#5 Butler +6.5 vs #1 Syracuse (ov/un 138.5) Thurs 7:05 ET

[BuckeyeNation27]

Then tell me where the 8 BE teams should have been ranked. I've already said Pitt and Nova were over ranked...thought I don't know where Nova would actually fit in since the 3 seeds were all pretty meh also. What about the others? Surely you're not going to take away Syracuse's 1 seed.....though they certainly were a different team without Onuaku.

Is it not possible that GTown just didn't show up against Ohio?

 

[jwinslow]

I just don't understand how being in the Big East made these teams suck in the tourney. That's the control here.....right?

I made it crystal clear in my last post, it's not a symptom, condition or characteristic. I'm talking about a trend of results.

Since you have no actual rebuttal about folks harping on that ugly trend, you're trying to spin my argument into one that's easier to argue against... albeit only ones with massive amounts of hyperbole and stupidity:
- they all suck
- the big east patches (affiliation) make them miss

Of course, you readily put stock in the regular season trend of great play/wins, because those support your position. But trends in the tourney that go against your conference? Better mock those as trivial and driven by immaturity & bitterness.

You can't just say "look at all the big east teams sucking dick in the tourney" and stop there.

Actually, I can.

Georgetown grossly underachieved against Ohio. I can show that statistically, comparatively (to the reg season and or rankings), or just use common sense.

I don't have to figure out the myriad of reasons why they underachieved in order for it to be true that they did.

What is it you're trying to say about the Big East?

That they weren't as good as people thought, or they would have more teams left.

They may still be just as talented as people thought, but that doesn't make them as good as anticipated.

If this NCAA field wasn't a gigantic mess, I would feel safer saying that this statement will ring true for Kentucky as well, with their unbelievable talent but aren't the caliber of team that Florida or UNC was in recent years. I dare say some of those Carolina teams would whip them.

I mean....how many times do I have to go to the Ohio/Georgetown well? Ohio isn't better than Georgetown. They just got beat. That doesn't have anything to do with being in the Big East. It's a coincidence.

I know why you keep saying it, but that simply adds more fuel to the fire.

If Georgetown is more talented and a better team, then losing to a mediocre Ohio team is even worse.

You can explain away ND & ODU, maybe ODU is better. Maybe Louisville wasn't better. But there's no excuse for Georgetown to lose that game. That's why the big east's performance deserves so much scrutiny.

Are you trying to make a statement about the Big East, or are you just commenting on the results of 8 teams who happen to be in the Big East?

The latter... edit: add 'very highly rated'

Their performance was awful given their talent & seeding. That's why folks are dumping on them.

There might be some backlash to the ESPN hype, others who bash to feel better about themselves... but by and large, they are getting bashed because their performance was terrible.

 

[TheRob8801]

If you aren't going to read the fucking posts then just leave the thread. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

As evident by this response...

...my point is that we all understand what your position is, we all understand what YOU'RE trying to say...

Your head is clearly too far up your ass to take a gander at what WE'RE trying to tell you...

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

I made it crystal clear in my last post, it's not a symptom, condition or characteristic. I'm talking about a trend of results.

Since you have no actual rebuttal about folks harping on that ugly trend, you're trying to spin my argument into one that's easier to argue against... albeit only ones with massive amounts of hyperbole and stupidity:
- they all suck
- the big east patches (affiliation) make them miss

Of course, you readily put stock in the regular season trend of great play/wins, because those support your position. But trends in the tourney that go against your conference? Better mock those as trivial and driven by immaturity & bitterness.
Actually, I can.

Georgetown grossly underachieved against Ohio. I can show that statistically, comparatively (to the reg season and or rankings), or just use common sense.

I don't have to figure out the myriad of reasons why they underachieved in order for it to be true that they did.
That they weren't as good as people thought, or they would have more teams left.

They may still be just as talented as people thought, but that doesn't make them as good as anticipated.

If this NCAA field wasn't a gigantic mess, I would feel safer saying that this statement will ring true for Kentucky as well, with their unbelievable talent but aren't the caliber of team that Florida or UNC was in recent years. I dare say some of those Carolina teams would whip them.
I know why you keep saying it, but that simply adds more fuel to the fire.

If Georgetown is more talented and a better team, then losing to a mediocre Ohio team is even worse.

You can explain away ND & ODU, maybe ODU is better. Maybe Louisville wasn't better. But there's no excuse for Georgetown to lose that game. That's why the big east's performance deserves so much scrutiny.
The latter... edit: add 'very highly rated'

Their performance was awful given their talent & seeding. That's why folks are dumping on them.

There might be some backlash to the ESPN hype, others who bash to feel better about themselves... but by and large, they are getting bashed because their performance was terrible.

Of course, you readily put stock in the regular season trend of great play/wins, because those support your position. But trends in the tourney that go against your conference? Better mock those as trivial and driven by immaturity & bitterness.

I wonder why I put more stock in the 30+ regular season games as opposed to one tournament game.

That they weren't as good as people thought, or they would have more teams left.

that's stupid. they under-performed is not the same thing as they aren't as good.

If Georgetown is more talented and a better team, then losing to a mediocre Ohio team is even worse.

but it doesn't make them a worse team. it means they sucked that night.

That's why the big east's performance deserves so much scrutiny.

that's stupid. the big east didn't lose that game. georgetown did. georgetown happens to be in the big east.

Their performance was awful given their talent & seeding. That's why folks are dumping on them.

There might be some backlash to the ESPN hype, others who bash to feel better about themselves... but by and large, they are getting bashed because their performance was terrible.

is it fair to say the Big East is a joke of a conference because of the tournament? because I've seen that online. is it fair to say the Big East is pathetic? I've seen that too.

hell....is it even fair to say they're overrated? they were rated 1, and even with the tourney performance, they're still 1.

1-1=0.....taking that literally means they were rated exactly where they should have been.

I'm going to conclude that it's people harping on the Big East because it's their first chance to bang on the conference that was better than theirs.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

As evident by this response...

...my point is that we all understand what your position is, we all understand what YOU'RE trying to say...

Your head is clearly too far up your ass to take a gander at what WE'RE trying to tell you...

bull fucking shit. i'm having a discussion with people in this thread. it's a give and take. i'm not just sitting here with my ears plugged singing lalalaalala. if that's what you think, you're too fucking stupid to participate in my thread, so kindly get the fuck out.

 

[TheRob8801]

bull fucking shit. i'm having a discussion with people in this thread. it's a give and take. i'm not just sitting here with my ears plugged singing lalalaalala. if that's what you think, you're too fucking stupid to participate in my thread, so kindly get the fuck out.

So which basketball team are you a part of?

Butler? Syracuse? ...why are you here posting and not with your fellow players!?

You've had a "give and take" with J, and that's only because he's apparently just as stubborn as you are. You cut me off twice without giving any true response to what I said, with handy quips the equivalent of "nuh-uh" and "because I said so"...

But I'll be willing to move past that and start over...

One question this time (to make it simple)...

Do you REALLY believe that the MAJORITY of the posts/backlash about this tournament is saying that the Big East (which you don't care about ) is AND I QUOTE "not as good" as the hype would suggest?

Or do you believe that those are the slim minority and the majority of the commentating about the performance of Big East schools is simply about how their performance in the post-season might suggest that the gap between Big East teams and the rest of the field is not as significantly large as many touted 2 weeks ago.

...and if it's okay with you (I mean this is YOUR thread), I'll give you another question to chew on...

If your belief is the former, how do you account for the outbursts you've already elicited in THIS thread and THIS thread alone?

If your belief is the latter, what could you POSSIBLY think that makes you feel like that is an inaccurate assessment?

 

[jwinslow]

I wonder why I put more stock in the 30+ regular season games as opposed to one tournament game.

If there was a thread in december after the big east won 80% of their premiere OOC clashes, somehow I doubt you'd be arguing that those results were isolated, let alone as intentionally misleading as regarding those dozen games as merely 1 game.

that's stupid. they under-performed is not the same thing as they aren't as good.

The 8 big east teams weren't as good as anticipated in the tournament.

That doesn't mean they:
- weren't as talented as anticipated...
- weren't good

They flat out weren't as good as they were supposed to be.

Sure they could have done better, but they didn't. You don't get trophies for talent on paper.

but it doesn't make them a worse team. it means they sucked that night.

And when virtually the entire conference stinks it up, it's more than just an isolated fluke.

that's stupid. the big east didn't lose that game. georgetown did. georgetown happens to be in the big east.

No, it's not stupid.

It would be stupid to say:
- West Virginia is going to lose in their first true test because they're from the Big East.

It's not remotely stupid to say:
- The big east teams did not perform well in the big east.

It would be stupid to say:
- How good the big east teams are should not be questioned because they won regular season games.

is it fair to say the Big East is a joke of a conference because of the tournament? because I've seen that online. is it fair to say the Big East is pathetic? I've seen that too.

Could you explain why you continue to bring up idiotic arguments that have zero relevance to our argument? Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy* to toss out brain-dead flaming as though that's useful in this discussion?

* - we also would have accepted "feel better about yourself" :p

hell....is it even fair to say they're overrated? they were rated 1, and even with the tourney performance, they're still 1.

Yes, it's quite fair to say they were overrated based on the expectations heading into the tournament.

This is yet another example of you zooming in on one tiny detail - being the best conference - to try and disregard the overall argument.

They did not back up their rankings, hype & expectations. You can't underachieve and not be overrated.



Overrated does not always equate to idiotic, baseless rankings... like the type Beano Cook gives to Notre Dame each year.

OSU was overrated heading into Nawlins. At best, OSU should have been ranked behind LSU, and they probably weren't a top-2 team in the nation.

1-1=0.....taking that literally means they were rated exactly where they should have been.

How about those numbers in the polls and seeding? Were they rated exactly where they should have been?

I'm going to conclude that it's people harping on the Big East because it's their first chance to bang on the conference that was better than theirs.

I'm going to continue to laugh each time you accuse all of us - with recklessly broad brushes despite the huge differences in our takes - of being driven by blinding homerism for our conference, as though you're a beacon of objectivity here.

 

[TheRob8801]

Another noteworthy thought...

If the tournament performance of teams that are part of the Big East conference is not indicative of the conference as a whole then the regular season performance of teams that are part of the Big East conference is not indicative of the conference as a whole...

By that same logic the Big East wouldn't have been the "best" conference...

The Big XII would have been, because Kansas was considered the "best" team...

The SEC would have followed, because of Kentucky...

The ACC would have been after them, because of Duke...

THEN the Big East falls in place thanks to Syracuse...

Do you see how ridiculous of a double standard that is?

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

They did not back up their rankings, hype & expectations. You can't underachieve and not be overrated.

Sure you can. Nobody here thought Kansas was over-rated, but they sure as heck under-achieved last weekend. I suspect most people would still say they are one of the top 3 teams in the nation, despite the loss.

I don't see how you can use one game, particularly in a game as upset-ridden as basketball, as a basis for saying someone is overrated. A string of losses, on the other hand.....

 

[BayBuck]

Then tell me where the 8 BE teams should have been ranked. I've already said Pitt and Nova were over ranked...thought I don't know where Nova would actually fit in since the 3 seeds were all pretty meh also. What about the others? Surely you're not going to take away Syracuse's 1 seed.....though they certainly were a different team without Onuaku.

Is it not possible that GTown just didn't show up against Ohio?

I don't think it's a big stretch to say GTown was overrated because of a conf. tourney run that really wasn't as impressive as it was assumed just because the Big East is so strong and deep. And you're right that even still they are probably the top conference this season, but the margin isn't as great as everyone was saying all season long, when they were the object of much GREATEST CONFERENCE EVAR! hype.

As for seeding problems, I think #10ish Butler has proved they could have taken a 3-seed, and MSU/Purdue probably got put a little low too. Hindsight plays a role there, but that's the whole discussion here: a bunch of Big East teams came in getting the benefit of the doubt in the seedings, most have gone out earlier than expected, and that suggests a trend of over-rated-ness.

 

[jwinslow]

Sure you can. Nobody here thought Kansas was over-rated, but they sure as heck under-achieved last weekend. I suspect most people would still say they are one of the top 3 teams in the nation, despite the loss.

Semantics, imo.

I wouldn't say they were overranked, but I would also say they weren't quite as good as anticipated. Whether the term for that is overrated, over-hyped, over-anticipated, over-easy, I don't know.

The nation (and I) made a stink about how the best team - Kansas - should not be punished with that stacked bracket they would face in rounds 3 & 4. They were supposed to breeze past the first two rounds.

I don't see how you can use one game, particularly in a game as upset-ridden as basketball, as a basis for saying someone is overrated. A string of losses, on the other hand.....

I'm not calling Syracuse overrated based on one game, which is hopefully where you were going with the latter. I think a string of ugly losses for a conference is significant enough to warrant conference criticism.

It doesn't mean it will happen next year or that they have some common defect, but it seems to be a significant grouping to me.

 

[TheRob8801]

Let's also put 2 and 2 together here...

If the media permeated the perception that the Big East was deserving of the benefit of the doubt and the committee drank the Kool-Aid, couldn't most if not all of the seeding problems this year be contributed to the media's blatant love affair with Big East basketball?

 

[jlb1705]

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Semantics, imo.

I wouldn't say they were overranked, but I would also say they weren't quite as good as anticipated. Whether the term for that is overrated, over-hyped, over-anticipated, over-easy, I don't know.

The nation (and I) made a stink about how the best team - Kansas - should not be punished with that stacked bracket they would face in rounds 3 & 4. They were supposed to breeze past the first two rounds.
I'm not calling Syracuse overrated based on one game, which is hopefully where you were going with the latter. I think a string of ugly losses for a conference is significant enough to warrant conference criticism.

It doesn't mean it will happen next year or that they have some common defect, but it seems to be a significant grouping to me.

I just don't think it's statistically significant any more so than last year when they had 4 in the Elite 8 and 2 in the Final 4. Some years, things fall the right away, some years they don't.

6-11 upsets happen every year. And 2 seeds missing the Sweet 16 isn't exactly rare, even if unusual. To me, it's just one of those years where the upsets happen to occur against a particular conference more so than the others.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

If there was a thread in december after the big east won 80% of their premiere OOC clashes, somehow I doubt you'd be arguing that those results were isolated, let alone as intentionally misleading as regarding those dozen games as merely 1 game.

if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. you're the one who gets all bent out of shape when people use this kind of nonsense.

And when virtually the entire conference stinks it up, it's more than just an isolated fluke.

then what is it? i've asked you 3 times. what does it mean?

It would be stupid to say:
- How good the big east teams are should not be questioned because they won regular season games.

I get the feeling you're implying that's my argument, when it's not.

Could you explain why you continue to bring up idiotic arguments that have zero relevance to our argument?

I don't even know what "our" argument is. I'm saying the people who are using the tournament to take away from the regular season are wrong......and that conference wars are stupid. are you going to disagree with either?

You can't underachieve and not be overrated.

I side with fungo.

I'm going to continue to laugh each time you accuse all of us - with recklessly broad brushes despite the huge differences in our takes - of being driven by blinding homerism for our conference, as though you're a beacon of objectivity here.

do i have to qualify exactly who i'm talking to whenever i have an argument with you? i see you pull this line out all the time.