Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Plebe, post: 3072586, member: 6927"] I completely concur. And I'm basing this on the committe's own history of what it has done in the past. They've shown time and again that it's never been a question of just counting losses or counting titles. The best parallel I can think of is Maryland in 2017. That year Maryland was 30-2 (only losses were to UConn and Ohio State) and won the Big Ten regular season and tournament titles. But their resume lacked high-quality wins. It was an especially down year for the Big Ten, and Maryland's best wins were over Louisville (a #4 seed) and Arizona State (a #8 seed). Although some thought Maryland "looked like" a #1 seed, ultimately the committee named Maryland the #3 seed in UConn's region, while other teams *with more losses* and *fewer titles* were named #2 seeds, like Duke (27-5), Mississippi St (29-4), Stanford (28-5) and Oregon State (29-4). Mississippi State's resume is stronger this year than Maryland's was two years ago, and of course they're in no danger of being a #3 seed. But it's a similar situation. It has never been about counting losses or titles. It's all about *who* you've beaten and *who* you've lost to. [/QUOTE]