(03-30-2014 06:17 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:55 PM)whoyarootinfor Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:12 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  They were low seeded, Louisville was low seeded, we were low seeded. SMU was screwed. The committee did a terrible job this year. All of the A10 and Big12 teams over over seeded, with the exception KS and ISU.

The only team that has outperformed their seed is UConn...And Cincy Underperformed.

Based on seeding
Memphis should have won 1 game
Uconn Should have won 1 game
Cincy Should have won 2 games
Louisville Should have won 3 games

And you forgot Dayton...

You are not understanding what he is complaining about. A top 25 team should not face a #1 seed in the second round. 25/4= 6.5. We should have been no worse than a 7 seed which would have put us playing a 2 seed in the second round.

Were we under seeded, or over ranked?

There is NO WAY you or anyone else can conclude we were over ranked after sweeping Lougyville and having only 1 bad loss on our record.

Just throwing a question out there. We had 4 bad losses, though. The 21 point loss at OSU was a bad loss. The 16 point loss here to UC was a bad loss. The Houston loss was a bad loss. The 19 point loss here to UConn was a bad loss. Who cares about the rankings...when you get run off of the court by anyone, especially at home, it's a bad loss.

Most don't think in those terms though. A win is a win, a loss is a loss. I agree with you though.

Yep, congrats to them. Maybe someday.......

(03-30-2014 06:38 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  Yep, congrats to them. Maybe someday.......

The day the powers decide "go big or go home"

(03-30-2014 04:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:12 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:10 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:08 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Most tiger fans are probably pretty happy a conf foe is in the final 4.

Of course...

But to say that they seeded us incorrectly just hasn't been proven...

They were low seeded, Louisville was low seeded, we were low seeded. SMU was screwed. The committee did a terrible job this year. All of the A10 and Big12 teams over over seeded, with the exception KS and ISU.

The only team that has outperformed their seed is UConn...And Cincy Underperformed.

Based on seeding
Memphis should have won 1 game
Uconn Should have won 1 game
Cincy Should have won 2 games
Louisville Should have won 3 games

And you forgot Dayton...

You are not understanding what he is complaining about. A top 25 team should not face a #1 seed in the second round. 25/4= 6.5. We should have been no worse than a 7 seed which would have put us playing a 2 seed in the second round.

I don't think they use polls...

But lets look at a tool they do use RPI which matches closely with the seeds we had...

(03-30-2014 06:17 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:55 PM)whoyarootinfor Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:12 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  They were low seeded, Louisville was low seeded, we were low seeded. SMU was screwed. The committee did a terrible job this year. All of the A10 and Big12 teams over over seeded, with the exception KS and ISU.

The only team that has outperformed their seed is UConn...And Cincy Underperformed.

Based on seeding
Memphis should have won 1 game
Uconn Should have won 1 game
Cincy Should have won 2 games
Louisville Should have won 3 games

And you forgot Dayton...

You are not understanding what he is complaining about. A top 25 team should not face a #1 seed in the second round. 25/4= 6.5. We should have been no worse than a 7 seed which would have put us playing a 2 seed in the second round.

Were we under seeded, or over ranked?

There is NO WAY you or anyone else can conclude we were over ranked after sweeping Lougyville and having only 1 bad loss on our record.

We had a 30ish RPI...I know that is not a Person but the machines said so...
And Louisville only had a 20ish RPI

Sorry didn't feel like finding historical RPI info.

(03-30-2014 04:45 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:12 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:10 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:08 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Most tiger fans are probably pretty happy a conf foe is in the final 4.

Of course...

But to say that they seeded us incorrectly just hasn't been proven...

They were low seeded, Louisville was low seeded, we were low seeded. SMU was screwed. The committee did a terrible job this year. All of the A10 and Big12 teams over over seeded, with the exception KS and ISU.

The only team that has outperformed their seed is UConn...And Cincy Underperformed.

Based on seeding
Memphis should have won 1 game
Uconn Should have won 1 game
Cincy Should have won 2 games
Louisville Should have won 3 games

And you forgot Dayton...

I totally disagree that tourney results are proof of seeding legitimacy.

Seeing is based on the regular season, not NCAA tourney win imo.

I would say proof is based on the final results. The best four teams are in the Final Four because they're the last four standing. You have two teams that were seeded 7 and 8 in the FF. Pretty impressive.

(03-30-2014 09:43 PM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:45 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  The only team that has outperformed their seed is UConn...And Cincy Underperformed.

Based on seeding
Memphis should have won 1 game
Uconn Should have won 1 game
Cincy Should have won 2 games
Louisville Should have won 3 games

And you forgot Dayton...

I totally disagree that tourney results are proof of seeding legitimacy.

Seeing is based on the regular season, not NCAA tourney win imo.

I would say proof is based on the final results. The best four teams are in the Final Four because they're the last four standing. You have two teams that were seeded 7 and 8 in the FF. Pretty impressive.

Totally disagree.

Seeding is based on regular season.

Duke was ousted by a 14 and 15 seeds the last few years. Doesn't make their seed any less legit. Uconn was never a top 4 team all year. Yet they are in. George Mason was never a top 4 team, yet they made a final 4 a few years ago.

When its a single elimination tourney, anything can happen. This is why people love March madness.

I hope they beat Kentucky and win it all. I'm glad to have our conference represented in the Final Four. But otherwise, they are pompous know-nothings.

(03-31-2014 02:07 AM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  I hope they beat Kentucky and win it all. I'm glad to have our conference represented in the Final Four. But otherwise, they are pompous know-nothings...

I'd much rather see Wisconsin beat Kentucky first.

(03-30-2014 09:54 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:43 PM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:45 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  The only team that has outperformed their seed is UConn...And Cincy Underperformed.

Based on seeding
Memphis should have won 1 game
Uconn Should have won 1 game
Cincy Should have won 2 games
Louisville Should have won 3 games

And you forgot Dayton...

I totally disagree that tourney results are proof of seeding legitimacy.

Seeing is based on the regular season, not NCAA tourney win imo.

I would say proof is based on the final results. The best four teams are in the Final Four because they're the last four standing. You have two teams that were seeded 7 and 8 in the FF. Pretty impressive.

Totally disagree.

Seeding is based on regular season.

Duke was ousted by a 14 and 15 seeds the last few years. Doesn't make their seed any less legit. Uconn was never a top 4 team all year. Yet they are in. George Mason was never a top 4 team, yet they made a final 4 a few years ago.

When its a single elimination tourney, anything can happen. This is why people love March madness.

Yes, I agree & so does the tourney committee. In the regular season we played AP, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO - 7 cupcakes with RPIs in the 250-300+ range as our OOC home schedule (plus Gonzaga). Couple the with the bottom half of our league & it will get you a 8-12 seed every time if you don't win the conference or conference tourney. We got what we earned. SMU had an even weaker schedule & got left out. Improve the OOC schedule (since we can't help but play the AAC lower half) and we'll see better seeds.

what a great bounce back from that ass kicking they took 3 weeks ago. Well done by that staff.

IMO the UMass and Kansas overseedings changed the complexion of the entire tournament. As well as placing Kentucky in the St Louis pod. They for sure didnt want Wichita in the final four.

(03-31-2014 08:01 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:54 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:43 PM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:45 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  The only team that has outperformed their seed is UConn...And Cincy Underperformed.

Based on seeding
Memphis should have won 1 game
Uconn Should have won 1 game
Cincy Should have won 2 games
Louisville Should have won 3 games

And you forgot Dayton...

I totally disagree that tourney results are proof of seeding legitimacy.

Seeing is based on the regular season, not NCAA tourney win imo.

I would say proof is based on the final results. The best four teams are in the Final Four because they're the last four standing. You have two teams that were seeded 7 and 8 in the FF. Pretty impressive.

Totally disagree.

Seeding is based on regular season.

Duke was ousted by a 14 and 15 seeds the last few years. Doesn't make their seed any less legit. Uconn was never a top 4 team all year. Yet they are in. George Mason was never a top 4 team, yet they made a final 4 a few years ago.

When its a single elimination tourney, anything can happen. This is why people love March madness.

Yes, I agree & so does the tourney committee. In the regular season we played AP, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO - 7 cupcakes with RPIs in the 250-300+ range as our OOC home schedule (plus Gonzaga). Couple the with the bottom half of our league & it will get you a 8-12 seed every time if you don't win the conference or conference tourney. We got what we earned. SMU had an even weaker schedule & got left out. Improve the OOC schedule (since we can't help but play the AAC lower half) and we'll see better seeds.

Our schedule was strong this year, we played LSU, Ok State (twice), Florida and Gonzaga. We had the same cupcakes everyone does.

What hurt us was losing to Houston, getting killed by Cincy and UConn (5 losses total) going 6-4 down the stretch and losing the first game of the AAC tournament on our home floor.

(03-31-2014 09:29 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 08:01 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:54 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:43 PM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:45 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  I totally disagree that tourney results are proof of seeding legitimacy.

Seeing is based on the regular season, not NCAA tourney win imo.

I would say proof is based on the final results. The best four teams are in the Final Four because they're the last four standing. You have two teams that were seeded 7 and 8 in the FF. Pretty impressive.

Totally disagree.

Seeding is based on regular season.

Duke was ousted by a 14 and 15 seeds the last few years. Doesn't make their seed any less legit. Uconn was never a top 4 team all year. Yet they are in. George Mason was never a top 4 team, yet they made a final 4 a few years ago.

When its a single elimination tourney, anything can happen. This is why people love March madness.

Yes, I agree & so does the tourney committee. In the regular season we played AP, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO - 7 cupcakes with RPIs in the 250-300+ range as our OOC home schedule (plus Gonzaga). Couple the with the bottom half of our league & it will get you a 8-12 seed every time if you don't win the conference or conference tourney. We got what we earned. SMU had an even weaker schedule & got left out. Improve the OOC schedule (since we can't help but play the AAC lower half) and we'll see better seeds.

Our schedule was strong this year, we played LSU, Ok State (twice), Florida and Gonzaga. We had the same cupcakes everyone does.

What hurt us was losing to Houston, getting killed by Cincy and UConn (5 losses total) going 6-4 down the stretch and losing the first game of the AAC tournament on our home floor.

I disagree & so did the committee. Rationalize all you want but the committee chairman, when asked directly about the low seeds of the AAC & the SEC, said the large number of weak teams in the lower half of those conferences led to lower seeds. Point being you can't have that many weak conference foes & have another 8 each 300+ RPI (9 including Siena) teams & expect to get a high seed if you don't win the conference or the conference tournament. Even winning the conference, UL only got a 4 seed while ranked in the top 10 because of the relatively weak OOC schedule + the weak lower half of the conference x2 (that's 19 games against 250+ RPI teams. We might want it otherwise, we might point to the top 25 wins but the committee uses a different criteria.

(03-30-2014 04:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  You are not understanding what he is complaining about. A top 25 team should not face a #1 seed in the second round. 25/4= 6.5. We should have been no worse than a 7 seed which would have put us playing a 2 seed in the second round.

The selection committee doesn't use the polls for seeding.

The ranking they DO take into account, RPI, had us at 31. That put us, mathematically speaking, a single spot (32) from an 8 seed.

And if would've made zero difference in the result in the 2nd game. We were getting our tail kicked whether we faced a 1 or a 2.....any of them.

RPI as of March 17, 2014

(03-31-2014 02:52 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  You are not understanding what he is complaining about. A top 25 team should not face a #1 seed in the second round. 25/4= 6.5. We should have been no worse than a 7 seed which would have put us playing a 2 seed in the second round.

The selection committee doesn't use the polls for seeding.

The ranking they DO take into account, RPI, had us at 31. That put us, mathematically speaking, a single spot (32) from an 8 seed.

And if would've made zero difference in the result in the 2nd game. We were getting our tail kicked whether we faced a 1 or a 2.....any of them.

RPI as of March 17, 2014

Does the RPI start the season with all teams equal? Didn't think so. So the fix is in early.

(03-31-2014 08:11 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:52 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  You are not understanding what he is complaining about. A top 25 team should not face a #1 seed in the second round. 25/4= 6.5. We should have been no worse than a 7 seed which would have put us playing a 2 seed in the second round.

The selection committee doesn't use the polls for seeding.

The ranking they DO take into account, RPI, had us at 31. That put us, mathematically speaking, a single spot (32) from an 8 seed.

And if would've made zero difference in the result in the 2nd game. We were getting our tail kicked whether we faced a 1 or a 2.....any of them.

RPI as of March 17, 2014

Does the RPI start the season with all teams equal? Didn't think so. So the fix is in early.

Every team is tied before the season starts with the RPI...I hope u are kidding.

(03-31-2014 02:52 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  You are not understanding what he is complaining about. A top 25 team should not face a #1 seed in the second round. 25/4= 6.5. We should have been no worse than a 7 seed which would have put us playing a 2 seed in the second round.

The selection committee doesn't use the polls for seeding.

The ranking they DO take into account, RPI, had us at 31. That put us, mathematically speaking, a single spot (32) from an 8 seed.

And if would've made zero difference in the result in the 2nd game. We were getting our tail kicked whether we faced a 1 or a 2.....any of them.

RPI as of March 17, 2014

Which has ZERO to do with weather of not we were seeded correctly. I totally agree we played like shite.

(03-31-2014 08:11 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  ...

Does the RPI start the season with all teams equal? Didn't think so. So the fix is in early.

Are you joking? Because if you aren't, you clearly have no idea how the RPI works.