(04-21-2014 11:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 12:07 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 11:54 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 07:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the only teams with fewer than 5 losses ranked in the top 25 were:
1 Florida 29-2
2 Wichita St. 34-0
3 Villanova 28-3
4 Arizona 28-3
#7 SDSU 27-3
11 Syracues 27-4

And there were only 3 teams with 5 losses. So 22-9 isn't that bad, especially considering 3 of those were to the #1 team.

No one is saying 22-9 is bad. But when is the last time you've seen a team with a 22-9 record with the resume UK had with a Top 4-seed? Again, these are the last seven games before the SEC Tourney:

vs. Florida L, 69-59
at Ole Miss W, 84-70
vs. LSU W, 77-76 (ot)
vs. Arkansas L, 71-67 (ot)
at South Carolina L, 72-67
vs Alabama W, 55-48
at Florida L, 85-64

That is 4 losses and two of those were against teams that didn't make the Dance. Then the two wins in the SEC Tourney were against teams that didn't make the Dance. And then UK lost to Fla for the 3rd straight time although it was an impressive loss.

I'm sorry but UK didn't deserved a higher seeding playing in a weak SEC and finishing the regular season losing three of their last 4 games. That said, they probably benefitted from that seeding because they definitely played with something to prove.

Agree totally.

5 seeds-VCU, Oklahoma, Cincinnati, St. Louis-all lost in the 1st round. All had similarly thin resumes. VCU only played UVA and St. Louis among ranked teams all season-and won two. SLU only played WI and Wichita among ranked teams all season-and lost both at home and lost 4 of their last 5, 2 to teams in the bottom half of their conference.
6 seeds-Ohio St. and UMass lost in the 1st round. UMass-see the 5 seeds. Ohio St.-went 10-9 over their last 19 games. They had some good wins and also lost twice to Penn St. who had a losing record and Indiana and Minnesota who were bottom half of their conference.
Baylor was in a huge slump over the last half of the season, going 12-10 after starting 12-1 and a week before the end of the season were not likely to make the tourney. They did have a 5 point win over UK on a neutral court. UNC also had a 5 point win over UK and like UK, looked underrated.
7 seeds-UConn also underrated. Texas and Oregon lost in 2nd round. New Mexico lost in 1st round. None have awesome resumes.
8 seeds-Colorado, Memphis and Gonzaga. CU lost in 1st round.

Everything you said about UK could be said and probably more so against most of the other 5-8 seeds other than UNC. And none of those schools other than Baylor, UNC, UConn and UK were really considered any sort of threat to win it.

The highlighted pieces are all wrong information. I can't really take anything else seriously.

SLU didn't lose in R1, and Wisconsin was in Cancun (not a home game).

(04-23-2014 09:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The fraud was the committee this year. If they don't think Wichita deserved a 1 seed fine, seed them a 2. but don't rig the entire tournament and mess everything up like they did.

Part of the problem for the committee btw was how the other top teams folded like a cheap suit in the conference tournaments or late in the season. Villanova comes to mind immediately. Wisconsin lost 2 of their last 3 games. Kansas lost 3 of their last 5 games. Duke had slipped. Syracuse slipped.

Yeah.

Duke and Syracuse slipped, and were still rewarded with playing in their home state for the first weekend. Florida wasn't exactly given the cake walk it deserved (good on them for winning as long as they could, though). Wisconsin didn't win the B1G regular season crown or the conference tournament...gets a two seed AND plays in the state its first weekend. Virginia gets the softest two-seed, and Wichita State, had it even beaten Kentucky, would have been shafted AGAIN the next round with a Louisville game in Indiana.

It was bad. It was very, very bad. I'm just glad someone who actually was getting screwed (because they were those first two rounds), and then stood to benefit from others getting screwed in return (playing in MSG means these other guys come to YOU), helped to create the conversation.

The process needs to be more transparent and consistent. Or maybe just actually defined.

(04-23-2014 10:45 AM)LouPower Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 12:07 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 11:54 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 07:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the only teams with fewer than 5 losses ranked in the top 25 were:
1 Florida 29-2
2 Wichita St. 34-0
3 Villanova 28-3
4 Arizona 28-3
#7 SDSU 27-3
11 Syracues 27-4

And there were only 3 teams with 5 losses. So 22-9 isn't that bad, especially considering 3 of those were to the #1 team.

No one is saying 22-9 is bad. But when is the last time you've seen a team with a 22-9 record with the resume UK had with a Top 4-seed? Again, these are the last seven games before the SEC Tourney:

vs. Florida L, 69-59
at Ole Miss W, 84-70
vs. LSU W, 77-76 (ot)
vs. Arkansas L, 71-67 (ot)
at South Carolina L, 72-67
vs Alabama W, 55-48
at Florida L, 85-64

That is 4 losses and two of those were against teams that didn't make the Dance. Then the two wins in the SEC Tourney were against teams that didn't make the Dance. And then UK lost to Fla for the 3rd straight time although it was an impressive loss.

I'm sorry but UK didn't deserved a higher seeding playing in a weak SEC and finishing the regular season losing three of their last 4 games. That said, they probably benefitted from that seeding because they definitely played with something to prove.

Agree totally.

5 seeds-VCU, Oklahoma, Cincinnati, St. Louis-all lost in the 1st round. All had similarly thin resumes. VCU only played UVA and St. Louis among ranked teams all season-and won two. SLU only played WI and Wichita among ranked teams all season-and lost both at home and lost 4 of their last 5, 2 to teams in the bottom half of their conference.
6 seeds-Ohio St. and UMass lost in the 1st round. UMass-see the 5 seeds. Ohio St.-went 10-9 over their last 19 games. They had some good wins and also lost twice to Penn St. who had a losing record and Indiana and Minnesota who were bottom half of their conference.
Baylor was in a huge slump over the last half of the season, going 12-10 after starting 12-1 and a week before the end of the season were not likely to make the tourney. They did have a 5 point win over UK on a neutral court. UNC also had a 5 point win over UK and like UK, looked underrated.
7 seeds-UConn also underrated. Texas and Oregon lost in 2nd round. New Mexico lost in 1st round. None have awesome resumes.
8 seeds-Colorado, Memphis and Gonzaga. CU lost in 1st round.

Everything you said about UK could be said and probably more so against most of the other 5-8 seeds other than UNC. And none of those schools other than Baylor, UNC, UConn and UK were really considered any sort of threat to win it.

The highlighted pieces are all wrong information. I can't really take anything else seriously.

SLU didn't lose in R1, and Wisconsin was in Cancun (not a home game).

WI was shown like a home game on ESPN's site. So ESPN was wrong. I forgot SLU came from behind and won that 1st round game, must have looked too quickly at that bracket schedule. They should have lost to NCSU, the last team in. They did lose in the 2nd by 15. The rest is accurate.

Part of that though was not many of the top 2 seed lines actually won their conference tournaments....
1 Florida won SEC
2 Arizona lost P12 final
3 Wichita won MVC
4 Virginia won ACC
5 Villanova lost BE
6 Michigan lost B10
7 Kansas lost B12
8 Wisconsin lost B10
9-11 all lost in conference tournaments
12 Iowa St won B12

so of the top 12 teams, only 4 won their conference tournament. Only 6 of the top 16 seeds(which get preference for the sites) won their conference tournament. So that's why Wisconsin got to play in it's state 1st 2 rounds.

(04-23-2014 01:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So that's why Wisconsin got to play in it's state 1st 2 rounds.

I question why they were even ever a two seed to begin with. Villanova won the regular season BE title, Michigan the regular season B1G, Kansas the B12, and, really, I think MSU had more of a reason than Wisky for a higher seed. And it wasn't like Iowa State and UCLA couldn't have been rewarded a little better given the number of bids their conferences got.

Wisconsin didn't win or share anything. Why are they two lines above Michigan State? Beating two eventual #1-seeds (one well before they even hit their stride in UVA) tosses you so far up that even losing to the Evanston doormat at home is erasable?

Every single season, simply using an average of KenPom, Sagarin and the AP poll would do a FAR better job of selecting and seeding the tourney. Yet every year, the NCAA uses this collection of alleged experts to screw it up. This year was by far the worst I can remember. They missed on perhaps a half dozen selections to the tourney, and the seeding couldn't have been any worse with a random draw. But they are to stupid to even understand how embarrassed they should be over it.

(04-24-2014 09:19 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Every single season, simply using an average of KenPom, Sagarin and the AP poll would do a FAR better job of selecting and seeding the tourney. Yet every year, the NCAA uses this collection of alleged experts to screw it up. This year was by far the worst I can remember. They missed on perhaps a half dozen selections to the tourney, and the seeding couldn't have been any worse with a random draw. But they are to stupid to even understand how embarrassed they should be over it.

they missed on 1 selection to the tournament- SMU should have been in and NC State should have been out. But that's really it. The seeding was the big issue with the committee.

(04-24-2014 09:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 09:19 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Every single season, simply using an average of KenPom, Sagarin and the AP poll would do a FAR better job of selecting and seeding the tourney. Yet every year, the NCAA uses this collection of alleged experts to screw it up. This year was by far the worst I can remember. They missed on perhaps a half dozen selections to the tourney, and the seeding couldn't have been any worse with a random draw. But they are to stupid to even understand how embarrassed they should be over it.

they missed on 1 selection to the tournament- SMU should have been in and NC State should have been out. But that's really it. The seeding was the big issue with the committee.

I'd argue that if the committee had such a hard-on for UVA that it propelled VCU and Wisky's seeding up a few lines, then you have to wonder if someone like UWGB didn't maybe get a fair look. I'm not entirely sure BYU belonged there (LMU, Pepperdine, Portland, Pacific?), Minnesota may have deserved a better look, and I don't see enough stinkers on Cal's slate that put them outside of the tournament.

SMU was hosed for sure, and the ACC/NCST benefited from the snub. I think the case could also be made for the other participant in their play-in game. I'm not so sure if Dayton really "earned it," either, but when you play like that, you look smart for giving them a shot. Had they got thumped in their opener, A10 would have gotten as much if not more flack than last year's Mountain West crew.

(04-24-2014 09:52 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 09:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 09:19 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Every single season, simply using an average of KenPom, Sagarin and the AP poll would do a FAR better job of selecting and seeding the tourney. Yet every year, the NCAA uses this collection of alleged experts to screw it up. This year was by far the worst I can remember. They missed on perhaps a half dozen selections to the tourney, and the seeding couldn't have been any worse with a random draw. But they are to stupid to even understand how embarrassed they should be over it.

they missed on 1 selection to the tournament- SMU should have been in and NC State should have been out. But that's really it. The seeding was the big issue with the committee.

I'd argue that if the committee had such a hard-on for UVA that it propelled VCU and Wisky's seeding up a few lines, then you have to wonder if someone like UWGB didn't maybe get a fair look. I'm not entirely sure BYU belonged there (LMU, Pepperdine, Portland, Pacific?), Minnesota may have deserved a better look, and I don't see enough stinkers on Cal's slate that put them outside of the tournament.

SMU was hosed for sure, and the ACC/NCST benefited from the snub. I think the case could also be made for the other participant in their play-in game. I'm not so sure if Dayton really "earned it," either, but when you play like that, you look smart for giving them a shot. Had they got thumped in their opener, A10 would have gotten as much if not more flack than last year's Mountain West crew.

Coach K's rant got NCSU in over SMU, only to get knocked out by the very conference he attacked. Syracuse getting sent home by Dayton was pretty fun for the A-10 too.

The seeding was pretty bad all the way around...The A-10 got the right number of bids, but I didn't think any of the 5s were proper seeds.