The ACC tournament obviously had some effect. If not then Duke was a 1 over the team that won their conference. Very confusing.

If you don't count the conference tournament the I agree completely.

 

I don't think the conference tournament has much of an impact on seeds.

I don't think the conference tournament has much of an impact on seeds.

 

Except the one that benefited Duke.

Except the one that benefited Duke.

 

Duke was already a borderline #1 so it may have moved them up one slot from 5 to 4 (4th #1).

 

No way anyone can say UK is one of the top 8 teams in the country. 4 sounds right.

Duke was already a borderline #1 so it may have moved them up one slot from 5 to 4 (4th #1).

 

No way anyone can say UK is one of the top 8 teams in the country. 4 sounds right.

 

Well they proved they're better then one of the top 8 teams in the country, didn't they? :lol:

I don't think the conference tournament has much of an impact on seeds.

 

It helped UConn immensely.

Well they proved they're better then one of the top 8 teams in the country, didn't they? :lol:

 

 

I agree that UF isn't one of the top 8 teams. Id have them as a 3 due to their regular season SEC championship.

Duke was already a borderline #1 so it may have moved them up one slot from 5 to 4 (4th #1).

 

No way anyone can say UK is one of the top 8 teams in the country. 4 sounds right.

 

A 4-seed would sound right if Florida was not a 2. That's why it makes zero sense.

A 4-seed would sound right if Florida was not a 2. That's why it makes zero sense.

 

UF deserved to be higher. 3 would be better. You can't discount 3 months of basketball.

The biggest problem is they don't match them up 1-64 along with the winners of the play in games. UK as a 4 wouldn't be as hard to see if it weren't for getting the #1 overall seed. OSU has the toughest bracket and they should have the worst 2 and worst 4. ND and UNC are the 2's with the best resumes.

UF deserved to be higher. 3 would be better. You can't discount 3 months of basketball.

 

Shouldn't head-to-head be used as the primary way to compare two teams when they've played three different times in three different venues? I look at these two teams playing each other, and UK is clearly the better team in my eyes. You may or may not agree, but I'm interested in knowing what you think is the best way to measure two teams against one another.

Duke was already a borderline #1 so it may have moved them up one slot from 5 to 4 (4th #1).

 

No way anyone can say UK is one of the top 8 teams in the country. 4 sounds right.

 

Who said UK was top 8? I think they earned a 3 seed, they deserve it over BYU, Florida, Purdue, or Syracuse. UL also should be a 3.

It helped UConn immensely.

 

Pretty much throws that out.

Shouldn't head-to-head be used as the primary way to compare two teams when they've played three different times in three different venues? I look at these two teams playing each other, and UK is clearly the better team in my eyes. You may or may not agree, but I'm interested in knowing what you think is the best way to measure two teams against one another.

 

No. Complete resume isn't based on head to head. Also Florida played far better teams to get to the final and they played later both days leading up to it.

Shouldn't head-to-head be used as the primary way to compare two teams when they've played three different times in three different venues? I look at these two teams playing each other, and UK is clearly the better team in my eyes. You may or may not agree, but I'm interested in knowing what you think is the best way to measure two teams against one another.

 

The mistake is thinking that the committee is measuring UK vs UF. They didn't. Had the two tied for first in the SEC then head-to-head is fine. UF won the regular season and should be rated higher.