(03-14-2017 09:23 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:57 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:54 AM)dan10 Wrote:  MSU was certainly not deserving of that high of a seed. As far as which teams made it and didn't, I thought they did fine. I thought they seeded everyone poorly just to make entertaining matchups and potential matchups, but thought the teams that made it were fine. Personally I thought Iowa or Ill State should have been in over USC, but at that point you were deciding between teams that really didn't belong in the first place. I was glad to see that Syracuse got that last 1 seed in the NIT, which meant they were further off the bubble than everyone acted like.

The seeding is all F'ed up! Wisconsin an 8? Minn a 5? The Shockers a 10? Mich State a 9? By all measurements Wisc and Wichita are top 30 teams so either of them being below A 6 is a bit off the mark. Also, if you look at Duke Vs. UNC for a #1, Duke has a better resume, 1 more loss, but won 2 of 3 head to head, and the ACC title.

Kenpom ranks UNC #3. Sagarin ranks UNC #3. RPI has UNC 5th. ESPN's BPI has UNC 3rd.

Duke finished 5th in the ACC and went on a great run to win the ACC tournament. With that 4 game winning streak, they're now 5-4 in their last nine games...all with Coach K and with a full roster.

Carolina won the ACC regular season by 2 games and were 3 games ahead of Duke. Yes, Duke's schedule was harder, but they have a loss worse than anything close to Carolina's.

Somehow i knew you'd chime in. There is a reason Duke has the best odds to win the tourney. UNC has a good body of work, the committee chair said they were firmly planted on the one line before the ACC tourney and there wasn't much that could move them. I honestly have no problem with UNC being a 1, was just stating you could make the case. If you you believe in the BPI than Cuse should have been in, and Gonzaga #2? Not buying it at all. I see UNC going down to UCLA, put it in the books.