CBI/CIT

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:35:24 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:18:50 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:07:26 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 12:56:44 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 12:27:33 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 14, 2017, 11:27:16 PM

They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.

What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?

They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.

They made the NIT on a technicality.

You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14.  They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season.  Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.

Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.

Whatever, dude!   If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right.  But, I doubt anyone else believes it.   

I think Oakland believes it.

Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?

Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46).  Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck.  That's for sure. 

Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76).  Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT. 

You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.

Really?  We didn't play our share of crappy teams?  We also played in an inferior conference than Clemson.  Not by a ton, but still inferior, nonetheless. 

I once said, if stupidity was a crime, then you'd be on death row.  Oh, well....   

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 01:24:15 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:18:50 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:07:26 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 12:56:44 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 12:27:33 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 14, 2017, 11:27:16 PM

They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.

What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?

They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.

They made the NIT on a technicality.

You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14.  They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season.  Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.

Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.

Whatever, dude!   If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right.  But, I doubt anyone else believes it.   

I think Oakland believes it.

Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?

There's a wing in Creedmore for people that think the Big East was better than the ACC this year

7 out of 10 BE teams made it in. The ACC has 9 out of 15 teams in. That's the great thing about about math, think whatever you like, but math settles the debate.

It's kind of impossible for more than 9 or 10 teams to get in to the tournament in a 15 team league when the bottom of it is strong and they beat up on each other, whereas in the Big East everybody could use us DePaul and Gtown as punching bags

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:35:24 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:18:50 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:07:26 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 12:56:44 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 12:27:33 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 14, 2017, 11:27:16 PM

They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.

What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?

They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.

They made the NIT on a technicality.

You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14.  They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season.  Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.

Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.

Whatever, dude!   If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right.  But, I doubt anyone else believes it.   

I think Oakland believes it.

Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?

Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46).  Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck.  That's for sure. 

Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76).  Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT. 

You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.

Clemson played a tougher non conference schedule than us. By a lot. They also wouldn't have lost to LIU, Delaware State or Penn St

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:50:52 AM

You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.

Clemson played a tougher non conference schedule than us. By a lot. They also wouldn't have lost to LIU, Delaware State or Penn St

Since, he likes to use isolated situations (or, attempt to use 'em)....  The ACC last place team (Boston College) thumped our 3rd place team (Providence). 

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:33:25 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 01:24:15 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:18:50 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:07:26 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 12:56:44 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 12:27:33 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 14, 2017, 11:27:16 PM

They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.

What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?

They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.

They made the NIT on a technicality.

You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14.  They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season.  Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.

Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.

Whatever, dude!   If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right.  But, I doubt anyone else believes it.   

I think Oakland believes it.

Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?

There's a wing in Creedmore for people that think the Big East was better than the ACC this year

7 out of 10 BE teams made it in. The ACC has 9 out of 15 teams in. That's the great thing about about math, think whatever you like, but math settles the debate.

It's kind of impossible for more than 9 or 10 teams to get in to the tournament in a 15 team league when the bottom of it is strong and they beat up on each other, whereas in the Big East everybody could use us DePaul and Gtown as punching bags

Everyone except the 4 NCAA teams that we beat. How many NCAA teams did Clemson beat? 2?
Georgetown is no cup cake. They fell apart this year, but they still have several pros on that roster. Can't discount those wins.

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:50:52 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:35:24 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:18:50 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:07:26 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 12:56:44 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 12:27:33 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 14, 2017, 11:27:16 PM

They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.

What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?

They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.

They made the NIT on a technicality.

You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14.  They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season.  Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.

Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.

Whatever, dude!   If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right.  But, I doubt anyone else believes it.   

I think Oakland believes it.

Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?

Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46).  Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck.  That's for sure. 

Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76).  Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT. 

You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.

Really?  We didn't play our share of crappy teams?  We also played in an inferior conference than Clemson.  Not by a ton, but still inferior, nonetheless. 

I once said, if stupidity was a crime, then you'd be on death row.  Oh, well....   

Good one. Really well thought out.

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 01:55:47 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:50:52 AM

You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.

Clemson played a tougher non conference schedule than us. By a lot. They also wouldn't have lost to LIU, Delaware State or Penn St

Since, he likes to use isolated situations (or, attempt to use 'em)....  The ACC last place team (Boston College) thumped our 3rd place team (Providence). 

We beat the shit out of Syracuse in the Carrier Dome.

Truth is a game between us and Clemson on a neutral court would probably come down to the wire. Both teams are mediocre with severe flaws. You could go back and forth all day comparing conferences and common opponents, and who played better in November.

I think Clemson would finish anywhere from 6th to 9th in the BE. Are they better than us? maybe, but that's not saying much.

I'm old enough to remember our last NIT game...

So you're four then?

Truth is a game between us and Clemson on a neutral court would probably come down to the wire. Both teams are mediocre with severe flaws. You could go back and forth all day comparing conferences and common opponents, and who played better in November.

I think Clemson would finish anywhere from 6th to 9th in the BE. Are they better than us? maybe, but that's not saying much.

My original point wasn't that we're better, although I think we are. It's that because we have a stronger conference record and undeniably better wins in conference that our overall resume is right there with theirs. They were better in November and December. We were better in January, February and March.

The NIT has a senseless rule that teams selected must have an overall winning record. So, Clemson can beat up Radford or some shit, bomb in the ACC and still make the post season. It's pathetic. Straight out of Norm's playbook.

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

Agree they were average. But they had a great season. Not many teams could lose what they lost and did as well. Preseason they were picked behind us.

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 11:35:47 PM

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.

I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 11:35:47 PM

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.

I told a friend the same thing tonight, in regards to Marquette.  My words was Marquette could certainly lose to South Carolina, but they could also beat Duke, if they get it going offensively. 

Quote from: Dave on March 16, 2017, 12:18:03 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 11:35:47 PM

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.

I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell

Frankly, it's a game of constrasting styles.  South Carolina plays tough defense while Marquette can score with the best of 'em.  But, Marquette somewhat resembles us on the defensive end, while South Carolina occasionally has trouble scoring.

I like Thornwell, but he can be streaky at times.  This is going to be an interesting game.  Personally, I think Marquette matches up better with Duke than South Carolina.

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 11:35:47 PM

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

Agree they were average. But they had a great season. Not many teams could lose what they lost and did as well. Preseason they were picked behind us.

They did have a good season, but still average, nonetheless.

Quote from: Dave on March 16, 2017, 12:18:03 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 11:35:47 PM

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.

I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell

It's especially brutal because it's a home game: Greenville is 100 miles from SC's campus. That's a pretty odd advantage for a seven seed.

Quote from: goredmen on March 16, 2017, 12:30:37 AM

Quote from: Dave on March 16, 2017, 12:18:03 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 11:35:47 PM

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.

I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell

It's especially brutal because it's a home game: Greenville is 100 miles from SC's campus. That's a pretty odd advantage for a seven seed.

Game is in South Carolina because some people have a hard time figuring out which bathroom to use

Quote from: Foad on March 16, 2017, 06:49:18 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 16, 2017, 12:30:37 AM

Quote from: Dave on March 16, 2017, 12:18:03 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 11:35:47 PM

I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either.  Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured.  Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know. 

No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO.  I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago. 

I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.

I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell

It's especially brutal because it's a home game: Greenville is 100 miles from SC's campus. That's a pretty odd advantage for a seven seed.

Game is in South Carolina because some people have a hard time figuring out which bathroom to use

Or because some states have a hard time figuring out what needs legislation and what doesn't.

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 01:07:26 AM

Quote from: mjdinkins on March 15, 2017, 12:56:44 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 15, 2017, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 15, 2017, 12:27:33 AM

Quote from: Poison on March 14, 2017, 11:27:16 PM

They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.

What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?

They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.

They made the NIT on a technicality.

You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14.  They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season.  Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.

Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.

Whatever, dude!   If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right.  But, I doubt anyone else believes it.   

I believe it.