Losing in the NCAA

marshallcart

Well-Known Member
Losing in the NCAA does NOT mean:

The team is over-rated and doesn't belong in the tournament.
The conference is over-rated and shouldn't have that many teams in the tournament.
The coach is incompetent.
The coach is an @$$hole.
The committee is clueless.

It especially doesn't mean that Iowa should have been in the tournament. I agree there is a good case for that, but it has nothing to do with who loses and who doesn't in the dance.

What is DOES mean is:

Upsets happen.
It's amazing how much parity is in the college game.

What's my point? Try to make your comments sound like you know a little about the college game. Thank you.
 
Well that should shut down about half the threads on here.

marshall, what do we have your permission to discuss on this forum? Preapprove or create some topics that are worthy in your eyes.

Thank you in advance!
 
For one team maybe, when one conference is hyped up to be one of the best in the country and several of it's teams get dropped in the first round to 12 and 14 seeds, yes, it does say that conference was overrated and so were it's teams. You don't have a last name of Alford, do you?
 
Winning in the NCAA doesn't prove much either. What's the point of this again?

I mean, you said your point and it was dumb so I wonder if there is a better one.
 
Losing in the NCAA does NOT mean:

The team is over-rated and doesn't belong in the tournament.
The conference is over-rated and shouldn't have that many teams in the tournament.
The coach is incompetent.
The coach is an @$$hole.
The committee is clueless.

In one instance I can think of, it does mean all of these things and more.
 
Losing in the NCAA does NOT mean:

The team is over-rated and doesn't belong in the tournament.
The conference is over-rated and shouldn't have that many teams in the tournament.
The coach is incompetent.
The coach is an @$$hole.
The committee is clueless.

It especially doesn't mean that Iowa should have been in the tournament. I agree there is a good case for that, but it has nothing to do with who loses and who doesn't in the dance.

What is DOES mean is:

Upsets happen.
What ever helps you sleep at night.
 
Losing in the NCAA does NOT mean:

The team is over-rated and doesn't belong in the tournament.
The conference is over-rated and shouldn't have that many teams in the tournament.
The coach is incompetent.
The coach is an @$$hole.
The committee is clueless.

It especially doesn't mean that Iowa should have been in the tournament. I agree there is a good case for that, but it has nothing to do with who loses and who doesn't in the dance.

What is DOES mean is:

Upsets happen.
It's amazing how much parity is in the college game.

What's my point? Try to make your comments sound like you know a little about the college game. Thank you.

Agreed that not every loss says a team doesn't belong. I mean someone has to lose. Then again, some losses say exactly that.

Montana managed 34 points...34. And they got taken to the woodshed to the tune of 81 by Syracuse. That's not a parity loss. That's a "Get off my court and take your ball with you 'cause you don't belong here" loss. By any measurement. In any tournament. Any time of year.
 
Yeah, winning and losing doesn't have anything to do with how good a team is, how deserving they are, and so on. That's a new perspective, but ok. Everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess.
 
Yeah, winning and losing doesn't have anything to do with how good a team is, how deserving they are, and so on. That's a new perspective, but ok. Everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess.

I really like those 20 loss teams that win it all. :)
Lose less and you win more. Win more and that is exactly what you do is win more. Weird how that works, I know.
He has an idea thou, maybe 3rd place trophies should be bigger than 1st place. A 10th place in the masters wins more than 1st.
 
I really like those 20 loss teams that win it all. :)
Lose less and you win more. Win more and that is exactly what you do is win more. Weird how that works, I know.
He has an idea thou, maybe 3rd place trophies should be bigger than 1st place. A 10th place in the masters wins less than 1st.

Or how about the worst teams in D1 basketball play in the NCAA tournament? The teams with the biggest margin of defeat in their conference tournaments get an automatic bid?
 
Losing in the NCAA does NOT mean:

The team is over-rated and doesn't belong in the tournament.
The conference is over-rated and shouldn't have that many teams in the tournament.
The coach is incompetent.
The coach is an @$$hole.
The committee is clueless.

It especially doesn't mean that Iowa should have been in the tournament. I agree there is a good case for that, but it has nothing to do with who loses and who doesn't in the dance.

What is DOES mean is:

Upsets happen.
It's amazing how much parity is in the college game.

What's my point? Try to make your comments sound like you know a little about the college game. Thank you.

If there were parity between the MWC and Big Ten, the MWC should have a similar record to the Big Ten at the end of the first round. It will be interesting to see what happens tonight.

BTW, Steve, on the participation banner you guys hang in the Pit, will you include the words "second round, second place" on it somewhere? I mean, you didn't lose in the first round and you don't want a nasty banner that looks like this:

iowabannersfinal2.jpg
 
It boils down to this: if you make the NCAA Tournament as a 6-seed or better, losing in the first round=the definition of "misery".
 
It boils down to this: if you make the NCAA Tournament as a 6-seed or better, losing in the first round=the definition of "misery".

Wrong losing as a 4 seed or better and losing in 1st round is misery.

A 5 and 6 seed lose in first round all the time and IMO is pretty common. I would be curious to find a year it hasn't happened?
 
Speaking of losing in the NCAA, they showed "the shot" during the Northwestern St./Florida game :(
 

Latest posts

Top