Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jncuse, post: 1338920, member: 1969"] I have seen worse. I would give them a grade of C-, so it was still a poor job, In part because it was really impossible to separate the first line. So they couldn't go wrong. If there had been a chance they may have well screwed it up. But I think teams 3-6 all equally deserved it. In terms of the field itself, I only saw two overall weaknesses: 1) UCLA and they way they explained it. Colorado St and Temple over others... Maybe, but not massive error. 2) Seeding of the Big East. And this was also a bit understandable because I'm not sure if there have been a conference that is not top heavy, have 50% of its mid-level teams seem tourney worthy. It was going to cause some gaudy resumes that were going to be difficult to put down -- but they should have realized there was a certain "fakeness" to them all. This seems to happen in the Big 10 in the past as well. [/QUOTE]