The Goat Pen

eCat wrote:

Cats rule wrote:

eCat wrote:see, this is the horseshit logic I have to deal with

who was the #1 overall seed 2 years ago, mr. spock? how'd that work out for us?

its horseshit if I have to explain to you why Syracuse having more losses than us helps us. It solidifies our position.

If you want to hang your hat on some grand conspiracy to keep Kentucky from winning it all, thats fine but its still horseshit logic in rooting against Louisville beating Syracuse.

once again, sherlock, how did that #1 overall work out for us in '09?

did we get teh weakest 2 seed, or did they stick us w/ the team that was in the discussion for a 4th 1-seed?

has ANYTHING changed in the ncaa's hierarchy that makes you think it will be different this year?

answers to these questions must be part/parcel of the defense of your position, or you have no position

you got me, proof positive there is some conspiracy to fuck UK in the NCAA tournament. No one else has ever had a tough draw.

hell, we might as well lose 10 games and let Syracuse go undefeated. It won't matter, the world is again us and we gotta fight for respect

once again, no answer.

i reckon i'm through w/ this conversation; you're too thick of a nut for me to crack

Crack, what??

"once again, sherlock, how did that #1 overall work out for us in '09?

did we get teh weakest 2 seed, or did they stick us w/ the team that was in the discussion for a 4th 1-seed? "

That's just stupid. UK fans are always going to have a (ahem) "discussion" about how badly they got fucked under any scenario. Just b/c UK fans think they're always getting fucked doesn't mean that anybody else thinks that. Trotting out some lame shit about some "discussions" that your own inbred gene pool had doesn't have any objective meaning whatsoever. The fucking 2 seeds in any bracket are almost always going to be a tough team. Grow a pair. Or better yet, win the fucking game...

there is no answer to give. If your whole argument is based on us getting West Virginia one year as the toughest #2 seed and that is the basis for your whole argument in the last 40 years or so of tourney seeding, and that is your justification for not caring whether we end the season as the clear #1 seed going into the tourney, then you're an idiot.

There may be several instances where we are the clear #1 and didn't get the easiest teams in our bracket but it still doesn't matter.

There is no justification for not wanting to be the clear #1 seed at the end of the season.

Go back to moron island and lead your people.

The world is made up of protons and neutrons. Kentucky is made up of protons, neutrons and morons...

hedge wrote:"once again, sherlock, how did that #1 overall work out for us in '09?

did we get teh weakest 2 seed, or did they stick us w/ the team that was in the discussion for a 4th 1-seed? "

That's just stupid. UK fans are always going to have a (ahem) "discussion" about how badly they got fucked under any scenario. Just b/c UK fans think they're always getting fucked doesn't mean that anybody else thinks that. Trotting out some lame shit about some "discussions" that your own inbred gene pool had doesn't have any objective meaning whatsoever. The fucking 2 seeds in any bracket are almost always going to be a tough team. Grow a pair. Or better yet, win the fucking game...

hey dumbass, the discussion didn't come from the fans, it was the talking heads saying what a screw job west virginia (more so than us, because everyone expected UK to win that game anyhow) got; everybody w/ 2 fukkin' synapses to fire at one another thought that. have you never heard of the "s-curve" that's supposed to be used? then how the hell does the 5th seeded team (wvu) end up in the top seed's bracket?

and before i leave the subject for the time being, eC, your little edit about the cats losing 10 games was a slippery little metzger reversal...the conversation wasn't about the effect UK's losing would have on our seeding, it was about the effect syracuse's losing would have

That smacks of horseshit...

Too bad poor, pitiful Dook had to face the mighty juggernaut West Virginia in the FF. That wasn't fair. No way that depleted Dook squad could beat a team as powerful as West Virginia was that year. Wait a minute...

That smacks of truth...

Basketball season is still going on?

Looks like eCat is about to run off another.

Maybe it'll be you this time...

I'm gonna out live your crack head ass!

Cats rule wrote:

hedge wrote:"once again, sherlock, how did that #1 overall work out for us in '09?

did we get teh weakest 2 seed, or did they stick us w/ the team that was in the discussion for a 4th 1-seed? "

That's just stupid. UK fans are always going to have a (ahem) "discussion" about how badly they got fucked under any scenario. Just b/c UK fans think they're always getting fucked doesn't mean that anybody else thinks that. Trotting out some lame shit about some "discussions" that your own inbred gene pool had doesn't have any objective meaning whatsoever. The fucking 2 seeds in any bracket are almost always going to be a tough team. Grow a pair. Or better yet, win the fucking game...

hey dumbass, the discussion didn't come from the fans, it was the talking heads saying what a screw job west virginia (more so than us, because everyone expected UK to win that game anyhow) got; everybody w/ 2 fukkin' synapses to fire at one another thought that. have you never heard of the "s-curve" that's supposed to be used? then how the hell does the 5th seeded team (wvu) end up in the top seed's bracket?

and before i leave the subject for the time being, eC, your little edit about the cats losing 10 games was a slippery little metzger reversal...the conversation wasn't about the effect UK's losing would have on our seeding, it was about the effect syracuse's losing would have

you don't seem to understand, I don't give a shit. You think you have some overwhelming argument on a single point of data that should be compared to 40 other instances. You're basing your whole premise on one instance of seeding. Its completely irrelevant whether Jay Bilas thought UK got screwed - it has nothing to do with the logic of wanting Syracuse to lose to make us a clear #1 seed. Hell, Kansas lost to Northern Iowa. By your logic they could have lost 5 more games and it didn't matter because the committee fucked them by putting the lionhearted Northern Iowa Asshats in their bracket.

and yes, it does matter about UK losses, the whole point of wanting Syracuse to lose is because they are the only team with 1 loss like us, their RPI is ahead of ours so there is no clear distinction we can have as being the #1 seed unless that happens.

I'm hoping for a cushion that insures we go to Atlanta or St. Louis ,especially if there is a loss for us at Florida or Ms St.

My lord says just win your fooking games, quit bitching, and quit changing the fookin subject.

Cats rule wrote:

eCat wrote:

Cats rule wrote:
who was the #1 overall seed 2 years ago, mr. spock? how'd that work out for us?

its horseshit if I have to explain to you why Syracuse having more losses than us helps us. It solidifies our position.

If you want to hang your hat on some grand conspiracy to keep Kentucky from winning it all, thats fine but its still horseshit logic in rooting against Louisville beating Syracuse.

once again, sherlock, how did that #1 overall work out for us in '09?

did we get teh weakest 2 seed, or did they stick us w/ the team that was in the discussion for a 4th 1-seed?

has ANYTHING changed in the ncaa's hierarchy that makes you think it will be different this year?

answers to these questions must be part/parcel of the defense of your position, or you have no position

Perhaps this is how the NCAA chooses to deal with Kentucky's cheating. You should be grateful that they don't do anything meaningful and deserved like probation, death penalty, etc.

"and yes, it does matter about UK losses, the whole point of wanting Syracuse to lose is because they are the only team with 1 loss like us, their RPI is ahead of ours so there is no clear distinction we can have as being the #1 seed unless that happens."

Actually it doesn't matter. No matter which #1 seed UK gets, many UK fans will whine about it. And no matter which #2 seed is put in their bracket, UK fans will whine about it. Finally, no matter who else is put in UK's bracket, many UK fans are going to whine about it. It's what they do...

Cats rule wrote:

hedge wrote:"once again, sherlock, how did that #1 overall work out for us in '09?

did we get teh weakest 2 seed, or did they stick us w/ the team that was in the discussion for a 4th 1-seed? "

That's just stupid. UK fans are always going to have a (ahem) "discussion" about how badly they got fucked under any scenario. Just b/c UK fans think they're always getting fucked doesn't mean that anybody else thinks that. Trotting out some lame shit about some "discussions" that your own inbred gene pool had doesn't have any objective meaning whatsoever. The fucking 2 seeds in any bracket are almost always going to be a tough team. Grow a pair. Or better yet, win the fucking game...

hey dumbass, the discussion didn't come from the fans, it was the talking heads saying what a screw job west virginia (more so than us, because everyone expected UK to win that game anyhow) got; everybody w/ 2 fukkin' synapses to fire at one another thought that. have you never heard of the "s-curve" that's supposed to be used? then how the hell does the 5th seeded team (wvu) end up in the top seed's bracket?

and before i leave the subject for the time being, eC, your little edit about the cats losing 10 games was a slippery little metzger reversal...the conversation wasn't about the effect UK's losing would have on our seeding, it was about the effect syracuse's losing would have

If the goal is to win a national title, what is the difference if WVU beats you earlier or later?