CalvinBall wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:next time these teams should request to play higher seeded teams even if those higher seeded teams lose the round prior. what a bunch of gutless cowards playing a few double digit seeds.

Well they eventually played higher seeded teams and lost to them.

only one team goes undefeated in the tournament. what do you want?

Uhhh I don't really want anything, just thought it was funny how after that first weekend narrative of how strong the conference was that every single team fell short when they went against real competition.

i guess? the conference went 19-7. that is with one of its best teams sitting out because of strippers. four teams in the elite 8, all on the same side of the bracket. so two loses came against conference opponents.

if you dont think the acc was the best conference in ncaa basketball this year, then i dont know man.

I don't think he's arguing that, just that the love was overblown. I mean you were going full SEC football in this thread.

Villanova's run is going to up there as one of the best, beating two #1 seeds and the best player in the tournament. I thought if they held them under 40 points in the first half they had a legitimate chance to win. That sequence at the end of the first half was pretty huge.

think its fair to point out that Villanova had a crazy hard route to the finals compared to what UNC had.

would be interested in seeing some historical context for what they went through. Like whatever advanced stat rankings are for the past 10 years or something(are those the kenpom rankings?)

jamiethekiller wrote:think its fair to point out that Villanova had a crazy hard route to the finals compared to what UNC had.

would be interested in seeing some historical context for what they went through. Like whatever advanced stat rankings are for the past 10 years or something(are those the kenpom rankings?)

I'd be surprised if there isn't a 538 recap based on like...average ELO or KenPom or something like that.

MoBettle wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:Nova had a legit road to win this thing.
Beat a 3/2/1/1.
Highest seed the cheaters beat was a 5. Imagine that, they couldn't play anymore crap teams, a real team beat them.

yeah they didn't take out powerhouses like unc Wilmington and Yale.

Would have fit their road perfectly

jamiethekiller wrote:think its fair to point out that Villanova had a crazy hard route to the finals compared to what UNC had.

would be interested in seeing some historical context for what they went through. Like whatever advanced stat rankings are for the past 10 years or something(are those the kenpom rankings?)

It's very fair so I pointed it out but I need counseling

The Savior wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:Nova had a legit road to win this thing.
Beat a 3/2/1/1.
Highest seed the cheaters beat was a 5. Imagine that, they couldn't play anymore crap teams, a real team beat them.

You're so far gone. I think you legitimately need counseling.

Cry about the refs some more loser.

I will look for a second place shirt while I'm here.

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

The Savior wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:Nova had a legit road to win this thing.
Beat a 3/2/1/1.
Highest seed the cheaters beat was a 5. Imagine that, they couldn't play anymore crap teams, a real team beat them.

You're so far gone. I think you legitimately need counseling.

Cry about the refs some more loser.

I will look for a second place shirt while I'm here.

but duke didn't get second place?

jamiethekiller wrote:think its fair to point out that Villanova had a crazy hard route to the finals compared to what UNC had.

would be interested in seeing some historical context for what they went through. Like whatever advanced stat rankings are for the past 10 years or something(are those the kenpom rankings?)

KenPom only dates back to 2002, but Arizona beat three #1 seeds (I believe the only team to ever do so) to win the 1997 championship.

Villanova's average was the lowest/hardest since the ratings started. Second lowest was Duke in 2010, although they were a #1 seed.

Disclaimer, this excludes the first round game.

The B1G Piece wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:think its fair to point out that Villanova had a crazy hard route to the finals compared to what UNC had.

would be interested in seeing some historical context for what they went through. Like whatever advanced stat rankings are for the past 10 years or something(are those the kenpom rankings?)

KenPom only dates back to 2002, but Arizona beat three #1 seeds (I believe the only team to ever do so) to win the 1997 championship.

Villanova's average was the lowest since the ratings started. Second lowest was Duke in 2010, although they were a #1 seed.

did you compile those on your own or is there something published?

quit trolling each other ya mokes. no one here is a villanova fan other than like 3 people, anyway

pacino wrote:2 Arrested for 'Assaulting Police Horse,' 4 Arrested for Disorderly Conduct During Villanova Celebration: Police

they lit a lot of fires

Police horses were struck during the 1985 celebration too. You can't mess with tradition.


Still seems like things were relatively calm, with no major damage to people or property.

jamiethekiller wrote:

The B1G Piece wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:think its fair to point out that Villanova had a crazy hard route to the finals compared to what UNC had.

would be interested in seeing some historical context for what they went through. Like whatever advanced stat rankings are for the past 10 years or something(are those the kenpom rankings?)

KenPom only dates back to 2002, but Arizona beat three #1 seeds (I believe the only team to ever do so) to win the 1997 championship.

Villanova's average was the lowest since the ratings started. Second lowest was Duke in 2010, although they were a #1 seed.

did you compile those on your own or is there something published?

I have a subscription, it's easy to run through because the individual team pages include the updated ratings.

was duke ranked 1-4 going into the tournament or was it an egregious #1 seed?

where was Villanova ranked before going into the tournament(should they have been a #1 seed?)

uconn probably up there

10/2/3/4/1/8

jamiethekiller wrote:quit trolling each other ya mokes. no one here is a villanova fan other than like 3 people, anyway

i think people are more reacting to PT being unreasonably happy

i don't like villanova. i didn't root for them. i didn't root for them to lose, either. abstaining was the best course. don't be a dick is a good philosophy since i think the players and coach are nice. it's the previous coaches and the fans that openly rooted against SJU when I went to school that get to me.

jamiethekiller wrote:was duke ranked 1-4 going into the tournament or was it an egregious #1 seed?

where was Villanova ranked before going into the tournament(should they have been a #1 seed?)

They would have been the 1 in the east if they had beaten seton hall, most likely.

They had almost the hardest road possible for them by seed, and the actual hardest road by ranking (OU > Oregon), 15/7/3/1/2/1.

Those last 5 games KenPom rankings were 23, 13, 4, 7, 2 based on end of season results through today.

jamiethekiller wrote:was duke ranked 1-4 going into the tournament or was it an egregious #1 seed?

where was Villanova ranked before going into the tournament(should they have been a #1 seed?)

They won ACC tournament. Were legit one seed. Only had 5 losses I think

Was talking about 2010

pacino wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:quit trolling each other ya mokes. no one here is a villanova fan other than like 3 people, anyway

i think people are more reacting to PT being unreasonably happy

Savages! Let me be happy

Villanova will have a parade in Center City Philadelphia on Friday beginning at 1pm.