THE OFFICIAL 2010 COLLEGE BASKETBALL OFFSEASON THREAD

[gangreenman]

Okay, so there's still another weekend of the season left. But really, who cares about MSU, Butler, Duke, and West Virginia anyway?

In any event for 128 ( I think?) other D1 teams, the offseason has begun.

With the offseason...We have the coaching carousel.

Here it is so far, please add as facts become available.

Kevin Willard (Previous: IONA) Hired By: Seton Hall (Previous: Bobby Gonzalez)

Steve Lavin (Previous: UCLA) Hired By: St. Johns (Previous: Norm Roberts)

TIm Floyd (Previous: USC) Hired By: UTEP (Previous: Tony Barbee)

Tony Barbee (Previous: UTEP) Hired By: Auburn (Previous: Jeff Lebo)

-- Al Skinner has quit/been fired by Boston College

-- Sean Kearney has been fired by Holy Cross

OTHER NAMES "ON THE BLOCK"

Tubby Smith (Current: Head Coach - Minnesota)

Steve Donahue (Current: Head Coach - Cornell)

Brad Stevens (Current: Head Coach - Butler)

[Jetsfan80]

Okay, so there's still another weekend of the season left. But really, who cares about MSU, Butler, Duke, and West Virginia anyway?

Uhh, I do. Should be an excellent final 4 to finish what has been one of the best tournaments in recent memory!

But you're right that all the coaching changes have been crazy. Oregon has been courting Tom Izzo and Tubby Smith, offering what probably would be one of the largest contracts in the country, so we'll see how that goes.

[gangreenman]

Uhh, I do. Should be an excellent final 4 to finish what has been one of the best tournaments in recent memory!

But you're right that all the coaching changes have been crazy. Oregon has been courting Tom Izzo and Tubby Smith, offering what probably would be one of the largest contracts in the country, so we'll see how that goes.

I said that as a joke. With all the coaching movement I just thought it should have a place on this forum.

[nyjunc]

Uhh, I do. Should be an excellent final 4 to finish what has been one of the best tournaments in recent memory!

But you're right that all the coaching changes have been crazy. Oregon has been courting Tom Izzo and Tubby Smith, offering what probably would be one of the largest contracts in the country, so we'll see how that goes.

It's been an exciting Tourney b/c of the rfact that there are no great teams and this Tourney was wide open. This has been and will go down as the weakest field ever.

[Jetsfan80]

It's been an exciting Tourney b/c of the rfact that there are no great teams and this Tourney was wide open. This has been and will go down as the weakest field ever.

Why, because UNC didn't make it?

No, there were no elite teams in this bracket. But top to bottom, I have never seen an NCAA Tournament with more talent spread around from team-to-team. There were a lot of excellent TEAMS in this tournament, which led to many exciting games.

Last year had a lot of elite talent, but horrible basketball. There were only 2 OT games and very few close, great games. If you like NBA-style of ball and blowouts, '09 was the tournament for you. If you like close games, some defense and a LOT of very good players, 2010's version has been amazing.

Its a shame that they might be expanding to 96 teams now. Teams like UNC will be able to get away with "thug ball" and still get into the dance.

[gangreenman]

Why, because UNC didn't make it?

No, there were no elite teams in this bracket. But top to bottom, I have never seen an NCAA Tournament with more talent spread around from team-to-team. There were a lot of excellent TEAMS in this tournament, which led to many exciting games.

Last year had a lot of elite talent, but horrible basketball. There were only 2 OT games and very few close, great games. If you like NBA-style of ball and blowouts, '09 was the tournament for you. If you like close games, some defense and a LOT of very good players, 2010's version has been amazing.

Its a shame that they might be expanding to 96 teams now. Teams like UNC will be able to get away with "thug ball" and still get into the dance.

I hated the idea of 96 at first as well, but when you look at the plans as to how it will be set up, I actually think it will make for more fun. Remember, the big programs like UNC and Duke aren't just looking to make it every year. They want to make a run at it all. With the way its going to be set up (seeds 1-8 get a 1st round bye...giving conf regular season champs an auto bid, and if a team wins both reg season and conf tourney an automatic top 8 seed, regardless of conference... Basically making every 1st round game a meaningful play-in game.) I think it could be an even more entertaining tournament.

And when you think about it, still less than 1/4 of all d1 teams would make the tournament... When you consider almost every other sports league, close to 1/2 of the teams play in the postseason...Thats still not bad.

[Jetsfan80]

And when you think about it, still less than 1/4 of all d1 teams would make the tournament... When you consider almost every other sports league, close to 1/2 of the teams play in the postseason...Thats still not bad.

But thats partly what has made the NCAA Tournament great; its EXCLUSIVE. Not many people care about the regular season of college basketball as it is. How much watered down will it be now that the ACC will be guarenteed 10-11 teams and the Big East will get 12-13?

Imagine if they increased the # of playoff teams in MLB? The regular season would be even more meaningless than the NBA or NHL. The same kind of thing will happen to college basketball if they keep expanding the tournament. A jump to 68 would be easier to handle, but 96? Come on. All they're trying to do now is to make more money and, to that end, protect the top seeds from going down early. They don't want it to be like this year where only one 1-seed made the final 4.

[gangreenman]

But thats partly what has made the NCAA Tournament great; its EXCLUSIVE. Not many people care about the regular season of college basketball as it is. How much watered down will it be now that the ACC will be guarenteed 10-11 teams and the Big East will get 12-13?

Imagine if they increased the # of playoff teams in MLB? The regular season would be even more meaningless than the NBA or NHL. The same kind of thing will happen to college basketball if they keep expanding the tournament. A jump to 68 would be easier to handle, but 96? Come on. All they're trying to do now is to make more money and, to that end, protect the top seeds from going down early. They don't want it to be like this year where only one 1-seed made the final 4.

A higher % of MLB teams make the playoffs than college teams make the tourney. The regular season will mean slightly less for the major conference schools (lets face it, considering theyre essentially having the 64 worst teams in the tourney play a play in game to face seeds 1-8 in the "real", conventional first round)...No top team in any of the major conferences is going to be happy about a play in game. However, it will also make the regular season for midmajor schools MUCH more meaningful as if you win the regular season conf. you are guaranteed a spot in the tourney, and if you win both the reg season and conf tourney, you are GUARANTEED a 1-8 SEED, REGARDLESS OF CONFERENCE. That could be HUGE for some midmajor school.

Yeah, it may water down the regular season a little, but it may actually make for a better and more exciting tournament

[gangreenman]

Essentially there will be two "bubbles" ... One at 32 to determine first round bye and top 8 seed...and at 96 to determine the last teams to get a bid for the round 1 "play-in" games.

[PS17]

**** 96 teams.

That is all.

[gangreenman]

**** 96 teams.

That is all.

People were saying the same stuff when they changed it from 32 to 48 and again when they changed it from 48 to 64... Yet each time the tourney has gotten better and better. I think everyone will eventually get used to 96 and it will be a more fun tournament to watch.

[PS17]

People were saying the same stuff when they changed it from 32 to 48 and again when they changed it from 48 to 64... Yet each time the tourney has gotten better and better. I think everyone will eventually get used to 96 and it will be a more fun tournament to watch.

You may be right. I just don't like the watering down. The regular season and championship week won't be nearly as exciting now. It will no longer be an achievement making the tourney since so many teams will be in. That's all.

[gangreenman]

You may be right. I just don't like the watering down. The regular season and championship week won't be nearly as exciting now. It will no longer be an achievement making the tourney since so many teams will be in. That's all.

The achievement for the big schools that make it pretty much every year now will be to get seeded in the top 32 and get the first round bye. This gives some more midmajor schools and smaller schools in the bigger conference a chance to get a "play in" game to determine the 9-16 seeds in each bracket. Contrary to JetsFan80's belief, that will give us a better chance at watching great games in every round as in order to play the 1-8 seeds, you have to win your play-in game first...

I also like how theyre now able to guarantee that the reg season conf champion as well as the conf tourney champ gets an automatic bid into the field of 96..And I love the rule that if a team wins both they get an automatic 1-8 seed and a 1st round bye. Should make for some really exciting tournaments.

[PS17]

The achievement for the big schools that make it pretty much every year now will be to get seeded in the top 32 and get the first round bye. This gives some more midmajor schools and smaller schools in the bigger conference a chance to get a "play in" game to determine the 9-16 seeds in each bracket. Contrary to JetsFan80's belief, that will give us a better chance at watching great games in every round as in order to play the 1-8 seeds, you have to win your play-in game first...

I also like how theyre now able to guarantee that the reg season conf champion as well as the conf tourney champ gets an automatic bid into the field of 96..And I love the rule that if a team wins both they get an automatic 1-8 seed and a 1st round bye. Should make for some really exciting tournaments.

I really don't like the bolded. So if Eastern Tennessee State [16 seed this year] wins their league and conf. tourney, they get bumped to an 8 seed? No way do I buy that. I doubt that'll be a rule.

[gangreenman]

I really don't like the bolded. So if Eastern Tennessee State [16 seed this year] wins their league and conf. tourney, they get bumped to an 8 seed? No way do I buy that. I doubt that'll be a rule.

That would be a rule. Its hard to win both... regardless of conference. If a team can do that they obviously deserve to be credited for that. The rules Ive outlined are the tourney rules changes that the NCAA has outlined which the coaches will be voting on in late april. From all reports, its pretty much a done deal that the field will be expanded.

[Jetsfan80]

http://www.jetnation.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1551472

I also like how theyre now able to guarantee that the reg season conf champion as well as the conf tourney champ gets an automatic bid into the field of 96.

This is a terrible rule! The conference tournaments will now just serve as an opportunity for the top-seeded team to throw a game in the conference tournament to guarentee their conference gets multiple bids.

And like you said, if it is true that if they win both they get an advanced seed, then you're going to see the mid-majors hurt even MORE, because the LOW MAJOR conference and regular season champs from, say, the SWAC or America East, will be seeded AHEAD of, say, the # 2 team in the Missouri Valley who loses in the MVC title game. And that type of team REALLY has the chance to knock off the big guys, not the Sam Houston States of the world.

Seriously, this is going to be an awful decision by the NCAA. All its doing is protecting the top teams from the top conferences, and screwing over schools from the Horizon League, CAA, Missouri Valley, C-USA and Atlantic 10.

[uart]

This is a terrible rule! The conference tournaments will now just serve as an opportunity for the top-seeded team to throw a game in the conference tournament to guarentee their conference gets multiple bids.

The reg. season champs may not play with much intensity (it basically turns former one-bid conference tourneys into mini-BCS conference tournaments), but nobody is going to throw a game. Least of all to get another bid for their conference.

Its fun to talk about how hard the Big East is to win, but there is no way that Scottie Reynolds would lose just to get Syracuse a tourney bid, for example. You think the players and coaches give a damn how many conference teams get in? If they do, its not much more than a talking point. No coach will ever tell their team to lose, and no player cares enough about the other teams to throw a game.

Seriously, this is going to be an awful decision by the NCAA. All its doing is protecting the top teams from the top conferences, and screwing over schools from the Horizon League, CAA, Missouri Valley, C-USA and Atlantic 10.

No way. Top teams from top conferences are already protected. This is designed to keep the UNC's of the world in the tournament even when they have a horrible season.

UConn and UNC in the NIT doesn't get ratings. UCLA wasn't in the tourney this year either. This is about money. The NCAA thinks they can make more money this way and maybe they are right, but it waters down the product.

What's the point of the regular season if you can play mediocre ball and still make it to the tournament?

For the 6 power conferences, their tournament & regular seasons are going to be entirely meaningless. You think they'd realize that and be against it, but I suppose they are counting on the NCAA money to fill in the revenue.

[gangreenman]

The reg. season champs may not play with much intensity (it basically turns former one-bid conference tourneys into mini-BCS conference tournaments), but nobody is going to throw a game. Least of all to get another bid for their conference.

Its fun to talk about how hard the Big East is to win, but there is no way that Scottie Reynolds would lose just to get Syracuse a tourney bid, for example. You think the players and coaches give a damn how many conference teams get in? If they do, its not much more than a talking point. No coach will ever tell their team to lose, and no player cares enough about the other teams to throw a game.

No way. Top teams from top conferences are already protected. This is designed to keep the UNC's of the world in the tournament even when they have a horrible season.

UConn and UNC in the NIT doesn't get ratings. UCLA wasn't in the tourney this year either. This is about money. The NCAA thinks they can make more money this way and maybe they are right, but it waters down the product.

What's the point of the regular season if you can play mediocre ball and still make it to the tournament?

For the 6 power conferences, their tournament & regular seasons are going to be entirely meaningless. You think they'd realize that and be against it, but I suppose they are counting on the NCAA money to fill in the revenue.

It (the regular) wont be meaningless though. You dont think Jay Wright and the Wildcats will be disappointed if they're not a 1-8 seed? You think Roy Williams would be happy to have to win a play in game to get the chance to compete as a 13 or 14 seed? Please. Look at how the new tourney would be formed... All 1-8 seeds get a first round bye, and seeds 9-24 in each bracket play a round of "play-in" games to get the field back to 64. This will generate more money, and it will make the tourney more interesting. A team like Washington was on the verge of not making the field this year, Cornell, if they had lost another game or two in the IVY league, probably would not have made it either....They were both Sweet 16 teams... You don't think there are more bubble teams out there that could have similar success??

I really dont think with the way the tourney would be set up, that expanding would water it down too much. I was against it for awhile...But now that I have done some research on it, I actually like the idea.

[Jetsfan80]

The reg. season champs may not play with much intensity (it basically turns former one-bid conference tourneys into mini-BCS conference tournaments), but nobody is going to throw a game. Least of all to get another bid for their conference.

Its fun to talk about how hard the Big East is to win, but there is no way that Scottie Reynolds would lose just to get Syracuse a tourney bid, for example. You think the players and coaches give a damn how many conference teams get in? If they do, its not much more than a talking point. No coach will ever tell their team to lose, and no player cares enough about the other teams to throw a game.

For the smaller conferences it is a VERY big deal to get more tourney teams in. Multiple bids = more money for the conference. Most of these smaller conferences have teams with miniscule budgets, and getting an extra $500,000 for the conference (about the amount each tourney team nets the conference) would be a HUGE deal for conferences like the CAA, SWAC, Horizon, WCC, etc. The Big East does not have this issue.

Trust me, mid-majors will work their tails off to get multiple bids. The top team may not "throw a game", but the teams below the top team will work 110 % to knock off the top team, which already knows its in the dance.

[gangreenman]

For the smaller conferences it is a VERY big deal to get more tourney teams in. Multiple bids = more money for the conference. Most of these smaller conferences have teams with miniscule budgets, and getting an extra $500,000 for the conference (about the amount each tourney team nets the conference) would be a HUGE deal for conferences like the CAA, SWAC, Horizon, WCC, etc. The Big East does not have this issue.

Trust me, mid-majors will work their tails off to get multiple bids. The top team may not "throw a game", but the teams below the top team will work 110 % to knock off the top team, which already knows its in the dance.

Hence the idea of a team winning both getting a 1st round bye... This way the team that wins the reg season will also work to get the bye by winning the conf tourney

[uart]

This has been and will go down as the weakest field ever.

Agreed. It was massively apparent throughout the season that the major conferences were experiencing a pretty big downturn this year across the board.

[uart]

All 1-8 seeds get a first round bye, and seeds 9-24 in each bracket play a round of "play-in" games to get the field back to 64. This will generate more money, and it will make the tourney more interesting.

Except that in MOST years UNC, Duke, UK, etc. will be 1-8 seeds. Nobody will watch that 64-team play-in round because the big name teams won't be playing.

Yes, you can argue that we watch midmajor matchups in the current tournament.. but why do people watch them? They watch because they filled in a bracket. Do you think people will be doing a 96-team bracket? (I did a Big East bracket, so yeah) Some will, but for most people, that's just too damned much.

The first round will get crap ratings and CBS/ESPN/Whoever won't want to pay for it.

A team like Washington was on the verge of not making the field this year, Cornell, if they had lost another game or two in the IVY league, probably would not have made it either....They were both Sweet 16 teams...

They were a Sweet 16 team because they were good enough to win all those games in the Ivy (they only lost one AT Penn, I believe).

You don't think there are more bubble teams out there that could have similar success??

Ugh. This is a trap question. There are bubble teams in major conferences could win a game or two. Yes. That doesn't make up for the fact that those teams don't belong in the tournament. This is a tournament to decide the NATIONAL CHAMPION in this sport.

Here are some Big East bubble teams: South Florida, Seton Hall, Cincinnati (sort of), UConn (sort of). In a 96 team tournament, all of those guys make it. Two of them (cincy/uconn) had sub-.500 records in the conference. The others were .500 teams.

Do they deserve a chance to be national champions? They are in the bottom-half of their conference. Sure, I'd bet you a grand that Seton Hall could beat Wofford this year, but that's not fair to Wofford. Wofford earned their bid.

I watched enough of Seton Hall all year. That program was a mess, but they had the talent to finish 9-9 in the conference with 19 wins on the season... DO you really want to watch them play Quinnipiac?

I really dont think with the way the tourney would be set up, that expanding would water it down too much. I was against it for awhile...But now that I have done some research on it, I actually like the idea.

I enjoy believing that the field of 64 represents the cream of the crop in college basketball. I understand how many D1 programs there are. Most are crap. Most of the low-major conferences are filled with only vaguely competitive programs. There are even some crap teams in the major conferences (DePaul, Rutgers? Penn State?) and Mid-majors (Hello Fordham, the only D1 school without a conference win).

I follow college basketball closely. The bubble teams aren't good enough. The expansion of Division I in the last two decades or so has mostly been the addition of bad, underfunded, non-competitive programs. The 96 team tournament isn't about them, it's about the major conferences, and you're going to see some middle of the pack Big East and ACC schools get bids and win games, but what's the fun in that?

Its fun (for you, not for me) when Robert Morris gives Villanova a scare. When they give South Florida a scare next year or DePaul the year after, will it be as much fun?

[uart]

Hence the idea of a team winning both getting a 1st round bye... This way the team that wins the reg season will also work to get the bye by winning the conf tourney

Nope. I still don't like that. The NEC champion should never ever ever ever ever be an 8 seed. Never ever.

When the 9 seed is dramatically better than the 8-seed it's just stupid.

[uart]

Oh, and don't forget, if we make the regular season less relevant, CBS and ESPN aren't going to want to pay as much money for those games. That will financially hurt the major conferences (though, to what extent I have no idea).

[Jetsfan80]

uart pretty much nailed it on all points.

[gangreenman]

uart pretty much nailed it on all points.

Those are all extremely good points... I agree that they will not be adding any national championship contenders in this format...

But on the other hand, we didn't really add any national championship contenders after they expanded from 32, have they? When was the last time a team lower than an 8 seed has made a national championship game, let alone won it? Clearly the NCAA Tournament has not been just about deciding a national champion, but giving student athletes a chance to compete in one of the most popular sporting events of the year...As well as giving some mid major schools a chance to get good tv money and publicity going up against the "big boys" year after year.

There are some points there that I agree with. I do think it would be stupid to ever let a team from the NEC or the like to get an eight seed. Then again, if the winner of the NEC reg season has nothing to play for in the conf tourney, why wouldnt they just rest up and get ready for the tourney? Maybe giving them an automatic 1st rd bye would be too much, but something needs to be done to avoid that.

Maybe 96 is too big, but there are AT LEAST 4 or 5 teams left out each year that probably deserve to be in just as much as the last 4 or 5 teams in. Clearly this tourney is not just about determining a National Champion, so that argument is ridiculous.

Do i think UNC or UCONN or UCLA deserved a chance at the title this year? No, I dont. Do I think any of them would have won it this year even if they were in the tourney? No. None of them could even win the NIT.

[uart]

But on the other hand, we didn't really add any national championship contenders after they expanded from 32, have they? When was the last time a team lower than an 8 seed has made a national championship game, let alone won it? Clearly the NCAA Tournament has not been just about deciding a national champion, but giving student athletes a chance to compete in one of the most popular sporting events of the year...As well as giving some mid major schools a chance to get good tv money and publicity going up against the "big boys" year after year.

When they went to 64 in '85, they added an at-large berth for Villanova. Villanova then went on to win it. Yes, that was the last time that an 8-seed won it. It's also true that a lower-seed (9-16) has never won the title. However, lower seeds have beaten higher seeds in the current format (every lower seed has at least 1 win, except the 16). Those lower seeds exist because, well, you have to give a bid to every qualifying conference.

There are some points there that I agree with. I do think it would be stupid to ever let a team from the NEC or the like to get an eight seed. Then again, if the winner of the NEC reg season has nothing to play for in the conf tourney, why wouldnt they just rest up and get ready for the tourney? Maybe giving them an automatic 1st rd bye would be too much, but something needs to be done to avoid that.

Really? We don't do anything to avoid that in the major conferences. How often does the Big East regular season champ win the Big East tourney.

Maybe 96 is too big, but there are AT LEAST 4 or 5 teams left out each year that probably deserve to be in just as much as the last 4 or 5 teams in.

Maybe URI should have gotten in this year. Who else? Virginia Tech? Illinois (RPI 75)? Were any of those teams really contenders? If you want to rectify that, make it a field of 68 with four play-in games. That clears off the major/midmajor bubble without adding a lot of mediocre teams and boring games.

But seriously, there is a reason the Play-in game isn't on CBS. Nobody cares. Its not even a pick on most brackets. It gets a 0.9 Nielsen rating. The NIT first round game between North Carolina and William and Mary got a 1.2. Would Illinois have increased the ratings for the NCAA tournament? Maybe. Would Virginia Tech (a football school)? Not even a little bit outside of western Virginia. URI? You've got to be kidding me.

The first weekend of the NCAA has been seeing dips in the ratings the past few years in it's current format. You can bet that a first round featuring none of the best or big name programs will be about as interesting to the average American as the play-in game.

You are right though, to a certain extent this is about giving the kids who play a reward and a chance at an experience. They SHOULD have that chance to get to the tournament.

Which is why they do have a chance. It's called the regular season. Play well enough and you won't be on the bubble. Listen to your coach. Get along with teammates. Play hard. Play smart. You won't be on the bubble.

If you are on the bubble it means that you didn't play well enough over the course of the season.

[nyjunc]

Why, because UNC didn't make it?

No, there were no elite teams in this bracket. But top to bottom, I have never seen an NCAA Tournament with more talent spread around from team-to-team. There were a lot of excellent TEAMS in this tournament, which led to many exciting games.

Last year had a lot of elite talent, but horrible basketball. There were only 2 OT games and very few close, great games. If you like NBA-style of ball and blowouts, '09 was the tournament for you. If you like close games, some defense and a LOT of very good players, 2010's version has been amazing.

Its a shame that they might be expanding to 96 teams now. Teams like UNC will be able to get away with "thug ball" and still get into the dance.

obviously not having programs like UNC, UCLA, UConn, etc.. in the field hurts the field but that's only part of it. There were not any great teams this year, there were a bunch of good teams. none of the 4 teams this year would ahve even made the elite 8 a year ago and a year ago the field wasn't great.

Last year there were actual elite teams and they put away pretenders, this year there aren't any elite teams and they couldn't put away pretenders.

What is "thug ball"?

[Jetsfan80]

obviously not having programs like UNC, UCLA, UConn, etc.. in the field hurts the field but that's only part of it. There were not any great teams this year, there were a bunch of good teams. none of the 4 teams this year would ahve even made the elite 8 a year ago and a year ago the field wasn't great.

Last year there were actual elite teams and they put away pretenders, this year there aren't any elite teams and they couldn't put away pretenders.

What is "thug ball"?

NBA-style. Playing a "run-and-gun" with less emphasis on preventing turnovers or playing tight half-court defense. A lot of teams in this year's tournament were very good at shutting down that style of ball, which is partly why it was perceived to be a weak tournament.

I choose to see it as a tournament where playing the game the right way was what got you far. Every team that ended up in the Elite 8 (plus Syracuse, who unfortunately ran into Butler, and excluding Kentucky) and beyond played as if allowing open jump shots or easy lay-ups was a criminal offense.

[PS17]

NBA-style. Playing a "run-and-gun" with less emphasis on preventing turnovers or playing tight half-court defense. A lot of teams in this year's tournament were very good at shutting down that style of ball, which is partly why it was perceived to be a weak tournament.

I choose to see it as a tournament where playing the game the right way was what got you far. Every team that ended up in the Elite 8 (plus Syracuse, who unfortunately ran into Butler, and excluding Kentucky) and beyond played as if allowing open jump shots or easy lay-ups was a criminal offense.

I always considered "thug ball" to be the style that Pitt plays. Overly physical. Butler's style borders on thug ball and that's why they're so successful.

[gangreenman]

NBA-style. Playing a "run-and-gun" with less emphasis on preventing turnovers or playing tight half-court defense. A lot of teams in this year's tournament were very good at shutting down that style of ball, which is partly why it was perceived to be a weak tournament.

I choose to see it as a tournament where playing the game the right way was what got you far. Every team that ended up in the Elite 8 (plus Syracuse, who unfortunately ran into Butler, and excluding Kentucky) and beyond played as if allowing open jump shots or easy lay-ups was a criminal offense.

Syracuse prides itself on being a run and gun offensive team. Its the reason they averaged 15 turnovers a game this year. They made up for it by playing great fg% defense and forcing teams to hold the ball for 30+ seconds and take rushed, low percentage shots with guys running at the shooter. This caused for long rebound opportunities which lead to fast break opportunities. Syracuse also had, as Boeheim said all year "7 starters". During the season, when Wes was struggling, Kris or Scoop stepped up... When Rick was struggling, Andy and AO stepped up... etc. etc. Losing AO killed us against Butler because when Rick was struggling and we needed a low post presence, DaShonte Riley was unable to step into that role (although I have a feeling if Boeheim let him remain in the game the last 4 mins we would have won), and we couldnt get an open look any other way.

I still say if we had a healthy AO we would have won by double digits. They (Butler) just didnt have the size down low to compete with both AO and Rick...

EDIT: ALSO, I take question with your mention of "the right way" to play basketball. There is no universal "right way", it depends all on your team and your opponent. If you have a higher amount of superior athletes on your team than your opponent, then turning the game into a track meet -- keep pushing the ball in transition on offense, full court press and trap on defense -- would be the right way for you to play. If your team is considerably bigger down low than your opponents, then dumping it into a post up and crashing the boards is the right way to play. If you have one superstar type player...Then running your entire offense through him is the right way to play. If you have a team without a superstar, thats smaller, and has less athletes (Butler), the slowing the game down -- take as much time as possible and work for the best shot possible on every possession, and limit turnovers -- is the right way to play.

Syracuse this year, for example, was 28-3 in the regular season because they were playing the style of basketball that was the best fit for them. I take issue with saying that a team plays basketball the way it is supposed to be played...Because it is supposed to be played differently depending on the makeup of your team and the opponent your team is facing...

[PS17]

I still say if we had a healthy AO we would have won by double digits. They (Butler) just didnt have the size down low to compete with both AO and Rick...

Yup.

[nyjunc]

NBA-style. Playing a "run-and-gun" with less emphasis on preventing turnovers or playing tight half-court defense. A lot of teams in this year's tournament were very good at shutting down that style of ball, which is partly why it was perceived to be a weak tournament.

I choose to see it as a tournament where playing the game the right way was what got you far. Every team that ended up in the Elite 8 (plus Syracuse, who unfortunately ran into Butler, and excluding Kentucky) and beyond played as if allowing open jump shots or easy lay-ups was a criminal offense.

Carolina '09 would have beatne duke or butler by 30 pts. duke was better last year and Carolina swept them. Carolina had a million TOs this year b/c they had torubles in the backcourt but normally they aren't turning it over. lawson playing at that incredible pace that wears opponents down had a incredible assist to turnover ratio.

The Tourney is not perceived to be a weak one it is the weakest EVER and we have our weakest champ ever that was handed a National title.

Carolina plays basketball the right way, duke does not. You do not see the constant flopping, the arguing w/ officials, the cusring at officials fromt he coach and his family, kicking out the legs on a 3 pt shot to draw a foul, the cheap shots in a pile, etc...

Carolina plays a beautiful brand of basketball w/ great spacing and movement, they don't just play 3 pt shooting contest like duke and while they give up more points that has more to do w/ the tempo they play at than how good they are defensively. More possessions usually equals more pts. If you think duke plays basketball the right way then you don't know what the right way is.

[jakeG]

Carolina '09 would have beatne duke or butler by 30 pts. duke was better last year and Carolina swept them. Carolina had a million TOs this year b/c they had torubles in the backcourt but normally they aren't turning it over. lawson playing at that incredible pace that wears opponents down had a incredible assist to turnover ratio.

The Tourney is not perceived to be a weak one it is the weakest EVER and we have our weakest champ ever that was handed a National title.

Carolina plays basketball the right way, duke does not. You do not see the constant flopping, the arguing w/ officials, the cusring at officials fromt he coach and his family, kicking out the legs on a 3 pt shot to draw a foul, the cheap shots in a pile, etc...

Carolina plays a beautiful brand of basketball w/ great spacing and movement, they don't just play 3 pt shooting contest like duke and while they give up more points that has more to do w/ the tempo they play at than how good they are defensively. More possessions usually equals more pts. If you think duke plays basketball the right way then you don't know what the right way is.

Man you have some axe to grind, you may be the dumbest poster here.

[gangreenman]

Carolina '09 would have beatne duke or butler by 30 pts. duke was better last year and Carolina swept them. Carolina had a million TOs this year b/c they had torubles in the backcourt but normally they aren't turning it over. lawson playing at that incredible pace that wears opponents down had a incredible assist to turnover ratio.

The Tourney is not perceived to be a weak one it is the weakest EVER and we have our weakest champ ever that was handed a National title.

Carolina plays basketball the right way, duke does not. You do not see the constant flopping, the arguing w/ officials, the cusring at officials fromt he coach and his family, kicking out the legs on a 3 pt shot to draw a foul, the cheap shots in a pile, etc...

Carolina plays a beautiful brand of basketball w/ great spacing and movement, they don't just play 3 pt shooting contest like duke and while they give up more points that has more to do w/ the tempo they play at than how good they are defensively. More possessions usually equals more pts. If you think duke plays basketball the right way then you don't know what the right way is.

Oh please, enough with this already... Tyler Hansborough was probably one of the whiniest players in the nation last year. You had a great team last year, one of the best ever. But please before I gauge my eyes out reading this fluff about how perfect Carolina is...Get off the damned high horse. Please.