In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1637
Online now 1865 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Bullshit. I love Hollis, but the committee royally fucked up by putting Gonzaga as a 1. They feasted off some decent wins over overrated B12 squads, and a wildly overrated SMC squad (that didn't deserve to be in the tournament, nor did MTSU).
Here's all you need to know - Gonzaga beat ZERO squads that won a game in the tourney. MSU had 6.
Edit: I have to keep going, they had a worse SoS, worse RPI, less top 25, less top 50 wins, and a worse NonCon than NM. Obviously, UNM wasn't much, but the fact that they were a 3, while Gonzaga was a 1 is proof that who you beat doesn't mean as much as who you lost to (or didn't). MTSU and SMC being included, and scUM being ahead of UW, also speaks of this. No longer are teams like Izzo, who play gauntlet schedules, rewarded; but instead, a sparking W/L record is.
This post was edited by RBW Spartan 13 months ago
posted in another thread that gonzaga is on par with a terrible Washington team that got a one seed by default. Imo both were very easy to call out early. If you don't play a decent team all year, you don't deserve a high one.
05 Huskies made it to the sweet 16. 02 Cincy did not.
12177 Post before moving here. 10/29/11 will live forever in our hearts (plus 50 votes in the last 3 hours)
They weren't. Finished the regular season undefeated, but lost by 20 to Xavier in their first game in the conference tourney. Also had an SOS of 77, which was not much better than Gonzaga's this year (83, I think). Averaged 77ppg and Nelson and West averaged a combined 38. In terms of scoring, it was Nelson and West and like a handful of random dudes. Yes, these guys were better than Gonzaga. If you take the fact that they lost in the Elite Eight, they clearly finished better. But going on their pre-tournament profile, who would argue that they were better? They were #1 because of their undefeated record, but a #1 from the A-10? It might be better than the WCC, but not exactly the most difficult conference in the world.
This post was edited by HillSpartan 13 months ago
Yeah, but before the tourney started it was very easy to call Washington out. Cincy not so much.
Yes, worst ever.. next question?
Why? Like this is the first questionable 1 seed ever? You must be young.
Anything for money.
That is the first one that came to mind. They almost lost in the first round too. Closer than the Gonzago/Southern game.
BTW...I think it was 1996.
This post was edited by scott91575 13 months ago
You're entitled to your opinion. I think the selection committee fucked up a lot worse with the seeding of the Pac-12 teams and the imbalance of the regions.
Vim -- noun: robust energy and enthusiasm : VITALITY
#1 seed Purdue in 1996 is still perhaps the worst of all time... beat 16 seed Western Carolina 73-71, then lost 76-69 to Georgia. The Big Ten was terrible in 1996... arguably the worst Big Ten season of all time. That was Izzo's first team (and a pretty terrible one), and they still managed to finish at .500 in the Big Ten, and actually was in first place for a while before fading over the last couple weeks of the season. In the 1st round of the NCAA Tourney that year, Michigan lost to Texas, Indiana lost to BC. Purdue and Iowa won first round squeakers, but lost in the second round. The Big Ten was a really good league in the late 80's/early 90's, and I think there was a perception that the Big Ten champ by default should get a 1 seed because of past reputation.
I agree, Big Ten basketball in the mid 90's was pretty bad.
I'm not saying I disagree with those, and on the whole those two are probably worse; but I'm uncomfortable with the emphasis, as a whole, on not losing, versus winning.
It was 2000, and they were the best team in the country until Kenyon Martin went down.
"If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais
No he's talking about the 02 team.
2009 was the last time the went undefeated in conference - but they were still only a 4 seed. I think this year they benefited greatly from all the top teams losing one after another week after week, which allowed them to creep up a spot or two over a few months until they were a defacto #1....even though nobody really thought they were.
This is the 4th year in a row they've lost in the round of 32. 2009 they made the Sweet 16 as a 4 seed, then ran into that UNC train that throttled everyone. two years prior to that were first round exits, then another S16 in 2006 as a 3 seed (and another undefeated conference slate). Then 3 more R32 exits - including one as a 2 seed in another undefeated conference slate, preceded by another first round exit.
So going back to 2001-2002 they have:
Two Sweet 16s
Seven 2nd Round
Three 1st round
That's an 11-12 record. That's not good.
That team ended up getting a 2 seed anyway.
Your a retard.
Yes. Next question.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports