MilfordHusky
Voice of Reason
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 37,437
- Reaction Score
- 127,732
S.C. can hang a banner: We're a #1 seed.
Shouldn’t it be UConn, Arizona. UCLA, and Ky in the same bracket?brackets:
A -- UConn, Arizona, Baylor, Tenn
B -- So Car , MD, UCLA, W Va
C -- Stanf, NC St, Georgia, Indi
D -- Lou, Tx A&M, Oreg, Ky
correctI think the brackets have been adjusted so that teams avoid conference foes. So Baylor and UCLA get swapped so UCLA does not get grouped with Arizona
I really hate that the basketball committee bumps up/down teams seed-wise to avoid "potential" intra-conference matchups 3-4 rounds deep into the tournament. Neither women's volleyball nor women's softball do this (and maybe not even women's soccer); they seed teams based on their established criteria, and just let the chips fall where the may, even if that means intra-conference matchups occur in Sweet 16 or Elite 8. I believe the only thing they strictly try to avoid are round of 64 and round of 32 intra-conference matchups.I think the brackets have been adjusted so that teams avoid conference foes. So Baylor and UCLA get swapped so UCLA does not get grouped with Arizona
They planned the reveal for tonight, knowing a new BY25 poll would be released earlier in the day. Saves them a lot of work.Compare this with the latest BY poll. The top 6 are identical and next 4 are the same except for order.
If one works out the math to 64, it is most likely even.seed sum:
A = 32
B = 32
C = 36
D = 36
wow, no advantage to being the top two teams
Well, that's pretty much a given . . .I doubt these seeds hold for the remainder of the season.
Michigan is still a game short of qualifying for the tournament.most notable omission: Michigan!
Just as a general question, how do you fairly rank the Pac-12 teams when none of them played a real non-conference schedule? I don't think the NET and the other ranking systems can really apply to a conference that only played amongst themselves.
Michigan is still a game short of qualifying for the tournament.
A&M has 5 wins against Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia and Kentucky, all of whom are in the top 16 or likely just outside of it. Louisville is 0-1 vs the top 16 and their only win over a ranked foe is against DePaul. Besides that their best wins are against Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Syracuse . I'd take A&M as the #4 overall seed ahead of Louisville since Louisville really hasn't proven anything against good teams yet.Like Carolyn Peck stated, Texas A&M has more "quality wins" than a lot of teams ranked ahead of them, and they avenged their loss at LSU with a win at home against LSU; still, I think the #5 overall national seed is pretty accurate as they don't have a win over a Top 10 seeded team. But, does Louisville (I haven't checked)?
What if you don’t play a tournament game due to Covid? You still need 13 games, and while MI is very likely to get there, they’re not there yet.Michigan has already qualified. It only takes 12 regular season games, since teams are allowed to count one league tournament game.
Essentially all the non-p5 teams except UConn got the shaft. Tough tacos for the Gonzagas and South Floridas and DePauls and South Dakota States and Stephen F. Austins of the world. But god forbid we don't make Georgia a 3 seed because hey, they're in a good football conference.I think if Jose keeps winning now that they are out of Covid protocol, they will crack the top 16 next reveal. As will Michigan if they keep winning. One of the SEC teams or WV will drop out.
Hardly neutral for teams from the Lonestar State.The only faint silver lining is that with all games on neutral courts this year, the seeding is less important.
S.C. can hang a banner: We're a #1 seed.
I dont think that was the issue. It's not like this was the final rankings. Things are of course going to change between now and selection monday.Michigan is still a game short of qualifying for the tournament.
What if you don’t play a tournament game due to Covid? You still need 13 games, and while MI is very likely to get there, they’re not there yet.
Agree 100%. Right now, it means nothing. Even when the actual seedings are released, with the amount of fans that will be allowed to attend, not sure it will matter much then either.I got zero complaints about the committee and their choices. The best thing that programs can do now, is just go out and play and let the results happen. Because in the end of all of this, folks are gonna complain. "Oh this team had an easy region so their run to the title was easy and should not count." Or "Oh this team had a tougher region so their run was more impactful than the other team."
At the same time, it is really tough on two very good teams in the same conference to have to play two conference games and a conference tournament game and then an NCAA tournament game before the ff against the same team. Uconn and Rutgers and Uconn and ND have had to do that (against ND multiple times) and I believe there were howls when it happened fairly recently to Baylor?I really hate that the basketball committee bumps up/down teams seed-wise to avoid "potential" intra-conference matchups 3-4 rounds deep into the tournament. Neither women's volleyball nor women's softball do this (and maybe not even women's soccer); they seed teams based on their established criteria, and just let the chips fall where the may, even if that means intra-conference matchups occur in Sweet 16 or Elite 8. I believe the only thing they strictly try to avoid are round of 64 and round of 32 intra-conference matchups.
With fan attendance probably disallowed, I doubt there will be any significant quasi-home court advantage unless teams are actually playing in their home arena, which apparently isn't the case, unless we count a potential 1st-round game for Texas at the Erwin Center ... or potential 1st- and/or 2nd-round games for UTSA.Hardly neutral for teams from the Lonestar State.