(03-27-2023 08:59 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 02:41 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 08:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  The ACC is mad they want the NET ranking to count more. FAU would have been a 3 or 4 seed if they had just used the NET. Weren’t they like 12 or 13 most of the year ? The stupid quad system has been a debacle imo. How much difference is there really from 25 to 50? Or even 50 to 100? Look at all the close games we had regardless of the opponent

Are you saying the ACC wants the NET to count more? Article in ESPN yesterday with the commish stating the opposite.

Phillips says he believes the men's basketball selection committee has become too reliant on the NET rankings to evaluate teams, rather than just evaluating teams based on the way they play.

"We're paying too much attention to the NET. I'm just not there on that,"

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-narrative

Maybe I had it backwards. They want the old eye test. I just find it funny that all the great analysts were fawning all over Duke for winning the ACC tourney only to turn around and lose to the worst offense in the tournament a week later

I found it comical that he’s calling an emergency meeting due to “only” getting five teams in. Boo hoo. These so-called power conferences want ALL their teams in. If the NET had been in their favor, I imagine his narrative would have been “What’s this eye-test thing? It’s too subjective. The NET is a well thought out formula, and they want to move the goalposts?”

(03-27-2023 01:44 AM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 12:39 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 09:39 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 09:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 08:12 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  And Greg Sankey is already hinting at a P5 only March madness. The non P5 are costing the big boys money and they won’t allow that for many more years

The NCAA credits are miniscule compared to football money. Now if the P5 gets a media commitment from a media provider that's another thing.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Hey, what can you tell us about the search for the next WBB coach

She'll be cheap and from a lower school

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Still Trolling. You just can't help it.

Not at all, that's what it will be. Unless you think we will roll the die with Coach Jump.

(03-27-2023 10:36 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 08:59 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 02:41 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 08:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  The ACC is mad they want the NET ranking to count more. FAU would have been a 3 or 4 seed if they had just used the NET. Weren’t they like 12 or 13 most of the year ? The stupid quad system has been a debacle imo. How much difference is there really from 25 to 50? Or even 50 to 100? Look at all the close games we had regardless of the opponent

Are you saying the ACC wants the NET to count more? Article in ESPN yesterday with the commish stating the opposite.

Phillips says he believes the men's basketball selection committee has become too reliant on the NET rankings to evaluate teams, rather than just evaluating teams based on the way they play.

"We're paying too much attention to the NET. I'm just not there on that,"

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-narrative

Maybe I had it backwards. They want the old eye test. I just find it funny that all the great analysts were fawning all over Duke for winning the ACC tourney only to turn around and lose to the worst offense in the tournament a week later

I found it comical that he’s calling an emergency meeting due to “only” getting five teams in. Boo hoo. These so-called power conferences want ALL their teams in. If the NET had been in their favor, I imagine his narrative would have been “What’s this eye-test thing? It’s too subjective. The NET is a well thought out formula, and they want to move the goalposts?”

I know I’m in the minority but conferences shouldn’t get that many teams in. And if you have a less than .500 record in your league imo you’ve had enough chances and don’t deserve and at large bid

Is there any chance the FAU coach remains at FAU? It's time for his big pay day.

Edit: Good fit for Wichita State?

(03-27-2023 11:38 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 10:36 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 08:59 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 02:41 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 08:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  The ACC is mad they want the NET ranking to count more. FAU would have been a 3 or 4 seed if they had just used the NET. Weren’t they like 12 or 13 most of the year ? The stupid quad system has been a debacle imo. How much difference is there really from 25 to 50? Or even 50 to 100? Look at all the close games we had regardless of the opponent

Are you saying the ACC wants the NET to count more? Article in ESPN yesterday with the commish stating the opposite.

Phillips says he believes the men's basketball selection committee has become too reliant on the NET rankings to evaluate teams, rather than just evaluating teams based on the way they play.

"We're paying too much attention to the NET. I'm just not there on that,"

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-narrative

Maybe I had it backwards. They want the old eye test. I just find it funny that all the great analysts were fawning all over Duke for winning the ACC tourney only to turn around and lose to the worst offense in the tournament a week later

I found it comical that he’s calling an emergency meeting due to “only” getting five teams in. Boo hoo. These so-called power conferences want ALL their teams in. If the NET had been in their favor, I imagine his narrative would have been “What’s this eye-test thing? It’s too subjective. The NET is a well thought out formula, and they want to move the goalposts?”

I know I’m in the minority but conferences shouldn’t get that many teams in. And if you have a less than .500 record in your league imo you’ve had enough chances and don’t deserve and at large bid

I agree. If this year’s tournament proves anything it’s that they need to figure out how to get more “mid majors” in. Not the other way around.

(03-27-2023 01:16 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 11:38 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 10:36 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 08:59 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 02:41 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  Are you saying the ACC wants the NET to count more? Article in ESPN yesterday with the commish stating the opposite.

Phillips says he believes the men's basketball selection committee has become too reliant on the NET rankings to evaluate teams, rather than just evaluating teams based on the way they play.

"We're paying too much attention to the NET. I'm just not there on that,"

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-narrative

Maybe I had it backwards. They want the old eye test. I just find it funny that all the great analysts were fawning all over Duke for winning the ACC tourney only to turn around and lose to the worst offense in the tournament a week later

I found it comical that he’s calling an emergency meeting due to “only” getting five teams in. Boo hoo. These so-called power conferences want ALL their teams in. If the NET had been in their favor, I imagine his narrative would have been “What’s this eye-test thing? It’s too subjective. The NET is a well thought out formula, and they want to move the goalposts?”

I know I’m in the minority but conferences shouldn’t get that many teams in. And if you have a less than .500 record in your league imo you’ve had enough chances and don’t deserve and at large bid

I agree. If this year’s tournament proves anything it’s that they need to figure out how to get more “mid majors” in. Not the other way around.

Agree, but those making the rules & decisions want fewer "mid-majors", as they call them. They want order "restored" as the ACC AD recently said, meaning virtual guaranteed bids for the blue-bloods & guaranteed high seeds

(03-27-2023 01:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:16 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 11:38 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 10:36 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 08:59 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Maybe I had it backwards. They want the old eye test. I just find it funny that all the great analysts were fawning all over Duke for winning the ACC tourney only to turn around and lose to the worst offense in the tournament a week later

I found it comical that he’s calling an emergency meeting due to “only” getting five teams in. Boo hoo. These so-called power conferences want ALL their teams in. If the NET had been in their favor, I imagine his narrative would have been “What’s this eye-test thing? It’s too subjective. The NET is a well thought out formula, and they want to move the goalposts?”

I know I’m in the minority but conferences shouldn’t get that many teams in. And if you have a less than .500 record in your league imo you’ve had enough chances and don’t deserve and at large bid

I agree. If this year’s tournament proves anything it’s that they need to figure out how to get more “mid majors” in. Not the other way around.

Agree, but those making the rules & decisions want fewer "mid-majors", as they call them. They want order "restored" as the ACC AD recently said, meaning virtual guaranteed bids for the blue-bloods & guaranteed high seeds

Of course they do. Thankfully, this year doesn’t help their case. The AAC, MWC, CUSA, IVY & WCC received a mere 10 bids (15.6%), yet half of them made the Sweet 16. It took 37 bids (58%) for the P6 to manage the remaining 11.

(03-27-2023 02:33 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:16 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 11:38 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 10:36 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  I found it comical that he’s calling an emergency meeting due to “only” getting five teams in. Boo hoo. These so-called power conferences want ALL their teams in. If the NET had been in their favor, I imagine his narrative would have been “What’s this eye-test thing? It’s too subjective. The NET is a well thought out formula, and they want to move the goalposts?”

I know I’m in the minority but conferences shouldn’t get that many teams in. And if you have a less than .500 record in your league imo you’ve had enough chances and don’t deserve and at large bid

I agree. If this year’s tournament proves anything it’s that they need to figure out how to get more “mid majors” in. Not the other way around.

Agree, but those making the rules & decisions want fewer "mid-majors", as they call them. They want order "restored" as the ACC AD recently said, meaning virtual guaranteed bids for the blue-bloods & guaranteed high seeds

Of course they do. Thankfully, this year doesn’t help their case. The AAC, MWC, CUSA, IVY & WCC received a mere 10 bids (15.6%), yet half of them made the Sweet 16. It took 37 bids (58%) for the P6 to manage the remaining 11.

I was flipping around earlier and on the ACC network they were making the point that the last TWO seasons that the ACC has the best tournament record of any P5. So the propaganda is on going. Notice they only mentioned the last two seasons because they had 2 make the FF last year.

(03-27-2023 02:33 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:16 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 11:38 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 10:36 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  I found it comical that he’s calling an emergency meeting due to “only” getting five teams in. Boo hoo. These so-called power conferences want ALL their teams in. If the NET had been in their favor, I imagine his narrative would have been “What’s this eye-test thing? It’s too subjective. The NET is a well thought out formula, and they want to move the goalposts?”

I know I’m in the minority but conferences shouldn’t get that many teams in. And if you have a less than .500 record in your league imo you’ve had enough chances and don’t deserve and at large bid

I agree. If this year’s tournament proves anything it’s that they need to figure out how to get more “mid majors” in. Not the other way around.

Agree, but those making the rules & decisions want fewer "mid-majors", as they call them. They want order "restored" as the ACC AD recently said, meaning virtual guaranteed bids for the blue-bloods & guaranteed high seeds

Of course they do. Thankfully, this year doesn’t help their case. The AAC, MWC, CUSA, IVY & WCC received a mere 10 bids (15.6%), yet half of them made the Sweet 16. It took 37 bids (58%) for the P6 to manage the remaining 11.

This with a bunch of these non P6 paired up against one another in the early rounds.

Honestly - no one in the country cares about basketball except for three weeks in March.

We've never seemed to understand that - and have paid the price for decades.

(03-31-2023 01:39 AM)mem-x Wrote:  Honestly - no one in the country cares about basketball except for three weeks in March.

We've never seemed to understand that - and have paid the price for decades.

Nobody cares about G5 football either

(03-27-2023 11:18 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:44 AM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 12:39 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 09:39 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 09:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The NCAA credits are miniscule compared to football money. Now if the P5 gets a media commitment from a media provider that's another thing.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Hey, what can you tell us about the search for the next WBB coach

She'll be cheap and from a lower school

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Still Trolling. You just can't help it.

Not at all, that's what it will be. Unless you think we will roll the die with Coach Jump.

Your consistent negativity is why you are a troll. IMO Veatch has made some pretty good hires.

(03-31-2023 05:11 PM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 11:18 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:44 AM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 12:39 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 09:39 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  Hey, what can you tell us about the search for the next WBB coach

She'll be cheap and from a lower school

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Still Trolling. You just can't help it.

Not at all, that's what it will be. Unless you think we will roll the die with Coach Jump.

Your consistent negativity is why you are a troll. IMO Veatch has made some pretty good hires.

I believe you have me confused with someone else. The last women's bball hire and baseball hire I have praised on this here board. But you have a blessed day.

(04-01-2023 02:24 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 05:11 PM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 11:18 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:44 AM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 12:39 PM)fsquid Wrote:  She'll be cheap and from a lower school

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Still Trolling. You just can't help it.

Not at all, that's what it will be. Unless you think we will roll the die with Coach Jump.

Your consistent negativity is why you are a troll. IMO Veatch has made some pretty good hires.

I believe you have me confused with someone else. The last women's bball hire and baseball hire I have praised on this here board. But you have a blessed day.

All your negativity is making my leg itch. Oh wait never mind I'm just ashy and need some lotion.

(04-01-2023 02:24 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 05:11 PM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 11:18 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-27-2023 01:44 AM)Keeper Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 12:39 PM)fsquid Wrote:  She'll be cheap and from a lower school

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Still Trolling. You just can't help it.

Not at all, that's what it will be. Unless you think we will roll the die with Coach Jump.

Your consistent negativity is why you are a troll. IMO Veatch has made some pretty good hires.

I believe you have me confused with someone else. The last women's bball hire and baseball hire I have praised on this here board. But you have a blessed day.

Bless you heart. You just don't realize YOU ARE A TROLL.