March 12, 20188 yr If UK can get past Zona in the 2nd round. I think we will have a UK vs. UC matchup to see who goes to the final four. I could see Tennessee taking out the Bearcats.
March 12, 20188 yr North Carolina must have several family members on the committee. Always get the easiest route to the FF. Beat Lipcomb, A&M/Providence winner, Michigan and get to the elite 8 and then concentrate on Xavier for a FF spot. Easy Peasy. I don't think Michigan is going to be an easy out for UNC.
March 12, 20188 yr Generally there is that sneaky team which gets highly seeded and nobody questions (legit or not) it because of the distraction of other things and they just fall under the radar. This year's winner is Purdue. Maybe it it is because the B1G tournament was a week early, but it just hit me they are a two seed in the easiest region.
March 12, 20188 yr Well UK has more losses than any of the other 5 seeds so maybe if they had performed a little better on the road in the SEC then maybe they would have been in a better position to avoid Davidson in the first round and Arizona in the second round. Let me speak on behalf of all UK fans. We deserve the 5 seed and deserve a team like Arizona in the 2nd round. You don't like it, well UK should have won more games during the season. They positioned themselves there. I do wish they played somewhere other than Boise, but I'm not going to any of the games, so oh well. Arizona and Virigina is who should be ticked off. Go out and beat someone. If that Cats can beat Davidson and take down Arizona, I like their chances of going on a little run to at least the Final Four.
March 12, 20188 yr I don't think Michigan is going to be an easy out for UNC. Besides that, I thought it was Duke that always got the easiest route?
March 12, 20188 yr While never pretending to understand any of the NCAA's twisted "logic"; it does appear teams seldom improve their seed or tourney chances (auto bid aside), but can diminish their standing in the conference tourneys? The power leagues' tournaments seem to have little effect on their teams' seeding when it's all said & done. Listened to the "rationale" by the committee for Oklahoma getting in and they said the old "body of work" explanation; without mentioning the dreadful second half of the season (which by the way is when they played the meat of their schedule). I'll always believe this was a Trae Young selection, plain & simple and was predestined regardless of their record, etc. They want the stars in the tournament. Oklahoma absolutely doesn't deserve to be there but they have Trae Young, so he, I mean Oklahoma gets in. And the NCAA wonders why there is so much corruption to get star players to schools. They just proved why by letting Oklahoma in the tournament. And I say that have them winning game one lol.
March 12, 20188 yr They want the stars in the tournament. Oklahoma absolutely doesn't deserve to be there but they have Trae Young, so he, I mean Oklahoma gets in. And the NCAA wonders why there is so much corruption to get star players to schools. They just proved why by letting Oklahoma in the tournament. And I say that have them winning game one lol. They didn't apply the same criteria to Steph Curry a few years ago, keeping out Davidson. Not sure how those resumes compared but it can't get much worse than OU's collapse.
March 12, 20188 yr It looks to me like the answer to all of these debates about who is in and who is not and who is seeded where comes down to the committee's new quadrant 1 and 2 criteria. They put a huge emphasis on that criteria and on quality wins. The only team I've seen that they messed up on using that as the overriding criteria is Oklahoma State.
March 12, 20188 yr They didn't apply the same criteria to Steph Curry a few years ago, keeping out Davidson. Not sure how those resumes compared but it can't get much worse than OU's collapse. I might be remembering wrong, but they didn't blow up Curry the majority of the year the way that they did Trae Young.
March 12, 20188 yr I might be remembering wrong, but they didn't blow up Curry the majority of the year the way that they did Trae Young. Oh yeah. Trae Young they took to another level highlighting him on the bottom line and such. Edited March 12, 20188 yr by bugatti
March 12, 20188 yr It looks to me like the answer to all of these debates about who is in and who is not and who is seeded where comes down to the committee's new quadrant 1 and 2 criteria. They put a huge emphasis on that criteria and on quality wins. The only team I've seen that they messed up on using that as the overriding criteria is Oklahoma State. They need to also put an emphasis on losses. I mean, when a team has 10 losses that’s still 10 losses anyway you count it. It shouldn’t nullify any of those quadrant wins, but a loss is still a loss especially when they add up to 10 and one is at home to Wafford. It shouldn’t translate to a 2 seed for sure. And 13 losses plus a terrible end to the season should have more weight than whatever a team did in the first 70% of the season. That particular team should not be selected, period. So my take: (1) There’s nothing wrong with emphasizing quadrant wins but also take into account excessive losses. (2) Place more emphasis on the last 30% of the season than the first 70%. The last month before the NCAA tourney is what the team is going to be playing like in the tourney, not the one we see in Nov-Dec-Jan.
March 12, 20188 yr I could see Tennessee taking out the Bearcats. I have Tennessee losing in the 1st round to Wright State lol
March 12, 20188 yr I have Tennessee losing in the 1st round to Wright State lol Have you seen Wright State play this season?
March 12, 20188 yr I have Tennessee losing in the 1st round to Wright State lol Who knows, they could get real hot. But I like Tenn quite a bit.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.