Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Agreed


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
77 replies to this topic

#37 Munch4455

Munch4455

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,083
  • Reputation: 51
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:07 AM

It wasn't that 2010 Duke got a number one seed that pissed me off. It's that they got by far the easiest bracket when Kansas and Kentucky had separated themselves that year (much like Syracuse and Kentucky this year). Duke got an imploding Villanova team as its two, Baylor as its three and Purdue (which just lost Hummel) as its four. I mean come on. Somehow UK got stuck with West Virginia as its two. It didn't pass the smell test when they announced it, and sure enough Duke not only coasted through its region, but got a West Virginia team that hadn't hit threes all year but came in thinking they could because that's how they beat Kentucky.


Baylor was regarded as the toughest 3 seed in the tourney. And say all you want about Purdue, they were a sure fire 1 seed before the Hummel injury, and one player does not make a team. They were still a quality team, I think they deserved a higher seed.

#38 DoWorkBson

DoWorkBson

    Hopped up out the bed

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 627
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:07 AM

What made me so mad about the 2010 nit draw wasnt that unc was a four seed it was they got put in the easiest bracket. I mean Vt was the one seed. Did that seem fishy to anyone else? Oh snap even I see what I did there. :)

#39 SamTheRam

SamTheRam

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 22-November 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 353
  • Reputation: 6
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:01 AM

Baylor was regarded as the toughest 3 seed in the tourney. And say all you want about Purdue, they were a sure fire 1 seed before the Hummel injury, and one player does not make a team. They were still a quality team, I think they deserved a higher seed.


Duke should have been given West Virginia and Kentucky should have been given Villanova. Both Big East teams, easily interchangeable. West Virgnia had just won the Big East tournament. Villanova was imploding because of players not getting along. Sure enough, they didn't even make it to the Round of 16. Kentucky had two losses that year, both on the road and both very close.

#40 bigcatdaddy

bigcatdaddy

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 05-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,779
  • Reputation: 81
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:26 AM

It wasn't that 2010 Duke got a number one seed that pissed me off. It's that they got by far the easiest bracket when Kansas and Kentucky had separated themselves that year (much like Syracuse and Kentucky this year). Duke got an imploding Villanova team as its two, Baylor as its three and Purdue (which just lost Hummel) as its four. I mean come on. Somehow UK got stuck with West Virginia as its two. It didn't pass the smell test when they announced it, and sure enough Duke not only coasted through its region, but got a West Virginia team that hadn't hit threes all year but came in thinking they could because that's how they beat Kentucky.


Come on, people just don't do enough research, they hear something on ESPN or on sports talk radio and they run with it. If you actually break down the bracket for the 2010 tourney and look at RPI and the average for each #1 seed and their top 5 teams in their regions it breaks down like this: Kansas got the easiest region, the average RPI of the top 5 was 20. Cuse got the next easiest region with an RPI average of the top 5 that was 15. Duke was 3rd with an RPI average of the top 5 that was 12, and UK with the toughest with an RPI average of the top 5 being 11. So looking at this logically Kansas by far had the easiest road with Cuse being next and Duke and UK both having tougher roads then the other two #1 seeds. Duke had to beat Nova which was 3rd in the Big East which was the toughest and best conference all year, they beat the co-champs of the Big ten in Purdue, they beat a Baylor team that was 3rd in the Big 12, they beat WVU which won the Big East tourney, and finally beat the Horizon league champs that had won 25 games in a row.

#41 bigcatdaddy

bigcatdaddy

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 05-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,779
  • Reputation: 81
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:35 AM

Duke should have been given West Virginia and Kentucky should have been given Villanova. Both Big East teams, easily interchangeable. West Virgnia had just won the Big East tournament. Villanova was imploding because of players not getting along. Sure enough, they didn't even make it to the Round of 16. Kentucky had two losses that year, both on the road and both very close.


First off we beat WVU and second Uk played in a weak conference and had a very weak SOS which showed when they had to play a Big East team that was tested all year long. You could have shipped WVU to Cuse or KU's region too why is it constantly put on Duke?

#42 SOJA

SOJA

    Official Panthers Fan

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,835
  • Reputation: 1,966
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:52 AM

Wow a unc fan blaming the refs, come on son.


the ref debate is used by both sides, don't try to cloud this fact

#43 SamTheRam

SamTheRam

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 22-November 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 353
  • Reputation: 6
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:53 PM

First off we beat WVU and second Uk played in a weak conference and had a very weak SOS which showed when they had to play a Big East team that was tested all year long. You could have shipped WVU to Cuse or KU's region too why is it constantly put on Duke?


Yeah, you beat WVU like a drum. WVU didn't hit threes all year long, but they drilled them against us. So they came into your game shooting them like crazy and shot themselves out of the game. That's neither here nor there. I'm sure if Duke played Butler 10 times, they'd beat them worse than they did seven of those times.

What I'm saying is that everyone said when those pairings came out that Duke must have had compromising pictures of the selection committee, and it bore out to be true. A lot of people wanted West Virginia to be the fourth number one seed, instead they were the two in our region? We were all scratching our heads. Cal was 1-8 against Huggins going into that game. It's pretty obvious that they were trying to stick it to Cal, just like they did last year.

#44 bigcatdaddy

bigcatdaddy

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 05-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,779
  • Reputation: 81
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:16 PM

the ref debate is used by both sides, don't try to cloud this fact


How about we look at facts, Duke has been called for 288 fouls which is most in the league and unc has been called for 207 the least in the league.

http://packsmack.com...usACCIndexCard/

#45 Munch4455

Munch4455

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,083
  • Reputation: 51
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:25 PM

How about we look at facts, Duke has been called for 288 fouls which is most in the league and unc has been called for 207 the least in the league.

http://packsmack.com...usACCIndexCard/


Look back to the last time Duke was called for less fouls in a season than UNC, all the way back to 06-07. The funny part about that is that Carolina still shot +90 FT's than their opponents, and Duke was -6. Carolina fans like to spout off random numbers they see on some fanatical UNC site and try to pass them off as facts. Look at the margins too, in 16 ACC league games, UNC(and im ballparking this) around 5 more fouls called against their opponents than them per game.

#46 bigcatdaddy

bigcatdaddy

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 05-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,779
  • Reputation: 81
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:27 PM

Yeah, you beat WVU like a drum. WVU didn't hit threes all year long, but they drilled them against us. So they came into your game shooting them like crazy and shot themselves out of the game. That's neither here nor there. I'm sure if Duke played Butler 10 times, they'd beat them worse than they did seven of those times.

What I'm saying is that everyone said when those pairings came out that Duke must have had compromising pictures of the selection committee, and it bore out to be true. A lot of people wanted West Virginia to be the fourth number one seed, instead they were the two in our region? We were all scratching our heads. Cal was 1-8 against Huggins going into that game. It's pretty obvious that they were trying to stick it to Cal, just like they did last year.


Like I said you listen to too much sports talk radio or ESPN, I showed you the facts with the RPI and UK had the easiest road and then it was Cuse. If WVU deserved a #1 seed it should have been Cuse's #1 not Duke's. Duke had a better RPI then Cuse and a better SOS. Duke also won the ACC regular season and the conference tourney, Cuse did not.

WVU beat you, yeah they got hot for a game it happens but stop crying over it. Do you see me complaining about losing to Arizona last year? We had to play Zona in Cali and they shot lights out against us and then they couldn't hit anything the next game. What I am trying to say is it's not always fair but you control your own destiny so go out there and win.

#47 bigcatdaddy

bigcatdaddy

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 05-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,779
  • Reputation: 81
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:31 PM

Look back to the last time Duke was called for less fouls in a season than UNC, all the way back to 06-07. The funny part about that is that Carolina still shot +90 FT's than their opponents, and Duke was -6. Carolina fans like to spout off random numbers they see on some fanatical UNC site and try to pass them off as facts. Look at the margins too, in 16 ACC league games, UNC(and im ballparking this) around 5 more fouls called against their opponents than them per game.


Look back at the 09-10 season when they were 5-11 in conference and they were still called for the least amount of fouls in the conference and shot 86 more free throws then their opponents that year. But yes heels fans Duke gets all the calls.:rolleyes:

#48 bigcatdaddy

bigcatdaddy

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 05-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,779
  • Reputation: 81
HUDDLER

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:35 PM

Look back to the last time Duke was called for less fouls in a season than UNC, all the way back to 06-07. The funny part about that is that Carolina still shot +90 FT's than their opponents, and Duke was -6. Carolina fans like to spout off random numbers they see on some fanatical UNC site and try to pass them off as facts. Look at the margins too, in 16 ACC league games, UNC(and im ballparking this) around 5 more fouls called against their opponents than them per game.


Now we just need carolinarolls to come in here and tell us that unc doesn't foul because they are smart enough to know that they can't foul where as Duke is coached to try and foul and get away with it.