this is the same disgusting mentality that ruined the greatest high school basketball tournament in the country that used to be played here in Indiana......maybe nick d. could start a petition to the NCAA calling for only schools of the same size to play each other......break it into classes.....cause just like they did here in indiana, we need to make sure everybody is a winner and that no "little guy" is ever given the wrong idea that they could even compete.....let alone beat a "big guy." Garbage!!!
This is why mid-majors should be barred from the tourney
- Thread starter Nick Douglas
- Start date
First of all, I am not surprised to see some of the usual morons (you know who you are) that have reacted badly to my posts in the past. I'll disregard your comments, as always.
I did see a lot of comments claiming that George Mason would, in fact, go .500 in a major conference. What a laugh that is. First of all I bet most (if not all) of you did not watch a single George Mason regular season game (nor did I, because as I stated earlier, they play in a crap conference that doesn't deserve a shot at the majors).
It is unsurprising, though, that in making these wild assertations about their supposed readiness for the big time, nobody mentioned the fact that they went 0-2 against Wake Forest and Mississippi State (one home and one away). Those were the only two major conference teams they played and they couldn't get a whiff against either one.
I should also note that having the Godwinn's Law of MadJack's (accusing someone of posting because they lost a large wager) occur in this thread is not surprising. For the record:
-I didn't bet on a single college basketball game this season and I don't plan to. I also don't fill out NCAA tournament brackets.
-I have documented all of my wagers since I began betting through bookmakers in 1997 and I've made a profit 6 of those 9 years.
-I am a well-respected MadJack's ex-columnist.
This "diatribe" (What a word. Guaranteed everyone in this thread who wrote that word learned it from the sports media. I can't wait until this thread gets called a "debacle". Maybe I should "step it up.") wasn't written out of any sort of bitterness over GMU beating some team I root for or bet on. In fact, it's quite the opposite as I don't particularly like any of the teams they've beaten (except Witchita State, who I only root for because former MadJack's legend goldcupsports taught me a great deal about sports betting).
The last note I have to make is that lots of folks here are proving my original argument: That inviting teams from low level conferences makes the NCAA tournament more about money than excellence. Plenty of people consider this crap, "exciting," "unpredictable," or some kind of microcasm of the American dream. These are the words that *real* money people use to subjugate the masses.
To close I'll bring up another Law (Barnum's) that relates to the NCAA tournament. "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
I did see a lot of comments claiming that George Mason would, in fact, go .500 in a major conference. What a laugh that is. First of all I bet most (if not all) of you did not watch a single George Mason regular season game (nor did I, because as I stated earlier, they play in a crap conference that doesn't deserve a shot at the majors).
It is unsurprising, though, that in making these wild assertations about their supposed readiness for the big time, nobody mentioned the fact that they went 0-2 against Wake Forest and Mississippi State (one home and one away). Those were the only two major conference teams they played and they couldn't get a whiff against either one.
I should also note that having the Godwinn's Law of MadJack's (accusing someone of posting because they lost a large wager) occur in this thread is not surprising. For the record:
-I didn't bet on a single college basketball game this season and I don't plan to. I also don't fill out NCAA tournament brackets.
-I have documented all of my wagers since I began betting through bookmakers in 1997 and I've made a profit 6 of those 9 years.
-I am a well-respected MadJack's ex-columnist.
This "diatribe" (What a word. Guaranteed everyone in this thread who wrote that word learned it from the sports media. I can't wait until this thread gets called a "debacle". Maybe I should "step it up.") wasn't written out of any sort of bitterness over GMU beating some team I root for or bet on. In fact, it's quite the opposite as I don't particularly like any of the teams they've beaten (except Witchita State, who I only root for because former MadJack's legend goldcupsports taught me a great deal about sports betting).
The last note I have to make is that lots of folks here are proving my original argument: That inviting teams from low level conferences makes the NCAA tournament more about money than excellence. Plenty of people consider this crap, "exciting," "unpredictable," or some kind of microcasm of the American dream. These are the words that *real* money people use to subjugate the masses.
To close I'll bring up another Law (Barnum's) that relates to the NCAA tournament. "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
[-I am a well-respected MadJack's ex-columnist.
:mj07:
nice one
again, it's comical that YOU are the expert when YOU state that YOU dont watch ANY college basketball games, let alone George Mason games.....so how do you justify those of us that do watch college basketball saying it's not out of the question for this team to go .500 in a major conference.
asu
oregon state
wazzu
oregon
stanford
sc
all teams that they can beat.
arizona, uw, cal, ucla.....definitely would struggle against but playing 8 conf game vs these opponents (1 home 1 road) they could easily win 2
you also love to throw out their reg season losses...0-2.....how about factoring in their tourney wins (mich state, unc, uconn)...sounds like 3-2.....above .500 to me
then again, you are a well respected columnist right?
:142smilie
:mj07:
nice one
again, it's comical that YOU are the expert when YOU state that YOU dont watch ANY college basketball games, let alone George Mason games.....so how do you justify those of us that do watch college basketball saying it's not out of the question for this team to go .500 in a major conference.
asu
oregon state
wazzu
oregon
stanford
sc
all teams that they can beat.
arizona, uw, cal, ucla.....definitely would struggle against but playing 8 conf game vs these opponents (1 home 1 road) they could easily win 2
you also love to throw out their reg season losses...0-2.....how about factoring in their tourney wins (mich state, unc, uconn)...sounds like 3-2.....above .500 to me
then again, you are a well respected columnist right?
:142smilie
Your points are well written, Nick...
It's just that if you don't get excited when a team like George Mason knocks off a legendary team, you must not have a pulse...
Also, in saying they lost to MSU and Wake as your arguement for why they wouldn't go .500 in a big conferance... you are forgetting some other significant evidence... The fact that they are 3-0 against some of the best big conferance teams in the nation in the last couple weeks, as well as knocking off one of the top mid-majors in the land who themselves slayed two "big-conferance" teams.
So GM actually is 3-2 this season against UConn, Michigan St., North Carolina, Wake Forest, and Mississippi St.
They played one of those five games at home.
I don't think there is any question that they would be over .500. And in this hypothetical, you are dismissing another obvious point: were they to be in a big conferance, they would also enjoy the perks of getting their choice of big-time recruits, would have much better facilities, would receive a much higher level from boosters, etc.
So not only do I think THIS GM team would be above .500 THIS SEASON in a big conferance (honestly, in the Big 12 this year they would have been among the top 3 teams), if they actually were in a big conferance, they would have access to short-cuts that would make them significantly better than they are right now.
It's just that if you don't get excited when a team like George Mason knocks off a legendary team, you must not have a pulse...
Also, in saying they lost to MSU and Wake as your arguement for why they wouldn't go .500 in a big conferance... you are forgetting some other significant evidence... The fact that they are 3-0 against some of the best big conferance teams in the nation in the last couple weeks, as well as knocking off one of the top mid-majors in the land who themselves slayed two "big-conferance" teams.
So GM actually is 3-2 this season against UConn, Michigan St., North Carolina, Wake Forest, and Mississippi St.
They played one of those five games at home.
I don't think there is any question that they would be over .500. And in this hypothetical, you are dismissing another obvious point: were they to be in a big conferance, they would also enjoy the perks of getting their choice of big-time recruits, would have much better facilities, would receive a much higher level from boosters, etc.
So not only do I think THIS GM team would be above .500 THIS SEASON in a big conferance (honestly, in the Big 12 this year they would have been among the top 3 teams), if they actually were in a big conferance, they would have access to short-cuts that would make them significantly better than they are right now.
Nick Douglas is like that Miss Crabtree or whoever from 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', always ****-blocking and bringing everyone down. Why can't you just relax, let McMurphy have his fun, let that Billy guy get laid, and let George Mason captivate a nation with their terrific heart and fundamentals. If people like you were in charge, some big Indian would have to suffocate George Mason to put them out of their mid-major misery.
People like you would not have allowed the US hockey team to play in 1980, or let a prisoner drive a snow plow for the Pats in whatever year that was, or let Jesse Owens crush the Soviets at the shores of Tripoli..
Nich Douglas hates America.
People like you would not have allowed the US hockey team to play in 1980, or let a prisoner drive a snow plow for the Pats in whatever year that was, or let Jesse Owens crush the Soviets at the shores of Tripoli..
Nich Douglas hates America.
Nick, I remember there were only 16 teams in the tourn and some of the best teams were left out for one reason or another. I remember when USC had some great teams but couldn't get past UCLA in their hayday. Vanderbit couldn't get by Ky but could beat Mich who went to the tourn. There's no real good answer but a team don't win 6 games against this competition on luck. I'm surprised you didn't mention the SEC as a major. They happen to have 2 in the final four. I have a lot of respect for you but BC nor Conn looked good in any of their wins in this tourn.
The SEC is a major conference. No doubt. Though I'm too young to remember the great USC teams that missed the tourney based on the one team per conference rule, it does seem to be a more legitimate way of ensuring that only qualified teams make it. That having been said, you have to make some concessions for money. I can at least see opening up the tournament beyond one team per conference.
Again, I can't argue whether GMU would have made the tournament had they been in a real conference. I do like something that Jayhawk_Thor brought up when arguing the point, though. If GMU were in a major conference, they *would* have better access to top athletes, coaches and TV contracts. That's exactly my point. If GMU is worthy of being in contention for the National Championship, then why are they such garbage that they can't even get in a major conference? Major conferences are where you find the top talent on the top teams that have to play top competition all year long.
It reminds me of a time about a month ago when I was listening to sports talk radio from San Diego. They were complaining about how unfair the playing field is in college football recruiting because USC came down to the 619 and swept up all the best recruits (as usual), leaving San Diego State with sh*t. They complained about how the only reason they go to USC is because they get national television, BCS bowl bids, etc. That makes it so unfair because SDSU has no access to the BCS because they play in the Western States Junior Varsity Conference (or whatever the hell they call it) and USC plays in the Pac-10.
What a load of crap. If SDSU or GMU or anyone else wants a spot in the BCS, then take it. Spend the money on facilities, hire the best coaches and schedule the top teams. If your conference is sh*t, leave it. Kick ass as an independent (like Notre Dame) or join a BCS conference (like Virginia Tech 15 years ago) and kick ass there. Trust me, college football and basketball programs that spend money at the top levels have no problem finding a good conference.
The reality is that the SDSUs and GMUs of this world are where they are because the school wants it that way. They may say they want a shot at the major schools and the top recruits, but if you look at your actions you can see that they want to remain decidedly mid-major.
If a school wants to remain mid-major, that's fine. The world needs ditchdiggers, too. If a school wants to truly compete, let them *show* the college sports world that they want to compete. Until then, I'm 100% in favor of keeping the elite levels of competition in the hands of the elite athletic programs.
THAT'S the American way.
Again, I can't argue whether GMU would have made the tournament had they been in a real conference. I do like something that Jayhawk_Thor brought up when arguing the point, though. If GMU were in a major conference, they *would* have better access to top athletes, coaches and TV contracts. That's exactly my point. If GMU is worthy of being in contention for the National Championship, then why are they such garbage that they can't even get in a major conference? Major conferences are where you find the top talent on the top teams that have to play top competition all year long.
It reminds me of a time about a month ago when I was listening to sports talk radio from San Diego. They were complaining about how unfair the playing field is in college football recruiting because USC came down to the 619 and swept up all the best recruits (as usual), leaving San Diego State with sh*t. They complained about how the only reason they go to USC is because they get national television, BCS bowl bids, etc. That makes it so unfair because SDSU has no access to the BCS because they play in the Western States Junior Varsity Conference (or whatever the hell they call it) and USC plays in the Pac-10.
What a load of crap. If SDSU or GMU or anyone else wants a spot in the BCS, then take it. Spend the money on facilities, hire the best coaches and schedule the top teams. If your conference is sh*t, leave it. Kick ass as an independent (like Notre Dame) or join a BCS conference (like Virginia Tech 15 years ago) and kick ass there. Trust me, college football and basketball programs that spend money at the top levels have no problem finding a good conference.
The reality is that the SDSUs and GMUs of this world are where they are because the school wants it that way. They may say they want a shot at the major schools and the top recruits, but if you look at your actions you can see that they want to remain decidedly mid-major.
If a school wants to remain mid-major, that's fine. The world needs ditchdiggers, too. If a school wants to truly compete, let them *show* the college sports world that they want to compete. Until then, I'm 100% in favor of keeping the elite levels of competition in the hands of the elite athletic programs.
THAT'S the American way.
:banghead:
:banghead:
It looks like George Mason didn't have to spend the money to make the final four. Why do they have to join a major conference when they can just beat them in the tourney instead?
Nick Douglas said:
:banghead:
It looks like George Mason didn't have to spend the money to make the final four. Why do they have to join a major conference when they can just beat them in the tourney instead?
smurphy said:
Slam it home, Chief! :mj07:
I thought the SEC thread was a little silly, but now I see I was very, very wrong.
#1) I would be willing to hand out a mortgage payment to Nick if he turned down that $10 million ticket
#2) Jesse Owens and Tripoli?!?!......I don't get it. I either know nothing about history or this came from Blutarsky's lecture notes. Help me here.
:mj22: WTF?!?! Dumbest thing ever said.
2 things...First:
Honestly..You are a moron. If you had pointed out the midmajors who lost in the first round without a fight and how their spots could have been taking by better major conferences teams...maybe youd have a case...though Id have to shove some bubble teams like Seton Hall down your throat. But no, totally destroying your credibility you are after GMU who has BEATEN THREE OF YOUR SO CALLED ELITE CONFERENCE TEAMS. That isn't luck pal. GMU is the real deal.
Please answer this. How can you be bitching about the NCAA tournament. The best will still filter to the top. The so-called elite teams still get in. Show me a team that deserved to be in the 64(5) that wasn't? That would have been right where we are today (final four) that didn't get into the tournament.
IF YOU CANT ANSWER THAT YOU HAVE NO ****ING CASE
Because...if they were in the tournament, they had their chance. They could have shown just how 'elite' they are. They obviously lost and they DONT DESERVE TO BE HERE.
Guess what? GMU won. 4 times to be exact. 3 times against MAJOR ELITE CONFERENCES.
Honestly...I don't know why I wasted any time with you. You are obviously a fool if you are using GMU as your example for 'why midmajors shouldnt be in the tourney'?
Cause I have another question for you? What are the odds do you think that Duke/Michigan St/Memphis/Iowa/OSU/UConn/UNC/Nova will win the tourney? Oh, that's right. Its ZERO...cause they lost. GMU hasn't lost yet. So shut your ****ing mouth.
Second:
If you knew anything about CBB, which you kind of admit you don't. Youd know that the major vs midmajor battle is very political.You dont just drop millions and suddenly become a major. It takes time to build a program. It also takes opportunity. The tourney is often the only opportunity midmajors have to prove themselves. Regular season games are very political, majors will refuse home&homes and even 2*home&home with midmajors because they just might lose - and that would kill their RPI. The majors have that right to demand home only games against midmajors...the midmajors reserve the right to then embarass them in the tourney.
Last edited:
Nick,
You seem to be implying that any team that wants to be "elite" should join an "elite" conference in which case we'd end up with one giant conference or a few giant conferences (at least that seems to be the ideal you're aiming for). You can't have one conference the system simply won't work that way. There is a reason that the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. are divided into many conferences/divisions/whatever, it is to help competition.
Healthy competition IS the American way. A conference monopoly would be disastrous. I could see there maybe being fewer conferences but they would get very full as there are a lot of division I schools. Furthermore, these conferences don't just cover basketball, they cover a whole lot of other sports and there are reasons the schools decided to be in xyz conference.
It may be messy but it isn't terrible.
(playing devil's advocate) It would be interesting to see a strictly "elite" conference tourney but the same kind of things would happen with unexpected teams going far. Furthermore, "elite" is a very subjective thing. The Big East was supposedly over loaded with talent relative to the rest of the ncaa and the tourney has shown otherwise.
D
You seem to be implying that any team that wants to be "elite" should join an "elite" conference in which case we'd end up with one giant conference or a few giant conferences (at least that seems to be the ideal you're aiming for). You can't have one conference the system simply won't work that way. There is a reason that the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. are divided into many conferences/divisions/whatever, it is to help competition.
Healthy competition IS the American way. A conference monopoly would be disastrous. I could see there maybe being fewer conferences but they would get very full as there are a lot of division I schools. Furthermore, these conferences don't just cover basketball, they cover a whole lot of other sports and there are reasons the schools decided to be in xyz conference.
It may be messy but it isn't terrible.
(playing devil's advocate) It would be interesting to see a strictly "elite" conference tourney but the same kind of things would happen with unexpected teams going far. Furthermore, "elite" is a very subjective thing. The Big East was supposedly over loaded with talent relative to the rest of the ncaa and the tourney has shown otherwise.
D
Last edited:
Nick-I still remember your "terrible day" thread.It was about two or three weeks after 9-11.You ordered ahead for your frozen lattes,they weren't ready when you got there to pick 'em up,your girlfriend came to your hockey game and you didn't play very well,it was a regular Hollywood bummeroo.........I thought it strange that so shortly after a national tragedy like 9-11,3000 killed,a time of reflection for most of us with IQ's over 100,that you could be so self absorbed and shallow to think that all that trivial stuff made up a bad day.(I know,the point of the thread was how you wanted to take solice in gambling and didn't,advising the rest of us to follow your stawart example)This post is therefore only the second stupidest thing you,ve written.Since when is excluding the little guy with some class structure the American way?This is exactly what people have been clamoring for in football for years,a playoff system.Would you be pissed if some mid-major football team got hot and won the college football championship too?I'll bet you'd have been mad when the Jets disrupted the concept of NFL superiority by winning Super Bowl Three.Its difficult to understand how you justify adopting the superior tone that you do,and its obvious to everyone why you are an ex-writer at madjacks.Respected by less than the majority who read your picks,and you were run off by Beantown Jim of all people.
edludes said:
again, i harken back to the famous quote:
"i'm a well respected madjack's ex-columnist"
:mj07:
one of the funniest things i've read on this site in a long time.....respected by who? nollan dalla
:scared
anyway, the guys points are becoming more and more of a joke. it seems as if he thinks that schools can just all of a sudden dedcide that they will join a certain conference. Sorry buddy.....WRONG! Conferences invite schools into their conference and with approx 317 D1 schools playing basketball there is a need for about 25 conferences....plus conf affiliation usually ties into other sports, ad guess what......there are only about 108 d1 football programs.......thus george mason just can decide to join the acc.
then again, we need the "american way".
:sadwave:
