ACC Tournament

[Cryptical Envelopment]

This is certainly a welcome change and these match-ups will be much more exciting than the usual UF/Miami, UF/FSU, etc. I like how they tried to minimize the intra-conference match-ups as well.

Now, if we could just get the TV networks to realize how exciting college baseball play-offs are.

Not only more exciting, but also more fair IMO. With the parity we've seen this year, this is looking to be a really entertaining tournament.

 

[WanderFranco]

What you posted was incorrect.

I know you were excited to post that, so I hate raining on your parade, but there are more examples supporting my point than yours.

Tennessee got three teams from the south, all a bus ride away. Coincidence?
UNC - two of three teams a bus ride away.
Texas - two of three teams a bus ride away.
East Carolina - all three teams a bus ride away.
Oklahoma St - two of three teams a bus ride away.
Southern Miss - two of three teams a bus ride away.
Texas A&M - all three teams a bus ride away.

Then of course you have teams that aren't near anyone, so they have to be placed somewhere far away. You found one example where it looks like the committee did something on purpose, but that's it.

I mean, the #3 National Seed has the #7 RPI team as their #2 seed, while the #9 seed has the #33 RPI team as their #2 seed. That alone should have opened your eyes.

 

[WanderFranco]

There were at least six closer sites including Louisville which they could have driven to.

Teams from the same conference cannot be placed in the same regional.

You know, I'm a big boy and don't mind being called out if I'm wrong, but this isn't one of those times. When you get the basics figured out - like two ACC teams not being put in the same regional - you'll be closer to understanding how they do it.

(I'm guessing you had Virginia Tech listed as one of those six as well).

 

[WanderFranco]

At least he can laugh about it

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

Teams from the same conference cannot be placed in the same regional.

You know, I'm a big boy and don't mind being called out if I'm wrong, but this isn't one of those times. When you get the basics figured out - like two ACC teams not being put in the same regional - you'll be closer to understanding how they do it.

(I'm guessing you had Virginia Tech listed as one of those six as well).

LOL.

What you said was wrong, period. You were wrong, period. And your ridiculous deflective examples above are irrelevant because the discussion isn't WHETHER geography matters, in fact I said it DOES from the start (read our posts again if you're confused).

You said, and I quote... "There is NO seeding after #16. It's ALL about geography" to try to refute my point that Miami getting a higher national seed would matter.

And now you're moving the goalposts of course trying to make the discussion into whether geography mattered at all (duh) to try to save "face" on a message board for some reason. You were wrong. Seeding did matter. You really can't admit it?

Of course the NCAA isn't going to move teams around the country for no good reason, and if similarly seeded teams are near equal, of course they will keep things close. But not at the cost of competitive balance, which the committee just showed you, and I just proved. Where a team was seeded in the top 8 DID matter, and the committee made sure it mattered. Which is why #3 seeds Texas Tech and Louisiana are criss-crossing each other to farther away regionals at the expense of "geography" and is why the ND, the proverbial "17 seed" is being sent 800 miles away into the Deep South to the weakest host even though there were many other regionals that were much closer.

It's ok to admit you were wrong. It's just an internet conversation. It's a lot less embarrassing that dying on a hill for no good reason, I promise you.

 

[WanderFranco]

LOL.

What you said was wrong, period. You were wrong, period. And your ridiculous deflective examples above are irrelevant because the discussion isn't WHETHER geography matters, in fact I said it DOES from the start (read our posts again if you're confused).

You said, and I quote... "There is NO seeding after #16. It's ALL about geography" to try to refute my point that Miami getting a higher national seed would matter.

And now you're moving the goalposts of course trying to make the discussion into whether geography mattered at all (duh) to try to save "face" on a message board for some reason. You were wrong. Seeding did matter. You really can't admit it?

Of course the NCAA isn't going to move teams around the country for no good reason, and if similarly seeded teams are near equal, of course they will keep things close. But not at the cost of competitive balance, which the committee just showed you, and I just proved. Where a team was seeded in the top 8 DID matter, and the committee made sure it mattered. Which is why #3 seeds Texas Tech and Louisiana are criss-crossing each other to farther away regionals at the expense of "geography" and is why the ND, the proverbial "17 seed" is being sent 800 miles away into the Deep South to the weakest host even though there were many other regionals that were much closer.

It's ok to admit you were wrong. It's just an internet conversation. It's a lot less embarrassing that dying on a hill for no good reason, I promise you.

View attachment 187874

Again, you found one example where the committee might have placed someone on purpose. And you think we have an easier regional at #6 than if we were at #8. But you refuse to acknowledge something like the #14 team getting #48 as their #2 seed and one of the last four teams in as their #3 seed. That's the most pathetic region by far, and the #14 team got it. If competitive balance was a thing, you and the guy you plagiarized would have more than one example to lean on.

I noticed that you didn't bring up the biggest blunder in this conversation. When you can figure out why Notre Dame wasn't sent to Louisville, give me a call.

 

[WanderFranco]

Of course the NCAA isn't going to move teams around the country for no good reason, and if similarly seeded teams are near equal, of course they will keep things close. But not at the cost of competitive balance, which the committee just showed you, and I just proved.

I just want to clarify something before the next lesson. Are you going on record saying that competitive balance was the first priority, and then geography was used only if teams were equal? That's your position?

 

[NC_Canes_11]

I just want to clarify something before the next lesson. Are you going on record saying that competitive balance was the first priority, and then geography was used only if teams were equal? That's your position?

Until teams are seeded 1-64 there is no such thing as “competitive balance.” That goes for basketball as well. There are plenty of examples but just in our bracket we have Ole Miss who was the last team in. How did they get in the 6 seeded regional when they should’ve been in the 2 bc they couldn’t be in Knoxville. What about FSU being a “last 4 in” getting to go to one of the lowest host seeds in Auburn?

What the point of getting a high seed, if it doesn’t lead to you playing the lowest seeds? Oh yea it’s geography.

 

[swampcougar1]

I agree with seed 1 to 64 and place accordingly regardless of conference tie in. Sadly will never happen.

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

Again, you found one example where the committee might have placed someone on purpose. And you think we have an easier regional at #6 than if we were at #8. But you refuse to acknowledge something like the #14 team getting #48 as their #2 seed and one of the last four teams in as their #3 seed. That's the most pathetic region by far, and the #14 team got it. If competitive balance was a thing, you and the guy you plagiarized would have more than one example to lean on.

I noticed that you didn't bring up the biggest blunder in this conversation. When you can figure out why Notre Dame wasn't sent to Louisville, give me a call.

Yeah, so, just for the record, yes, everyone here, even the gum under my shoe understands that ND and L'ville are in the same conference. Why you would open that Pandora's box when there are more examples of closer non-ACC regionals, I've no idea, but... you know... you do you. If you really want to die on the hill of trying to convince someone that ND wasn't sent to the weakest host 800 miles away because the committee wanted to make the regionals more even, when the entire industry has said as much, then god bless your tiny little precious 63-screen name 62-time banned heart. The biggest problem with you, outside of the psyche stuff, is that you're not quite as smart as you think you are. If you don't think people see through you moving the goalposts, selectively responding, ignoring facts, trying to pretend you didn't say that geography is ALL that matters, and never, ever being able to say you're wrong, well, then I wish you all the luck in the world on your journey. You said that geography was the ONLY thing that matters. The only thing. You were wrong. The end.

I'll let the facts of my previous posts stand. I've no interest in wasting any more bandwidth getting you to admit what this entire board can read in black and white. The facts are pretty clear to anyone functional.

It's going to be ok, kid. I promise. You'll survive this. And if you don't who cares? On to your next user name!

 

[WanderFranco]

As usual, someone makes it about me. I must make really great points, because people usually abandon the argument to make fun of my previous screen names.

If you knew that Louisville and Notre Dame couldn’t be in the same regional, you would not have specifically written Louisville as an option for Notre Dame. That’s embarrassing.

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

As usual, someone makes it about me. I must make really great points, because people usually abandon the argument to make fun of my previous screen names.

If you knew that Louisville and Notre Dame couldn’t be in the same regional, you would not have specifically written Louisville as an option for Notre Dame. That’s embarrassing.

Sure, ok! All you had to so was ask. I shouldn't have written L'ville. It was a bad specific example. I lazily just threw out the closest regional. My bad. I could have easily written a few others that were way closer than Statesboro that would have made the exact same point.

See how easy it is was for me to say I made a mistake? When you don't have a metal disability, thin skin or a lack of self worth, its really easy to admit you made a goof. Even though it has nothing to do with the point btw.

Now, back to the actual topic that you are so desperately trying to deflect the conversation away from with everything you have:

You were wrong. Geography wasn't the only thing that mattered. The committee moved teams around based on seeds. Just show you're not a complete mental freak Jagr and admit it. It won't hurt a bit! Or just keep lying and twisting in the wind. It's kind of entertaining in a carnival freak show sort of way!

 

[WanderFranco]

Sure, ok! All you had to so was ask. I shouldn't have written L'ville. It was a bad specific example. I lazily just threw out the closest regional. My bad. I could have easily written a few others that were way closer than Statesboro that would have made the exact same point.

See how easy it is was for me to say I made a mistake? When you don't have a metal disability, thin skin or a lack of self worth, its really easy to admit you made a goof. Even though it has nothing to do with the point btw.

Now, back to the actual topic that you are so desperately trying to deflect the conversation away from with everything you have:

You were wrong. Geography wasn't the only thing that mattered. The committee moved teams around based on seeds. Just show you're not a complete mental freak Jagr and admit it. It won't hurt a bit! Or just keep lying and twisting in the wind. It's kind of entertaining in a carnival freak show sort of way!

View attachment 187958

Why does Auburn (#14) have one of the worst 2-seeds AND one of the worst 3-seeds if the focus was on “competitive balance”?

 

[WanderFranco]

When someone correctly points out that geography is what matters, it’s usually understood that geography can’t be used 100%. I mean, if none of the mid-majors in Florida can get into the tournament, then geography can’t matter for the Coral Gables Region. So they stick someone like Ole Miss here because SOMEONE has to be the 3-seed. It can’t be based on geography, but it sure wasn’t based on competitive balance either.

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

This is absolutely not true. There is no seeding after #16. It's all about geography.

 

[WanderFranco]

Shrug. There isn’t. They don’t just seed Notre Dame outside of the top 16. Either they seed the field or they don’t.

How you can look at Notre Dame and claim that they seed past #16…..while ignoring the Auburn region…..is bizarre to say the least.

More memes would really be strong evidence.

 

[WanderFranco]

They also sent one of the strongest #3 seeds there in Texas Tech, even though there were other much closer regionals. They could have sent #3 seed Texas Tech to College Station and #3 seed Louisiana to Statesboro. But they didn't, because the national seeds mattered, and they absolutely seeded past #16.

I'm so angry at myself for not catching this before. You made another blunder. My fault for not calling you out sooner.

Texas Tech could not have been sent to College Station. TCU is there. TCU is closer. The only other host sites somewhat close were Stillwater and Austin. Couldn't go there either. So there were zero drivable sites for Texas Tech to go to. Like Arizona, they had to fly somewhere.

So you literally picked out two teams and tried to place both of them in regionals with their conference opponents. Next year, leave the bracketology to the adults.

 

[WanderFranco]

They also sent one of the strongest #3 seeds there in Texas Tech

Another blunder.

If there was true seeding, the #16 team would have been paired with the WORST #3 seed, not the strongest. True seeding would be #16 (worst #1), #17 (best #2), #48 (worst #3), #49 (best #4). You don't punish #17 by giving them a tougher first game than #32 gets.

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

I'm so angry at myself for not catching this before. You made another blunder. My fault for not calling you out sooner.

Texas Tech could not have been sent to College Station. TCU is there. TCU is closer. The only other host sites somewhat close were Stillwater and Austin. Couldn't go there either. So there were zero drivable sites for Texas Tech to go to. Like Arizona, they had to fly somewhere.

So you literally picked out two teams and tried to place both of them in regionals with their conference opponents. Next year, leave the bracketology to the adults.

Just how angry are you?

And of course, this doesn't change the subject at hand, your feeble attempts at deflection and diversion notwithstanding.

"There is no seeding after #16. It's all about geography." - Jagr

You. Were. Wrong. Just admit it. It's ok, you can tell your doctor you admitted it and maybe he will give you a cookie if you finish your carrots.

 

[WanderFranco]

Just how angry are you?

And of course, this doesn't change the subject at hand, your feeble attempts at deflection and diversion notwithstanding.

"There is no seeding after #16. It's all about geography." - Jagr

You. Were. Wrong. Just admit it. It's ok, you can tell your doctor you admitted it and maybe he will give you a cookie if you finish your carrots.

View attachment 188024

There still isn’t any evidence that any seeding was done after 16. There just isn’t. You can keep chanting “Notre Dame” while pairing conference opponents together if you want, but there is overwhelming evidence that it played out exactly as it always does.

Will you concede your two newly found errors?