Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

College Basketball 2023


beo
 Share

Recommended Posts

The 4th #1 seed was pretty much down to UNC, Tennessee, and Arizona. Tennessee is down 22 with 10 minutes to go.

It really doesn't matter how this plays out, Carolina and Arizona are gonna be in the same bracket. One the #1 and the other the #2. The selection committee LOVES storylines. They tried to setup matchups with KU for Roy's entire tenure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

img_1_1710461559806.thumb.jpg.6c0d36765fd2c2ed8b28bee1cc124737.jpg

It's true. College basketball popularity has fallen off so hard from when I was growing up in the '80s and '90s. College basketball RAN poo in NC back then. We would literally watch the ACC tournament IN CLASS. Carolina vs. duke days might as well have been a national holiday. 

There used to be a burger place near where I live that would bring a TV in, place it bear the grill so the cooks could watch, and play the tournament every year. Once the tournament was over, the TV would disappear for another year. Too bad that place closed down before the pandemic, they had good burgers.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jayboogieman said:

Another thing that has hurt interest in the ACC tournament was the ACC taking it out of NC. NYC and Washington DC don't have a thing to do with the conference, yet both have hosted the tournament because the conference wanted whatever checks they were offered.

1000%

The ACC tourney in Greensboro was an institution and made all the sense in the world with 4 ACC teams in NC as well as Clemson, UVA, and VT in easy driving distance. With Maryland no longer in the ACC having the tourney in DC makes no sense at all. Syracuse in an upstate NY team and NYC is a pro sports city. I get the appeal of having it in the Big Apple but in terms of people showing up it's not a great spot. Greensboro was the perfect spot.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

1000%

The ACC tourney in Greensboro was an institution and made all the sense in the world with 4 ACC teams in NC as well as Clemson, UVA, and VT in easy driving distance. With Maryland no longer in the ACC having the tourney in DC makes no sense at all. Syracuse in an upstate NY team and NYC is a pro sports city. I get the appeal of having it in the Big Apple but in terms of people showing up it's not a great spot. Greensboro was the perfect spot.

If the ACC had wanted the tournament in a bigger city, Charlotte was right down the road so to speak. The downside to Charlotte is that the current arena holds a couple thousand less people than Greensboro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I was watching a YouTube and it was said that scout and GM insider types were saying the NIL had killed rounds 4-7. I don’t know that I buy it, seems like it might for a year or maybe two but then those guys have to move on.  NCAA is apparently about to give 5 years of eligibility. It is gonna skew those entrants older maybe.   
    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...