Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Towney007, post: 2673029, member: 5832"] Some of it is bad luck. '94 was kind of crap. We should have been a #1 seed out West, but we face planted against Providence, and then it's also hard for me to get angry when we basically choked a slam dunk Final Four appearance away when the team we were facing and the rest of the region rolled out the red carpet for us. '95 surprised me not that we were a #2 seed, but that they stuck us in a region with UCLA and put UMass out east. It did no favors to us - and honestly didn't do favors to UCLA, either. '98 I don't cry an ounce about. UNC was the #1 seed - they got the draw they deserved to get. Had less to do with us and more to do with them. '06 and '09 were also bad luck. I mean no one was counting on George Mason in an Elite 8 and the Final Four is just where the Final Four is... North Carolina had to play them in Detroit, too. So it's a mix of everything. '95 is kinda the one that always stuck in my craw. UMass really wasn't good enough to justify a #2 seed in the east and they also stuck Villanova out there as a #3 a a reward for winning the conf. tournament. We really should have been out east - especially with Wake Forest being by far the weakest #1 seed. I just thought the committee did a bad job of seeding. Don't forget, we also had Maryland and Oregon in our end of the bracket. Texas was a freaking #11 seed... Mizzou, Utah, Indiana.... not an easy bracket for anyone and UCLA was freaking #1 in the country. Then they stuck us and them in the same group together... [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach