I have a question. The ACC has two one seeds in the tourney. How did Virginia manage a one seed while not even winning their conference championship tourney? So here we are with two ACC #1 seeded schools with a path to the final four. Seems a bit fishy to me.

(03-31-2019 04:26 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I have a question. The ACC has two one seeds in the tourney. How did Virginia manage a one seed while not even winning their conference championship tourney? So here we are with two ACC #1 seeded schools with a path to the final four. Seems a bit fishy to me.

Acc has 3 one seeds. Uva, unc, Duke.

(03-31-2019 04:26 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I have a question. The ACC has two one seeds in the tourney. How did Virginia manage a one seed while not even winning their conference championship tourney? So here we are with two ACC #1 seeded schools with a path to the final four. Seems a bit fishy to me.

UVA was 29-3. Duke 29-5. They were ranked 1-2 in the polls with UNC #3. Can't really argue about UVA or Duke. There were probably about 10 contenders for the other two #1 seeds.

Your gripe is with the RPI not the seeding which is a result of RPI.

The ACC is pretty much the SEC(football) of basketball. If UAB were to schedule Clemson for the first game it would be a early (quality) win. Even though Clemson has a 0-1 record.

(03-31-2019 07:49 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Your gripe is with the RPI not the seeding which is a result of RPI.

The ACC is pretty much the SEC(football) of basketball. If UAB were to schedule Clemson for the first game it would be a early (quality) win. Even though Clemson has a 0-1 record.

Even though RPI isn’t the main metric anymore?