Sunday, March 6, 2011
Who will get the 4th 1-seed?
KU, Ohio St., and Pitt are all virtual locks to get #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament at this point. Who will get the 4th 1-seed?
My guess is at this point in time, it would go to Notre Dame, but that it will go to Duke in the end. I think Notre Dame is more likely to slip up early in their conference tournament than Duke is, and I think that is what the deciding factor might be.
However, I guess UNC could be a sleeper for the last 1-seed, if they win the ACC tournament, since they also already won the ACC regular season title. If all of those teams slip up, then who does it go to? Texas would probably be back in the discussion, but only if they win the Big 12 tournament probably. BYU could still be there, but I think they would have to easily win their conference tournament to do so... which is less likely after Brandon Davies got kicked off the team.
The race for the last 1-seed will be interesting to watch unfold because it will all depend on the conference tournaments.
My guess is at this point in time, it would go to Notre Dame, but that it will go to Duke in the end. I think Notre Dame is more likely to slip up early in their conference tournament than Duke is, and I think that is what the deciding factor might be.
However, I guess UNC could be a sleeper for the last 1-seed, if they win the ACC tournament, since they also already won the ACC regular season title. If all of those teams slip up, then who does it go to? Texas would probably be back in the discussion, but only if they win the Big 12 tournament probably. BYU could still be there, but I think they would have to easily win their conference tournament to do so... which is less likely after Brandon Davies got kicked off the team.
The race for the last 1-seed will be interesting to watch unfold because it will all depend on the conference tournaments.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Top 20 most hated sports teams...
I was gonna do my top 10, but pushed it to 20 because I strongly dislike more than 10 teams.
This is in order of most-hated. #1 is most hated, #2 second most, and so on.
1. Texas Longhorns Football
2. Mizzou Tigers (anything)
3. North Carolina Tar Heels Basketball
4. New York Yankees
5. Dallas Cowboys
6. Seattle Seahawks
7. Notre Dame Football
8. San Antonio Spurs
9. Chelsea F.C.
10. Kansas State Football
11. Pittsburgh Steelers
12. Denver Broncos
13. Duke Basketball
14. Green Bay Packers
15. Manchester United
16. Cincinnati Reds
17. Miami Heat (only after they signed LeBron)
18. San Francisco 49ers
19. Florida Football
20. USC Football
This is in order of most-hated. #1 is most hated, #2 second most, and so on.
1. Texas Longhorns Football
2. Mizzou Tigers (anything)
3. North Carolina Tar Heels Basketball
4. New York Yankees
5. Dallas Cowboys
6. Seattle Seahawks
7. Notre Dame Football
8. San Antonio Spurs
9. Chelsea F.C.
10. Kansas State Football
11. Pittsburgh Steelers
12. Denver Broncos
13. Duke Basketball
14. Green Bay Packers
15. Manchester United
16. Cincinnati Reds
17. Miami Heat (only after they signed LeBron)
18. San Francisco 49ers
19. Florida Football
20. USC Football
Monday, February 28, 2011
Purdue
Would Purdue be the #1 team in the nation right now if Robbie Hummel hadn't gotten hurt? They are currently, arguably playing better than anyone the last few weeks, are ranked in the Top 6, they only have one bad loss, and most of their losses were close. The question might be how far ahead of the #2 team are they right now if Robbie Hummel is healthy? Now, I'm not gonna brag too much on Purdue because I don't really like them, but I'm just giving them the respect that I think they deserve right now. They've become almost as good without Robbie Hummel as some people thought they could ahve been with him. I'm pretty sure I saw some early Final Four projections that had them in there before Hummel had gotten hurt.
I do think that Hummel being out has enabled E'twaun Moore, JaJuan Johnson, and Lewis Jackson to elevate their games and show what they can do, so you can also argue that they may not have had as much of a chance to do that with Hummel in the line-up, but damn... if he was in the lineup right now, you might have the best 4 players that any one team can throw out at once.
I do think that Hummel being out has enabled E'twaun Moore, JaJuan Johnson, and Lewis Jackson to elevate their games and show what they can do, so you can also argue that they may not have had as much of a chance to do that with Hummel in the line-up, but damn... if he was in the lineup right now, you might have the best 4 players that any one team can throw out at once.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
San Diego State
At this point in time, I think San Diego State should be no higher than a 3 seed in the tournament and more likely a 4 seed. They've lost the only two games they played to another current top 25 team, BYU. This tells me that there is no reason to believe that they could be another top 25 team. OK, so maybe BYU is just better and it shouldn't mean that much and maybe BYU is just a bad matchup for them, but you certainly can't reward them too much for having their best win of the season against a Gonzaga team who is probably Gonzaga's worst team in years.
Bottom line: Just give the two and three seeds to teams in bigger conferences that actually deserve it.
Bottom line: Just give the two and three seeds to teams in bigger conferences that actually deserve it.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
What Means More??? Making the National Championship Game, or Making the Final Four?
At the request of Drew and Linz Fell (real names censored for privacy), I am blogging on the topic of what is more important, making the the National Championship game or simply making the Final Four.
Well, the problem with this argument is how it's interpreted and what the original question actually is.
A.) If you interpret it as what is the better accomplishment for a team, then of course making the Championship game is. Of course it's better to win 5 games in the NCAA tournament instead of 4, and of course every team wants to try to win a game when they get to the Final Four. In the words of Herm Edwards, "you play to win the game... you don't play just to play!". No team should be satisfied coming that far and just "making" the Final Four.
B.) However, secondly and potentially more relevant, if the question is what will teams be remembered for and/or how will the media portray a team's success... then hands down, it's making the Final Four, not making the National Championship game. There are two things that you hear about in Division 1 college basketball. Those are making the Final Four and winning a National Championship. Making the National Championship game is not mentioned. The term "Final Four" is synonymous with glory and accomplishment in college basketball in the words of the media, and this is what we see and hear about everyday. Two observations support this theory: 1) Allen Fieldhouse - you only see Final Four and National Championship banners, and the pre-game video only talks about how many Final Fours and National Championships KU has, not how many Championship game appearances, and 2) the aforementioned media portrayal and remembrance of what's important. Here's an espn.com link to show what I mean: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/2305/kansas-jayhawks
If you scroll down and look to a right, highlighted under NCAA tournament history is Final Fours and Championship seasons, with no mention of National Championship appearances. This is what the media spoon feeds us, so this is what we remember as significant.
So, that's a long-winded answer, but in short...first decide what the original question is and then apply either option A or B above as needed.
That's just my two cents of course. But, some people pay a nickel for my two cents...
Well, the problem with this argument is how it's interpreted and what the original question actually is.
A.) If you interpret it as what is the better accomplishment for a team, then of course making the Championship game is. Of course it's better to win 5 games in the NCAA tournament instead of 4, and of course every team wants to try to win a game when they get to the Final Four. In the words of Herm Edwards, "you play to win the game... you don't play just to play!". No team should be satisfied coming that far and just "making" the Final Four.
B.) However, secondly and potentially more relevant, if the question is what will teams be remembered for and/or how will the media portray a team's success... then hands down, it's making the Final Four, not making the National Championship game. There are two things that you hear about in Division 1 college basketball. Those are making the Final Four and winning a National Championship. Making the National Championship game is not mentioned. The term "Final Four" is synonymous with glory and accomplishment in college basketball in the words of the media, and this is what we see and hear about everyday. Two observations support this theory: 1) Allen Fieldhouse - you only see Final Four and National Championship banners, and the pre-game video only talks about how many Final Fours and National Championships KU has, not how many Championship game appearances, and 2) the aforementioned media portrayal and remembrance of what's important. Here's an espn.com link to show what I mean: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/2305/kansas-jayhawks
If you scroll down and look to a right, highlighted under NCAA tournament history is Final Fours and Championship seasons, with no mention of National Championship appearances. This is what the media spoon feeds us, so this is what we remember as significant.
So, that's a long-winded answer, but in short...first decide what the original question is and then apply either option A or B above as needed.
That's just my two cents of course. But, some people pay a nickel for my two cents...
Monday, February 21, 2011
Trevor Bayne
I don't know anything about this guy's story (I'm sure everyone will learn it now) other than he just won the Daytona 500 at the incredibly young age of 20. Also, knowing little to nothing about NASCAR, I don't know what the normal entry age of NASCAR drivers is... nor do I know what exactly you have to do to be able to drive in the Daytona 500, but it seems pretty ridiculous to me that he was recognized to the point where he was even racing the Daytona 500, let alone able to win it. How young was this guy when his racing team realized that they wanted to put stock in him and make him one of their guys? I mean for God's sake the kid just learned to drive at all a few years ago. He must have really been on a fast track to learning the sport of car racing through family and/or other connections. That's all I can think of.... well either way it looks like he certainly made the best of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)