Ironman92 wrote:

Going with the blue bloods?

Nah. I dislike Kansas because of S&L, and Hurley is a dick.

But it’s an interesting question. Who goes furthest, who loses first. Throw Kentucky in there. 

I’ll print a bracket tomorrow and make some more picks and guesses. I need a paper copy in front of me. Old school like that I guess. 

friendfromlowry wrote:

Nah. I dislike Kansas because of S&L, 

reps

I picked Kansas from about 2002-2023 ever year because I didn’t want them to win

friendfromlowry wrote:

Nah. I dislike Kansas because of S&L, and Hurley is a dick.

But it’s an interesting question. Who goes furthest, who loses first. Throw Kentucky in there. 

I’ll print a bracket tomorrow and make some more picks and guesses. I need a paper copy in front of me. Old school like that I guess. 

I’m in charge of the pool at school…will push 50 entries and must be done on paper bracket

Ironman92 wrote:

Director of Athletics at North Carolina

Jesus fucking Christ

Lol, committee chair is the UNC AD. Who gets a big cash bonus for UNC getting into the tournament. And UNC beats out a handful of other meh big-conference teams despite having the worst resume of them against Tier 1 teams.

But, hey, he had to leave the room when UNC was being discussed, so nothing to see here! Gets especially bizarre when he gives the reasoning for WVU being left out as them not having a top player available. Who hasn't been active for the majority of the season, so it's not like they're going to be a different team this week. Still the same WVU that has more Tier 1 wins without that guy than UNC had all damn year.

Big_Mirg_ZHS wrote:

You see what the committee thought of B1G with the omission of IU and OSU. 

IU? Sure. I'd say that behind WVU, they were the most deserving bubble team that didn't get in. I'm an OSU fan and thought it was bordering on a joke that they were considered right on the cusp until losing to Iowa in the conference tournament (Lunardi consistently had them in until that point and the other networks' guys alternated between having them in and out, depending on recent results). Even coming into the conference tournament, they were 17-14 with the best thing you could say is that they were probably 10 points away from having 21-22 wins due to how many close and overtime losses they had. Thought after battling back to beat Maryland at home, they were on the verge of clinching a spot, but then finished 3-6 after that and killed their chances.

Yeah, they had a few really good wins (Maryland, Kentucky, Purdue), but they had so many losses and, just like I felt when it was Jim Boeheim yelling about how Syracuse deserved to get in with their 13-15 losses because of how tough the ACC was, when a team's end result can be basically summed up as "They were good enough to compete with just about anyone for the full 40 and even beyond...but not good enough to finish the job", I'd rather see that spot go to one of those elite small conference teams that didn't get all the chances to prove themselves against the big boys. Like, it was annoying watching the late night conference tournament games in the Big West, knowing that the loser of UC San Diego and UC Irvine wouldn't have a realistic shot at getting in. Both of those teams seemed legit and had records in the 28-4/27-5 zone, but against weak competition. The tournament's more fun with guys like that in it, instead of 14-loss major conference teams who are "touting" their 5-13 record against Tier 1 opposition as a positive because, hey!, they played a lot of rough competition and are battle-tested!

Speaking of the ACC, I do have to laugh, though. I remember a number of years ago, when they poached Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and whoever else from the Big East, the one big Duke/ACC fan on this site was crowing about how that infusion of talent would ensure the ACC would be the PREMIER basketball conference in the country. And now, look at them. They beat out the Mountain West for fifth place solely because they have Duke. But definitely behind the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and Big East.

Heretic wrote:

IU? Sure. I'd say that behind WVU, they were the most deserving bubble team that didn't get in. I'm an OSU fan and thought it was bordering on a joke that they were considered right on the cusp until losing to Iowa in the conference tournament (Lunardi consistently had them in until that point and the other networks' guys alternated between having them in and out, depending on recent results). Even coming into the conference tournament, they were 17-14 with the best thing you could say is that they were probably 10 points away from having 21-22 wins due to how many close and overtime losses they had. Thought after battling back to beat Maryland at home, they were on the verge of clinching a spot, but then finished 3-6 after that and killed their chances.

Yeah, they had a few really good wins (Maryland, Kentucky, Purdue), but they had so many losses and, just like I felt when it was Jim Boeheim yelling about how Syracuse deserved to get in with their 13-15 losses because of how tough the ACC was, when a team's end result can be basically summed up as "They were good enough to compete with just about anyone for the full 40 and even beyond...but not good enough to finish the job", I'd rather see that spot go to one of those elite small conference teams that didn't get all the chances to prove themselves against the big boys. Like, it was annoying watching the late night conference tournament games in the Big West, knowing that the loser of UC San Diego and UC Irvine wouldn't have a realistic shot at getting in. Both of those teams seemed legit and had records in the 28-4/27-5 zone, but against weak competition. The tournament's more fun with guys like that in it, instead of 14-loss major conference teams who are "touting" their 5-13 record against Tier 1 opposition as a positive because, hey!, they played a lot of rough competition and are battle-tested!

Speaking of the ACC, I do have to laugh, though. I remember a number of years ago, when they poached Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and whoever else from the Big East, the one big Duke/ACC fan on this site was crowing about how that infusion of talent would ensure the ACC would be the PREMIER basketball conference in the country. And now, look at them. They beat out the Mountain West for fifth place solely because they have Duke. But definitely behind the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and Big East.

ACC some solid tourney success compared to their seeding over the last few years…not a strong conference anymore but hold up in the tourney better than most. Pitt was hosed last year and Clemson the year before. NC St, Clemson and others have had great success from not greats seeds. Was it last year the ACC dominated thf ACC/SEC challenge matchups and then none of them made the tourney and SEC underperformed again.

I think the SEC needs a big tournament

I know Strack personally. He’s pretty level headed on most topics. And despite being a Michigan fan, he is correct. I think the committee was atrocious this year on many fronts…

Not the first person I've heard that opinion from concerning Michigan. Think the one I read on Twitter (I think) said that their fifth seed made it look like the committee stopped taking results into consideration after Friday.

Bullshit full court pass into 6 guys works out for Alabama State. March Madness off to a solid start. 

Basically a Hail Mary without the tip defense

St Francis ball with 10 seconds and St Francis forgot how to dribble 

None of UNC, Kansas, or UConn make it out of the first round. 

Well…UNC can make this a rare tourney night I beat the midnight hour 

UNC looks like a team on a mission. 

They’re +18000 to win it all, Ironman, if you’re interested. 

friendfromlowry wrote:

UNC looks like a team on a mission. 

They’re +18000 to win it all, Ironman, if you’re interested. 

Nope….but them and Michigan will have money on them each round

ACC flexing lol

Clemson had a stretch in January - March where they went 15-1 and I thought after they beat Duke they could go really far. 

Instead they lose to the 12 seed in their opening round game. 

Kansas just took Texas’s place for worst finish in a game they were looking to win going into crunch time

Every year they have that one female color commentator with the manly voice on the low-rating games that you have to mute.  Her comments actually aren't that bad I just can't stand her tone.

Missouri ugly loss for a team that absolutely didn’t deserve a #6 seed

Early on it feels the basketball players are beating the athletes

My bracket is bad (who cares)….betting has been solid

Drake +5.5 and Arkansas +4.5 was easy….wish I wasn’t chicken (or smart)

Omaha with great hustle…but man I’ve never seen so many 3’s go long and skid off the other side of the backboard lol

Omaha now 5/32 from 3

And a St John’s dude just shot a free throw and it landed  about 2 feet left of underneath the basket lol

What is going on ?