That’s Debatable: Five Questions for Discussion

Posted by rtmsf on March 23rd, 2010

This one is for our readers, who are with the exception of a few notable gadflies, the most knowledgeable and erudite group of college hoops fans around.  Rather than just giving our opinions on some of the big controversies and issues of the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament, we want to throw it at you guys.  What do you think?  Each of the below polls will allow comments, so let’s build some discussion through there.   

Q1: Does Last Weekend’s Performance Show That the Big East Was Overrated?

Our answer on this one is a resounding yes.  Eight teams down to two, and four of them among the top twelve seed positions?  The Big East was historically good last year but they failed pretty miserably on the big stage this year. 

Q2: What Was the Biggest Surprise of the Weekend?

A lot of good choices here, but we have to go with Cornell’s margin of victory.  It doesn’t shock us that the Big Red are in the Sweet Sixteen, but the way in which they completely solved two of the better defensive teams in the country in Temple and Wisconsin is astounding. 

Q3: Should a Lane Violation Have Been Called in Friday’s Michigan State vs. New Mexico State Game?

Can we hedge here?  Clearly the New Mexico State player was on the line when the ball went up and the referee called it prior to the make/miss decision (noticeably absent from this CBS highlights compilation), so in that respect it was the right call.  But we’d be interested to know if there were other instances in the game where the same violation was overlooked before making a final determination. 

Q4: What Was the Biggest Disappointment of the Weekend?

Kansas and Kentucky were the two best teams this year, and with a special hat-tip to Syracuse, we’d have loved to see those two square off in the final game.  But the greatness of the upset by Northern Iowa helps dissipate some of the sting of losing that possibility.

Q5: Where Does the Northern Iowa Upset Victory Over #1 Kansas Rank in NCAA Tourney History?

We think it’s the greatest second round upset in history, and probably top five of all-time.  Part of this depends on how well UNI does from here on out, but the talent differential on the floor between the two teams was as high as we’ve seen for this kind of an upset. 

rtmsf (3954 Posts)

Share this story

3 responses to “That’s Debatable: Five Questions for Discussion”

  1. Andrew says:

    Some of the Big East teams were definitely overseeded (and not just because they lost, but because the seeds given to Nova and Notre Dame at a minimum were just wrong), but the Georgetown thing, for example, I get the feeling that could have happened to just about anybody. Cooper and Bassett were just not missing from anywhere inside of the halfcourt line it seemed, and they both seemed to be able to get any shot they wanted that night. I’m not so sure Kentucky would have escaped that game. In the end, Big East was overseeded, yeah, but the grading and comparison of conferences is a little silly at this point (although it is done everywhere) since come Selection Sunday, it is every team for itself.

  2. DMoore says:

    “the Georgetown thing…could have happened to just about anybody”

    The “Georgetown thing” was being completely uninterested in playing defense in the NCAAs. Of course they shot well — I’m sure they faced much tougher defense in their conference tourney. Other than Kansas, what top seed has seemed to care less about how they did?

  3. Andrew M says:

    I’m not sure they were uninterested in playing defense, but Wright, for one, was completely incapable of getting in front of anybody Thursday night… And, I don’t think KU came across as uninterested either… Both those teams got beat because they weren’t as good (that day) as their opponent. Some of that certainly had to do with sleepwalking into the start of the game, but KU and GU didn’t lose because they care. They lose because they got whooped.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *