THIS ^^^^^^^ Bilas has always been a snake oil salesman. He's smart & slick and has conned many into buying his self serving agenda. He is very pro-ACC, especially Duke and has always thought he was the smartest man in the world. Typical Duke nerd elitist made intolerable by his ESPN liberal empowered pulpit. The attorney in him needs to win the argument regardless of the actual merit of the subject.
Bilas: Solving the transfer question is easy, let them play
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
THIS ^^^^^^^ Bilas has always been a snake oil salesman. He's smart & slick and has conned many into buying his self serving agenda. He is very pro-ACC, especially Duke and has always thought he was the smartest man in the world. Typical Duke nerd elitist made intolerable by his ESPN liberal empowered pulpit. The attorney in him needs to win the argument regardless of the actual merit of the subject.
Anarchy within that particular endeavor.
Yeah, it's just college hoops. You can play that game with almost any profession. Most aren't exactly life and death. College basketball could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
But it would matter to the thousands employed in the industry. And that industry has a right to set reasonable rules to govern itself and prevent a breakdown (anarchy) within the industry.
If they overstep their bounds with their rule setting, the courts are more than welcome to step in and correct things. Or as I mentioned before, the talent (players) have a right to band together and negotiate in their best interest (or at least they should).
Winnning the ACCT is harder than getting to the FF. Most years you have to beat at least 2 top 10 teams to win the ACCT. Getting to the FF rarely requires beating 2 top 20 teams.
A bigger stage, no. But better teams yes.
Probably true for Duke or North Carolina (the scum sucking academic filth) and the soft draws they get year in and year out. For teams that have to deal with legitimately seeded brackets, that's total bull crap. Bilas has no experience with schools that have to cope with legitimate seeding so he is completely ignorant on the subject. Of course, he lacks the fiber to recognize and acknowledge this.
He has a difficult job. It is very challenging to see around that silver spoon.
When Bilas started out he was sensible and spoke from his heart, now he is disgusting and has been programed on what to say. Just another corporate puppet for ESPN and defender of the corrupt ACC teams UNC* and Louisville knowing they cheated and still supporting them along with saying let transfers play right away.
You may not like it, but go back and look at which teams play prior to the Final Four vs the ACC tournament.
For the past few years, which were the properly seeded teams.
I love it when some ACC homer or Filth Slurping NC fan points out there were a "few years" where the seeding wasn't an abomination.
Sorry Leon, need to get your brain out of your hump and use it for a change.
Our compliance is the morality police. No, we probably wouldn't. Not that Cal wouldn't, but I doubt they'd allow him to poach.
If Cal leaves, it's probably because he's sick of the one arm tied behind his back routine.
No, NC filth fan? The reading comprehension (or gaping lack thereof) suggests that possibility.
I was saying your response was typical of fans that like to pretend the silver spoon in the mouth of their team isn't there. A classic retort by these deficient individuals usually lists a supposed exception or two and point to them as though that actually means something. UL fans show great aptitude at this but I can see you are practiced as well. Or worse? Maybe you actually believe that was a legitimate observation? That'd be funny if not so sad.
About the best example I can give for this would be your earlier post. Of course you won't see that big fat silver spoon and that is ok.
As far as negating your response, I really can't put it any better than Billy Preston. ". . . Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. . . "
Again. You have no truth to disagree. so you are simply disagreeing out of pride.
English is not your first language? Ehh, more likely never had to go to class. Your second sentence is utterly crippled. The third sentence is a mess. I think the word you are looking for is 'facts' in lieu of the rather subjective term, 'truth'. The sentence is still relatively meaningless, better, but pretty vacuous even with better wording.
So it's facts you want? Ok, easy enough. Let's keep the volume low. Just consider the seedings in the last 30 years of the NCAA tournament.
Oh, I know, that's too many facts. Poor thing. I'd break it down better for you but I see no evidence that you could comprehend it or be capable of any discussion beyond mindless platitudes.
You wouldn't happen to be friends with filth fan Bobbi swervy perve or whatever his handle was? Writing is very similar though he also failed at getting the pig to hold still for the lipstick.
You keep s
You keep saying the same thing without any stat to support it.
You remind me of most every Duke fan I ever met.
That's not a complement. Now, gotta run. One of those invites you said I didn't get.
The burden of proof is on the one who is making the outrageous statement. Can you cite proof? I have yet to see anything other than just some hyperbole based on basically nothing.
I have given the proof.
The bottom line is not to defend the ACC, but give legitimacy to the issue.
And keep in mind the question - which is tougher getting to the FF or winning the ACC championship.
RPIs used were prior to the last, after the NCAA tournament.
UNC played Texas Southern, Arkansas, Butler, and Kentucky to get to the FF.
The RPI rankings were 105, 28, 15, and 4.
For Duke to win the ACC tournament, they played Clemson, Louisville, UNC and Notre Dame. Their RPIs were 68, 7, 5, and 23.
Which is the more difficult.
The question was not NC titles. It was getting to the FF vs the ACC title.
Many conference tournaments can be tougher than getting to the FF. It is cyclical. The only difference is familiarity.
That's my point. I believe Duke and UNC have much more ACC titles then FFs.
Typically, it's tougher to get to the FF than to win a conference tourney.
Sure, you can cherry-pick cases where it was tough to win the tourney on paper. But those numbers won't calculate varying degrees of motivation, differences in amount of rest, etc.
In the NCAA tournament, every game is win or go home. For everyone.
But even by the numbers, UK was trying to get through Kenpom number 8, 16, and 3 to get to last year's FF. You think Duke winning the ACC Tourney was tougher than that?
The entire argument is laughable. Winning the ACC is not tougher than winning a title. I mean damn, you've gotta be borderline moron or full throttle idiot to buy that.
The sports media is made up of a HUGE ACC homer base. College basketball media is probably 90% biased toward the ACC. That's where a lot of that nonsense started.
The ACC is a solid league but overrated.
The sports media is made up of a HUGE ACC homer base. College basketball media is probably 90% biased toward the ACC. That's where a lot of that nonsense started.
The ACC is a solid league but overrated.
Kentucky didn't make it so it has no bearing. So cherry pick if necessary, use whichever rating system you want. And I will still disagree.
The RPI of the teams Kentucky beat were 87, 32, 16. even if you added UNC (5) to the mix, it was still not equivant to the teams Duke beat for the ACC tourny.
The teams in the FF typically play a play-in team (one of the worst teams in the tournament). The second game is against a fringe top 30 team. Like it or not, the ACC usually has 5, 6, 7 teams in the top 25. The Big 10 is often the same, although last year's Big 10 winner was a fluke.
Rarely do NCAA tournament teams play 3 top 25 teams to get to the FF.
The question was the typical soft shoe tourney seeding you Puke boys get year in and year out. That is why you have such a messed up perspective on this. That and you buy into the ESPN fan brainwashing. They have a financial vesting in the ACC ratings so the hype the crap out of them. I'd also suggest a refresher on Jon Scott's perspective on the foolish use of RPI on tourney seeding. Well maybe not in your case as reading comprehension is necessary. Oh, but there I go repeating myself again. No matter how many times I do, you still fail to grasp these trivial concepts.
What Bilas SHOULD have said is: It is easier for an ACC team to get to the FF than it is for an ACC team to win the ACC tournament. Now, I think we are getting to the hardcore truth.
Similar threads
