|
PonyFans.com •
Board Index •
Around the Hilltop •
Football •
Recruiting •
Basketball •
Other Sports
Anything involving SMU basketball belongs here.
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
by George S. Patton » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:17 am
If you heard the fallout, there really weren't too many complaints about who was picked and who was left out. I guess the only issue was Baylor over Arizona St. or Virginia Tech. But that was about it.
But really, I think the committee is going to be doing a better job getting this right and for the future. With the information overload, games on TV, there are more opporunities for the committee to get a handle on this and really scrutinize who is worthy of the field.
I liked the brackets. At first glance, the one game I see that I like is USC getting to the Sweet 16.
-
George S. Patton
-
by MustangStealth » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:10 pm
I don't think Kentucky should have been in. If you looked at this resume and changed the name at the top from "Kentucky(SEC)" to "Southern Illinois(MVC)" (or any other mid-major type team) there's no way they get in.
18-12
12-4 in conference
RPI 57
Lost in 1st round of the conference tournament
Home non-conference losses to San Diego, UAB, Gardner Webb
Best non-conference win is over RPI 256 Liberty
41 point loss at Vanderbilt
4-8 away from home
6-7 non-conference
Non-conference RPI 210, SOS 100
-

MustangStealth

-
- Posts: 4093
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:01 am
- Location: Ford Stadium, as often as possible
by MustangStealth » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:19 pm
And the same can pretty much be said for Oregon.
-

MustangStealth

-
- Posts: 4093
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:01 am
- Location: Ford Stadium, as often as possible
by jkflamebo » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:52 pm
George S. Patton wrote:If you heard the fallout, there really weren't too many complaints about who was picked and who was left out. I guess the only issue was Baylor over Arizona St. or Virginia Tech. But that was about it.
But really, I think the committee is going to be doing a better job getting this right and for the future. With the information overload, games on TV, there are more opporunities for the committee to get a handle on this and really scrutinize who is worthy of the field.
I liked the brackets. At first glance, the one game I see that I like is USC getting to the Sweet 16.
i like usc over wisconsin a lot. wisconsin is overrated
-

jkflamebo

-
- Posts: 2089
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 8:20 pm
by SMUtrojanFAN » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:03 pm
SC is decent this year, however, their main problem is that they lack true leadership on the court. That and turnovers as well. Their strength seems to be defense where they can contain their opponents. Defense was key in their win over UCLA at Pauley in January.
GO MUSTANGS!
FIGHT ON!
-

SMUtrojanFAN

-
- Posts: 828
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:50 am
- Location: Orange County (Aliso Viejo), CA
by CA Mustang » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:21 pm
SMUtrojanFAN wrote:SC is decent this year, however, their main problem is that they lack true leadership on the court. That and turnovers as well. Their strength seems to be defense where they can contain their opponents. Defense was key in their win over UCLA at Pauley in January.
I'd attribute the leadership issue more to the fact they integrated new players in key positions this year. As the season wore on, Gibson, Hackett and Mayo asserted themselves. While the turnovers were a problem, I thought their biggest weakness was the lack of a smoothly operating offense (again probably due to all the new players). They didn't reach 60 points during either game in the Pac-10 tournament. With their talent, they should be scoring 75-80 points a game.
-
CA Mustang

-
- Posts: 2693
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Elk Grove, CA
by CA Mustang » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:28 pm
MustangStealth wrote:And the same can pretty much be said for Oregon.
Hardly. Oregon won at KSU, swept Arizona and beat Stanford.
-
CA Mustang

-
- Posts: 2693
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Elk Grove, CA
by EastStang » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:39 pm
I heard that VT and VCU were the last two bubble teams left. VCU probably a little higher than VT. UGA messed up any chance for them.
-
EastStang

-
- Posts: 12661
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:01 am
by mustangxc » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:14 pm
I think Kentucky should have been left out after Georgia stole a bid. When a weak conference steals a bid the bubble teams in that conference should be the ones to suffer. Arizona State, VCU, Dayton, or Virginia Tech should have made it in ahead of UK. The SEC should have been at most a 4 bid league this season.
-

mustangxc

-
- Posts: 7338
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:57 pm
by EastStang » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:28 pm
Note that last year's finals teams Ohio State and Florida didn't make the tournament.
-
EastStang

-
- Posts: 12661
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:01 am
by Harry0569 » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:58 pm
mustangxc wrote:I think Kentucky should have been left out after Georgia stole a bid. When a weak conference steals a bid the bubble teams in that conference should be the ones to suffer. Arizona State, VCU, Dayton, or Virginia Tech should have made it in ahead of UK. The SEC should have been at most a 4 bid league this season.
When you win 12 games in a top notch conference you are going to get into the tournament. I want to preface this with that I hate UK, but looking at their quality wins, they deserve to be in. They beat Tenn at home and lost by 3 in Knoxville, beat Vandy, and 4 games on the road in the SEC which is a tough feat.
My biggest problem is Arizona getting in over Az. state.
-

Harry0569

-
- Posts: 8938
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:35 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
by J.T.supporta » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:08 pm
George S. Patton wrote:If you heard the fallout, there really weren't too many complaints about who was picked and who was left out. I guess the only issue was Baylor over Arizona St. or Virginia Tech. But that was about it.
But really, I think the committee is going to be doing a better job getting this right and for the future. With the information overload, games on TV, there are more opporunities for the committee to get a handle on this and really scrutinize who is worthy of the field.
I liked the brackets. At first glance, the one game I see that I like is USC getting to the Sweet 16.
it wasnt Baylor over those teams...it was mainly Arizona over Arizona State...dont forget about Butler being screwed in the tourney draw. and wheres the Flyers? dayton should have made it. BU deserved a bid. im sure Arizona was one of the last teams in.
-

J.T.supporta

-
- Posts: 6160
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:27 pm
- Location: SMU
by Pony_Fan » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:49 pm
Bobby wants 128 teams in the tourney. What a joke. Leave it the way it is. Otherwise, the regular season doesnt mean a whole lot.
Knight added nothing to the ESPN bracket show IMO.
-

Pony_Fan

-
- Posts: 6130
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas,Tx, USA
by SMUtrojanFAN » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:11 pm
CA Mustang wrote:SMUtrojanFAN wrote:SC is decent this year, however, their main problem is that they lack true leadership on the court. That and turnovers as well. Their strength seems to be defense where they can contain their opponents. Defense was key in their win over UCLA at Pauley in January.
I'd attribute the leadership issue more to the fact they integrated new players in key positions this year. As the season wore on, Gibson, Hackett and Mayo asserted themselves. While the turnovers were a problem, I thought their biggest weakness was the lack of a smoothly operating offense (again probably due to all the new players). They didn't reach 60 points during either game in the Pac-10 tournament. With their talent, they should be scoring 75-80 points a game.
This is probably the reason for the turnovers. The offense improved during the regular season, but they hung tough with some good opponents early on, losing to KU and Memphis both on the road by 4.
GO MUSTANGS!
FIGHT ON!
-

SMUtrojanFAN

-
- Posts: 828
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:50 am
- Location: Orange County (Aliso Viejo), CA
Return to Basketball
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests
|
|