Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Fightin Choke, post: 2545517, member: 2605"] I considered all the factors that you did, but just reached a different conclusion than you. In not awarding Baylor a #1 seed, the committee just following recent past precedent. Last year Maryland was rated much higher in the human polls and computer rankings (Sagarin, Massey, etc.) than the committee's seeding (and the RPI). It seemed the committee was penalizing Brenda for very a weak schedule. I interpret Baylor's rank in the initial seeding (9th overall) as consistent with last year's seeding of Maryland. So what about Notre Dame seeding? I expected Notre Dame to be ranked 4th (most likely) or 5th overall (as low as ND should be ranked). While their SOS was first or second at the time of the seeding, they had 2 losses, whereas Louisville, Mississippi St. and UConn were undefeated. The 4th spot went to Oregon, and that seemed a bit strange because both teams had 2 losses and the Irish had a tougher schedule. I didn't let it bother me because it's so early that a lot can change. What was the committee thinking? Both Oregon's losses were earlier in the season than Notre Dame's second loss, and ND got destroyed recently by Louisville, which had to factor into their seeding. ND also had suffered injuries, so the committee may have wanted ND to perform better than they did at the Yum center before awarding them a #1 seed. Could their total lack of defense been caused by their short roster? The Irish aren't getting any of those players back this season, so they had to prove they could play at an elite level with just Nelson and Patterson on the bench. After a rough start, I think they proved that against Tennessee. I think if the committee weer to rank the teams right now, ND would be 4th and Baylor would be better than 9th. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach