NCAABB

We need to replace the "Selection Committee"

4/6/10 in NCAABB   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

1/20/11   |   blondie45044   |   5873 respect

IMO all officiating in all sports has sucked very badly, along with the fans behavior. There are also tons of profesional players that really suck for the young men and woman now days. They do not have the role models from the past. Drugs, tweeting along with good old fashioned sex taking the players down great article thanks for sharing! Butler played a good game of basketball in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Championship, leaving no questions that they deserved to be in this final game. But Duke just played a little bit better. They stayed ahead by a nose, and then by a nose and a chin, and it proved what they needed to win the game leaning over the finish line, just decisively enough that this wasn't’t really a photo finish (although Gordon Hayward’s near-3-pointer at the buzzer from half-court made you wonder if someone just didn't’t pray hard enough).

 

12/28/10   |  

ی ی ی ی-hi are you send fore me sexiyan photos girls????tanks---my mail is    behimario@yahoo.com
 

4/22/10   |  

True

4/8/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

wrote:
ok so why didnt Butler have this problem they had hard fought close games against Syracuse,Kansas State, and Michigan Sate in which they had to play without 2 of their starters for most of the second half because of injuries and still found a way to win those games just sounds like youre making excuses for WV and finding every reason in the world not to give Duke the credit they deserve.

 butler had close games because they are a smaller team than all those other teams. with a minimized inside game, they had to find other ways to win. michigan state was also without lucas and another player who had foul trouble. i am in no way shape or form a wv fan, and i am not hating on duke. if duke and west virginia traded places, it still would be wrong because wv would have had no competition. im saying the brackets need to be more even. dont make the south region a cakewalk, and then make the midwest region a murderers row. all im saying is even them out.

4/8/10   |   abac89   |   758 respect

wrote:
 they got bruised up during the kentuckty game, and would have lost that game if massoula didnt turn into jerry west. baylor barely cracked the top 20 in the polls, but got a 3 seed for having a hot streak. 

ok so why didnt Butler have this problem they had hard fought close games against Syracuse,Kansas State, and Michigan Sate in which they had to play without 2 of their starters for most of the second half because of injuries and still found a way to win those games just sounds like youre making excuses for WV and finding every reason in the world not to give Duke the credit they deserve.

4/8/10   |     |   324 respect

wrote:
Even if WV should have been a #1 instead of Duke, didn't Duke prove they were the better team? They out and out hammered WV.

I think I already gave you that without beating the dead horse of WV being beat up by the time they got to Duke who were awarded the lowest seeded sacrificial lambs in the first game advancing them to the second round pretty much automatically. I already said it was a great game and gave Duke their props.

4/8/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

wrote:

ok everybody keeps sayin how bruised up WV was that same beat up team went in and defeated Kentucky and if you are referring to Da'sean Butler by time he went out of the game Duke was already up by double digits. Baylor was overseeded really? The same Baylor team that finished 3rd in the Big 12 the so called toughest conference this year so for duke to go in and beat them by 7 in Texas might i add is no easy feat.

 they got bruised up during the kentuckty game, and would have lost that game if massoula didnt turn into jerry west. baylor barely cracked the top 20 in the polls, but got a 3 seed for having a hot streak. 

4/8/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

wrote:
There have been plenty of national champs that you can say the same thing about, i.e. they got a "easy" draw, they didn't play a "elite, healthy" team all  year... but yet when Duke does it we get a lengthy thread about it and how we should revamp the entire selection process because of it.

Again, it is not Duke's fault that they played teams that had injuries. In fact, one could make the argument that injuries to Duke players (Zoubek in particular) is why Duke hadn't shown better in the previous 2-3 tournaments.

This year Duke was healthy, got some breaks and played themselves into championship form by the end of the season. It happens all the time.

How many "elite, healthy" teams did UNC beat last year? Was LSU, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Villanova or Michigan State "elite"? I don't think so. But UNC was seen as the best team going into the tournament. This year Duke wasn't seen that way, but I'd say Duke beat just as many "elite, healthy" teams this year as UNC did last year.

 that oklahoma team had the griffin brothers, which was no easy feat to beat them. Nova was also a very tough team last year, finding a way to beat a team that was probably better than unc in pittsburgh, and beating a spartan team with tons of postseason experience. any one of those teams listed could have beaten this years duke team.

4/8/10   |   abac89   |   758 respect

ok everybody keeps sayin how bruised up WV was that same beat up team went in and defeated Kentucky and if you are referring to Da'sean Butler by time he went out of the game Duke was already up by double digits. Baylor was overseeded really? The same Baylor team that finished 3rd in the Big 12 the so called toughest conference this year so for duke to go in and beat them by 7 in Texas might i add is no easy feat.

4/7/10   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
Not hate, just the truth. Duke never once this year beat an elite team when they are healthy. I'm not disputing that they are the national champions or that they won the tournament.  I'm just questioning whether they really proved they were an elite team or is it just a bigger indictment against the quality of play this season?  Obviously we know Duke didn't beat an elite healthy team this year, but was it just luck of the draw or did this season kind of suck?

There have been plenty of national champs that you can say the same thing about, i.e. they got a "easy" draw, they didn't play a "elite, healthy" team all  year... but yet when Duke does it we get a lengthy thread about it and how we should revamp the entire selection process because of it.

Again, it is not Duke's fault that they played teams that had injuries. In fact, one could make the argument that injuries to Duke players (Zoubek in particular) is why Duke hadn't shown better in the previous 2-3 tournaments.

This year Duke was healthy, got some breaks and played themselves into championship form by the end of the season. It happens all the time.

How many "elite, healthy" teams did UNC beat last year? Was LSU, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Villanova or Michigan State "elite"? I don't think so. But UNC was seen as the best team going into the tournament. This year Duke wasn't seen that way, but I'd say Duke beat just as many "elite, healthy" teams this year as UNC did last year.

4/7/10   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

Even if WV should have been a #1 instead of Duke, didn't Duke prove they were the better team? They out and out hammered WV.

4/7/10   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

Not hate, just the truth. Duke never once this year beat an elite team when they are healthy. I'm not disputing that they are the national champions or that they won the tournament.  I'm just questioning whether they really proved they were an elite team or is it just a bigger indictment against the quality of play this season?  Obviously we know Duke didn't beat an elite healthy team this year, but was it just luck of the draw or did this season kind of suck?