- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,491
- Reaction Score
- 37,274
Tom Izzo on the verge of picking up a technical tells you something.
I thought Duke should have been a two seed...but they should have been a 2-seed in Ohio State's or region (Strongest 2).Brilliant job by the committee placing Louisville and Duke in the same region. They are arguably the 2 best teams in the entire tournament as most of Duke's losses were without Kelly.
UConn got killed by that in '98 when we were probably the best or maybe second-best 2-seed, but were put in the same bracket with Carolina, which was not only the No. 1 team but had the regionals in their home state. There was no way we should have been in their bracket that year.I thought Duke should have been a two seed...but they should have been a 2-seed in Ohio State's or region (Strongest 2).
Honestly, the committee feels like it worries itself about stupid procedural things. They need to make sure 1-8 are S-curved well more than anything...and them work damn hard to make sure 9-16 are as well. After that, I don't care if you have to drop a team a line or two procedurally who's a 7 and suddenly has to be a 9. But you should try to avoid having Duke-Louisville (who most people think with Florida are the best three teams) in the same region.
Was that also what happened in 1995 with UCLA?UConn got killed by that in '98 when we were probably the best or maybe second-best 2-seed, but were put in the same bracket with Carolina, which was not only the No. 1 team but had the regionals in their home state. There was no way we should have been in their bracket that year.
Well, UNC was also better than us. And we also played UCLA in California (Oakland). That 1995 UConn team had 4 losses going into the tournament--compared to UCLAs 1. They certainly were the #1 overall seed (Other 1s: Kansas had 5 losses, Kentucky had 4, Wake Forest had 5).No, UCLA was just a better team and they beat us at our own game. No sour grapes from me on that one.
Right, that's the point. Of course the 1 seeds are supposed to be better, but they should do their best to match up the best 1 with the worst 2, etc. I don't remember 95 as well, but I remember seeing the bracket on Selection Sunday in 98 and knowing we got jobbed.Well, UNC was also better than us. And we also played UCLA in California (Oakland). That 1995 UConn team had 4 losses going into the tournament--compared to UCLAs 1. They certainly were the #1 overall seed (Other 1s: Kansas had 5 losses, Kentucky had 4, Wake Forest had 5).
The other 2 seeds:
UNC - 5 losses
Arkansas - 6
UMass - 4
I don't remember what people were saying, but I remember we were ranked #1 that year at one point, and we were probably in discussion for a 1 seed until the blowout loss to Villanova.
Agreed. They do a terrible job of that.Right, that's the point. Of course the 1 seeds are supposed to be better, but they should do their best to match up the best 1 with the worst 2, etc. I don't remember 95 as well, but I remember seeing the bracket on Selection Sunday in 98 and knowing we got jobbed.