View Full Version : UNC and the NIT
Olympic Fan
03-09-2010, 10:56 AM
I have to take slight issue with the front-page evaluation of UNC's NIT chances.
I think too few people understand how NIT selection changed after the NCAA took over the tournament (as part of its settlement of the NIT's anti-trust lawsuit). Old criteria such as the prestige of the program and how many tickets they can sell are no longer the driving force in the selection process.
It now works very much like the NCAA selection, except the eight-man NIT selection committee is MUCH more basketball oriented than the NCAA's group.
First, there are automatic bids for every regular season conference champion that does not get invited to the NCAA Tournament. Last year, that filled 10 spots in the NIT.
The rest of the field is selected almost exactly like the NCAA selects its at-large participants. The question then becomes, not how many tickets UNC can sell, but are they one of the strongest 20 or so teams left out of the NCAA Tournament?
Not sure I can make that call right now, but that first-round game with Georgia Tech could have a huge impact. There's no rule that a team has to be .500 or above .500, but so far, no team without a winning record has made it under the current system.
One other point. The NIT is now seeded, again using the same criteria as the NCAA event. The strongest teams will play at home -- not the ones that will sell the most tickets.
My sources at UNC tell me (1) that if offered the chance they will jump at it; and (2) even if they do make the field, they fully expect to play only on the road.
Now, if the NIT passes on UNC, they can always buy their way into the CBI Tournament. That event does essentially put home games up for bid -- the teams that guarantee the most money (which they hope to make up for in ticket sales) get the home games. As an added feature, the CBI championship is decided by a best 2-out-of-3 series.
UrinalCake
03-09-2010, 12:01 PM
I have a somewhat relevant question: how does the money work with the NIT? In the NCAA tournament, teams receive a certain amount of money for each round that they advance. The ACC teams will put that into a pool that is shared among all the schools. Then I think there's another level of indirection thrown in there, like the money is based on an average over three years or something, so that one game does not directly earn a team X number of dollars.
Does we do the same for the NIT? Would money be at all a motivating factor in whether or not to accept a bid?
If UNC does accept an NIT bid, I have a hard time believing their players will put forth a whole lot of effort. Which could make for just one more delicious defeat 8-)
MChambers
03-09-2010, 12:19 PM
If UNC does accept an NIT bid, I have a hard time believing their players will put forth a whole lot of effort. Which could make for just one more delicious defeat 8-)
nice to think that UNC still has a shot at a losing record.
jipops
03-09-2010, 12:20 PM
I would bet that UNC NIT games on the road would sell a ton more tickets than having the games in the Dean Dome. This is of course based on the recent attendance of games at the Smith Center.
SCMatt33
03-09-2010, 12:32 PM
Here is the link to the NIT Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Invitation_Tournament), which has a good write up to support Olympic Fan's assertions (and I'm guessing is where some of his facts came from since it is the NIT, and actual printed rules would be nearly impossible to find). I would have to imagine, however, that UNC has a pretty good chance to make the NIT field even at 16-16. I know they stink and haven't played competitively very often, but when evaluating them, they still have wins over Ohio State (N, w/Turner), Michigan State, @Wake, and VaTech, all NCAAT teams and all in the top 50. Moreover, Two of those will likely be top 4 seeds and 1 is fighting for a 1-seed. They actually have only 2 losses outside the top 100, Virginia and @BC (yes, CoC is actually inside the top 100). Given that they will be at and not below .500, I think there is a very good chance that they will get a bid (although I'm not inclined to do any research to compare their resume to other NIT bubble teams.
jimsumner
03-09-2010, 12:37 PM
Let me raise a sidebar here.
If the NCAA goes ahead with plans to expand to 96 teams next season, then that will almost certainly terminate the NIT. I know, I know, it's a "loser's" tournament. But it also predates the NCAA Tourny by a season and some great players, great coaches and great teams have found their way to MSG.
So, I'll miss it. But perhaps winning the final NIT would be a motivator for some team.
DukieInKansas
03-09-2010, 12:47 PM
Let me raise a sidebar here.
If the NCAA goes ahead with plans to expand to 96 teams next season, then that will almost certainly terminate the NIT. I know, I know, it's a "loser's" tournament. But it also predates the NCAA Tourny by a season and some great players, great coaches and great teams have found their way to MSG.
So, I'll miss it. But perhaps winning the final NIT would be a motivator for some team.
I'm not sure I've seen much motivation from the current unc team.
whereinthehellami
03-09-2010, 01:13 PM
I've seen some posters (mostly on IC) talking about how the NIT would help their young players get additional time playing together. But IMO their team next year is going to be vastly different than this one, so playing more together this year is pretty much worthless (unless you are a Duke fan). It should be an interesting off-season in He!!
moonpie23
03-09-2010, 01:26 PM
tell me again why the NIT would NOT want the defending national champion?
hurleyfor3
03-09-2010, 02:37 PM
Let me raise a sidebar here.
If the NCAA goes ahead with plans to expand to 96 teams next season, then that will almost certainly terminate the NIT.
It's the other way around, in fact. The NCAA wants to kill off the Nit and is contemplating solutions to mollify people who want to keep the Nit around. These are generally mid-majors and bottom-dwelling larger conference schools. (Schools who routinely make the NCAAs, such as UNC, don't really care if it goes away.) Expanding the main tournament somehow is the obvious compromise.
I've seen some posters (mostly on IC) talking about how the NIT would help their young players get additional time playing together. ...
How much value is one more game?
Is it worth the travel costs?
hee, hee, hee.
shoutingncu
03-09-2010, 03:23 PM
How much value is one more game?
While I agree with this as the likely outcome... it just dawned on me that Carolina has the opportunity to, ahem, win the NIT the same year that Duke won the Pre-Season NIT.
Let the trash talk begin... Carolina's would be waaaaay better!
OldPhiKap
03-09-2010, 04:02 PM
Let me raise a sidebar here.
If the NCAA goes ahead with plans to expand to 96 teams next season, then that will almost certainly terminate the NIT. I know, I know, it's a "loser's" tournament. But it also predates the NCAA Tourny by a season and some great players, great coaches and great teams have found their way to MSG.
So, I'll miss it. But perhaps winning the final NIT would be a motivator for some team.
This year is a better argument for contraction, not expansion. But I'm afraid you're right.
SCMatt33
03-09-2010, 04:08 PM
This year is a better argument for contraction, not expansion. But I'm afraid you're right.
That's why everyone hates expansion. No one has tried to make a basketball argument for expansion. The main reason is obviously $$$$, but other reasons claimed are coaches' jobs, and the "little league" give everyone a chance. I haven't seen one person try and argue that the last teams out are currently being denied a deserving chance to play for an NCAA title (a la football)
94duke
03-09-2010, 04:25 PM
That's why everyone hates expansion. No one has tried to make a basketball argument for expansion. The main reason is obviously $$$$, but other reasons claimed are coaches' jobs, and the "little league" give everyone a chance. I haven't seen one person try and argue that the last teams out are currently being denied a deserving chance to play for an NCAA title (a la football)
Coach K has given a basketball reason for expanding the NCAA tournament. He is in favor of rolling the NIT into the NCAA tournament so that all of the schools who win their regular season championship can be in the tournament.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Coach-K-wants-the-NCAA-tournament-to-expand-to-9?urn=ncaab,209288
Duvall
03-09-2010, 04:30 PM
Coach K has given a basketball reason for expanding the NCAA tournament. He is in favor of rolling the NIT into the NCAA tournament so that all of the schools who win their regular season championship can be in the tournament.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Coach-K-wants-the-NCAA-tournament-to-expand-to-9?urn=ncaab,209288
There's no reason that couldn't be done with a 64-team tournament, though. I'm pretty sure we can determine a valid champion without the contribution of Seth Greenberg and Paul Hewitt's squads.
Duvall
03-09-2010, 04:33 PM
Of course, if TV is a factor, ESPN now has its dream opening matchup for the NIT in North Carolina at Connecticut.
Wander
03-09-2010, 04:37 PM
Coach K has given a basketball reason for expanding the NCAA tournament. He is in favor of rolling the NIT into the NCAA tournament so that all of the schools who win their regular season championship can be in the tournament.
It's a stupid argument and I'm incredibly disappointed in Coach K for making it (and I outright despise Boeheim, Donovan, and Bo Ryan for supporting this nonsense). A conference is welcome to give its automatic bid to the regular season champion, like the Ivy. The NCAA doesn't stop anyone from doing so.
More realistically, a conference can keep its tournament while rewarding the regular season by giving heavy benefits to the top seeds - home court advantage or byes into the later rounds. I believe there are a few conferences that already do this.
Jarhead
03-09-2010, 04:37 PM
Of course, if TV is a factor, ESPN now has its dream opening matchup for the NIT in North Carolina at Connecticut.
If it happens they'll both lose, don't you think?:p
oldnavy
03-09-2010, 05:07 PM
I've seen some posters (mostly on IC) talking about how the NIT would help their young players get additional time playing together. But IMO their team next year is going to be vastly different than this one, so playing more together this year is pretty much worthless (unless you are a Duke fan). It should be an interesting off-season in He!!
Are you kidding, the more they play together the worse they get. Best thing they could do is call in sick for the ACCT and start over fresh next year.
OldPhiKap
03-09-2010, 05:39 PM
There's no reason that couldn't be done with a 64-team tournament, though. I'm pretty sure we can determine a valid champion without the contribution of Seth Greenberg and Paul Hewitt's squads.
The fact that GT is still even in a discussion about the NCAAT is proof enough that 34 or so at-large invitations is plenty.
shoutingncu
03-09-2010, 06:18 PM
The fact that GT is still even in a discussion about the NCAAT is proof enough that 34 or so at-large invitations is plenty.
Or that North Carolina would likely be in an expanded field...
Olympic Fan
03-09-2010, 07:17 PM
To me, the only "basketball" argument for expansion would be if teams that had a legitimate chance to win the national championship were being excluded under the current format.
I don't think that's the case. And last week, I heard Roy Williams asked if could suggest any team in the 64-team era that might have won the title that couldn't get in the field (other than probation). He couldn't come up with one.
I hate the coaches who point to football and say that almost half of Division I football teams get to play in bowls, while only 65 of 347 basketball teams get to play in the NCAA Tournament. That's bogus because a bowl bid does not equal an NCAA Tournament bid. Playing in the Weedeater Bowl isn't much different than playing in the NIT or CBI.
Heck, under the current setup only TWO of 120-plus football teams get to play for the national championship ... a LOT more basketball teams get that chance. In fact, when you consider that every team in the NCAA, except the Ivy League members enter March with an avenue to reach the national championship game (through their conference tournaments), then you can make the case that something like 337 out of 347 basketball teams get a chance that just two football teams get.
Now, if you're going to argue money, I can't dispute that. But it does remind by of Robert Heinlein's famous observation: "There are some things a whore won't do for money, but there is NOTHING a college president won't do for a fat check."
To me, the only "basketball" argument for expansion would be if teams that had a legitimate chance to win the national championship were being excluded under the current format.
I don't think that's the case. And last week, I heard Roy Williams asked if could suggest any team in the 64-team era that might have won the title that couldn't get in the field (other than probation). He couldn't come up with one.
I hate the coaches who point to football and say that almost half of Division I football teams get to play in bowls, while only 65 of 347 basketball teams get to play in the NCAA Tournament. That's bogus because a bowl bid does not equal an NCAA Tournament bid. Playing in the Weedeater Bowl isn't much different than playing in the NIT or CBI.
Heck, under the current setup only TWO of 120-plus football teams get to play for the national championship ... a LOT more basketball teams get that chance. In fact, when you consider that every team in the NCAA, except the Ivy League members enter March with an avenue to reach the national championship game (through their conference tournaments), then you can make the case that something like 337 out of 347 basketball teams get a chance that just two football teams get.
Now, if you're going to argue money, I can't dispute that. But it does remind by of Robert Heinlein's famous observation: "There are some things a whore won't do for money, but there is NOTHING a college president won't do for a fat check."
Yes, it's all about money. From a basketball sense there is no justification for expansion. In fact, the tournament is probably already too big. None of the bubble teams in any given year really deserve a chance to win the championship. If you're hovering around .500 in your conference, you don't deserve to be the national champion.
SCMatt33
03-09-2010, 08:11 PM
I hate the coaches who point to football and say that almost half of Division I football teams get to play in bowls, while only 65 of 347 basketball teams get to play in the NCAA Tournament. That's bogus because a bowl bid does not equal an NCAA Tournament bid. Playing in the Weedeater Bowl isn't much different than playing in the NIT or CBI.
Heck, under the current setup only TWO of 120-plus football teams get to play for the national championship ... a LOT more basketball teams get that chance. In fact, when you consider that every team in the NCAA, except the Ivy League members enter March with an avenue to reach the national championship game (through their conference tournaments), then you can make the case that something like 337 out of 347 basketball teams get a chance that just two football teams get.
Jay Wright just made the football argument on PTI today, and I was starting to yell at my TV, but he did frame it well, pointing out that the NIT has such a stigma that even the worst bowl games don't have, that it is just as bad as missing the postseason.
It is actually more than just the Ivy's who don't get that chance. The Big East no longer does it, but some conferences still don't invite every team. I know the A-10 has 14 members and only runs a 12 team tournament. Plus, there are several independent members and members of the newly formed Great West Conference (which does not yet get an auto bid) who do not get a chance.
Coach K has given a basketball reason for expanding the NCAA tournament. He is in favor of rolling the NIT into the NCAA tournament so that all of the schools who win their regular season championship can be in the tournament.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Coach-K-wants-the-NCAA-tournament-to-expand-to-9?urn=ncaab,209288
If you look back at my original post, I believe this falls under the "little league" argument. Teams that win their regular season, but fail to get an at-large were in no way good enough to win a championship and that's what the tourney is for. Every single conference can choose how to assign it's auto bid. Of the 1-bid leagues, only the Ivy League is smart enough (no pun intended) to send its best team every year. The other conferences sacrifice this for a money grab, and then complain about it.
DukeGirl4ever
03-09-2010, 09:45 PM
I heard Jay Wright's argument, too, and I don't really agree with it.
The ONLY way I would go for a 96-team tourney would be along the lines of some of the things Bob Knight discussed in some recent broadcasts:
1) Eliminate the conference tourneys (which will never happen b/c of $$$)
OR
2.) Take both the regular season champ and the tourney champs to make the 96-team field.
I will be very disappointed if the NCAA goes this route...this tournament is what makes college basketball what it is...I think if they expand...expand it to 68 with 1 "play-in" game per region.
I'd also make that play-in game an "at-large" game. The teams who won their conference (like the Ivy league) or conference tournament (like most conferences) earned their right to be there, so make the at-large teams battle it out. Just my opinion...
I will be very disappointed if the NCAA goes this route...this tournament is what makes college basketball what it is...I think if they expand...expand it to 68 with 1 "play-in" game per region.
This is interesting to me. I never thought of 1 playoff game per region, but that makes perfect and logical sense to me:)
If you look back at my original post, I believe this falls under the "little league" argument. Teams that win their regular season, but fail to get an at-large were in no way good enough to win a championship and that's what the tourney is for. Every single conference can choose how to assign it's auto bid. Of the 1-bid leagues, only the Ivy League is smart enough (no pun intended) to send its best team every year. The other conferences sacrifice this for a money grab, and then complain about it.
I really don't care for the conference tournament deciding the "best" conference team worthy of an automatic NCAA bid. Conference tournaments are a one-shot deal, and negates a full conference season of continued excellence. I prefer the regular season conference champion getting the automatic bid, and the conference tournament, if they continue to insist on, can still be held... FWIW:rolleyes:
SCMatt33
03-09-2010, 11:43 PM
I really don't care for the conference tournament deciding the "best" conference team worthy of an automatic NCAA bid. Conference tournaments are a one-shot deal, and negates a full conference season of continued excellence. I prefer the regular season conference champion getting the automatic bid, and the conference tournament, if they continue to insist on, can still be held... FWIW:rolleyes:
I totally agree, but what I'm saying is that you can't blame the NCAA for this one. Each conference gets to choose how to give out it's auto bid. Most conferences choose to take the money of a tourney over sending the team that has earned it over the coarse of the year.
... I'd also make that play-in game an "at-large" game. The teams who won their conference (like the Ivy league) or conference tournament (like most conferences) earned their right to be there, so make the at-large teams battle it out. Just my opinion...
I completely agree! These are the "bubble" teams, let them decide who gets in or not.
I really don't care for the conference tournament deciding the "best" conference team worthy of an automatic NCAA bid. Conference tournaments are a one-shot deal, and negates a full conference season of continued excellence. I prefer the regular season conference champion getting the automatic bid, and the conference tournament, if they continue to insist on, can still be held... FWIW:rolleyes:
So the NCAA tournament, which is a one-shot deal, negates the full regular season?
Acymetric
03-10-2010, 12:51 AM
So the NCAA tournament, which is a one-shot deal, negates the full regular season?
No, but its not really the same. In conferences that will only get one team in (whoever wins the conference) it really does render the regular season meaningless. Certainly pride is on the line for the regular season, but the only thing that really matters is the 3 (or 4) games of the conference tournament. That a team could finish in conference something like 10-1 (winning the regular season), go on to lose in the tournament, and then see some 3-8 team get invited instead...well can you really tell me the regular season meant anything there?
moonpie23
03-10-2010, 07:50 AM
the holes will win some games in the JV tourny......make no mistake, if they win, they will spin it like a cat 5 tornado......
somehow, the nit will be bigger than the dance.......just watch....
No, but its not really the same. In conferences that will only get one team in (whoever wins the conference) it really does render the regular season meaningless. Certainly pride is on the line for the regular season, but the only thing that really matters is the 3 (or 4) games of the conference tournament. That a team could finish in conference something like 10-1 (winning the regular season), go on to lose in the tournament, and then see some 3-8 team get invited instead...well can you really tell me the regular season meant anything there?
So you are talking about schools that would only be in the tournament because each conference gets an automatic bid. If the regular season isn't "good" enough to earn a bid, why does it matter that they must win a tournament to get in?
You are looking at the NCAA bid as the "trophy," the recognition for being the best in the conference. I can see your point, and don't really disagree that it is the true measure of who "deserves" a lone conference bid.
However, tournaments make money becaise they are interesting and exciting. They need for there to be something at stake to attract viewers and to sell tickets. I'd rather see the kids playing tournaments that mean something - the 3-8 team having a shot at glory.
Bottom line, we are talking about teams that are fighting for a 14 -16 seed and who have about a 2% chance of winning a first round game against a 1 - 3 seed, so it doesn't matter to the NCAA tournament one bit. I prefer all of the kids have a meaningful tournament experience, and for most that will be a conference tournament.
Indoor66
03-10-2010, 08:08 AM
Why should I care if the sissys over at the Dump on the Hump make any post season tourney?
I am soooooooooooo tired of threads about the pimply blue team down the road.
Duvall
03-10-2010, 08:45 AM
Why should I care if the sissys over at the Dump on the Hump make any post season tourney?
I am soooooooooooo tired of threads about the pimply blue team down the road.
I can certainly understand why you would open this ambiguously-labeled thread by accident.
noyac
03-10-2010, 11:54 AM
I think this thread should read "UNC and the CIT" not the NIT.
http://www.collegeinsider.com/tournament/2010.html
oldnavy
03-10-2010, 02:02 PM
the holes will win some games in the JV tourny......make no mistake, if they win, they will spin it like a cat 5 tornado......
somehow, the nit will be bigger than the dance.......just watch....
I wouldn't bet on them, would you? They pretty much have packed it up.
OldPhiKap
03-10-2010, 07:36 PM
Or that North Carolina would likely be in an expanded field...
Excellent point, although I'm not sure we agree on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Having said that, I've always taken the position that I would rather be relly good for most years with a !@#$#@ year or two thrown in every so often, as opposed to being only "pretty good" for a long time. Carolina will rebuild, and sooner than I like. But that's what makes a real rivalry, right?
WiJoe
03-10-2010, 07:51 PM
I'm not sure how I stumbled onto this site, but this thread will grow like a untended weed now (or, maybe not). Six seed, in the NIT.
:D
http://tcaa.puretecmo.com/nit06.html
coachbob
03-10-2010, 09:57 PM
I'm not sure how I stumbled onto this site, but this thread will grow like a untended weed now (or, maybe not). Six seed, in the NIT.
:D
http://tcaa.puretecmo.com/nit06.html
How could they put unc in ahead of BC?
WiJoe
03-10-2010, 10:48 PM
How could they put unc in ahead of BC?
This is what I'm sayin'!
http://tcaa.puretecmo.com/nit06.html
:eek:
So you are talking about schools that would only be in the tournament because each conference gets an automatic bid. If the regular season isn't "good" enough to earn a bid, why does it matter that they must win a tournament to get in?
You are looking at the NCAA bid as the "trophy," the recognition for being the best in the conference. I can see your point, and don't really disagree that it is the true measure of who "deserves" a lone conference bid.
However, tournaments make money becaise they are interesting and exciting. They need for there to be something at stake to attract viewers and to sell tickets. I'd rather see the kids playing tournaments that mean something - the 3-8 team having a shot at glory.
Bottom line, we are talking about teams that are fighting for a 14 -16 seed and who have about a 2% chance of winning a first round game against a 1 - 3 seed, so it doesn't matter to the NCAA tournament one bit. I prefer all of the kids have a meaningful tournament experience, and for most that will be a conference tournament.
First bold point... I don't think a 3-8 team should have a "once-in-a-lifetime" shot at glory as an automatic bid... they had a full season to prove themselves worthy... and didn't quite live up to it.
Second bold point... I've posted this before... I think conferences can have, and maybe should have, a conference tournament... and all that goes with it. But the conference should decide that the "automatic bid"... especially for those one-bid conferences... should go to the regular season conference champion... sustained excellence gotta count for something. Then, if the conference tournament "winner" is worthy of an at-large bid, so be it, good for them...:)
UrinalCake
03-11-2010, 05:18 AM
I think most major conferences give their automatic bid to the conference tournament winner because it essentially gives them a chance to get an extra team in. The regular season winner is almost certain to get a bid anyways, so the conference tourney gives at least the opportunity for another team to sneak in. More teams in = more money, plus of course the money earned from the conference tournament itself.
I think most major conferences give their automatic bid to the conference tournament winner because it essentially gives them a chance to get an extra team in. The regular season winner is almost certain to get a bid anyways, so the conference tourney gives at least the opportunity for another team to sneak in. More teams in = more money, plus of course the money earned from the conference tournament itself.
And only the midmajor conferences and above will get more than their designated champion in. There are any number of conferences that send one team, period, regardless of whether it's regular season or tourney decided.
It's all about the money and exposure. If a conference's tourney didn't have any further consequence, ESPN wouldn't show their tourney - and the conference tourney is frequently the only national exposure these teams get.
The major programs and conferences live in a completely different world.
-jk
First bold point... I don't think a 3-8 team should have a "once-in-a-lifetime" shot at glory as an automatic bid... they had a full season to prove themselves worthy... and didn't quite live up to it.
Second bold point... I've posted this before... I think conferences can have, and maybe should have, a conference tournament... and all that goes with it. But the conference should decide that the "automatic bid"... especially for those one-bid conferences... should go to the regular season conference champion... sustained excellence gotta count for something. Then, if the conference tournament "winner" is worthy of an at-large bid, so be it, good for them...:)
I think we've got a thread hijack here, but oh well. I agree that the conference championship should go to the regular season champion, assuming you can play a full round-robin regular season (which is I believe true for most of the minor conferences). Tournaments are fun and exciting and can make money for the conference, but they aren't the best way to determine the champion of the conference.
However, I'm not sure that you'd get much out of a conference tournament with no NCAA reward at the end. Sure, your non-champion teams might try hard to win a title. But your champion might decide to take it easy and avoid risking injury right before the NCAA tournament. In other words, if you take the real prize out of the conference tournament, you take the bite out of the tournament.
OldSchool
03-11-2010, 01:04 PM
Here's a triple-bank shot to ponder:
What if Johnny Dawkins beats Herb Sendek's team today, sending ASU definitely to the NIT?
Could the powers that be in the NIT schedule a humbling road visit by Roy Williams and a weak Holes team into the hands of Herb Sendek?
Whom the basketball gods would destroy, they first make mad? Is that what we've been seeing with Roy's public meltdowns?
UrinalCake
03-11-2010, 01:35 PM
Could the powers that be in the NIT schedule a humbling road visit by Roy Williams and a weak Holes team into the hands of Herb Sendek?
If ASU were to win that game, that would simultaneously infuriate both State and Heels fans. Schadenfreude at its best for triangle-area Dukies!
Here's a triple-bank shot to ponder:
What if Johnny Dawkins beats Herb Sendek's team today, sending ASU definitely to the NIT?
Could the powers that be in the NIT schedule a humbling road visit by Roy Williams and a weak Holes team into the hands of Herb Sendek?
Whom the basketball gods would destroy, they first make mad? Is that what we've been seeing with Roy's public meltdowns?
If ASU were to win that game, that would simultaneously infuriate both State and Heels fans. Schadenfreude at its best for triangle-area Dukies!
You sir are an evil genius!
OldSchool
03-11-2010, 10:29 PM
The Fighting Johnny Ds up by 15 over Herb Sendek's ASU with under 12 left -
I love it when a plan comes together!
OldPhiKap
03-11-2010, 10:38 PM
Joe Linardi just said on ESPN News:
1. GT just beat UNC three times this year, and because UNC is so bad it may not be enough to make the NCAA.
2. UNC may not even want to play in the NIT.
Odd year.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
DevilHorns
03-11-2010, 10:40 PM
InsideCarolina has entire threads devoted on hoping UNC doesn't accept a bid to the NIT or CBI so they won't lose one more game. How sad is that?
OldPhiKap
03-11-2010, 10:46 PM
InsideCarolina has entire threads devoted on hoping UNC doesn't accept a bid to the NIT or CBI so they won't lose one more game. How sad is that?
Not sad enough. But it's a ftting start.
YourLandlord
03-11-2010, 10:57 PM
Not sad enough. But it's a ftting start.
I love your attitude.
OldPhiKap
03-11-2010, 11:02 PM
I love your attitude.
Thanks. It's long-simmering, deep-seeded, and wholly authentic. I come by it honestly.
I'm just trying to find a way to blame Dean Smith for this, and my day will be complete.
YourLandlord
03-11-2010, 11:14 PM
Thanks. It's long-simmering, deep-seeded, and wholly authentic. I come by it honestly.
I'm just trying to find a way to blame Dean Smith for this, and my day will be complete.
Williams went on to play on the UNC Junior Varsity Basketball team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and study the game under legendary coach Dean Smith. When Williams was a sophomore at Carolina, he asked Smith if he could attend his practices and would sit in the bleachers taking notes on Smith's coaching.[16] Williams also volunteered to keep statistics for Smith at home games and worked in Smith's summer camps. [17]
In 1978, Williams came back to the University of North Carolina and served as an assistant to Coach Dean Smith. Williams would serve as an assistant coach from 1978–1988.
This team had a lot of talent...I guess his teacher couldn't teach him what to do with it.
OldPhiKap
03-11-2010, 11:18 PM
This team had a lot of talent...I guess his teacher couldn't teach him what to do with it.
Thanks for connecting the dots, Landlord. Now I can sleep well tonight.
Oh yeah, I alomst forgot. GTHC. 9F. Weep Roy Weep.
OldSchool
03-11-2010, 11:24 PM
What if Johnny Dawkins beats Herb Sendek's team today, sending ASU definitely to the NIT?
Congratulations to Johnny Dawkins and Stanford for beating Arizona State with their biggest win of the season, probably sending Herb Sendek to the NIT.
Memo to NIT schedulers: UNC at ASU!!!
airowe
03-12-2010, 12:16 AM
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9717/lostseason.jpg
hotbutteredseoul
03-12-2010, 03:59 AM
Here are my thoughts on casting:
-Roy is definitely the evil smokemonster version of John Locke.
-Henson has to be Hurley.
-The Wear brothers are two random characters that nobody cares about enough to really know who they are.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9717/lostseason.jpg
Here are my thoughts on casting:
-Roy is definitely the evil smokemonster version of John Locke.
-Henson has to be Hurley.
-The Wear brothers are two random characters that nobody cares about enough to really know who they are.
This puts much of the unc discussion in perspective for me. I feel about "Lost" the way many have felt about the unc threads:
Why does unc/Lost get so much attention? It sucks, it really really sucks. Why waste any time or effort discussing unc/Lost ?
Is there any frickin' rhyme or reason to unc/Lost? There seems to be no direction to the season and the characters all seem to be fixated on the future or the past. Whenever the focus shifts to the present, the outcome is predictable and disappointing for the players.
The guy in charge of unc/Lost seems to have no clue of what he is doing. He has had a couple of good seasons, particularly at the start, but the current season seems like players come in and out randomly and have no idea what is expected or what is to come.
The unc/Lost players just aren't getting it done. While the best players from previous seasons are gone, the current players just aren't that good. When they were cast, they were very good looking, and functioned well as a supporting cast, but don't have the ability to carry the weight of lead roles. The new players just don't blend well with the older players; it is like they are in separate camps.
Why waste time on unc/Lost when there are so many superior competitors available to watch?
Why the hell are we talking about unc/Lost on a DUKE board anyway?
Why are people so obsessed with unc/Lost? Really. Why?
TNDukeFan
03-12-2010, 08:20 AM
ESPN put up a stat -- UNC has the most losses EVER by a defending champion. One more than Mich State the year after Magic. Wow.
flyingdutchdevil
03-12-2010, 08:27 AM
ESPN put up a stat -- UNC has the most losses EVER by a defending champion. One more than Mich State the year after Magic. Wow.
And there were supposed to content again for the NC this year. Pre-seasoning rank of 4.
What a joke...
Matches
03-12-2010, 08:34 AM
ESPN put up a stat -- UNC has the most losses EVER by a defending champion. One more than Mich State the year after Magic. Wow.
Some guy called Charlotte radio this morning describing the team as "still the defending national champions". That was definitely worth a chuckle - bang-up job they're doing of defending that title! :D
Bluedevil114
03-12-2010, 08:37 AM
ESPN put up a stat -- UNC has the most losses EVER by a defending champion. One more than Mich State the year after Magic. Wow.
UNC has one more loss in the NIT to add to their record.
davekay1971
03-12-2010, 08:47 AM
What would be most amusing to me would be seeing a "3rd Place CBI 2010" banner go up to the Dean Dome rafters to hang in glory along with their 1924 "National Championship, cough, cough, ahem" and 1973 3rd Place NIT banners.
arnie
03-12-2010, 09:12 AM
What would be most amusing to me would be seeing a "3rd Place CBI 2010" banner go up to the Dean Dome rafters to hang in glory along with their 1924 "National Championship, cough, cough, ahem" and 1973 3rd Place NIT banners.
Or even better, an NIT Participant banner.
whereinthehellami
03-12-2010, 09:18 AM
ESPN put up a stat -- UNC has the most losses EVER by a defending champion. One more than Mich State the year after Magic. Wow.
And remember they stil have 7 burger boys on their roster, more than any other team. So not only do they suck, but they suck with more talent.
OldSchool
03-12-2010, 10:28 AM
UNC has one more loss in the NIT to add to their record.
Maybe not.
According to this website, which does bracketology with respect to the NIT, UNC has now fallen out of the NIT field:
http://www.nitology.com
Kimist
03-12-2010, 11:14 AM
ESPN put up a stat -- UNC has the most losses EVER by a defending champion.
So the REAL question is whether they will raise another banner in the Roy Dome to commemorate this miraculous accomplishment??
k
OldPhiKap
03-12-2010, 11:33 AM
Maybe not.
According to this website, which does bracketology with respect to the NIT, UNC has now fallen out of the NIT field:
http://www.nitology.com
Do you think for the NIT selection show, they will have a camera crew at Roy's house while all the players gather around the television to see if they've been selected?
SharkD
03-12-2010, 11:41 AM
So the REAL question is whether they will raise another banner in the Roy Dome to commemorate this miraculous accomplishment??
I can imagine this spurring 'Ol Roy into searching high and low for Rams CLub Members with the last name of Helms, in order to endow a foundation with the expressed purpose of awarding a "National Championship" to UNC each and every year, for the past century, even when they've actually won one.
Giving them a grand "total" of 107 banners to hang. (Therefore two different 'Helms' foundations awarded them titles in 1924.)
SCMatt33
03-12-2010, 11:56 AM
I really want to see them in the CBI. That would just be funny.
NSDukeFan
03-12-2010, 11:57 AM
Do you think for the NIT selection show, they will have a camera crew at Roy's house while all the players gather around the television to see if they've been selected?
Or would they just do this via Skype?
TNDukeFan
03-12-2010, 11:59 AM
The guys just unanimously blamed Roy for Carolina's season. It was a pretty merciless pounding.
(By the way, I'm on spring break, not goofing off at work...:))
BlueDevils91
03-12-2010, 07:33 PM
UNC will go to the NIT because the NIT is all about money. Since UNC doesn't have a losing record (barely), they will go. Royboy has already stated UNC would accept an invite.
It makes me sick how many blind UNC fans there are out there. Did you know they have a "Duke Sucks" group on Facebook with over 9000 fans? We just created a "Go To Hell Carolina" fan group on Facebook to counteract. Let's get the number up there!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10150121210305338
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.