NCAA TOURNAMENT

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

Jon Rycek said:
Temple played pretty good in that game, Belmont is a very good team. But I’m sure it feels better just to talk trash about our conference
Click to expand...

Temple played DUMB in that game. Seriously, for every good move to the basket there was 2 awful long twos or contested jumpers. And defense (especially on the big white kid and backdoor cuts) was atrocious.
 
sedziobs said:
cincrulz didn't say Temple is unworthy because they lost to Belmont. He said they were bad for an at-large team because their Kenpom ranking is in the 70s.
Click to expand...

So he would have said that If they won? Come on man, I honestly feel like you’re hijacking this site with your obsession over metrics.
 
TheRealUC said:
Anyone else check out these "Best players in the tournament" articles going around? Most are top 25, with Cland not being on the ones i saw, but he was #32 on a top 50 list. Yes, this means squat, but it's interesting. Corey Davis was listed #42....
Click to expand...

Gasaway/ ESPN had him as #14 in one I saw.
 
Last edited:
The more I look at our region, the more I like it. Obviously nervous about the Tennessee game and a lot of people have them going to the FF. But I feel like that’s the toughest test on our side, I’ve got a feeling Virginia doesn’t make it to the elite 8, and if that’s the case I don’t see anyone we can’t beat. Tennessee is going to be the biggest test, but I think they’re beatable. If Cumberland plays like he did against Houston, I like our chances. If Williams can get some of his Mojo back, I really like them. He’s been on of our biggest creators this season and he’s really struggled as of late as we all know. I’m hoping and expecting that to change starting this week. We are athletic enough to hang with anybody, and there is just something extra about this team, like they’ve got something to prove. I’m liking this group more and more as the year goes on. No matter what happens, I’m happy with this year, but I’m feeling pretty damn optimistic right now
 
sedziobs said:
cincrulz didn't say Temple is unworthy because they lost to Belmont. He said they were bad for an at-large team because their Kenpom ranking is in the 70s.
Click to expand...


its a pretty sad day when you can say a team outside the top 75 isn't a great team and get backlash.
 
Jon Rycek said:
So he would have said that If they won? Come on man, I honestly feel like you’re hijacking this site with your obsession over metrics.
Click to expand...


one of the most laughable posts ive ever read here. how about you stop hijacking the site with stupidity.


sedziobs is the best poster here and the site would be better if there were more like him.



also win or lose, St. Johns is another team that might be resume worthy of the tournament but isn't a tournament caliber team.


i mean do you realize St. Johns is lower on kenpom than 3 13 seeds and a 14 seed.
 
Jon Rycek said:
So he would have said that If they won? Come on man, I honestly feel like you’re hijacking this site with your obsession over metrics.
Click to expand...

Are you really one to talk? You hijack any thread where people aren't sucking on UCs or Cronins you know whats and call them out as being shit fans while you puff your e-chest.
 
For the record, I posted about why a bad St John's team deserved to be in the tournament despite a Kenpom and NET ranking in the 70s, before they lost last night. I compared them to a good team in Clemson that didn't deserve to be in. I also posted a list of 12-14 seeds I'm excited about even though they all have bad Kenpom rankings, showing that metrics aren't all I care about. As I've said before, you don't have to understand metrics to be a basketball fan. But you should understand them if you're going to argue about them.
 
Jon Rycek said:
So he would have said that If they won? Come on man, I honestly feel like you’re hijacking this site with your obsession over metrics.
Click to expand...

I will ditto Cincrulz11 here. Sedziobs is always very well informed and one of the most rational posters on the board. You complain about the site being dead and then go on to tell one of the board's best contributors they are hijacking the board with the use of (of all things) objective data. Often it's data that the committee uses to help pick seeds. It's relevant data and many of us fans appreciate the work Sedziobs and others put in to provide it here.
 
sedziobs said:
For the record, I posted about why a bad St John's team deserved to be in the tournament despite a Kenpom and NET ranking in the 70s, before they lost last night. I compared them to a good team in Clemson that didn't deserve to be in. I also posted a list of 12-14 seeds I'm excited about even though they all have bad Kenpom rankings, showing that metrics aren't all I care about. As I've said before, you don't have to understand metrics to be a basketball fan. But you should understand them if you're going to argue about them.
Click to expand...

Not even sure why you are defending yourself. Most of us here enjoy your posts. Keep it up!
 
Thanks guys. Don't worry, I'm not the type to get offended and storm off. This site has a mix of posters with different styles, which is a good thing.
 
Watching Nevada try to get back in this game. They are missing dunks and clanking threes....where was this shit last year?
 

Similar threads

Q
Dayton
2
Replies
21
Views
66K
sedziobs
S
Q
Oklahoma
Replies
8
Views
27K
sedziobs
S
Q
UCF
Replies
6
Views
27K
Queens_NYC
Q
Q
Florida Gulf Coast
Replies
9
Views
34K
sedziobs
S
Q
Howard
Replies
12
Views
49K
sedziobs
S
Back
Top