Is Butler really a Cinderella team?

[BreckTxLonghorn]

I know so many media, and many people, are playing Butler as the big underdog, but....really? I mean, look at their full season of work.


Pre-season ranked as #11
Mid-season ranked as #22-28
Regular season ranked as #11

Have not lost a game since 12/22.
Four players average 10 pts or more.

I don't care who you play, to be able to win that many games in a row, and play defense that well, make you a contender in my book.

Do people view them a huge underdog because there isn't the word Kentucky on their jerseys? Or simply because their conference has no reputation? Just curious - I had actually thought their ranking should've been better when the brackets came out. I don't follow a ton of college basketball, but I listen to sports radio, and they always threw Butler in there as a solid team; I'm just confused as to why they (other analysts) downgraded them to surpsrise so quickly.

[Old Tiger]

IMO Cinderella's are teams who have double digit seeds.

[DUKE22]

I think it depends on how long a team goes. A five seed winning two games is not a big deal, but winning five of them is gonna get you a cinderella tag. I agree with the original statement though that Butler has been noticed all season. I think once you lose a game or two as a mid major it is hard to get back into the top ten because of the quality of wins.

[BreckTxLonghorn]

Originally posted by DUKE22
I think it depends on how long a team goes. A five seed winning two games is not a big deal, but winning five of them is gonna get you a cinderella tag. I agree with the original statement though that Butler has been noticed all season. I think once you lose a game or two as a mid major it is hard to get back into the top ten because of the quality of wins.


It makes sense to a point, and I agree about harder for a mid-major to climb after a loss, but no one regarded Michigan State as an underdog or Cinderella, and they were a 5 seed as well. Yet some sounded shocked when Michigan State was recorded as the underdogs (1.5 pts) in Vegas.

[Keith7]

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s37/smilies-10065.png

[charlesrixey]

when saint joe's was undefeated several years back and a #1 seed, no one called them a cinderella. just because you are from a mid-major doesn't make a you a cinderella. Butler has been legit for almost a decade, and Gonzaga has been for more than a decade now (Xavier too). Nobody would say Gonzaga is a cinderella now if they went to the final four, and yet Saint Mary's, a team from their same conference that was a double-digit seed and had a similar record to Butler, was called one quite often. Of course, Gonzaga WAS a cinderella once, in the late 90's---ever since, they've just been a power mid major.

Bottom line, George Mason was special because they broke boundaries AND they had never really had success in the tourney prior to their run. In other words, you only get to be cinderalla once, lol (or wait a couple decades in between your runs).

Weber St. beat UNC in the tourney a decade ago, and haven't really done anything since. If they were a 14 seed again and went to the elite eight, bingo-cinderella!

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn
It makes sense to a point, and I agree about harder for a mid-major to climb after a loss, but no one regarded Michigan State as an underdog or Cinderella, and they were a 5 seed as well. Yet some sounded shocked when Michigan State was recorded as the underdogs (1.5 pts) in Vegas.

This has nothing to do with this thread...but I am glad to see you actually hung around after Breck's drop to 2A!!:)

[coach]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
IMO Cinderella's are teams who have double digit seeds.

northern iowa isnt a cinderella?