# St. Joe's #1?!?!



## hOnDo (Jun 26, 2002)

St. Joes is getting trashed by Xavier.

Kinda makes you wonder how good they really are..




Score


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

Xavier killed St. Joe's by 20. Man, great game Xavier! I'm sure xubrew is feeling pretty good right now.


----------



## nasemoney (Jan 16, 2004)

Damn, I wish I woulda saw this game..will havta wait for the highlights.

Not uncommon for a team to lose early in their conf. tourney and win the NCAA however...they'll probably be on a mission now. Even more determined than before.


----------



## Dakota (Aug 18, 2002)

I sat down and watched the first 5 minutes of the game. I thought to myself: "How........ the hellllllll............ can this team........ be #1????" 

Any of the major programs could crush this team. St. Joe's has no inside game whatttt-----sooooo-----evvverrrr. It just made me wonder how this team ever won 27 games in a row. Actually, I'm probably just over thinking this, but they did have a 9 day lay-off, and that probably had something to do with the poor effort today. 

They need to find there rhythm early in the tournament though, because if they don't, then there in for a very early exit. 


Question: After this huge loss today, do you all think that St. Joe's should receive a #1 seed in the tourney??? 

Personally: I don't think they should, just because of that game today. A #1 seed would never get blown out by a team of Xaviers stature. I'm not saying that Xavier is bad or anything, but a #1 would not lose to them. 



-Cory


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Let's just hope the committee has the opposite opinion of C-MO. Last time I checked they had a Top 25 schedule and went 27-0. Stanford lost to Washington yet they still deserve a #1 seed, and Xavier is better than Washington. They had one bad game, give them a break.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

They only have played *ONE* game against the RPI top 30 and that was the first game of the season against Gonzaga.

I am not saying they don't deserve a one seed, but I do think their one seed is very tenuous.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

*the game*

The game wasn't even as close as the final score indicated. Xavier was up by as much as 36...it only became a 20 point game in garbage time.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

Losing by that much certainly hurts their case for a 1 seed, and whose to say Xavier is better than Washington? Anyway Stanford lost at Washington and were in the game, St. Joe's lost on a neurtral court and were done from the start. Xavier shot 71% that is unheard of, I think if St. Joe's matched up with a team like Mizzou they could be done in the 2nd round.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> Losing by that much certainly hurts their case for a 1 seed, and whose to say Xavier is better than Washington? Anyway Stanford lost at Washington and were in the game, St. Joe's lost on a neurtral court and were done from the start. Xavier shot 71% that is unheard of, I think if St. Joe's matched up with a team like Mizzou they could be done in the 2nd round.


I'd pick Mizzou over them....

St. Joe's won't make it past the Sweet 16.


----------



## Dakota (Aug 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by *T.Shock*!
> Let's just hope the committee has the opposite opinion of C-MO. Last time I checked they had a Top 25 schedule and went 27-0. Stanford lost to Washington yet they still deserve a #1 seed, and Xavier is better than Washington. They had one bad game, give them a break.


I'm not too sure about the top 25 schedule. 

Stanford deserves a #1 seed, but they play much better competition. The Pac 10 is one of the best conferences in the nation. 

Number #1 Seeds 

1. Duke 
2. Pitt 
3. Stanford 
4. OSU 

That's just my opinion. St. Joe's would get hammered by every single one of those teams. They deserved to have that ranking at #1 because of there record, but they weren't truly representing for the best in the nation, because frankly, they weren't the best in the nation. 

Gonzaga is an iffy #1 in my book. There a great team with some future pro's, but there schedule is bugging me out.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>UKfan4Life</b>!
> Xavier killed St. Joe's by 20. Man, great game Xavier! I'm sure xubrew is feeling pretty good right now.



brew is probably still "buzzing" about it... :cheers:


----------



## Fordy74 (May 22, 2002)

What a shocker. I thought this would be a dangerous game and that the HAwks could lose. The thing that is shocking is how one-sided the game was.. I think they did lose the number 1 seed. A 2 seed is fine though and they will be ok and perhaps determined to prove they aren't a fluke.. Well this certainly cements a bid for Xavier doesn't it!!


----------



## rhodyruckus (Dec 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C-MO 22 LD</b>!
> 
> Stanford deserves a #1 seed, but they play much better competition. The Pac 10 is one of the best conferences in the nation.


I beg to differ. According to the Pomeroy rankings, the A10 and Pac10 are neck and neck, with A10 the #7 conference and Pac10 #8. I think it's either both Stanford & St. Joe's get 1 seeds, or neither do.

Conference rankings


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

Is it just me or did someone say the Pac 10 was a GOOD conference? 

They'll get 2, maybe 3 teams in the tournament...


----------



## Dakota (Aug 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by [ B]Hollils[/B]!
> They'll get 2, maybe 3 teams in the tournament...


No, they will defiantly get three teams in the tournament. 

The Pac-10 is usually one of the best conferences in the nation year in and year out. If it weren't for teams like UCLA, Oregon, and California having down years, then this conference would be getting alot of hype. We all know that UCLA is one of the best storied programs of all of college basketball. They are having there "down" period, but next year, or even a year after that, UCLA will be back with the big boys. Oregon is having a down year as well this year. They sustained some injuries that hurt them down the stretch. California is also one of the better teams in the Pac-10. They usually can bring about 18 or 19 wins to that conference.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

Stanford will definitely be a 1 seed if they win their conference tourney, they have 4 wins over the top 25, Gonzaga, Kansas and Arizona twice, St. Joe's only has 1, Gonzaga. The committee will look at how the team's lost if both end with 1 loss, St. Joe's got hammered, Stanford simply lost. Stanford gets a 1 seed, and if OK State wins the Big 12 and Pitt gets to the Big East Championship they should be 1 seeds also. Barring a Duke upset that gives them the other 1 seed, making Gonzaga and St. Joe's 2 seeds, which isn't a bad thing.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

This is mind-boggling. Honestly, I'm disgusted with the state of college basketball, where a team loses one game...one freaking game, and suddenly deserves a #2 seed. And check the numbers Xavier has a better record, better RPI, plays in a better conference...so by comparison, Xavier is THE BETTER TEAM. It's people like Dick Vitale and Digger Phelps who are just ignorant and front-runners. Vitale would jump on the sexual organs of ACC if a conference was capable of that. 

Me: Who deserves #1 seeds Dick?

Dick: Duke, N.C. State, Wake Forest, and Kentucky

Me: What about St. Joe's, Gonzaga, Stanford, and all the other teams?

Dick: Clearly they are inferior to the supreme race of ACC teams.

Here is my opinion. If you wanna say St. Joseph's doesn't deserve a #1 seed, then Stanford doesn't deserve the #1 seed. Both teams have one loss, St. Joe's has the better schedule rank, plays in a better conference. Numbers people they never lie. I knew Xavier would beat St. Joseph's probably, just cause of the way they matched up in the first game. Now if you say that a good team shooting 71% and a great team shooting 29% doesn't result in a blowout then you don't know the game of basketball. Oklahoma State lost to BYU, so they don't deserve a #1 seed. The evidence I'm using is far superior than anything presented so far and I'm confident of that, let's just hope the committee knows what they are doing this year. 

#1 seeds
Stanford(West)
Duke(South)
St. Joseph's(East)
Pittsburgh(Midwest)

#2 seeds
Mississippi State(South)
Gonzaga(West)
Oklahoma State(Midwest)
Connecticut(East)


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

I think most people are overstating St. Joe's chances of not being a top seed. It's mostly because of the fact that they lost in such a way after going the entire regular season undefeated. I think they have a good case to still make it as a top seed.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PhillyPhanatic</b>!
> I think most people are overstating St. Joe's chances of not being a top seed. It's mostly because of the fact that they lost in such a way after going the entire regular season undefeated. I think they have a good case to still make it as a top seed.


The reason I think Saint Joseph's gets a #2 seed is for two reasons.

1. How badly they lost. They were never in that game and the committee clearly was watching it.
2. The other contenders for top seeds were not that far behind them to begin with. Pittsburgh, Kentucky, Mississippi State and Oklahoma State are all in higher rated leagues with more quality wins (top 50 RPI wins) and if Pitt, MSU/Kentucky and OSU win their conference tournaments, they will all jump over Saint Joseph's IMO because they won the regular seasons and conference tournaments. In Kentucky's case, they will have the 2nd most quality wins to Duke period in the country.

I think Saint Joseph's lost the seed.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> The reason I think Saint Joseph's gets a #2 seed is for two reasons.
> 
> 1. How badly they lost. They were never in that game and the committee clearly was watching it.
> ...


I'll agree that it's not an automatic, my whole point is, some people are writing them off while other conference tourney's are still going on. There's still a shot open for them, they just have to root for the right teams to lose.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> This is mind-boggling. Honestly, I'm disgusted with the state of college basketball, where a team loses one game...one freaking game, and suddenly deserves a #2 seed. And check the numbers Xavier has a better record, better RPI, plays in a better conference...so by comparison, Xavier is THE BETTER TEAM. It's people like Dick Vitale and Digger Phelps who are just ignorant and front-runners. Vitale would jump on the sexual organs of ACC if a conference was capable of that.
> 
> Me: Who deserves #1 seeds Dick?
> ...


Hate to tell you Dick Vitale said St. Joe's definitely deserves a 1 seed, just in case you didn't know he coached at Detroit, and oftens says the smaller schools should be seeded high. The reason he talks about the ACC so much is because that is the conference he regularly covers. Same way Digger Phelps would favor the Big East and whoever else covers mostly one conference, they will be in favor of that conference because those are the players and teams they see all the time.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Read the article on ESPN.com, where certain columnists said YES or NO to St. Joseph's getting a #1 seed, and Dickie V clearly said NO. And yes I know he coached Detroit and he's in love with Gonzaga, but if you've been watching Dickie V all year, he's been very dismissive of St. Joseph's..

And speaking of Digger Phelps. He said Notre Dame should get in, yet Richmond or LSU or Missouri doesn't deserve it. There is just a regular bias amongst the ESPN College Basketball Coverage. Vitale and the ACC, Phelps and Notre Dame, Bilas and Duke. It just sometimes goes over the top.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> Read the article on ESPN.com, where certain columnists said YES or NO to St. Joseph's getting a #1 seed, and Dickie V clearly said NO. And yes I know he coached Detroit and he's in love with Gonzaga, but if you've been watching Dickie V all year, he's been very dismissive of St. Joseph's..
> 
> And speaking of Digger Phelps. He said Notre Dame should get in, yet Richmond or LSU or Missouri doesn't deserve it. There is just a regular bias amongst the ESPN College Basketball Coverage. Vitale and the ACC, Phelps and Notre Dame, Bilas and Duke. It just sometimes goes over the top.


I read that article Dickie V wrote, liek everybody else he says that blowout loss really hurt St. Joe's and it definitely did. You proved my point about Digger, he is a Big East commentator, so are you surprised he said a Big East school and the school he coached should be in? And if you look at the teams Notre Dame is more deserving then all of those, all I have to say is Belmont College.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Missouri lost to Belmont (at home no less) not Notre Dame.
Notre Dame lost to #245 in the RPI Central Michigan at home.

Well the race for the No. 1 seeds is really rounding into form.

I think it will break down this way.
East - Duke (with a win tomorrow over Georgia Tech they would be a lock, No.1 in the RPI, most quality wins)
South - Kentucky (with Mississippi State out of the SEC tourney, they will win this tournament, No. 2 RPI, second most top 50 wins behind Duke)
West - Stanford (getting to the Pac-10 Final makes them a lock IMO)
Midwest - Pitt/Oklahoma State (if Oklahoma State wins, then I see them getting the No. 1 w/ Pitt right behind them. If both of them lose in the conference tournaments, I think Saint Joseph's would be the No. 1 seed in the Midwest Region).

Also I think Gonzaga will now be relegated to a No. 3 seed. UConn proving they could win two tough games without Okafor (will get them the No. 2 in the West region w/ Gonzaga the No.3)

What a wild and crazy night and I didn't even get to the bubble teams.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Why o why is Kentucky even considered in this conversation for a #1 seed? Duke I can understand, same with Pitt and Oklahoma State, but Kentucky lost twice against Georgia and almost lost a third time yesterday. They lost to Louisville which is looking less and less impressive every day that goes by. Fine they finished 1st, but the SEC isn't the ACC or Big East. I'm sorry but despite what Kentucky does against competition the likes of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida they don't deserve the #1 seed. They lost too many games they shouldn't have lost. My point is that why all the sudden after 27 straight wins, the #1 ranking in the country with a schedule that is better than Stanford, why does the way in which St. Joseph's lost hurt their seeding. Teams play poorly and St. Joseph's played poorly. They beat Xavier earlier in the year, so it's not like all the sudden against top-notch competition they folded. They couldn't hit a shot, Xavier hit everything. Xavier has blown every team out in the A-10 Tournament cause they can't miss. If Stanford had gone undefeated and then lost to Washington State by 20 in the first round, would there even be a discussion as to whether they deserve a #1 seed? No, even though St. Joe's played the toughest non-conference schedule and a tougher conference schedule. It's just bias against the small schools. I just hope everybody looks at the numbers and says OH YOU'RE RIGHT T.SHOCK.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

I dont get how losing one game messes up your chances for being number 1...Teams do lose you know


----------

