NCAA Tournament
- Thread starter fordham96
- Start date
Pretty sure Nova did it in one of their recent NCs. Obviously not the year of the buzzer beater over NC but think the other year they won all their games by double digits.
While we are all certainly disgusted watching UConn win yet another title, can't help consider the silver lining. A Big East team winning the title definitely helps the Big East brand as a whole, especially when it comes to keeping it in the conversation of the power conferences.
Ray Morgan
Well-known member
For all of the posters and fans that don't understand why Pitino chose to overhaul the roster, let's not forget UConn's roster has 7 players that were 4 star recruits out of high school. They have a great mix of young, highly ranked players and experienced talent as well. Coaching matters, but talent matters more. Lots of credit to Hurley for coaching up that talent, and having them play the most stifling defense I have seen in along time. But you need high level athletes that buy in, are willing to work hard, and learn quickly to play that well.
Just read Nova did indeed do it in 2018.
Only one team can win the National Championship and most years a team or two or three goes undefeated in Conference play. In order to do that a team needs to be exceptional. I thought UConn showed the kind of stuff during their non-conference schedule that made me believe that they were an exceptional team. Additionally I thought (wrongly so) that the Big East was somewhat weaker then they had been in recent seasons and that perhaps UConn had the potential to run the table. However Marquette, Xavier and Providence all exceeded expectations that I had for them this season and the top end of the conference (that also included Creighton) turned out to be quite strong. That all said UConn's season had a strangely uneven unfolding. After winning out dominantly in non-conference play (11-0) and winning their first three conference games the Huskies hit the skids losing 6 of 8 games. However just when they were being dismissed they went 15-2 the remainder of the way and during the tournament returned to the dominant form that characterized their early non-conference play.
When we beat them on January 15th I was truly shocked and wondered if we were taking off or they were just not that good. In the end neither of these things turned out to be true. It was more that, on any given day any two teams can produce an unlikely result and I guess that is why they play the games.
Last edited:
The funny thing about this UConn team is that if you played a close game with them you had a pretty good shot to beat them. They were actually 0-4 in games decided by five points or less. San Diego State was 11 and 1 in those five point or less games. However UConn pretty much bludgeoned their opposition in most of their games.
That’s only because you weren’t going to beat them big. They could have purposely dissipated their double digit game winning point spreads to 5 points and added 30 some odd close game wins. In other words meaningless statistic.
Redzone
Active member
Dullest ncaa ever. Was akin to a Holiday or Pre season NIT. Yes there were upsets and Cinderella stories. Great. But no one wants to watch FDU, FAU, SDSU people want the Big Dogs when all is said and done. This final 4 was exciting I suppose. But SDSU and FAU?.........A final 4? Yes. But interest.... zero.
L J S A
Well-known member
You didn't even watch the FAU-SDSU game, did you?
Rocket
Well-known member
Inappropriate behavior
The tournament as a whole was anything but dull.
Viewership has been pretty flat for the men's final while the women's final broke records. 14.6 million for the men's game and 12.6 across all platforms for the women's final.
I think the scheduling of the final four for the men's game is moronic. It has been a Monday late night event for years. Monday is one of the least watched nights for television. The 9:20 start time on a work night loses millions of potential viewers on the east coast.
Note that the women's game is played on a Sunday and this year it broke records as I indicated.
I agree that had Uconn played UCLA or Kentucky it may have drawn a couple of million more but Monday is just not cutting it anymore.
The women's game had a great match up of two excellent teams with the "Pete Maravich" of women's basketball Caitlin Clark drawing a bigger viewership.
To top it off, the women's final had controversy that made national news when LSU's Angel Reese taunted pistol Clark and then used racial overtones in her post game comments.
Today she outdid herself and said she and her LSU team would not go to the White House if invited but would go visit Barack and Michelle Obama instead.
Both LSU and coach Mackey were embarrassed by the comments and said LSU would accept.
Perhaps this young lady wants to follow in Colin Kapaernick's footsteps and become infamous.
First of all, Angel Reese did not do anything that Caitlin Clark hasn't done. Both of them talk trash, or did you not see Caitlin Clark's gestures against South Carolina. Caitlin Clark herself said that she had no problem with what Reese did.
As for Jill Biden inviting Iowa to the White House, do yo actually believe that if Iowa had won, she would have invited LSU to the White House. Your disparaging comments about Angel and Colin are extremely RACIST. Just because theeir views don't align with yours, doesn't take away their tight to express them. There was no need for that.
In closing, I would like to state that Caitlin Clark was the most exciting player that I saw in college basketball this year, male or female.
Last edited:
Rocket
Well-known member
I'm disappointed in your response to the NCAA tournament topic. I expressed my opinions on viewership decline in the men's basketball tournament while the ladies game attraction increased dramatically. Simply put, day of the event and time.
You never address the question of viewership. You single out a snippet of my comments to defend the First Amendment rights of two individuals I mentioned. Sadly, as is the trend in our divided America, you choose an accusatory tone to address someone else's opinions on a topic of national conversation in the media. You assume I am white and based upon that assumption, you brand my comments as EXTREMELY RACIST.
What if I am biracial like Colin and made the same statement. Would that have made you modify your response? Perhaps.
unfortunately, you seem to have the opinion that your fellow fans (and Americans) who may not be afrocentric have no right to express a contrary opinion. To shut down the conversation you rather accuse the other side of being RACIST rather than give a civil response.
Perhaps, in your mind, all of main stream media is racist for reporting on the events. As an extension, anyone who comments without supporting the actions of these coddled athletes, is branded as racist.
In short, you assume a moral superiority simply because of your skin color. Sound familiar???
To emphasize your point you ask me "
"
What do you imply with that question?
Is Jill Biden a racist?
NO. I think you are insinuating that because the Iowa ladies team had "too many white girls" as players, the first lady was favoring Iowa and really wanted them to win.
All of this in defense of Angel Reese who said the same thing about the first lady and publicly stated she and her "black" teammates would rather visit Michelle Obama than be in the same room as Jill Biden.
Your condescending response is part of what has gone terribly wrong in American society.
Shut down the opposing views and voices.
Mention race and you better agree with Colin Kaepernick or the topic will get shut down.
A more civil response to my comments would have been, to quote YOU, "just because (your) view doesn't align with theirs, doesn't take away your right to express them"
You're still one of my favorite posters and "redmen" Sterling!
This is the last post discussing race, etc, thank you very much.I'm disappointed in your response to the NCAA tournament topic. I expressed my opinions on viewership decline in the men's basketball tournament while the ladies game attraction increased dramatically. Simply put, day of the event and time.
You never address the question of viewership. You single out a snippet of my comments to defend the First Amendment rights of two individuals I mentioned. Sadly, as is the trend in our divided America, you choose an accusatory tone to address someone else's opinions on a topic of national conversation in the media. You assume I am white and based upon that assumption, you brand my comments as EXTREMELY RACIST.
What if I am biracial like Colin and made the same statement. Would that have made you modify your response? Perhaps.
unfortunately, you seem to have the opinion that your fellow fans (and Americans) who may not be afrocentric have no right to express a contrary opinion. To shut down the conversation you rather accuse the other side of being RACIST rather than give a civil response.
Perhaps, in your mind, all of main stream media is racist for reporting on the events. As an extension, anyone who comments without supporting the actions of these coddled athletes, is branded as racist.
In short, you assume a moral superiority simply because of your skin color. Sound familiar???
To emphasize your point you ask me "
"
What do you imply with that question?
Is Jill Biden a racist?
NO. I think you are insinuating that because the Iowa ladies team had "too many white girls" as players, the first lady was favoring Iowa and really wanted them to win.
All of this in defense of Angel Reese who said the same thing about the first lady and publicly stated she and her "black" teammates would rather visit Michelle Obama than be in the same room as Jill Biden.
Your condescending response is part of what has gone terribly wrong in American society.
Shut down the opposing views and voices.
Mention race and you better agree with Colin Kaepernick or the topic will get shut down.
A more civil response to my comments would have been, to quote YOU, "just because (your) view doesn't align with theirs, doesn't take away your right to express them"
You're still one of my favorite posters and "redmen" Sterling!
Future posts of a similar nature will be deleted.
Rocket
Well-known member
Thank you for agreeing that the discussion of race has no place in sports.
Now, if only ESPN and Stephen Smith, and the entire mainstream media agreed, sports would return to being a pastime and not an ideological platform.