College Basketball Thread 2024-25 Season (General)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 741
  • Views: 17K
  • Sports 
When you look at blind resumes, Carolina had no business getting in. Even though I've stated all year that they would make it and I'm actually glad they did. The ACC disrespect is annoying.

I don't know how Louisville is an eight. They're criminally underseeded when you consider they have two wins over Clemson and made the finals of the ACC tournament. (I say that and wouldn't be shocked to see them lose to Creighton. The Blue Jays are good)

I don't understand how Kentucky is two lines better than a Clemson team who was higher in the polls and beat them.

This bracket is all over the place.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Get you a team.
Click to expand...
People seem to believe there is only one variable.

I recall when 20 wins was a minimum.
Finishing .500 and 10th in ones conference were negatives.

1-12 vs 4-13. Neither are impressive.
We played more ranked teams in that group.
We had 2 home they had 5 quad 1 games.
Our NET is higher.
In the final ranking their best Q1 game is Michigana St. At 7(only top 10 in final rankings). We played 6 of the top 10.

Maybe they should discuss actual resumes and not some guys bonus?
 
dukeman92 said:
When you look at blind resumes, Carolina had no business getting in. Even though I've stated all year that they would make it and I'm actually glad they did. The ACC disrespect is annoying.

I don't know how Louisville is an eight. They're criminally underseeded when you consider they have two wins over Clemson and made the finals of the ACC tournament. (I say that and wouldn't be shocked to see them lose to Creighton. The Blue Jays are good)

I don't understand how Kentucky is two lines better than a Clemson team who was higher in the polls and beat them.

This bracket is all over the place.
Click to expand...
I disagree about the blind resume. Carolina's bad variable is Q1 wins. They are better than the first 4 out in most other variables.
 
When comparing the bubble teams strictly amongst themselves, to me it was clear that UNC had the "least flawed" resume of all of them. Obviously by their very nature, bubble teams have inherently flawed resumes, otherwise they wouldn't be bubble teams. The lone knock against UNC was the 1-12 Q1 record, because every single other efficiency metric had UNC has the best among the bubble teams. I'm thankful that the Q1 record wasn't the lone metric by which to keep us out, because it would ensure that in the future, UNC (nor anyone else) would ever schedule tough OOC games. Scheduling tough games should always be rewarded, IMO. Yes, it's true that you should have to beat some of them- I don't disagree with that at all, and in fact would have completely accepted the Q1 knock against us had we been left out of the field. But strictly when comparing resumes of bubble teams in comparison to one another, I think the committee made the right call in including UNC.
 
Calheel said:
Other than a few bubble teams, our rivals, and a few talking heads who decided that Quad 1 was the only metric that mattered, nobody gives a fuck about who the NCAA thinks is the 46th best team in the country.
Click to expand...
You have obviously not been on the College Basketball subreddit. There is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth on there about our inclusion.
 
SnoopRob said:
According to this article, it wasn't created until the Summer of 1979...

November 27, 2009 – NC Miscellany

blogs.lib.unc.edu
Click to expand...
Maybe the first Shrunken Head bumpersticker wasn’t until 1979.

My memory is that as loud and obnoxious junior high schoolers (maybe as early as 5th or 6th grade) we’d chant, “d00k is puke, Wake is fake, the team I hate is NC State!”

Fifth grade gets us to 1971-72 or so.

From 1972-1974, ncsulol dominated ACC basketball and the Neil McGeachy year at d00k was 1974. These years also coincided with the Lou Holtz years at State. State was THE rival, not d00k.
 
Heelsandeers said:
Screenshot_20250316_185020_Discord.jpg
Click to expand...

Not worth it for me to continue this any further.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter because I wanted you to get in... and with Iowa State losing Keshon Gilbert, you've got a decent shot at winning a couple games.
 
Last edited:
SnoopRob said:
You have obviously not been on the College Basketball subreddit. There is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth on there about our inclusion.
Click to expand...
Correct. I should have added cbb reddit to my list. They have been fed Q1 is the only metric that matters for years.

But the thing about bubble outrage is that it lasts a few hours. No one will be talking about this today or really ever. Bubble outrage is such a silly, media-inspired thing. If you are bad enough to be in the bubble talk, then you have no basis for outrage about anything.
 
dukeman92 said:
I notice you left out WVU. Convenient. At some point WINS have to matter.

If Carolina were Watha State Directional College with the same resume... they'd be sitting home.

And you guys can sit here and finagle metric after metric to show that you belonged, but we all know if you felt that way at 5 pm yesterday, you wouldn't have been sweating bullets and/or not watching the show.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter because I wanted you to get in... and with Iowa State losing Keshon Gilbert, you've got a decent shot at winning a couple games.
Click to expand...
I do think most of what you say is absolutely correct. I definitely think UNC got the “blue blood benefit of the doubt” and I definitely think that Bubba Cunningham’s presence on the selection committee was probably a subtle influence. That is not at all to say that there was anything nefarious or untoward or anything like that- I fully trust and believe that all of the policies and procedures were followed with full integrity. But I definitely think his presence on the selection committee had at least some degree of impact.

The way that I felt yesterday morning about UNC making the field is the exact same way that I feel this morning. I would’ve been completely understanding if UNC had not made it, because I think there were definitely legitimate arguments against our inclusion. I would’ve also been completely understanding of the inclusion of UNC. I think there were completely compelling and valid arguments both ways. Pretty much all of the efficiency metrics said that UNC should have been in the field relative to the other bubble teams with whom we were competing for a spot; the absolutely embarrassingly awful Q1 metric suggested that we should not have been in the field.

I think if UNC was going to be included, this was the right way to do it: as the very last team into the field, who has to go to Dayton for the play in game, and whose inclusion was only made possible into the field because there were zero bid stealers. But had we been left out of the field, I would’ve been completely understanding and supportive of that as well. Ultimately it came down to the majority of the committee deciding that UNC being the best bubble team in six of the eight efficiency metrics was more important than UNC having the worst Q1 record of any tournament team since tracking that particular metric began.

But I do agree with you that UNC by any other name would probably not have been in the field. And I also appreciate, as a Duke fan, that you are glad that UNC is in the field because of what it means for the ACC. I think that’s pretty classy on your part!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top