danman31

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 09:27 PM) Because the lower half of my midwest bracket is totally f'ed up. At least then I'd get some points out of the midwest, then. So you have Wake Forest losing in the Sweet 16? Notable, but wouldn't hurt much. Can't be too many Cleveland State/Arizona sweet 16 picks.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 09:21 PM) My Midwest Bracket will be seriously f***ed if Wake loses. My only hope is if Louisville runs the table to the Final Four. How do those 2 thoughts go together? Wake would have to play Louisville in the sweet 16. How does Louisville winning the regional help you?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 08:23 PM) Their resume was largely based on beating in conference teams. And what does the world have to do with my opinion? Their resumes were largely based on that, but 3 teams doesn't make a conference.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 07:40 PM) So to me that suggests the Big 12 was the second best conference and that in order to prove those rankings legitimate they need to get 3 in the top 16 and at minimum 1 in the top 8. Good thing the world doesn't work that way and teams are seeded based on individual resumes and not filling out conference quotas.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) I stand by my statement, if the Big 12 is as good as it claims, they should have 3 teams in the Sweet 16 and 2 in the Elite 8. If they can accomplish that, theyll get all the credit they deserve. How good has the Big 12 claimed to be?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) lol They had 4 seeds above 7, which means those 4 should have won their game. The only "upset" was an 8/9 game. If Missouri, KU or OU had lost it would have been the biggest upset so far in this tournament. Not to mention of the other 4 games only 2 were against power conferences (Minnesota and Tenn) and the Tenn game came down to the final seconds. For the most part the top 3 big 12 teams have pretty easy draws for the first 2 rounds, so we will see what happens in the sweet 16. The Big 12 has to get 3 teams in the sweet 16 or else its a failure compared to their seeding. It would be different if the Big 12 was seeded like the Big 10, only having 1 seed above a 5. You can bash the Big 12 all you want, but they went 3/3 in losable games. They deserve some credit for that.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) Realistically, the only way Soccer is going to grow in America is if 20 years from now there is enough talent in America for those players to stay home and not going to Europe. I think they should also start up a Champions League type of competition with South America, and the winner of that plays the winner of the European Champions League. I agree with the first part, but the 2nd needs a lot of change. They already have a CONCACAF Champions League and it runs during the MLS offseason so they aren't going to have any success. The Copa Libertadores isn't that far in, but if those games are going to have meaning good luck finding fans that will go to games in Chicago in late February/early March. On paper it's a good idea, but I don't think it will ever happen.

Byron Eaton with the first sick late finish of the tourney. Not over though.

I didn't pick ND State because I assumed they wouldn't be able to guard/control Aldrich, but he hasn't been the factor I would have expected yet. Edit: Collins was better than he is capable of, but Aldrich was the difference. Collins vs. Woodside was mostly pretty close. ND State didn't have another dynamic weapon.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) I pray to God that Soccer never becomes famous in America. The exact opposite of this article would happen, and the USA would RUIN soccer. The MLS already tarnishes the sport because it's s*** level of play. MLS can be argued as a bad thing for multiple reasons, but saying it tarnishes the sport because the level of play is bad is not the reason. Yes, the play is bad. But how does that tarnish soccer? I don't see how MLS tarnishes soccer more than the s*** Irish Premier League, for example. I don't see why a lack of top tier quality makes it tarnish the sport.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Mar 19, 2009 -> 11:29 PM) Anyone see that guy on Morgan State, flip Griffin over his back. What the hell was that? One of the most awesome things I have seen a player do on a basketball court. Fixed.

St. Mary's vs. Davidson 2nd round. Mills vs. Curry. Thanks NIT.

I thought this was hilarious and this thread needs a return. I tried embedding, but that gave me a headache. What do you have to do other than copy/paste the code on youtube? Edit: Thanks Tex.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 05:25 PM) Boy Mizzou got f***ed, going to Boise with that subregional. Not too upset about it. Marquette is a semi-tough draw, should be interesting.

Scheyer got MVP. Good for him. He's really been stepping up lately.

Just about the worst last minute of basketball possible in the final. These teams are f***ing awful.

What a douche.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) You beat Gonzaga in Spokane and you're doing something right. I'll say right now that I believe Memphis is going to be back in the final four. Quote me on that. I don't want to sound like an ass, but I think you have a mid-major bias here because Gonzaga is freaking terrible. It's a damn shame St. Mary's couldn't finish pantsing them with a healthy Mills. I'll be very surprised if Memphis makes the final four.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) Memphis is a sweet 16 type of team in my opinion, maybe elite 8 if they get a good draw, maybe lose in the 2nd round if they get a bad draw. Which is where I stand and I think a lot of other people do too. So the question is why are they getting rewarded for not playing anyone? We can't judge how much they've improved, so let's assume they are one of the top 5 teams in the country. There really is no logic to support such a claim, which is all ESPN is saying. I know ESPN is bad, but still.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 03:09 AM) They have won like 395 games in a row in their conference. Thus, when everyone is beating up and losing in tough conferences ,they are raising in the rankings. I understand that part, but the committee is supposed to be smarter than that.

So why doesn't anyone use their brain and say Memphis isn't that good? Everyone knows their conference is ok at best so none of those wins will garner much respect from me, at least when you are talking about getting a #1 seed. But seriously, Memphis hasn't beaten anyone I respect. Their best wins are Gonzaga (who only has notable wins over bubble team Maryland, 7th best place in the Big 12 Oklahoma State, and twice over 10-6 in the SEC Tennessee compared to losses to bubble team Arizona, Portland St. and Utah), Tennessee (10-6 in the SEC as I said, not impressed at all) and then what? Seton Hall? Cincinnati? Those are atrocious 'good' wins. About as bad as any team in the top 4 seeds. Now let's look at their losses. Xavier, @Georgetown and Syracuse (in Memphis). Georgetown isn't a bad loss, but not exactly a good one. It's also pretty fair to say Xavier and Syracuse are the best 2 teams on Memphis' schedule, and Memphis lost, on a neutral site and at home. So can someone actually come up with a good reason why Memphis is one of the top 8 teams in the country?

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Baylor is a good story.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 04:24 PM) Wise and Owens are both below avg defensively and offensively, BA and Lilli are plus defenders and cant hit. Lilli is a better player than both Wise and Owens, and probably equal value to BA because of their plus defense. None of the bunch is good, but Wise and Owens clearly suck. And FYI, cherry picking the kid's worst year never really shows anything. He may not be an offensive juggernaut, but he is better than he showed last year. Cherry picking his worst year was not my intention. I took what he did last year and it was garbage. He was also very average in 2007, those aren't stats that are going to have any value as a hitter in the Majors. He hasn't proven anything above A ball, which is a major concern. Lots of guys falter once they hit AA. At this point, I see no reason to think he can hit Major League pitching.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 04:18 PM) Talent for one. Wise is a 31 year old garbage fill in player. And Lillibridge hit .220 in AAA last year. Not sure how those 3 suck, but Lillibridge doesn't.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 04:12 PM) we may have to take a look at Lilli in CF here. BA, Wise and Owens all suck. Wise is hitting .350 this spring. What makes Lillibridge better?