NCAA tourney seeding question?
March 16th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^
March 16th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
March 16th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^
March 16th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
Why are they a lock for the Final Four? Because they went last year? Well, so did we.
I think they'll fall short. That undefeated record is a burden that brings extra pressure.
A burden would be being bad at basketball. Witchita State is very good at basketball and may well lose before the season is done, but it won't be because they won games played earlier in the season.
16 teams have gone into NCAA tournaments undefeated.
7 of the 16 won championships.
12 of the 16 went to the Final Four.
The only exceptions: Columbia in '51, St. Bonaventure in '68, Marquette in '71, Indiana in '75. There's not much evidence here that an undefeated record is a burden.
March 16th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^
March 16th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^
I'm more interested in who's the 3-seed than the 1-seed. That's the tough opponent we're most likely going to face.
March 16th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
March 16th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
I'd honestly prefer a #2 seed that doesn't match UM up against teams like Louisville, Iowa/Oregon, etc., which is what it would likely be in the Midwest. I guess the #1 seed in the East looks good, but it's a tricky situation. I guess just win and see what happens.
March 16th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
March 16th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
March 16th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
I've never understood the argument that we should want a 2 seed in WSU's region instead of a 1.
1 seeds make the FF and win the tournament at a significantly higher rate than 2 seeds. It's just a plain easier path.
Even ignoring that, the reason everyone wants to be in Wichita State's region is because they think WSU is overrated. But if we were a 2, we wouldn't play them until the Elite Eight. And if they are so overrated, then who says they're not already beaten by the Elite Eight? Then we're playing some hot, under-seeded 4 seed like us last year, which I wouldn't look forward to.
And by the way, I don't think WSU is overrated. They're not the #1 team in the country, but I do think they are a very good team and could definitely win it all.
Well put Bambi. I also agree with this. I've mentioned it in threads before but this year seems particularly full of teams from the 2-5 seeds lines that are going to be dangerous as all hell. I mean, every year there are teams from the 3 or 4-seed lines that are dangerous but this year has many, many teams underachieving at times and racking up losses that drops them to a "lower" high seed. Kansas, Lousiville, UNC, Michigan St., Villanova, Creighton, Kentucky, Duke, Iowa St., Oklahoma St. at an even higher seed, Baylor, Cincinnatti, etc. Hell, how's it going to feel for the possbile 7-seed who has to play Iowa at a 10-seed!?
We freak out over matchups we think will happen and half the time it doesn'teven work out that way. It's March Madness, and it's fun, we just need to take deep breaths more often and let the Bracket come out and go from there. We emphasize a lot of this seed/region talk a bit much,
I also this the Shockers are a damn good team can see them in the Final 4, again. Why they get looked down upon so much baffles me.
I'd rather be a 2 in the east with villanova and virginia than a 2 in the midwest with wichita and louisville as the 1-3's.
You want a 1-seed because that means you avoid Florida, Arizona and Wichita State. That is all.
The constraint is no conference matchups in the half-regions. Once you do that the other B1G and ACC teams in the region are misplaced.
It's not as easy as it sounds. It's not so bad if you're doing it at home on your computer, but you have to get a whole committee to buy in and you've only got half an hour. Either they've already worked up two brackets now and they're waiting for the result to know which one to go with, or they've already fixed the ones. I'm betting on the latter, it's consistent with how they've operated in the past.
"Why did X still deserve a Y seed even though they lost the B1G/SEC conference championship game?" or "Why didn't X move up after winning etc. etc."
"We looked at their whole body of work blah blah blah."
aren't we?