Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jncuse, post: 217092, member: 1969"] I used to post alot of bubble and bracket chatter on another board. I totally flipped that night when I saw Duke got the third number one seed Some of my comments are pretty embarassing and totally obnoxious in retrospect over something minor ...but it was all out of spite for Duke. From that night in March 2010. ------ "I got 25 right. The amount i get right is never a grade of my work, but a grade of the committee. Quite frankly, I know what I am doing. Since I got less right then normal, it simply means the committee did a very poor job this year, and started from the disgrace as Duke`s ranking on the 1 line, and the fact that they are a number one seed. Right from that choice, it became clear we were dealing with a committee that lacked the competence to deal with the basic parameters that had been established and that are used to evalute teams. When I get more right, it is not about me, it just means the committee did a good job." ---------- "The committee has always mentioned that it tries to balance the sweet 16 seeds. These seeds are always put on the bracket first. Its not that hard to balance. Yes Duke was going to get an easy 4 seed, because they try to avoid rematches as long as possibe... so out if Wisconisn.. Maryland did not fit... so it came down to Vandy or Purdue. But why wasn`t the second seed Ohio St or West Virginia. West Virginia is a simple flop. Ohio St could have been put in, move Purdue to Kansas, move Vandy to Duke,and move Maryland to Syracuse. There is absolutely no way a committee with any common sense could have seen the top four seeds as balanced." ---------- "The overall reason I thought the committee did a ****ty job was a) The seeding of mid-majors which took a major step back this year. b) Duke as a 1 seed. You need to knock yourself on your head, and realize that the actual selection day is just a small part of why I do it. The enjoyment does not come from validating my beleifs on selection day or passing some mythical litmus test you use to validate yourself. But maybe I have just become dumber the last two years." ----------------------------- "TM, I am entitled to have an opinion, and I have supported my opinion. It is strange that you raise some counter points as a Duke fan, and therefore think I should not be enititled to have a strong opinion on Dukes seeding. It was a conclusion that I reached with no bias, and that I supported strongly in a thread that I made the day before selections. [B]There are no right answers at the end of the day in this process. It is not a test, it is a process. for which everyone has opinions and evaluations before and afterward[/B] I refuse to accept your criticism and your view that I am not entitled to strongly disagree with the Duke decision." ------------------------- "But I think they really missed the ball on Duke and the seeding of the mid majors (Temple, Norhtern Iowa, UTEP)... these are all topics I have talked about at some point this year. To call this opinion as slander really makes no sense. Why assume the committee has all the correct answers - is there even a correct answer. This in not a test its a process. It is a process that you have your opinion before hand as the season progesses and afterwards, and I think that makes perfect sense." ---------------------------- "If you want to discuss it counter that thread. Duke arguments are outside of the base criteria and more eye testish. which makes it difficult for me to even consider changing my opinion." -------------------- "Someone might see that as minor, but I do not. Duke as a 1 had some basis for argument, and in itself would have had little impact on how the tournament fairly plays out if they had just been assinged WVU. I think its fair to say most saw Duke and WVU as four and five. So they should have been in the same region " [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?