|
|
Post by Ron Diaz on Mar 17, 2006 15:22:20 GMT -6
Thats right. We are better than Marquette and UW all offseason. Marquette can't beat a 10 seed, and UW can't win vs. a 9 seed. We go and beat a 6! Take that Badgers!! Take that Gold!!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by jg on Mar 19, 2006 11:16:27 GMT -6
Are you 7 or 8 years old!!
|
|
|
|
Post by brewtownbrian on Mar 19, 2006 11:57:42 GMT -6
Thats right. We are better than Marquette and UW all offseason. Marquette can't beat a 10 seed, and UW can't win vs. a 9 seed. We go and beat a 6! Take that Badgers!! Take that Gold!!!! ;D While I agree because UWM won a game and UW and MU did not...I think it's clear after the 1st round that the seeds mean very little. So to say UW couldn't beat a 9 seed or MU couldn't beat a 10 seed is kind of pointless because the seedings are somewhat pointless. 1st round...12-Texas A&M over 5-Syracuse 14-NW St. over 3-Iowa 10-NC St. over 7-Cal 9-Bucknell over 8-Arkansas 13-Bradley over 4-Kansas 10-'Bama over 7-Marquette 11-George Mason over 6-Mich. St. 12-Montana over 5-Nevada 11-UWM over 6-Oklahoma Close calls were abundant too... 16-Southern played 1-Duke closely 16-Albany led 1-UConn for most of the game 13-Pacific took 4-BC to double OT 11-San Diego St. nearly pulled it off over 6-Indiana Half-way thru the 2nd round...5-Washington over 4-Illinois 7-Wichita St. over 2-Tennessee |
|
|
|
Post by dylanrocks on Mar 19, 2006 12:34:09 GMT -6
In short, all three state schools were about evenly pitted (Arizona a one-point favorite, Marquette a two-point favorite, Milwaukee a 2.5-point underdog) and the Panthers outperformed their first-round opponent while the other two did not. I take great pride that the Panthers advanced further than the other two state schools.
|
|
