Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Wow, is BG lucky? They get a 12 seed and they are in a region with two #1s (UNC and Tennessee) and a #2 (Rutgers).


EDIT: I realize that the #5 they are playing isn't that great (although they are hot).

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourn ... id=2366520


All 5 here think it is the hardest region, and you'd be hard pressed to find an intelligent person that wouldn't think that.

Three of them pick us as the first round cinderella as well.

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Three of them pick us as the first round cinderella as well.

I was just about to post this link. How awesome is that? Not only do WE know we can beat them, but we've got "expert" support as well.
Sweeet.

I also like how we are getting some support. I love our girls team and I think that we can defnitely pull the upset if we can play our type of game.

But Charlie Creme should take over from Trev Alberts as the biggest douchemonkey columnist. Check this out:

That dumb*ss Charlie Creme wrote:"Furthermore, teams like Old Dominion, Louisiana Tech, Hartford and Bowling Green were given high seeds. This is all a very bad message. The committee is essentially telling commissioners and coaches from non-major leagues not to bother with a season. Apparently, they should just play a league tournament and the committee will take the winner only because it has to."

Screw you Charlie... I don't care if we play in the MAC. To go undefeated in your conference is big. We're ranked. We're 8 points away from an undefeated season. Even if I weren't a die-hard BG fan, I'd want Old Dominion, LA Tech, Hartford and BG to make a run just to prove this moron wrong.

Read more of his incoherent ramblings here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourn ... id=2367207

I think you are misundertanding what Creme is saying. If I interpret it correctly, he is actually defending us. His point is that we played a regular season and went 25-2, but that meant nothing to the committe. All that mattered is that we won three games in the conference tourny and they were forced to put us in the tourny despite all that we proved during the rest of the season.

bgsufn wrote:But Charlie Creme should take over from Trev Alberts as the biggest douchemonkey columnist. Check this out:

That dumb*ss Charlie Creme wrote:"Furthermore, teams like Old Dominion, Louisiana Tech, Hartford and Bowling Green were given high seeds. This is all a very bad message. The committee is essentially telling commissioners and coaches from non-major leagues not to bother with a season. Apparently, they should just play a league tournament and the committee will take the winner only because it has to."

Screw you Charlie... I don't care if we play in the MAC. To go undefeated in your conference is big. We're ranked. We're 8 points away from an undefeated season. Even if I weren't a die-hard BG fan, I'd want Old Dominion, LA Tech, Hartford and BG to make a run just to prove this moron wrong.

Read more of his incoherent ramblings here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourn ... id=2367207

That guy is a total jackazz....#12 is a high seed? Out of 16?

If he had a clue it would be different. Just like football, most of these "experts" are clueless about the mid majors.

Fine. BG will prove him wrong.

GO FALCONS!! BEAT UCLA!!!

Falconfreak90 wrote: That guy is a total jackazz....

If he had a clue it would be different. Just like football, most of these "experts" are clueless about the mid majors.

Fine. BG will prove him wrong.

GO FALCONS!! BEAT UCLA!!!

the interesting thing to me is that of the five columnists/contributors on espn.com, the three women (who all have experience in women's hoops) picked bg as the cinderella, and the two men, whose qualifications are unknown, didn't. in fact, many of the men's predictions were not in line with those of the female contributors.

bgsufn wrote:But Charlie Creme should take over from Trev Alberts as the biggest douchemonkey columnist. Check this out:

That dumb*ss Charlie Creme wrote:"Furthermore, teams like Old Dominion, Louisiana Tech, Hartford and Bowling Green were given high seeds. This is all a very bad message. The committee is essentially telling commissioners and coaches from non-major leagues not to bother with a season. Apparently, they should just play a league tournament and the committee will take the winner only because it has to."

Screw you Charlie... I don't care if we play in the MAC. To go undefeated in your conference is big. We're ranked. We're 8 points away from an undefeated season. Even if I weren't a die-hard BG fan, I'd want Old Dominion, LA Tech, Hartford and BG to make a run just to prove this moron wrong.

Read more of his incoherent ramblings here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourn ... id=2367207

Its kind of hard to follow his writing style, (I'm not thinking he recieved good grades in commentaryism school), but I don't think it was all a negative comment. BG got a 12 seed, this is a high seed. A 12 seed is probably what we would expect by just winning the MAC tournament, which is what we did last year. With 28 wins and a ranking BG should have gotten a lower seed this year, since they are a better team than last years. He then goes on to say that WKU, who plays in a lowly conference, should definitely have gotten in.

Falconfreak90 wrote:


That guy is a total jackazz....#12 is a high seed? Out of 16?

If he had a clue it would be different. Just like football, most of these "experts" are clueless about the mid majors.

Fine. BG will prove him wrong.

GO FALCONS!! BEAT UCLA!!!

Yes. 16 is the highest, 1 is the lowest

My bad...I thought the 12 seed was "low" out of 16. So the lower the seed, the better? Thanks for the correction.

I agree with WH and PGY, I think you missed the intent of the article bgsufn. Granted, the article is one of the more incoherent things I read today. I believe you can boil the whole article down to what he states in the last paragraph.

Charlie says, "While I disagree with much of what the committee did here, I will give it credit for consistency. Unlike the committee's counterparts on the men's side, the women's bracket did follow a certain pattern. When a debate exists, teams in the big leagues get the nod. Missouri over Western Kentucky is the perfect illustration of that."

It's pretty clear to me here that he doesn't like the seedings of some of the non-majors, nor the fact that WKU got dissed.

OK in re-reading it, I see where you guys are coming from. I was kind of reading his comments in the context of the other times he slams us by talking about our "weak" schedule. I thought he was calling us out and saying our season didn't matter and that we wouldn't have got in without winning the MAC championship and that would have been okay with him.

Can we just all agree he's quite incoherent

bgsufn wrote:OK in re-reading it, I see where you guys are coming from. I was kind of reading his comments in the context of the other times he slams us by talking about our "weak" schedule. I thought he was calling us and saying our season didn't matter and that we wouldn't have got in without winning the MAC championship.

Can we just all agree he's quite incoherent

Oh completely agree. In fact I have a hard time trying to figure out why he thought those schools should have a better seed (he had us at an 11, after winning the MACC, so much better). He states over and over again that he doesn't really follow the mid-majors. I think he just wants to bitch about something and though this is a legit gripe, I don't feel he has done anything to warrant being the one to bitch about it.