I only saw pieces of the action, but was this the lineup that got them back into the game? Maybe that's what he was thinking. I also think in a Double OT game, the team that DIDN'T play the night before probably always wins the game. WVU had to be exhausted after putting in so much energy to coming back. I hope they do get in the Big Dance, though, and think they will.

VERY proud of my Panthers for taking it to Marquette and beating them at their own fast-paced game. Proved we don't have to play slow, half-court ball to win all the time. Now let's get a double measure of redemption and beat the Cardinals tonight...avenging our most embarassaing lost in 5 years back on Feb 12.

Let's Go Pitt!

In an somewhat ugly game (from missed shots), Pitt beat Louisville tonight in the Garden. Pitt only lost to three Big East teams this season, and they have so far beaten 2 of them in the tournament and have a matchup Saturday night with the third team, Georgetown.

Aaron Gray spent most of the game on the bench but the rest of the stepped up to fill in and still produce. Pitt was also more agile as a team, than in the previous loss to Louisville.

This will mark the 6th time in 7 years that Pitt will be playing in the Big East final. Although they won in 2003, they have lost the other 4 times, and Pitt fans are hoping that they won't pull a Susan Lucci and lose again. Pitt and Georgetown split their regular season meetings. A #2 seed in the NCAA tournament is definitely on the line.

Georgetown played a great game and stayed strong and consistent when Notre Dame went up big to overtake the Fighting Irish. The big difference in the game was how they could make the shots down the stretch. Green seems to be a difference maker for them.

Georgetown did play a great game tonight! Hibbert and Green were great leaders today. Aaron Gray was invisible for Pitt. I don't think Panthers will get the #2 seed tomorrow. It should go to the Oregon Ducks instead.

Wow no Syracuse

After the couple upsets in the mid major conference tourney, I suspected WVU would be left out. The out of conference SOS was its achilees heel.


I'm very surprised by the CUSE not making it.


Oh well. 6 teams this year isn't too bad. I'm sure the BE will bounce back next year and place 8 or 9 teams in the field.

I thought the way the Cuse finished up would get them in. I agree that next year should be a good one for the BE- who knows maybe this year won't be so bad. I can see 4 teams, possibly 5 making it to the Sweet Sixteen.

San Francisco Syracuse fan SEETHING...
GRRRRR!

Invited my boss over, a huuuuge Illinois fan. I was ready to "counsel" him in case Illinois didn't get in. Oh, imagine the irony when Ill got in and Syracuse didn't.

Sucks.
Syracuse out, but Stanford (STANFORD?!?? What the???) is in?
Bull-honkery.

And how the f---? is Syracuse ranked behind West Va in the NIT???
Sigh...

Well, WVU and Syracuse almost mirroed each other in the Big East play. WVU did beat UCLA Out of conference. The only out of conference loss by WVU was to Arkansas ( a NCAA team). Syracuse lost to Wichita State and Drexel ( two non-ncaa teams). Who knows......

Ironic, when I posted that Syracuse needed to advance further than West Va in the Big East event, y'all told me 'Cuse was in... Argh. Still extremely upset over Stanford's inclusion. Grrrrrrr!

one WVU board I post to is in complete meltdown over Stanford as well

Standford's SOS was in the low 30s

WVU's SOS was something like 99

I'm not sure what Syracuse's was

Speaking of which ... how the hell is Arkansas in the tourney?!? BS that the committee doesn't look at league affiliation. They realized they had 6 Big Ten teams in so they couldn't only put 4 SEC teams in. What a joke. West Virginia, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri State and Air Force were all more deserving than Arkansas and Stanford for that matter.

Read the Yahoo! article on Boeheim and Syracuse, and even I couldn't help but think, "Dude, oranges don't make good whine..."

Jimmy B. is pretty hateable from what I understand. Not that his personality flaws should justifying the Syracuse snub... Hopefully, the other Big East teams will represent well.

Its the Worst job by the NCAA selection committie ever, no doubt. Putting my WVU bias aside, Syracuse and Air Force were deserving of bids. Personally, I can't see how two teams from the ACC who had losing records against ACC teams were allowed to dance. I can see how Duke can get in, but Georgia Tech? If you can't have a winning record in your conference, you don't deserve to play in the NCAA. As many are right on target, the ACC and Big Ten received more bids this year because of their bitching last year then they felt "neglected". It was very telling the BIg East and Big 12 were the two major conferences that didn't have a rep from a team of those two conferences on the NCAA selection committie as those were the two conferences that felt shafted by the process.


Can someone explain to me how Virginia Tech received a #5 seed with 11 freakin losses? Yes, Virginia Tech basketball ( I know those three words are typically a punchline or a joke) received a 5 seed. A Hokie team who had 3 losses to NC State ( non NCAA team), Marshall ( non NIT OR NCAA team), Western Michigan ( non NIT OR NCAA team), Florida State ( non NCAA team), Southern Illinois, George Washington, Clemson ( non NCAA team), Virginia, and Boston College.

Are you freakin Kidding me?

Additionally,

Maryland receives a #4 seed ( lost in the ACC quarterfinals) while Notre Dame receives a #6 seed. ND beat Maryland in DC this year and had a better overall recrod, yet Maryland gets a higher seed?

Take the Duke-Marquette situation. Duke gets a #6 seed while finishing with a 8-9 record against ACC teams this year. Duke loses to Marquette on a Neutral court in Kansas City. Marquette has a better overall recrod and a winning record in conference. Yet, its 4 seeds lower than Duke?

Don't even get me started about Boston College. at 19-11. A BC team that had a #6 seed, yet lost to Vermont, Providence, Duquense, and Kansas ( by 40) out of conference. A BC team that lost Duke twice ( the same Duke team that has a conference losing record), Clemson ( non NCAA team), Miami ( non NCAA team)North Carolina ( home), Virginia Tech, and others.

Yet, BC Is deserving of the same seed as A team like Louisville and Notre Dame? Virginia Tech is deserving of a higher ranking? What about Virginia who got a #4 seed who lost to Stanford, Purdue, Appalachian State, and Utah (by 24) out of conference.

Its amazing the NCAA selection committiee picks and choses which conferences to assess good and bad losses. What would happen if Syracuse had lost to vermont, providence ( who syracuse beat at Providence), duquense, and by 40 to kansas on national TV like BC did? ESPN and other anti Big East fools would have highlighted those losses, yet because BC plays in the ACC, they are given a pass. Who exactly did BC beat in the ACC to secure a NCAA bid? They lost to North Carolina 3 times ( once at home) and lost to Duke twice. Yet, Syracuse beat a great Georgetown team and had some other signature wins down the stretch. Syracuse has a better record than BC, yet BC not only gets in the Dance, but hell lets give the not accomplished anything Eagles a 6 seed and leave NCAA power Syracuse who did a hell of a lot more out of the dance completely.

WVU had two alleged bad loss es all year to Cincy and Providence. A providence team who was 8-8 in the Big East. The same Providence team that beat BC at home. However, Boston College's resume had the Providence as a "good loss" when listed on ESPN. Let me get this right. ACC teams that lose to Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Wake, Clemson, and other losing ACC teams in conference are good to great wins if they win those games and great losses when they lose, yet when a Big East team loses to a 8-8 ( .500 team ) on the road, its a "bad loss".


The double standard that exsists when talking about NCAA resumes needs to be focused on a lot more next season as without question this year's field of teams showcases the various agendas of the people that comprise the NCAA seleciton committiee.

People only call them double standards when their own teams are slighted.

When you get that far down the ladder, there are arguments to be made for and against every bubble team. Each one lost a quarter to a third of their games, to teams of varying strength and in varying conferences. If you're going to whine, it makes more sense to have it be about your team having 11, 12, 13, however many losses, instead of not being chosen in favor of some 11-loss team from another conference.

And let's be serious here -- the bubble teams will be out by the second round anyway, third if they're lucky.

Still shocked Syracuse didn't get in but oh well!

Notre Dame got a lower-seed-than-expeted because it's nonconference was one of the worst in the nation, and the only two names were Maryland and Bama and the Tide I'm sure didn't count for much.

And Virginia Tech losing to Marshall, maybe that's not such a bad thing considering WVU lost to Marshal in '05 and '06, got bids but when they finally beat Marshall in '07, they didn't.

There was a dropoff in the 3/4 seed line and I think they felt that MD (despite the Miami loss) still had pretty good momentum.

Every year a Big East team that is expected to get in, and doesn't. Wonder if that'll ever change. I laugh that none of the Bracketologist ever predict all 65 teams correctly into the field.

I guess sour grapes causes memory loss. Last year Syracuse got a #5 seed with 13 losses!!

Remember? The Big East had a "banner" year of 8 teams in the NCAA tourney. (3 of which immediately lost) Yet, West Virginia, Seton Hall, and Marquette all had at least 10 losses (West Virginia even lost to Marshall, but got a 6 seed).

Overall, Big East, 8 teams got in, they went 11-8 (57%)
.............the ACC, 4 teams got in, they went 6-4 (60%)

[quote name='GymMountainEER' date='Mar 13 2007, 05:17 AM' post='321471']
Its the Worst job by the NCAA selection committie ever, no doubt. Putting my WVU bias aside, Syracuse and Air Force were deserving of bids.

Yes, Gym, you did a great job hiding your rose colored Big East glasses while ranting. Not only do you have to not lose against big teams, you actually have to win against them. Syracuse had some stellar non-conference wins against...drumroll please....Charlotte and Hofstra. There only non-conference win (and only game) on an opponents court was against the very demanding Canisius. The only "middle of the road" non-conference teams Syracuse played were Wichita St, Oklahoma St, and Drexel (none were selected to the big dance) all on their home court, AND THEY LOST TO ALL 3! Their demanding non-conference schedule was quite similar to most of the other Big East teams. This is why you cannot measure teams based on win/loss record alone.
Thanks for "putting your bias aside".

"Remember? The Big East had a "banner" year of 8 teams in the NCAA tourney. (3 of which immediately lost) Yet, West Virginia, Seton Hall, and Marquette all had at least 10 losses (West Virginia even lost to Marshall, but got a 6 seed)."



Apples to Oranges........

WVU also beat #3 Villanova, Final 4 UCLA, #8 Oklahoma, Marquette, Pitt, and Sweet 16 Georgetown ( twice). WVU lost to ( Elite 8) Texas ( on a last second shot) in regular season and NCAA ( in sweet 16 game), Kentucky, Final 4 LSU in OT, #1 UCONN ( by 3)


Huge difference in comparing BC, VT, and other ACC 10 and 11 loss teamsand their swchedule's to WVU's schedule last year.

At least make a comparision that at least mirrors in some capacity.........

Posted by Brian K

"Yes, Gym, you did a great job hiding your rose colored Big East glasses while ranting. Not only do you have to not lose against big teams, you actually have to win against them. Syracuse had some stellar non-conference wins against...drumroll please....Charlotte and Hofstra. There only non-conference win (and only game) on an opponents court was against the very demanding Canisius. The only "middle of the road" non-conference teams Syracuse played were Wichita St, Oklahoma St, and Drexel (none were selected to the big dance) all on their home court, AND THEY LOST TO ALL 3! Their demanding non-conference schedule was quite similar to most of the other Big East teams. This is why you cannot measure teams based on win/loss record alone. Thanks for "putting your bias aside".

That is all fine and well, but could you please illustrate Virginia, Boston College, and Virginia Tech's out of conference prowess? Anyone.......... Anyone............


As my point is right on and you ACC cheerleaders have difficulty accepting reality. A reality that shows all three teams were lousy out of conference.

Virginia Tech 4 seed
* Lost to Southern Illinois
* Lost to the great basketball program of Western Michigan
* Lost to Marshall
* Lost to George Washington
* lost to non NCAA team NC State - 3 freaking times
*lost to Florida State
* lost to Clemson at home
* did beat UNC twice ( two very good wins, but comparable to Syracuse's wins against Gtown and Pitt).

What were Virginia Tech's signature out of conference wins? Drum Roll................ Seton Hall? Yes, the Pirates. A Pirate Team that didnt even make the Big East tourney. Something VT basketball knows all too well- not making the Big East tourney in Madison Square Garden. Is this what you are chest thumping about? Yet, VT gets a 4 seed for this outstanding season of basketball?


Boston College 6 seed
*lost to the New England Power known as Vermont at home
* lost to Duquense at home
*lost to Providence
* lost to Kansas by 40 on national TV
* lost to a very bad Wake Forest team
* lost to North Carolina 3 times
* lost to Duke twice
* no signature in conference or out of conference wins

Virginia # 4 seed
* Lost to Appalachian State at home
* Lost by 24 to a bad Utah team
* lost to Purdue
* lost to Stanford
* no signature out of conference wins



Please continue making points that I can not only illustrate ACC teams are just as guilty of if not more when I apply the same arguments.

As I said, Billy Packer got his wish after his tirades's last year of crying when the ACC got only 4 teams in the tourney. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.


And speaking of bias, I don't think WVU was a NCAA team this year. WVU didn't win enough on the road IMO to be a NCAA team or deliver one more siganture win. My complaint is Syracuse, Missouri State, Air Force,Kansas State, and Drexel didn't make it when you stack up other resumes of the Purdue's, Michigan States, Illini,Arkansas and even ACC teams who received extra high seeds when their resume is just as lacking as those teams I just referenced.

the ACC teams were seeded one to two spots higher than they should have and the BE one to two spots lower than they should have.

Also Stanford getting in over Syracuse was a total joke. Losers of 4 straight and 7 of 11 yeah lets give them a bid over Syracuse that won 6 of its last 8 and gave Gtown its only loss in like 14 games.

Its no surprise that there was no BE rep on the NCAA committee when you look at the screwy seedings.

[quote name='GymMountainEER' date='Mar 13 2007, 04:07 PM' post='321512']
Posted by Brian K


As my point is right on and you ACC cheerleaders have difficulty accepting reality. A reality that shows all three teams were lousy out of conference.

What were Virginia Tech's signature out of conference wins? Drum Roll................ Seton Hall? Yes, the Pirates.

I have no care for the ACC, in fact I prefer the Big East to the ACC as 2 of my favorite teams are DePaul and Notre Dame. Your arguments just have no basis.
Virginia Tech was able to beat Old Dominion, Appalachian St., and Iowa. I wouldn't consider any of these wins huge, but they were able to beat these half way decent teams. Syracuse couldn't accomplish that.
Virginia Tech's 2 wins over North Carolina is bigger than Syracuse beating Pitt and Georgetown. Syracuse proved they could not win on the road as their only decent road win was against Marquette.
Virginia Tech was able to win at Duke, at North Carolina, and at Georgia Tech.
The one point that I agree with you on is Drexel. I was surprised that Arkansas, Illinois (my favorite team), and Stanford made it in over them.

"I have no care for the ACC, in fact I prefer the Big East to the ACC as 2 of my favorite teams are DePaul and Notre Dame. Your arguments just have no basis.
Virginia Tech was able to beat Old Dominion, Appalachian St., and Iowa. I wouldn't consider any of these wins huge, but they were able to beat these half way decent teams. Syracuse couldn't accomplish that.
Virginia Tech's 2 wins over North Carolina is bigger than Syracuse beating Pitt and Georgetown. Syracuse proved they could not win on the road as their only decent road win was against Marquette.
Virginia Tech was able to win at Duke, at North Carolina, and at Georgia Tech.
The one point that I agree with you on is Drexel. I was surprised that Arkansas, Illinois (my favorite team), and Stanford made it in over them."

Are you kidding me? Old Dominion, Appy State, and a horrible Iowa team ( lost to Drake and Northern Iowa) are Virginia Tech's out of conference chest thumping resume? Are you honestly attempting to insert these teams into an argument that supports Virginia Tech's 5th seed? In Retrospect, Virginia Tech lose to Western Michigan ( horrible loss), Southern Illinois ( good loss), Marshall ( bad loss), and George Washington ( average loss). The losses out of conference for Virginia Tech are far worst than Syracuse's and its not even close. Cuse lost to Wichita State and Drexel. Those two losses are far better than

Additionally, you referenced Duke and Georgia Tech as being " good road wins" for the Hokies. You do realize both Duke and Georgia Tech had LOSING ACC RECORDS, don't you? Is that registering? Losing recrod in conference play. Since when did winning at teams with losing conference recrods become "pat" on the back worth. I guess in the ACC, right? Where double standards are the norm.

Syracuse's win at Marquette was "decent" even with Marquette having a winning record in Big East play, yet Virginia Tech's win at Duke ( a team Marquette spanked on a neutral court in KC) and Georgia Tech even though both teams have LOSING recrods in ACC play is Fabulous. Is that what you are saying?

Additionally, Syracuse's road win at Providence who had a .500 record in Big East play is not "decent" even though the Friars smacked around Boston College ( 10-6 in ACC) in an Out of conference game.

Also, I fail to see how SU's wins over Georgetown and Pitt aren't as impressive as VT beating UNC twice. Maybe because of the win in Chapel Hill VT gets a slight nod. Georgetown is on the same level as UNC. Pitt is possibly playing a little below UNC's level at this moment, but certainly UNC isn't in a "different class". UNC has lost to teams like Gonzaga, NC State ( 3 times), Virginia Tech twice ( something Marshall, Western Michigan, George Washington, andSouthern Indiana, Clemson, and Wake Forest beat)

Again, please continue making points about why you are justifying SU's exclusion from the tourney and validating VT's high seed. You are only further making my points easier when I apply the same logic to ACC teams that you justify as defense for SU not making the tourney.

The simple matter is the ACC teams have overinflated seeds and had two teams with losing conference records make the NCAA tourney ( first time in history this has happened). The Big East had two teams that won 22 games who both beat two teams ranked in the top 15 during the year who were left out of the tournament. The ACC had a rep on the selection committiee and the Big East didn't. Its not easy to figure out what went down.

The Big East will let its actions speak on the court as it did with its football teams this past year. Is it Thursday, yet?

For argument purposes, Syracuse did not beat Pitt this year, Pitt won at the Carrier Dome on Jan 4th in their only meeting.

.....nor did NC State beat UNC "3 times".....they beat UNC once in Raleigh, while the Tarheels beat NC State in Chapel Hill and in the ACC tourney.

According to the Sagarin Ratings, Virginia Tech was #24 with a strength of schedule of #7, including going 5-2 against teams in the top 25. Those are stronger numbers that Tennessee or Southern Cal (two other #5 seeds that are more puzzling to me).

Syracuse was #50 in the ratings, with a SOS of #76, and a record of 2-4 against top 25 teams.

Mountaineer,

You have proven to us that the world (including statistics) are against the Big East.
Pitt and Georgetown, ranked #8 & 12, are in the same level as North Carolina at #4, according to the coaches, AP, ESPN and USA Today (that is quite a conspiracy). And all the SOS and RPI ratings have a special hidden weight for those who are in the Big East.
You have proved that conference records are more important than who is in that conference, even though one conference has 16 teams with 10 mediocre to weak teams compared to another with 12 teams and 5 mediocre to weak teams.
You have also proven to us that it is not who you beat but who you lose to. You have the same thinking as the Big East teams, as they played a very powder puff schedule and refused to go to other schools' floors to play (I made reference to this fact on this thread at the beginning of the season).
It must be very difficult watching this when everywhere around you everything is against these east coast schools.

Agree to Disagree........



We'll see how this plays out in the tourney.....




My mistake. I go off memory often and NC State beat Virginia Tech 3 times. I'll edit the post and insert VT's name. Who cares about SOS when a team loses 7 games in a year to non-NCAA tourney teams and still recieves a high seed like VT did. NC State ( 3 times), Marshall, Western Michigan, FLorida State, & Clemson. Add Southern Illinois and George Washington who beat VT on neutral courts from mid majors and that is 9 damn games VT lost to from teams on paper it should have won.

The arguments still stands- VT got one of the best seeds in NCAA tournament history with one of the weakest seasons of a team with tha high of a seed.

NCAA tournament selection committee makes their decisions, and we live by them. Funny that Syracuse wasn't the only team that scheduled a lot of "good" home games and didn't truly go on the road. Duke also played a very similar schedule (http://kenpom.com/sked.php?&y=2007&team=Duke) of a couple neutral games and not going on the road and they didn't seem to be penalized by the committee, receiving a 6 seed with a 8-8 conference record.

I'm sure most teams will be reactionary after this season and schedule more away games. Teams like Indiana, Michigan St, & Alabama upgraded their nonconference schedule hardcore after Georgia got in the tournament with a 16-14 record in 2001. No offense to Cuse fans, but it's fun hearing Jim Boeheim complain as if he got robbed.

Great Point Ultimate.

Additionally, Duke was 8-9 in conference games this year ( counting the ACC tourney game). Georgia Tech was 8-9 in conference games ( counting the ACC tourney).

You know, the most baffling aspect of the the selection committee decision to assess ACC teams better and higher when other teams with similar resumes were deemed less is aside from UNC, there really isn't a National Championship caliber team from the ACC. Additionally, the ACC had a good year overall, but was far from being "great". . Good- yes. Great- no.


When the top 4 teams of the ACC lose the following OOC games it calls attention to reasoning and logic behind the double standards and hypocrisy of the NCAA committee.

The top 4 ACC teams lost the following OOC games:

Vermont, Duquense, Marshall, George Washington, Appalachian State, Kansas ( by 40), Gonzaga, Southern Illinois, Purdue, Virginia, Stanford, Utah ( by 24), and Providence.

The Bottom 4 ACC teams lost to the following OOC games: Buffalo, Cleveland St., Miss State, WVU, Nebraska, Louisville, Binghampton, USF, Georgia, DePaul, Air Force ( by 40), Alabama, Cincy, Wisconsin, and Pittsburgh.


Top to Bottom the ACC is good this year, but the results above show a conference that is far from a dominant one where 4 teams from the ACC had 10 losses or more received 6 seeds or better is deserving of such great seeds for so many losses overall.

Ultimate,

You aren't really going to compare Duke's schedule with Syracuse are you?
Duke played Marquette, Air Force, Davidson, Indiana, Georgetown, and Gonzaga.
Syracuse played Charlotte, Pennsylvania, Wichita St, Oklahoma St, Drexel, and Hofstra. And lost to half of those teams.
I agree that there should be more encouragement for the major schools to have to go to the other schools to play. But to claim that this is the reason why Syracuse was penalized and Duke wasn't is absurd. Syracuse didn't make it because they didn't play anybody, and the teams they did play they couldn't beat.

Also, I believe the unbalanced schedule hurt the BE this year. With the addition of 2 games next year, all Big East teams play 18 conference games. That will inject some life into the RPI rankings of BE teams.

I couldn't agree more, comparing Duke's schedule and Syracuse's schedule is like comparing well.... Apples to well ummmmm ORANGES

Syracuse's road record was horrible against bad teams, they also only played any good team in the Big East once.

Again I think this years Duke team is not up to snuff, but their body of work this year is much more impressive then Syracuse.

There are many things in selection process, but it's funny to see those different rules are applied to different teams although i'm first to admit that there's many other factors that affect inclusion and/or seeding. Duke did play one OOC road game, at St John's. I'm saying they just scheduled similiarly and Duke played some good teams to compensate for that. I think Syracuse scheduled some good teams, but beyond their control, those teams turned out to not be as good this year. And yes, losing games at home is a dagger. Reminds me of the Mom on the CBS March Madness Commercial when she's telling her son, who's in the bubble room, "You should have won more home games"

[quote name='The-Ultimate' date='Mar 15 2007, 08:43 PM' post='321756']
There are many things in selection process, but it's funny to see those different rules are applied to different teams although i'm first to admit that there's many other factors that affect inclusion and/or seeding.

I feel like the committee did a pretty decent job overall this year. Most years I feel differently. I disagree with Stanford, Illinois, and Arkansas getting in over teams like Drexel and maybe 1 or 2 others, but those are difficult decisions to be made. This year it seems like seeds 1 - 4 were pretty easy, but 5 - 14 are pretty evenly matched.
I am watching the VCU/Duke game right now, and it appears Duke should have played some more road games. Game has just ended, VCU takes it. I love watching these mid-major teams upset the big dogs!

Big East is 3-2 so far. Notre Dame losing to Winthrop after coming from behind by 20 points was a let down. Lets hope Villanova TKO's the other "wildcats" tonight.

I know a lot of people had Notre Dame losing to Winthrop and it truely happen. Good job by Winthrop.

I caught a 4 or 5 minute stretch of that game in the first half and thought ND's coach did a really poor job of reining in his players' wrecklessness. There were 3 or 4 possessions in a row where a player dribbled down and shot in that span-very undisciplined and it didn't seem to bother the coach. They looked much smarter the one time I saw them play this year. They were a surprise team in the BE and maybe had trouble adjusting to the role of favorite.

Going into today, i was wondering if the Big East would be pulling a Big Ten, circa '06, of getting 6 teams in the tourney, 3 to the second round and nobody to the sweet 16. Luckily, Pitt held on in OT to beat VCU and Georgetown rallied against BC sending 2 Big East teams to the Sweet 16. That may not be as much as other conferences but considering the conference expectations, it's not impressive as much as respectable and hopefully the Panthers and Hoyas can carry the conference past the Sweet 16. Even though Louisville lost to A&M, it's scary to think about their program in next several years with it's potential.

You are right Ultimate- Louisville is going to be scary good the next couple of year. For the most part, all Big East teams will be very good. Aside from Louisville, Nova with Scotty Reynolds and a freshman phenom out of NJ will give the Wildcats one of college basketball's best backcourts. Cuse has a great recruiting class coming in. UCONN's will be a lot better next season. Notre Dame has almost everyonce coming back. Georgetown's Green, Ewing, and Hibbert are juniors. WVU's core group of players are freshman and sophomore. Pitt will be strong with its guard play. DePaul is going to be a lot better. Next year and the following year the Big East should be huge.

Looks like the NCAA selection committiee was wrong about the ACC and Big 10. Only two teams of the 13 combined teams from the two conferences advanced to the sweet 16.

Not that I would ever say " I told you so".

Ummmmmmmmmmm... the Big East only has 2 teams left, right? Not exactly dominating, especially since the SEC has 4 teams.

The ACC obviously underperformed but if anything, the Big 10 did better than expected. Sure, Wisconsin went down in the 2nd round, but the conference very nearly went 6-0 in the opening round. Given that they only had two teams seeded above #7, that's pretty damned good. By comparison, the Big East went 3-3 and was the victim of one of only two upsets in the opening round. Pitt and Georgetown are in the Sweet Sixteen--just as the committee expected--but Pitt barely squeaked in. Perhaps if you had been arguing for more teams from the SEC, the tournament might give you some fodder, but you thought the Big East and Big 12 (which has not been particularly impressive) were the ones that had been slighted.

Overall, I don't see how you can really argue that the tourney was that poorly seeded given the overwhelming dominance of higher seeds. I'll admit going in I thought the 5 seeds were the weakest I'd ever seen, but there were no 5-12 upsets in the 1st round for the first time in a decade. There wasn't even a 7-10 upset, which is pretty amazing.

Btw, its cute when a Penn State fan discusses Basketball. Interestingly enough, I recently had a lengthy discussion with a guy while on a flight. His insight was interesting and no doubt biased, but it seems like he was on target on many aspects regarding why PSU hoops is one of the worst basketball programs in America. He was a St. Joe's guy. I'll post some of his comments' MOst I agreed with and some I didn't. . He stated Philly fans don't have a lot of respect for PSU Basketball. THe Big 5 is the rage and only Pittsburgh gets props in PA as a program worth discussion by the Philly Media. Pittsburgh is mostly crazy about their Panthers and to a lesser extent WVU with is close distance 65 miles south in Morgantown. If a recruit from Pittsburgh has offers from WVU, Pitt, or PSU, they will choose Pitt mostly and on occasions WVU. PSU battles Atlantic 10 teams for \mid major recruits in Western and Central PA. Philly kids grow up on the Big 5 and Big East Basketball. Occasionally, the ACC snags a kid. Penn State isn't on the radar screen for the high or mid high major recruits. PSU is lefty with battling Rhode Island, UMASS, George Washington, St. Boneventure ,and sometimes Lasalle in ther Atlantic 10 for mid major players or project 7'0 centers who sometimes take space on a roster for years without ever contributing. Happy Valley's location in the middle of no where was another reason he stated PSU can't get urban kids to come to Happy Valley.


I agree with much of what the Hawk Fan stated. I do think witth the right coach PSU could sell Eastern Kids Big 10 Basketball. Its a tough sales, but not impossible. Also, Happy Valley is no more a tough sell than Starkville, Miss, West Layfette, Iowa City, Champaigne, Ames, Lawerance, Blacksburg, Morgantown, Casper, Manhattan, Charlottesville, and so forth.


Here is where I disagree that PSU is not a lost hope:

While I agree that PSU's turnover of coaches hasn't assisted the image much less provided wins. Dunn did take PSU to the Sweet 16. However, he was a one trick poney in having a year where all the stars aligned and shots were made by under recruited players that played well above their potential.
PSU has hired coaches that play a type of game that attracts the athletes from the inner cities. Most often, those kids have no desire to play in Happy Valley. Its remote, Penn State has no basketball tradition ( It does have an outstanding arena), and geographically PA kids want to play in Eastern Conferences, not in a Midwest league. While I agree football is different somewhat- Tradition, Recruiting is not an issue in playing in the Big 10 ( maybe with a couple rare players, but overall its not), and simply put PSU is one of the few if not only "STATE" school who's basketball program is typically the 6th to 8th best team in its state.

PSU Needs to scrap going for project players who rarely pan out and halt the recruit guards that lack athleticism to compete against the superior speed and athleticism of all other teams in the Big 10 with exception of NOrthwestern. athleticismplay an up and down tempo game of basketball.

PSU would be served to hire a coach who has a system- shooting, passing, fundemtals, and playing with aHigh IQ basketball- JOhn Belieln Ball. A system that wins games as a team playing their own special part. With the Right system and PSU's name, there is now reason why NIT and occasonionaly NCAA tourneys could give Lion fans another option to Spring Football. When WVU dominated the Atlantic 10 back in the 80's up until the early 90's, Cale Catlett recruited a little better than PSU. He would occasionally get a top recruit to go with other players he brought in that were not recruited by the major teams. He was a great X and O coach and it got him through the A-10 and often into the NCAA. However, when Gale had to upgrade recruiting for Big East action when WVU was admited in 1995, He was a fish out of water. He had a great nucleus of freshman and sophomores, so he added a couple of project JUCO players . Luckily those players all came together for a great senior year and advanced to the Sweet 16 in 1998. That would be Cale's last accolade at WVU. He couldn't win in the Big East recruiting up and down kids who scored a lot of points in transition to make WVU their 1st destination. Gale retired in 2001 after WVU went 5-26. It was the wrost season of WVU basketball. He is rememebered for those last 2 season even though he had 9 NCAA tourney wins and 11 apperances overall. Now fast forward. New system that focuses on system players and WVU is one of the best programs in America now. WVU doesn't go after top 100 recruits often It goes after 100-200 players who are 6-5 to 6-8 sharpshooters, can pass, and play team basketball. Anyone that comes has to play High IQ basketball. Its a requirment of JB.

Penn State IMO is a sleeping giant ready to explode onto the college basketball scene. Wisconsin, WVU, Texas Tech, and a couple other schools play system basketball. You will never see these schools in the top 20 of high school basketball rankings, but you will see them in the post season almost every year playing basketball the way it should be played. There is no reason why PSU shouldn't go after a coach like Jeff Neubar( EKU coach and John Beilein prodigee) who led EKU to the NCAA tourney and had a 22-3 run on UNC In the tourney playing great halfcourt offense.


Back to my comments on ACC above. The Big East is not the best basketball conference this year. Has any one of my posts conveyed this statement? I believe the Big East should have had 7 teams with Syracuse being the 7th teams. I am not upset WVU didn't make it. WVU will be a top 15 team next year with its outstanding young talent coming back next year off a 24-27 win team. I am not worried. NIT Run will make this team better than a 1or 2 games in the NCAA tourney. WVU needed to learn to win on the road. MSG in the NIT Final 4 will provide an excellent opportunity WVU to work on winning on the road/neutral against .500 or better teams. Something that was their Achilles heel and cost 22 win WVU an invitation to the dance.

My point was the ACC received 7 bid and only produced one team with more than 2 wins the NCAA. Not only did it prove the ACC bids were too high, but RPI rankings are not an accurate indicator of team's ability.


Do I love the Big East? Yes. Its a damn scrappy conference that has a lot of upside now the dust has settled and the conference is not only holding its own, its amajor player. I intentionally champion Big East issues first and foremost. I follow college athletics as a rule. Contrary to popular belief, I like the SEC for the most part. Ilike the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, MWC, Atlantic 10,and WCC basketball. Its obvious everyone thinks I am a WVU homer who lacks a perspective on college athletics in its enterity. That's not the case. I chose to discuss WVU and Big East issues because that is what interests me. The board has many options for beloved teams and fans to express their interests. If anyone wants to discuss spring football in the Big 10, why don't you? If people want to link ESPN articles about their teams and conferences, its certainly allowed. There is no rule before logging onto outsports that asks to coatcheck bais at the closet before entering. Aside from the insulting, the board would be alot more fun if fans would post in threads on what's going on in the conferences. Its done on all other sports message board, why should outsports posters and readers have posts that provide information, biased opinions, objective analysis, and have fans competitively exchange ideas ( free of insults) without scared if you have offended groups, posters, and others who believe all posts should be approved by Ghandi before posting.



THis a sports message board that comprises of fans from all colleges. I would hope all fans would champion their team and conference. College athletics is exciting and passionate. Why should outsports posters feel the need not to have the same energy on this board? I'll never be apologetic for rooting for WVU and to a lesser degree Tennessee.

Its obvious that my posts sometimes ruffles the feathers of some. I threw some foul balls. There are some that are still fixated on those circumstances that it still carres over today. Its obvious that some posters sole mission is to strickley post behind me like an ambulance chaser looking for an error or an opinion that can be corrected. I actually enjoy that. If I am wrong, I have no issues being corrected. I make mistakes and usually will quote statistics off the top of my head. Mistakes are to be expected. So are corrections.

I'm certainly not immune to playfully jabbing and pushing buttons. All in good fun. Its cute I have a devoted small fan club that consists of two ( this board is far less tame) boards googling and searching the internet to uncover personal info on me so they can add it to their posts as "they" insults all things Outsports. I guess life is so great "Over" there that is why they spend a great deal of time of gossping on posts, posters, owners, and Outsports policies in general instead of discussing sports (. I guess those wonder women band aids werent that effective as the wounds from a year ago are still apparent to everyone. My only advice is, get over it. Its done. It was a year ago. Why gossip and tear people ( counted at least 15) apart. You made a decision to leave. You've made your comments. You have now made your bed and you have to lay in it. FYI, When posting personal information ( a little accurate and mostly fabricated) as an attention ploy is just Sad. Seriously, if you need therapy for whatever plagues you, lets meet in Atlanta n( the postyer lives in Atlanta) and discuss thes antics. As you know, Atlanta is a small city in many ways and many people are connected) Sports Message Board Rivallries are one thing, but when a person or group start googling, its a foul ball. o There is some humor though. The amount of times the fool or fools typed my name to find info and energy expended in hating me over a "sports message baord"


Enough on that:.

Back to sports,


Big East tidbits:

WVU plays NC State tonight in Morgantown.
Depaul and Cuse are still in NIT.

Big Wast women won 7 of the 8 match ups in the first round of the NCAA.
Congrats to WVU on beating Xavier and almost pulling off a huge upset against LSU last night. WVU was up 13 in the middle 2nd half. All American Kate Bulger ( brother of Marc Bulger) returns to WVU after a n injury kept her out this year. WVU has 9 of its 10 best players coming back which doesn't include the former 21.0 6 rpg players.


Georgetown and Pitt are carrying the Big East Flagi in the ncaa TOURNEY.

PItt beats UCLA and loses in elite 8. Georgetown advances to Elite 8, Final 4, and wins the National Championship.

On a side note, my cousin who is the starting PG for Tennessee- Chattanooga lost its 1st round NCAA matchup against 2005 National Champions Baylor in a close game. SHe made all SOCO 2nd team this year and SOCO all tourney team.

who cares about the NCAAs-WVU has made it to the semis of the NIT

That's just because we know so much about everything. Didn't you get the memo? Though I appreciate your comments on the sorry state of PSU basketball, that has got to be one of, if not the, biggest thread hijacks in Outsports history. I am humbled to have been the inspiration...



Oh, really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... look below:





Doh!



And I'm not afraid to jab back, as you know... all in good fun.

Hopefully Syracuse follows today (and maybe DePaul).

"That's just because we know so much about everything. Didn't you get the memo? Though I appreciate your comments on the sorry state of PSU basketball, that has got to be one of, if not the, biggest thread hijacks in Outsports history. I am humbled to have been the inspiration... "

Missed that Memo. Paper trails that originate from Happy Valley for some reason evade my desk. That could be why. Maybe I should look into that, ok?

You PSU guys are pretty on top of things though. After an ESPN article that debated if inexperienced PSU QB Morelli could pass the test in leading PSU in the early part of the college football last year, you and a couple other PSU posters, didn't become defensive, but actually engaged in come good posts of debating Morelli's frutation. As it would seem, Morelli has now evolved into a good college QB.

Also, come on now. You call that hijacking? I was just being my typical generous self and giving you an opportunity to discuss PSU basketball in detail instead of the customary posts of " we lost again last night by 35".



Oh, really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... look below:- regarding where I posted the Big East was the best basketball conference in America.



I did made those claims in the early part of college basketball's season. I have stated since January the Pac-10 was most likely the best conference in America. I made those comments in the early part of college basketball's season. With UCONN's and Cincy's fall, Cuse's and Georgetown's early season OOC loses, St. John's not materializing, and Depaul's Dr. Jeckell and Mr. Hyde play, it was obvious the Big East by mid-January the BE wasn't the superior conference it was last year. A good conference- yes. The best- no.
So, for all the giddy opportunistic vultures circling, I will beat you to the punch. I was wrong on my early season comments. What a crime! A fan of a team chest thumping about their conference on a sports message board- Guillotine, Firing Squad, or Burnt at the Stake ?


"And I'm not afraid to jab back, as you know... all in good fun"

As anyone shouldn't. Teams and fans aren't suppose to agree on all issues, especially a sports message board. This forum provides sports fans the opportunity to break down the X's and O's, discuss coaching styles, and engage in other circumstances that impact college athletics. Biased fans have always championed an overly optimistic opinion of their teams, conference, or other connected interest. There are some objective fans, but for the most part that's an anomaly. Good spirited healthy competitive back and forth upper cuts of debating sports when differing agendas/opinions clash is par for the course.

Congratulations to Georgetown on making the Final Four. What a comeback by Georgetown ignited by great defense limiting UNC to no FG's the last 8:00 of the game. Billy Packer was basically speechless in the OT as Georgetown dominated play.

This victory gives the BE a 12-7 advantage in head to head games this year.

Congrats to the Georgetown the BE!

I was impressed with Billy Packers call of yesterday's game. He knew there would be a comeback and was doing everything short of calling one yesterday. He was taking note of a lot of different crucial things in the game in the last 8-10 minutes of regulation. In my opinion, he's a very intelligent guy that is not full of shit and knows his stuff

He definitely is very knowledgeable. The one thing that drives me nuts about him is that he doesn't ever seem to watch the replay when there's something worth reviewing- he just assumes that it supports his take on what happened. Yesterday's example (one of them anyway) was in the first half when I think Hibbert flushed a ball that was close to the rim. BP's take was that they got away with offensive goal tending- what I saw of the replay seemed to show it had bounced back out a bit, but of course he was as certain that it was an obvious missed call as he was to begin with. I would have liked to see it again even slower, but either way, his arrogant, often laughably wrong assumptions about what the replay shows make him someone I dislike and would rather not listen to.