Can someone explain the near universal hatred for Duke?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:00 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:treated North Carolina like they were some hapless directional school.

Technically North Carolina is a directional school.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:50 pm

It's easy to admit, just as it's easy to admit that history shows us UCLA gets to the Final Four more often than Indiana does, including more recently. When UCLA is good and playing at Pauley and not the Sports Arena, they tend to get there more frequently than Indiana does. With UCLA back at Pauley and sporting a hellacious recruiting class it's not particularly difficult to envision them coming out of the West again. As Kentucky has shown, these days a team led by underclassmen can get it done. No longer is senior leadership a prerequisite for going deep in the Tourney.

The thing is, if UCLA does get there sooner than Indiana (say, this year, for example), you'll likely just call it a lucky fluke. If Indiana gets there first, you'll say, "I told ya so!" What you apparently will not do is admit that you're ignoring history, including recent history.

That's fine. Like I said, let's just see how it all plays out.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:47 pm

Van wrote:It's easy to admit, just as it's easy to admit that history shows us UCLA gets to the Final Four more often than Indiana does, including more recently. When UCLA is good and playing at Pauley and not the Sports Arena, they tend to get there more frequently than Indiana does. With UCLA back at Pauley and sporting a hellacious recruiting class it's not particularly difficult to envision them coming out of the West again. As Kentucky has shown, these days a team led by underclassmen can get it done. No longer is senior leadership a prerequisite for going deep in the Tourney.

Yeah, okay, dude.

Just keep hanging onto that as it's all you've got.

The thing is, if UCLA does get there sooner than Indiana (say, this year, for example), you'll likely just call it a lucky fluke. If Indiana gets there first, you'll say, "I told ya so!" What you apparently will not do is admit that you're ignoring history, including recent history.

No, I won't. I think I have a pretty good track record of coming correct on this board. I don't think it's possible to get to a Final Four on a fluke -- you have to beat four good teams in a row to get there.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:06 pm

Is UCLAme even ranked?

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:12 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Van wrote:It's easy to admit, just as it's easy to admit that history shows us UCLA gets to the Final Four more often than Indiana does, including more recently. When UCLA is good and playing at Pauley and not the Sports Arena, they tend to get there more frequently than Indiana does. With UCLA back at Pauley and sporting a hellacious recruiting class it's not particularly difficult to envision them coming out of the West again. As Kentucky has shown, these days a team led by underclassmen can get it done. No longer is senior leadership a prerequisite for going deep in the Tourney.
Yeah, okay, dude.

Just keep hanging onto that as it's all you've got.

That's all I need: history (recent and otherwise) combined with talent.

Oh, and their ever-improving 14-3 record doesn't hurt either. With a team led by freshmen, it stands to reason that they would start slowly before building a head of steam.

The thing is, if UCLA does get there sooner than Indiana (say, this year, for example), you'll likely just call it a lucky fluke. If Indiana gets there first, you'll say, "I told ya so!" What you apparently will not do is admit that you're ignoring history, including recent history.
No, I won't. I think I have a pretty good track record of coming correct on this board. I don't think it's possible to get to a Final Four on a fluke -- you have to beat four good teams in a row to get there.

Which is something that UCLA has shown a much greater propensity than Indiana to do, so why would it be such a stretch for them to do it again?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:08 pm

Because I think the current state of both programs is more relevant than history, and IU is flat out better. That's why. Indiana has better players than UCLA, yet you somehow think UCLA's last Final Four run five years ago trumps that. That's stupid. I'll ask you a question: if both teams played on a neutral court today, who do you think would win? Would UCLA beat them because there's a Final Four banner hanging in Pauly from 2008? It's just a weak argument. I mean, if we were comparing UCLA to, say, Notre Dame, that would be one thing. You talk about Indiana like they're fucking Washington State or something. Jesus, they're one of the bluebloods of cbb. Sure, they've had some flameouts in the tournament, everybody has, especially teams with a long history of getting to the tournament a lot.

P.S. I didn't merely say it would be a stretch for UCLA to get to a Final Four again, so stop trying to move the goal posts. They will get back there...someday, I'm sure.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:39 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:Is UCLAme even ranked?

Just barely. Currently sitting 23th in the AP and 25th in the Coaches. Losses are to Georgetown, Cal Poly (ha!) and SDSU. They do have a nice resume win over Mizzou. They'll probably move up a bit in the rankings as they pile up some wins in the atrocious Pac 12. Arizona looks to be the only legit team in that league. Their super frosh, Muhammad, started slow but has since played pretty well. He's going to be one-and-done, so they'd better take advantage of his talents THIS year.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:42 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Cal Poly (ha!)

Fucking pathetic. That would be like scU-M losing to Michigan Tech.

Amazing how things change. The Pac 10 used to be a great basketball league and now it can't even lick the A-10s ass.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:55 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I'll ask you a question: if both teams played on a neutral court today, who do you think would win?

Who cares? I wasn't aware that the NCAA Tourney had been moved from March to mid-January.

The bottom line is that both teams will obviously make the tournament. That's all that matters. Once there, yes, I like UCLA's chances of staying home in the West and coming out of that bracket more than I like Indiana's chances of coming out of their bracket.

Would UCLA beat them because there's a Final Four banner hanging in Pauly from 2008? It's just a weak argument. I mean, if we were comparing UCLA to, say, Notre Dame, that would be one thing. You talk about Indiana like they're fucking Washington State or something. Jesus, they're one of the bluebloods of cbb. Sure, they've had some flameouts in the tournament, everybody has, especially teams with a long history of getting to the tournament a lot.

Keep ignoring history. There's a reason teams like UCLA get there more often than teams like Indiana, just as there's a reason a team like Bama gets there more in football than teams like Auburn or Michigan. Sure, they're all bluebloods, but even among the upper echelons there is still a historical hierarchy that often as not comes to the fore. When UCLA or Bama are good, they're really good. They tend to go further than the Indianas and Michigans of the world.

Does it always happen that way? Of course not. Would I choose to bet against it, particularly in light of recent history? Nope.

Mgo wrote:P.S. I didn't merely say it would be a stretch for UCLA to get to a Final Four again, so stop trying to move the goal posts.

Maybe you ought to take another run at that one...

Van wrote:Which is something that UCLA has shown a much greater propensity than Indiana to do, so why would it be such a stretch for them to do it again?

Jesus, could I have possibly written that any more clearly? How did you fuck that up so badly?

The only here who attempted to move the goalposts was you.

They will get back there...someday, I'm sure.

Of course they will, but we were only talking about who would get there first; a point that I made abundantly clear.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:16 pm

Van wrote:Who cares? I wasn't aware that the NCAA Tourney had been moved from March to mid-January.

It’s irrespective to this specific argument, I was just curious what your answer would be. So what do you think?

The bottom line is that both teams will obviously make the tournament. That's all that matters. Once there, yes, I like UCLA's chances of staying home in the West and coming out of that bracket more than I like Indiana's chances of coming out of their bracket.

Even if UCLA is a 5, 6 or 7 seed to IU’s 1, 2 or 3 seed?

Keep ignoring history.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don’t prioritize it as the single most important factor in this argument like you seem to. I think what’s happening now is more relevant. Indiana has the better program now, and all signs point towards them having the better program in the forseeable future.

There's a reason teams like UCLA get there more often than teams like Indiana, just as there's a reason a team like Bama gets there more in football than teams like Auburn or Michigan.

Yeah, that reason was primarily John Wooden. Bama, in addition to having an ilustrious history, is also a modern day dynasty. UCLA? Not so much. Plus, Bama has a decided talent advantage over basically everybody in college football. UCLA generally recruits well, but they are not to Indiana what Bama is to everybody else when it comes to recruiting. Bad analogy.

For a guy who just wants to wait and see things play out, you sure have a lot to say.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:22 am

Nice to see that Tom Crean is still a bitter little bitch. Bo Ryan's bitter little bitch.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:57 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Van wrote:Who cares? I wasn't aware that the NCAA Tourney had been moved from March to mid-January.
It’s irrespective to this specific argument, I was just curious what your answer would be. So what do you think?

I'd take the home team. Make it a neutral court game and I'd call it a toss-up because UCLA is playing really well at the moment while Indiana has been better all year.

The bottom line is that both teams will obviously make the tournament. That's all that matters. Once there, yes, I like UCLA's chances of staying home in the West and coming out of that bracket more than I like Indiana's chances of coming out of their bracket.
Even if UCLA is a 5, 6 or 7 seed to IU’s 1, 2 or 3 seed?

In that scenario, no, but I don't expect UCLA to be such a low seed. They're 14-3 and only getting better. They're an ungodly young team and, like you said, the Pac 12 isn't strong enough to hand them many losses. They could easily end up with a #1 seed. I'll be surprised if they fall any lower than a third seed.

Keep ignoring history.
I'm not ignoring it, I just don’t prioritize it as the single most important factor in this argument like you seem to.

It's not the single most important factor. Their top-ranked recruiting class is. Combine the two and add the fact that they're back in Pauley? Now we're talking.

I think what’s happening now is more relevant. Indiana has the better program now, and all signs point towards them having the better program in the forseeable future.

I disagree. Obviously. Certainly not "all" signs point to it. In the foreseeable future UCLA might very well get there this year. Can't get much sooner than that for any program.

There's a reason teams like UCLA get there more often than teams like Indiana, just as there's a reason a team like Bama gets there more in football than teams like Auburn or Michigan.
Yeah, that reason was primarily John Wooden. Bama, in addition to having an ilustrious history, is also a modern day dynasty. UCLA? Not so much. Plus, Bama has a decided talent advantage over basically everybody in college football. UCLA generally recruits well, but they are not to Indiana what Bama is to everybody else when it comes to recruiting. Bad analogy.

It's a perfect analogy, and their #1 ranked recruiting class is solid evidence of this. So too are their recent (very post-Wooden) Final Four visits.

For a guy who just wants to wait and see things play out, you sure have a lot to say.

You responded. Badly. So, I responded back. That's how it's supposed to work on a message board.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:55 am

You're relentless, if nothing else, Van. We'll see how this plays out. UCLA just lost at home by 9 to Oregon. Not good, not if they want to nab a strong seed.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:23 am

Speaking of Oregon, and I know it's glass dick territory, but have you seen that court of theirs? Geez.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:10 pm

It's obnoxious. The image of the tree tops only comes through if you're focusing on it, otherwise it looks like someone kicked over a dozen cans of Minwax.

BTW, that was the first game between two ranked teams from the Pac 12 in four years.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:12 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:BTW, that was the first game between two ranked teams from the Pac 12 in four years.

Yikes. I think the MAC has games between ranked teams more often.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:09 pm

Yeah, it didn't seem that long ago when Stanford, Arizona, UCLA and Washington all had very good programs. And throw in Utah as well even though they were in the MWC at the time. Arizona has been the one constant, never really taking that big step back. Sean Miller was a great hire. And then ASU, USC and Washington State would burp up a good season here and there.

The high school talent coming out of California is not as good as it used to be.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:06 pm

Bump. Nice showing by the Pac 12 champs, getting cunt-punted by the 8th best team in the Big Ten.

You'd better hope Indiana loses one of their next three, Van, so that this "debate" gets delayed for another year.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:24 pm

No doubt. Your chances are looking really good.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:47 pm

If Indiana can take care of business and advance to the regional final, and Miami does the same, I think that's a toss up game. Miami is really, really good, and very experienced.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:42 pm

Even so, it's not like you can lose, at least not this year anyway. You're playing with house money now.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:00 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Bump. Nice showing by the Pac 12 champs, getting cunt-punted by the 8th best team in the Big Ten.

What do you mean? Oregon will be playing Louisville on Friday.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:21 pm

So you're saying you don't know the difference between a conference championship and a conference tournament championship?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:56 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So you're saying you don't know the difference between a conference championship and a conference ~~tournament~~ cash grab championship?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:08 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So you're saying you don't know the difference between a conference championship and a conference tournament championship?

So, the winner of the NCAA tournament isn't actually the national champion, but just the tournament champion?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:24 pm

No, the winner of the tournament is recognized as the "national champ." Where are you going with this? Do you dispute that UCLA was the Pac 12 champion while Oregon was the Pac 12 tournament champion?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:29 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:No, the winner of the tournament is recognized as the "national champ." Where are you going with this? Do you dispute that UCLA was the Pac 12 champion while Oregon was the Pac 12 tournament champion?

UCLA was the regular season champion.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:39 pm

When people say things like "Pac 12 champ, Big Ten champ, etc" it's already implied that they're referring to the regular season champion. It shouldn't have to be specified.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:10 pm

Not really trying to argue here but if the PAC 12 really sucked and got no at large spots in "the dance," who would get the automatic bid - reg season champ or conf tournament champ?
Asking because I don't know.

edit:

http://espn.go.com/ncb/topics/_/page/pac-12-tournament

The winner of the Pac-12 tournament receives the conference's automatic bid to the NCAA tournament and is dubbed the conference champion. Oregon won the tournament in 2013.

Whatever.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:47 am

Why even bother to play the regular season when the conference tourney includes every team in the league, they all start from scratch, and the winner is crowned the auto-bid champ, rendering everything else moot.

This garbage almost makes the college football equivalent seem noble.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:42 pm

It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid. And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.

But...continue to be disgusted if it makes you feel any better. SC wouldn't have made it either way.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:27 pm

Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid. And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.

So, again, why bother having the tournament at all? Other than as a blatant cash grab, what purpose does it serve?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:11 pm

Van wrote:
Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid. And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.
So, again, why bother having the tournament at all? Other than as a blatant cash grab, what purpose does it serve?

I'm not defending it. I just personally don't really GARA.

I have more important things to think about, like my regular Tuesday night takeout from Rosa's.
A carnitas burrito and an adobada taco, with about a half pint of the homemade salsa verde. The thought of all this is pretty much what keeps me going today.

M2 · Post by M2 » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:46 pm

This is exactly why the idiots from the CDS forum should never post in the sports forums.

They're fucking idiots !!!

Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid.

Pssst... shit for brains

It happened just last year in the PAC 12... Washington was the regular season champs and didn't get invited to the NCAA tournament.

You should have just stopped there... but no, you're a fucking idiot

Mikey wrote:And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.

Colorado and Cal both went to the tournament in 2012 and had a shit load of teams seeded higher than them with worse records.

Just stop.

Go away.

You're an idiot.

You make a much better poster as a fat, bald, old guy in the CDS forum. It's where you shine.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:26 pm

M2 wrote:

Mikey wrote:It's not likely that the regular season PAC 12 champion would ever be passed over for an at-large bid.
It happened just last year in the PAC 12... Washington was the regular season champs and didn't get invited to the NCAA tournament.

OK, I stand corrected.

Mikey wrote:And seedings in the big tourney are more based on the overall record than who won the conference tournament. So, it really doesn't matter much.
Colorado and Cal both went to the tournament in 2012 and had a shit load of teams seeded higher than them with worse records.

Oregon won the Pac 12 tournament but UCLA and Arizona were both SEEDED higher. Explain that, moron, and then go take another patchouli bath.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:28 am

Sudden Sam wrote:
Mikey wrote: A carnitas burrito and an adobada taco, with about a half pint of the homemade salsa verde. The thought of all this is pretty much what keeps me going today.
That is more important than ~~any silly basketball shit~~ life itself.

atomicdad · Post by **atomicdad** » Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:17 am

Van wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:
Mikey wrote: A carnitas burrito and an adobada taco, with about a half pint of the homemade salsa verde. The thought of all this is pretty much what keeps me going today.
That is more important than ~~any silly basketball shit~~ life itself.

I will see that and raise it with a chile relleno burrito (with rice, not all beans) and some spicy chicken tortilla soup.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:01 pm

Van wrote:Why even bother to play the regular season when the conference tourney includes every team in the league, they all start from scratch, and the winner is crowned the auto-bid champ, rendering everything else moot.

This garbage almost makes the college football equivalent seem noble.

You have a point where the discussion is limited to low-, and perhaps even mid-majors. As Sam noted, Liberty getting the Big South's auto bid is a prime example.

For the high majors, however, a flameout in the conference tourney isn't exactly fatal. In the high majors, as I see it, the purpose of the regular season is to build a resume so strong that the tournament selection committee can't possibly overlook you even if you go one-and-done in the tourney.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:59 pm

If the purpose of the regular season is to build your resume for the NCAA tournament, okay, again, why the need for a conference tournament? Why do we want some dogshit team that sucked all year to receive an auto-bid just because they won a few games during a silly charade after the real season was over?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:24 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:The 64 or 65...or whatever it is now...BEST teams should go.

Yes, they should be ranked as arbitrarily as they are in football. How you haven't managed to accidentally off yourself so far is just mind-blowing.