Our No. 2 seed | The Boneyard

Our No. 2 seed

Inyatkin

Inyatkin

Stairway to Seven
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
3,745
Reaction Score
18,738
For weeks it's been a given on the mock brackets that UNC would be a 2 seed in our bracket. They're the only other eastern team with a shot at it, and they do take geography into consideration. There was a chance that Duke could have overtaken them, but that's out the window.
Now, with Arizona having a terrible loss and Tennessee losing, too, there's a shot UNC could be a one. Might take another Tennessee loss in the SEC tournament to make that happen
It's looking ahead, I know, but who would we want as our two seed in that case?
 
Inyatkin said:
For weeks it's been a given on the mock brackets that UNC would be a 2 seed in our bracket. They're the only other eastern team with a shot at it, and they do take geography into consideration. There was a chance that Duke could have overtaken them, but that's out the window.
Now, with Arizona having a terrible loss and Tennessee losing, too, there's a shot UNC could be a one. Might take another Tennessee loss in the SEC tournament to make that happen
It's looking ahead, I know, but who would we want as our two seed in that case?
Expand ...
I actually think they ship Carolina as 2 in the west. They aren’t going to have unc play UConn, for the second time, in New England of all places.

Maybe Arizona is the No. 2, or Iowa state. Duke could be 3 in the east.
 
I think there's a very strong chance UNC ends up in the west. I think the most likely East scenario would be Tennessee or Iowa St as a two and Duke as the three.
 
Inyatkin said:
For weeks it's been a given on the mock brackets that UNC would be a 2 seed in our bracket. They're the only other eastern team with a shot at it, and they do take geography into consideration. There was a chance that Duke could have overtaken them, but that's out the window.
Now, with Arizona having a terrible loss and Tennessee losing, too, there's a shot UNC could be a one. Might take another Tennessee loss in the SEC tournament to make that happen
It's looking ahead, I know, but who would we want as our two seed in that case?
Expand ...

It doesnt matter. All the 2's and 3's will be very good but we wouldnt have to see have to see any of them until the Elite 8. Since I expect to play excellent teams in the elite 8 no matter what, I don't really get concerned on who they might be out of all the 2's and 3's. We just need to get there and let it fly.

My attention is entirely focused on who is on the 8-9 lines and the 4-5 lines.

For example, as crappy as Michigan State has been this season, I wouldn't want them as a 9 seed in our bracket in a 2nd round matchup. They have a lot more talent than the usual 9 seed as evidenced by their preseason top 5 ranking. In one game scenarios I dont want to see it.

Or if Kentucky is a 4 seed. I don't think much of them, they cant guard a chair, but like Creighton they have multiple shooters all over the floor, and if they had one of those shooting nights like Creighton did, there isnt a hell of a lot you can do about it. They dont guard like Creighton though.

In other words I don't want teams on those seed lines with "lightning in a bottle" potential. I'd much prefer conventional warfare. We are great at that.

edit to add: I wouldn't like Tennessee as our 2 though. I have a feeling Knecht is going to be the face of this tournament. Kembaesque. Them I would prefer to meet in Final Four.
 
Last edited:
.-.
It would be silly to use geographic convenience for assigning the #2 seeds. It should be by S Curve unless prohibited by conference affiliation (e.g. Houston and ISU shouldn't be paired).

We should not end up with the top #2 seed, and probably not the 2nd best #2 seed.

I would prefer Iowa State. Marquette or Creighton can't be with us. Failing those, I think getting a UNC rematch would be fine, maybe Arizona.
 
There will be good teams in our bracket regardless. Nothing will make us comfortable.
If we draw a UNC 2, or a KY 4, for example, it may seem like we are on a collision course to come up against those guys, but the expected rarely happens in the tourney, especially in the transfer era. Last year will be more like the norm from now on. And I love it
 
August_West said:
Or if Kentucky is a 4 seed. I don't think much of them, they cant guard a chair, but like Creighton they have multiple shooters all over the floor, and if they had one of those shooting nights like Creighton did, there isnt a hell of a lot you can do about it. They dont guard like Creighton though.
Expand ...

Kentucky has improved defensively. They pretty much shut down the paint against Tennessee. Knecht got his but the rest of the team shot 31% from the floor combined.
 
Current Bracketology has us facing MSU/Dayton, Kansas, and UK/UNC. Pretty horrible if it came to fruition.

Fortunately, Lunardi is probably completely out to lunch, as he also has Creighton and Marquette facing each other in the Sweet 16, which should be prohibited.
 
.-.
Tenspro2002 said:
Current Bracketology has us facing MSU/Dayton, Kansas, and UK/UNC. Pretty horrible if it came to fruition.

Fortunately, Lunardi is probably completely out to lunch, as he also has Creighton and Marquette facing each other in the Sweet 16, which should be prohibited.
Expand ...
They could match us up with Kentucky, Iowa St, Tennessee, UNC, Houston and Purdue in rounds one through six and it wouldn't be horrible.
 
Tenspro2002 said:
Current Bracketology has us facing MSU/Dayton, Kansas, and UK/UNC. Pretty horrible if it came to fruition.

Fortunately, Lunardi is probably completely out to lunch, as he also has Creighton and Marquette facing each other in the Sweet 16, which should be prohibited.
Expand ...
Use bracketmatrix.com for the wisdom of the crowd.
 
Long-winded post ahead, but i love this stuff!

I’m a bit of an amateur bracketologist and have been doing my own projected brackets every two weeks since mid-January, so I’ve grown somewhat familiar with the bracketing rules.

As others have insinuated, it may well come down to the s-curve.

For placing the top four seeds in regions, the most important rules are:

  • geography: the higher you are on the s-curve, within your seed line, the more likely you are to land in your geographically-preferred region. Barring a couple of major considerations
  • the first four teams from the same conference, among the top 16 seeds, cannot be in the same region. One of my favorite times this rule broke was 2009, when 3-seed Nova got placed with 1-seed Pitt… because the top four Big East teams were 1. UL, 1. Pitt, 1. Us, and 3. Cuse. The main takeaway here is that it is impossible for us to have Marquette or Creighton in the East with us. This also means we’re very likely to have a XII somewhere in our top four seed lines (Hou, ISU, Bay, KU), and an SEC team as our 4 (Aub, Bama, or yes, UK)
  • competitive balance is also considered - the committee cannot place 5 on the s-curve (top 2 seed) with the number one overall seed. I believe the goal is, after assigning the top 16 s-curve seeds, to not have the sums of those seed values on the s-curve be more than 6 apart. (i.e., one region gets 1, 6, 10, 14; 31 total, and another gets 4, 8, 11, 13; 36 total)
  • lastly will be if the teams played a prior (non con) game that season. This is the lowest concern, but the committee will generally try to keep such teams from facing until the Elite Eight at the earliest. It’s easier to manage at the higher seeds, but more frequently gets broken to account for avoiding conference games early in the tourney further down the seed line (i.e., non-zero shot we get Texas in our 8-9 game)

All that is to say it will depend on the s-curve. Let’s take the current bracketmatrix one, apply the principles, and see who UConn might land:

Midwest: 1. Purdue, 7. Iowa St., 10. Creighton, 16. Auburn (34 total)
East: 2. UConn, 5. North Carolina, 12. Kansas, 14. Alabama (33)
South: 3. Houston, 8. Marquette, 11. Duke, 13. Kentucky (35)
West: 4. Tennessee, 6. Arizona, 9. Baylor, 15. Illinois (34)

Basically, because geography, unless they get the 1 out west, it’s exceedingly likely UNC is our 2. Otherwise, it’s likely Iowa State/Baylor/Kansas (?). Tennessee, if not a 1, would likely go to the South with Houston than the East, sparing us them. Arizona is virtually locked into the West, no matter if they’re a 1, 2, or even a 3. If UNC does get the 1 out west, I’d bet a lot of money we get one of those XII teams.
 
Last edited:
Tenspro2002 said:
It would be silly to use geographic convenience for assigning the #2 seeds. It should be by S Curve unless prohibited by conference affiliation (e.g. Houston and ISU shouldn't be paired).

We should not end up with the top #2 seed, and probably not the 2nd best #2 seed.

I would prefer Iowa State. Marquette or Creighton can't be with us. Failing those, I think getting a UNC rematch would be fine, maybe Arizona.
Expand ...
Let’s see if they stay with the s-curve. Theoretically, the rankings of the top 4 in each bracket add to 34. So, the #1 ranked team in the tourney should be paired the lowest ranked 2-seed (8th ranked), the highest 3-seed (9th ranked) and the lowest 4-seed (16th)….and so on to each of the other 3 brackets. As noted, Geography and conference are also factors, which is why Kolek’s injury will impact the seedings and placement in our bracket. Let the madness begin.
 
I saw a mock with us in the South instead of East. I know sites can host more than one region, so are we a lock to play in the Northeast this year?
 
.-.
Fools errand to try and map out potential matchups in March Madness.

Remember when we (self included) were nervous to face Pitino round 1 vs Iona?
 
Seamus84 said:
Let’s see if they stay with the s-curve. Theoretically, the rankings of the top 4 in each bracket add to 34. So, the #1 ranked team in the tourney should be paired the lowest ranked 2-seed (8th ranked), the highest 3-seed (9th ranked) and the lowest 4-seed (16th)….and so on to each of the other 3 brackets. As noted, Geography and conference are also factors, which is why Kolek’s injury will impact the seedings and placement in our bracket. Let the madness begin.
Expand ...
They won't stay precisely with the S curve because a) often (due to where schools within the same conference often fall) they cannot remain with strict adherence, b) due to geographic considerations it would be better to alter slightly from strict adherence and c) they could reach the point where it would make little sense within the time constraints to parse teams 30-33 or 45-48 or so forth.

I am very confident that they will hope to be able to place Arizona as the one seed out west but will place them as the two seed if they cannot seed them one. This is why (shy of a collapse by UNC) I see some order of those two schools as one and two out west.
 
UConNick said:
Long-winded post ahead, but i love this stuff!

I’m a bit of an amateur bracketologist and have been doing my own projected brackets every two weeks since mid-January, so I’ve grown somewhat familiar with the bracketing rules.

As others have insinuated, it may well come down to the s-curve.

For placing the top four seeds in regions, the most important rules are:

  • geography: the higher you are on the s-curve, within your seed line, the more likely you are to land in your geographically-preferred region. Barring a couple of major considerations
  • the first four teams from the same conference, among the top 16 seeds, cannot be in the same region. One of my favorite times this rule broke was 2009, when 3-seed Nova got placed with 1-seed Pitt… because the top four Big East teams were 1. UL, 1. Pitt, 1. Us, and 3. Cuse. The main takeaway here is that it is impossible for us to have Marquette or Creighton in the East with us. This also means we’re very likely to have a XII somewhere in our top four seed lines (Hou, ISU, Bay, KU), and an SEC team as our 4 (Aub, Bama, or yes, UK)
  • competitive balance is also considered - the committee cannot place 5 on the s-curve (top 2 seed) with the number one overall seed. I believe the goal is, after assigning the top 16 s-curve seeds, to not have the sums of those seed values on the s-curve be more than 6 apart. (i.e., one region gets 1, 6, 10, 14; 31 total, and another gets 4, 8, 11, 13; 36 total)
  • lastly will be if the teams played a prior (non con) game that season. This is the lowest concern, but the committee will generally try to keep such teams from facing until the Elite Eight at the earliest. It’s easier to manage at the higher seeds, but more frequently gets broken to account for avoiding conference games early in the tourney further down the seed line (i.e., non-zero shot we get Texas in our 8-9 game)

All that is to say it will depend on the s-curve. Let’s take the current bracketmatrix one, apply the principles, and see who UConn might land:

Midwest: 1. Purdue, 7. Iowa St., 10. Creighton, 16. Auburn (34 total)
East: 2. UConn, 5. North Carolina, 12. Kansas, 14. Alabama (33)
South: 3. Houston, 8. Marquette, 11. Duke, 13. Kentucky (35)
West: 4. Tennessee, 6. Arizona, 9. Baylor, 15. Illinois (34)

Basically, because geography, unless they get the 1 out west, it’s exceedingly likely UNC is our 2. Otherwise, it’s likely Iowa State/Baylor/Kansas (?). Tennessee, if not a 1, would likely go to the South with Houston than the East, sparing us them. Arizona is virtually locked into the West, no matter if they’re a 1, 2, or even a 3. If UNC does get the 1 out west, I’d bet a lot of money we get one of those XII teams.
Expand ...
Great post thanks
 
RC111 said:
I saw a mock with us in the South instead of East. I know sites can host more than one region, so are we a lock to play in the Northeast this year?
Expand ...
I’m sure we’re a 100% lock for Brooklyn. And probably 95-99% to be in the East (Boston). I can’t imagine a scenario where we’re in the South. Houston would absolutely be there. Wouldn’t make sense to put UH west, UConn south just for, what, UNC 1 in the East? Would be some serious headscratching for that to happen even if we lost in the Qtrs of the BET…
 
UConnTrumbull said:
I’m sure we’re a 100% lock for Brooklyn. And probably 95-99% to be in the East (Boston). I can’t imagine a scenario where we’re in the South. Houston would absolutely be there. Wouldn’t make sense to put UH west, UConn south just for, what, UNC 1 in the East? Would be some serious headscratching for that to happen even if we lost in the Qtrs of the BET…
Expand ...
Phew. If I didn't have a newborn (and a wife who wants to go just as much as I do), I'd be at those games. But it'll be great playing somewhere that our fans can turn up in numbers
 
.-.
August_West said:
For example, as crappy as Michigan State has been this season, I wouldn't want them as a 9 seed in our bracket in a 2nd round matchup. They have a lot more talent than the usual 9 seed as evidenced by their preseason top 5 ranking. In one game scenarios I dont want to see it.
Expand ...

I spend a good part of yesterday thinking about this same scenario as I watched them lose to a bad Indiana team and now I've convinced myself they're going to be in our bracket.
 
Tenspro2002 said:
Current Bracketology has us facing MSU/Dayton, Kansas, and UK/UNC. Pretty horrible if it came to fruition.

Fortunately, Lunardi is probably completely out to lunch, as he also has Creighton and Marquette facing each other in the Sweet 16, which should be prohibited.
Expand ...

So many different bracketologists with different mocks out there. Look at http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
 
The good/interesting thing is that none of the top 16 seeds prefer Boston as their top site, except for us. Even the NC schools are closer to Detroit than Boston.

This is a pretty cushy situation. It means we'll be nobodies first choice, which means that generally the strongest teams will choose to go elsewhere before the committee gets around to sticking someone with us.

As @UConNick mentioned, the one place where this could bite us is if we don't get the #1 overall, they might not place the 5th overall in their preferred site if its the same as the #1 overall and might stick them with us even if we're like the #2. But the West is probably more likely since it will make S-Curve sense also (though committee may want to reserve the West for Arizona to optimize travel and tickets a bit).

So I think even if we're #3 1-seed overall, we might only get the #3 or #4 2-seed and #3 or #4 3-seed.
 
I agree they shouldn't take geography into consideration below the 1 seed line, but they do. If Carolina is a 2, they're very likely to be with us.
It was a long time ago, but in 1998 we were no worse than 5 or 6 on the s-curve, yet we got stuck with UNC, the No. 1 overall seed, in our bracket, and the committee said geography was the reason. Killed any chance at our first Final Four.
As for Michigan State, they are a classic dangerous 8-9 seed, but in reality they should be first four out or last four in.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,624
Messages
4,586,200
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom