Marquette lost by five to Duke (on the road), by five to Wisconsin, by three to Gonzaga and by one to Vanderbilt (on the road).

Btw, Colorado only played one OOC game vs. a team that made the NCAA tourney, that team (Georgia) got a 10 seed, so was one of the lowest-ranked at-large teams. I suppose the Indiana game might have looked good when they scheduled it -- if they scheduled it a few years back.

had fewer wins, more double digits losses than Colorado,

One fewer win than Colorado. Colorado had more double digit losses than Marquette (5 vs. 4), and two of Colorado's double-digit losses came against Harvard and New Mexico (although one of Marquette's came against Seton Hall).

and had one meaningful road win the entire season.

Beat UConn on the road. Beat West Virginia in the Big East tourney, not a true road game, but . . .

Marquette got an 11 seed, so they were obviously one of the last few teams in the field, given that tonight's play-in game is for an 11 seed.

[SunCoastSooner]

I'm not going to defend Colorado because they are a bubble team but Marquette played four real OOC games, lost all four (one by double digits on a neutral court, two others at home),

Huh? http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/teams/maf

Marquette lost by five to Duke (on the road), by five to Wisconsin, by three to Gonzaga and by one to Vanderbilt (on the road).

Btw, Colorado only played one OOC game vs. a team that made the NCAA tourney, that team (Georgia) got a 10 seed, so was one of the lowest-ranked at-large teams.

had fewer wins, more double digits losses than Colorado,

One fewer win than Colorado. Colorado had more double digit losses than Marquette (5 vs. 4), and two of Colorado's double-digit losses came against Harvard and New Mexico (although one of Marquette's came against Seton Hall).

and had one meaningful road win the entire season.

Beat UConn on the road. Beat West Virginia in the Big East tourney, not a true road game, but . . .

Marquette got an 11 seed, so they were obviously one of the last few teams in the field, given that tonight's play-in game is for an 11 seed.

I thought they lost by double digits to Duke for some reason. My mistake. They still only had one meaningful road win and lost five games by double digits which is still more than Colorado. Like I said though I'm not here to defend Colorado; they were a bubble team, shit happens, make a better case during the season.

The perception that the Big East is God's gift to college basketball irks me a little but more so that it it is used more and more often here as a means to downgrade the Big 12 and it's basketball like we are some sort of little step sister to the Big East and teams that finish 11th in their conference are automatically more deserving of tournament bids over teams who finish 6th in the Big 12. I'm sorry if you don't like that opinion. The Big East isn't that much significantly better than every other conference including the Big 12. We hear how great the Big EastPN is every year and how overrated the Big 12 is on this board, in the media, and everywhere else yet based on NCAA tourney performances The Big 12 has easily been the 2nd best conference in the country this century based on its performance in March and April and a decent enough argument to counter the Big EastPN. The BIg East has more total wins (they also get more teams in to the tourney though) than any other conference but it is the Big 12 who has had the best winning percentage in the tourney. People do nothing but down grade the Big 12 all season and then their teams on an almost yearly basis make more deep runs in the tourney than any other conference other than the Big East come late March and April. Since 2000 Seven Big East teams have made the final four, since 2000 seven Big 12 teams have made the final four. Since 2000 18 Big Twelve teams have advanced to the regional finals, since 2000 16 Big East teams have advanced to the regional finals. Since 2000 the Big East has had 27 teams advance to the sweet 16, since 2000 Big Twelve has had 27 teams advance to the Sweet 16. Since 2000 The Big Twelve is 17-14 heads up against the Big East in the NCAA tourney.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Marquette had only 3 double-digit losses all season, according to their schedule results on Yahoo sports. Of course, one of those was a true blowout loss (to Louisville in the Big East tourney), and another was a real head-scratcher (to Seton Hall, albeit on the road).

This board, of all places, is a rather curious place to accuse of an anti-Big XII bias. Just sayin'.

As for ESPN, I realize we all tend to hear what we want to hear, but generally speaking I hear far more of an ACC bias from that dreck than I do of a Big East bias. Of course, even they had to admit that the ACC was a tad down this year, so that might have tempered things just a bit.

[SunCoastSooner]

Marquette had only 3 double-digit losses all season, according to their schedule results on Yahoo sports. Of course, one of those was a true blowout loss (to Louisville in the Big East tourney), and another was a real head-scratcher (to Seton Hall, albeit on the road).

This board, of all places, is a rather curious place to accuse of an anti-Big XII bias. Just sayin'.

As for ESPN, I realize we all tend to hear what we want to hear, but generally speaking I hear far more of an ACC bias from that dreck than I do of a Big East bias. Of course, even they had to admit that the ACC was a tad down this year, so that might have tempered things just a bit.

Maybe on the BTCFB it might be but not here, outside of our own fans we get no respect.

You're right. I went off an article I was reading. But after looking at their schedules take this into account and ignore the names and assuming the conference; put your bias aside for one moment... Both of these schools play in major conferences:

Team A was 6th in its conference, went 5-5 against the top 25, and 6-6 against other tournament teams.

Team B was tied for ninth in its conference (seeded 11th in their tournament), went 3-9 against ranked opponents, and 6-11 against other tournament teams.

Which team would you consider more deserving of that last spot in the tournament?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Marquette had only 3 double-digit losses all season, according to their schedule results on Yahoo sports. Of course, one of those was a true blowout loss (to Louisville in the Big East tourney), and another was a real head-scratcher (to Seton Hall, albeit on the road).

This board, of all places, is a rather curious place to accuse of an anti-Big XII bias. Just sayin'.

As for ESPN, I realize we all tend to hear what we want to hear, but generally speaking I hear far more of an ACC bias from that dreck than I do of a Big East bias. Of course, even they had to admit that the ACC was a tad down this year, so that might have tempered things just a bit.

Maybe on the BTCFB it might be but not here, outside of our own fans we get no respect.

You're right. I went off an article I was reading. But after looking at their schedules take this into account and ignore the names and assuming the conference; put your bias aside for one moment... Both of these schools play in major conferences:

Team A was 6th in its conference, went 5-5 against the top 25, and 6-6 against other tournament teams.

Team B was tied for ninth in its conference (seeded 11th in their tournament), went 3-9 against ranked opponents, and 6-11 against other tournament teams.

Which team would you consider more deserving of that last spot in the tournament?

Of course, you're ignoring the difference in the size of the conferences here. And in any event, the premise of your question is fallacious. Marquette didn't get the last bid in the tourney. Clearly, the last four in were VCU, USC, Clemson and UAB. And based upon first-round action, both Marquette and VCU justified their selection.

You probably didn't watch Marquette at all this season. I did. They are a really streaky team, and it's a tough call from one day to the next as to which team will show up: the one that beat ND by 22, or the one that lost to Seton Hall by double digits. The effort we saw against Xavier fell somewhere between those two extremes, of course, but much closer to the former.

Btw, UConn also finished tied for 9th in the Big East regular season. Are you implying that they didn't deserve to be in the NCAA tourney had they not won the Big East tourney?

[SunCoastSooner]

Marquette had only 3 double-digit losses all season, according to their schedule results on Yahoo sports. Of course, one of those was a true blowout loss (to Louisville in the Big East tourney), and another was a real head-scratcher (to Seton Hall, albeit on the road).

This board, of all places, is a rather curious place to accuse of an anti-Big XII bias. Just sayin'.

As for ESPN, I realize we all tend to hear what we want to hear, but generally speaking I hear far more of an ACC bias from that dreck than I do of a Big East bias. Of course, even they had to admit that the ACC was a tad down this year, so that might have tempered things just a bit.

Maybe on the BTCFB it might be but not here, outside of our own fans we get no respect.

You're right. I went off an article I was reading. But after looking at their schedules take this into account and ignore the names and assuming the conference; put your bias aside for one moment... Both of these schools play in major conferences:

Team A was 6th in its conference, went 5-5 against the top 25, and 6-6 against other tournament teams.

Team B was tied for ninth in its conference (seeded 11th in their tournament), went 3-9 against ranked opponents, and 6-11 against other tournament teams.

Which team would you consider more deserving of that last spot in the tournament?

Of course, you're ignoring the difference in the size of the conferences here. And in any event, the premise of your question is fallacious. Marquette didn't get the last bid in the tourney. Clearly, the last four in were VCU, USC, Clemson and UAB. And based upon first-round action, both Marquette and VCU justified their selection.

You probably didn't watch Marquette at all this season. I did. They are a really streaky team, and it's a tough call from one day to the next as to which team will show up: the one that beat ND by 22, or the one that lost to Seton Hall by double digits. The effort we saw against Xavier fell somewhere between those two extremes, of course, but much closer to the former.

Btw, UConn also finished tied for 9th in the Big East regular season. Are you implying that they didn't deserve to be in the NCAA tourney had they not won the Big East tourney?

I watch Marquette quit a bit actually; not just this season but every season. My Godfather is a Marquette graduate and was Bo Ellis and Butch Lee's attorney for many years. I've been force fed Marquette basketball since I was about four years old. I even have collection of Marquette pennants, small basketballs and nerf hoops from over the years from my Godfather when I was growing up. I'm probably much more familiar with Marquette basketball and how they perform on a yearly basis than the vast majority casual college basketball followers.

Your comparison to UConn is terrible; they had more wins against top 25 opponents and more wins against fellow tournament selections. Marquette was seeded 11th after tie breakers in the Big East; they beat out a team who had a better winning percentage against top competition and just as many wins against other tournament tea=ms in far fewer opportunities.

[SunCoastSooner]

Yep that Big EastPN is showing us all. 11 teams on day one and the first weekend of games isn't even complete and there are just four left. I have no clue how I ever doubted the prowess of these juggernaut!s!!

[Terry in Crapchester]

Going back to this . . .

Maybe on the BTCFB it might be but not here, outside of our own fans we get no respect.

I'm pretty sure I've read posters referring to the Big East as the "Big Least" here. Not as often as it happens in the BTPCF forum perhaps (and where it's more deserved, although an argument could be made in most years that the Big East is at least comparable to the ACC, but I digress), but it has happened here as well. Whatever one's opinion of the Big East is, there's no objective basis on which it deserves the "Big Least" moniker in basketball.

Yeah, the Big East has had a disappointing run in the NCAA tourney so far, but if ND beats Florida State (should happen, but I learned a long time ago never to take anything for granted as far as ND is concerned), that will be three Sweet 16 teams for the Big East. Alternatively, if Florida State wins, that'll be three Sweet 16 teams for the ACC. Among other conferences, only the Big Ten has a possibility of putting three teams in, but they'll need either a big comeback from Purdue (down 10 to VCU at the half as I type this), or an upset by Illinois over Kansas to get that.

And fwiw, the Big XII hasn't exactly set the world on fire in this tourney either. 3-2 in Round One, Kansas State already out in Round Two and Texas in some trouble against Arizona as I type this.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Couldn't believe the dismantling of ND and Purdue. If FSU can play even a respectabale level of offense, they're one of the most dangerous teams left in the tourney, imo, as their defense is just so good.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Oh, and fuck Duke. The level of blatant hand-checking those guys get away with is unreal. But if you so much as breathe on Smith or Singler when they drive the lane it's auto foul time.

[Goober McTuber]

Is your team even going to make the tournament?

Barring a total collapse down the stretch, yes. Probably somewhere between an 8-12 seed depending how they finish. And will still go further than Wisconsin.

Or not.

[SunCoastSooner]

Going back to this . . .

Maybe on the BTCFB it might be but not here, outside of our own fans we get no respect.

I'm pretty sure I've read posters referring to the Big East as the "Big Least" here. Not as often as it happens in the BTPCF forum perhaps (and where it's more deserved, although an argument could be made in most years that the Big East is at least comparable to the ACC, but I digress), but it has happened here as well. Whatever one's opinion of the Big East is, there's no objective basis on which it deserves the "Big Least" moniker in basketball.

Yeah, the Big East has had a disappointing run in the NCAA tourney so far, but if ND beats Florida State (should happen, but I learned a long time ago never to take anything for granted as far as ND is concerned), that will be three Sweet 16 teams for the Big East. Alternatively, if Florida State wins, that'll be three Sweet 16 teams for the ACC. Among other conferences, only the Big Ten has a possibility of putting three teams in, but they'll need either a big comeback from Purdue (down 10 to VCU at the half as I type this), or an upset by Illinois over Kansas to get that.

And fwiw, the Big XII hasn't exactly set the world on fire in this tourney either. 3-2 in Round One, Kansas State already out in Round Two and Texas in some trouble against Arizona as I type this.

How did that Notre Dame prediction turn out for ya there, Terry?

Big EastPN eleven team tourney hype machine driven out of Storrs will be unrepresented when Saturdays games start. The Big 12 won't; not that it has any bearing on the fact that the BigEastPN is the most over hyped conference in the land year in and year out. The only two Big EastPN teams to advance played another Big EastPN team to do so...

And since we are playing the fwiw game... the BIg 12 still has the best winning percentage in the NCAA tournament since the turn of the century. The Big EastPN now has had one more sweet sixteen representative since 2000 than the Big 12, I am willing to bet that the BIg 12's lead in regional finals grows on the Big EastPN, and they take the advantage in Final fours at 8 to 7 this tournament. The Big EastPN has accomplished all this with 18 more bids than the BIg 12 during the same span of time.

I'm sure we'll be having this same argument next season when the BIgEastPN drops between 8 and 10 teams in the brackets only to see two or three still in play the next Thursday, per the norm, and Big EastPN fans trying to justify why basketball's version of the SEC hype machination really did deserve to have their two or three teams who were below .350 winning percent against top 25 and tournament teams bow out on the first Thursday and Friday over other major conferences teams' who actually go .500 and above with that same criteria get trips to the NIT... "Because by God they have that Big East patch on their Jerseys."

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Is your team even going to make the tournament?

Barring a total collapse down the stretch, yes. Probably somewhere between an 8-12 seed depending how they finish. And will still go further than Wisconsin.

Or not.

Yeah, yeah. I'll eat crow on this one. Enjoy the anomaly. It had to happen eventually.

I'll even admit I'm rooting for the Vadgers to beat Butler.

[Screw_Michigan]

I'll even admit I'm rooting for the Vadgers to beat Butler.

Why?

[MuchoBulls]

Looking at some of the sweet 16 teams left and the microcosm of our season: beat VCU, lost to UConn in OT, lost to BYU in 2OT, and blew a 15 point second half lead against Marquette to lose by 1 point.

[Goober McTuber]

I'll even admit I'm rooting for the Vadgers to beat Butler.

Why?

Big 10 pride, thimbledick.

[Screw_Michigan]

Lowering yourself to SEC standards now, Gobbles?

[Goober McTuber]

I always pull for Big 10 teams when they're not playing Wisconsin. Are you really as stupid as you "pretend" to be?

[Terry in Crapchester]

How did that Notre Dame prediction turn out for ya there, Terry?

I'm pretty sure I wrote . . .

if ND beats Florida State (should happen, but I learned a long time ago never to take anything involving ND for granted)

Not exactly a resounding prediction, now was it?

Big EastPN eleven team tourney hype machine driven out of Storrs will be unrepresented when Saturdays games start.

So you're predicting San Diego State to beat UConn? Allrighty, then . . .

And since we are playing the fwiw game... the BIg 12 still has the best winning percentage in the NCAA tournament since the turn of the century. The Big EastPN now has had one more sweet sixteen representative since 2000 than the Big 12, I am willing to bet that the BIg 12's lead in regional finals grows on the Big EastPN, and they take the advantage in Final fours at 8 to 7 this tournament. The Big EastPN has accomplished all this with 18 more bids than the BIg 12 during the same span of time.

You persist in this Big XII/Big East comparison going back to 2000, when you know, or at least should know, that any comparison involving the Big East dating back to 2000 is meaningless. The Big East is a radically different conference now from what it was in 2000. Three schools that were Big East members in 2000 are no longer members of the conference, and by the same token, five current members of the Big East were not members of the Big East back in 2000.

The Big East didn't take its current form until the 2005-06 season. Both the Big East and the Big XII have six (not seven) Final Four appearances since 2000. Of course, five of the Big XII's six Final Four appearances occurred prior to the 05-06 season, while only two of the Big East's six Final Four appearances occurred prior to the '05-06 season.

Your comparison is all the more disingenuous when you throw in the Big East's edge in tournament bids. By my count, the Big East has 17 more tournament bids than the Big XII since 2000. From 2006 to present, the Big East has had 15 more tournament bids than the Big XII. From '00-'05, the Big East had only two more tournament bids than the Big XII, a relatively insignificant difference over that time period. So the difference is almost completely attributable to the period from 2006-present. Further, the Big East got as many as 6 tourney bids in a season only once from '00-'05, and since '06 has had as few as 6 tourney bids in a season only once. So it's rather obvious that the realignment of the Big East prior to the '05-'06 season had an impact on the basketball conference that far exceeds the net addition of two schools to the conference. If you're going to compare the two conferences, at least be consistent in your comparisons.

Or, if you insist on extending the comparison back to 2000, at least do it the same way the BCS does, which would mean including Marquette's '03 Final Four appearance and Louisville's '05 Final Four appearance in the Big East totals. That would give the Big East an 8-6 advantage in Final Fours.

I'm sure we'll be having this same argument next season when the BIgEastPN drops between 8 and 10 teams in the brackets only to see two or three still in play the next Thursday, per the norm, and Big EastPN fans trying to justify why basketball's version of the SEC hype machination really did deserve to have their two or three teams who were below .350 winning percent against top 25 and tournament teams bow out on the first Thursday and Friday over other major conferences teams' who actually go .500 and above with that same criteria get trips to the NIT... "Because by God they have that Big East patch on their Jerseys."

You want to call the Big East overrated for only sending 2 of 11 tournament teams to the Sweet 16? Fine. But if you're going to do that, you can't then turn around and say that Marquette shouldn't have been in the tourney, given that they're one of the Big East teams still playing.

You're all over the board on this argument, dude.

[Goober McTuber]

I'll even admit I'm rooting for the Vadgers to beat Butler.

WTF?!?!

I always pull for Big 10 teams when they're not playing Wisconsin.

WTF?!?!

What the hell is going on around here?

I don’t believe I’ve ever made a secret about this. Of course I’ll pull for other Big 10 teams. Except for Iowa. Pig-fucking ne’er-do-wells. I’ll also pull for the WCHA teams in the hockey tournament, particularly Denver.

[Screw_Michigan]

I’ll also pull for the WCHA teams in the hockey tournament, particularly Denver.

You're not in the WCHA anymore. Didn't you get the memo, needledick?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'll even admit I'm rooting for the Vadgers to beat Butler.

Why?

#1 I'm still bitter towards Butler about what happened last year
#2 Money

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Why this feeling has been belittled to death in here, I don't know...when it appears that others feel the same way about their conference.

Nothing wrong with rooting for your conference, if that's your deal. You guys get mocked because you take it a whole new level, inspiring the creation of trolls, etc.

[Goober McTuber]

I’ll also pull for the WCHA teams in the hockey tournament, particularly Denver.

You're not in the WCHA anymore. Didn't you get the memo, needledick?

We are still in the WCHA, you dribbling fuckwit. I told you that Big 10 hockey was coming sooner rather than later, but it’s not here yet.