Our No. 2 seed | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Our No. 2 seed

the only potential 2 seed i really dont wanna see is Tennessee. if it's possible i'd rather face Zona as a 2 seed in boston than as a 1 seed in phoenix.
 
auror said:
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.
Expand ...
How many teams get to choose their pod and regional location? I thought it was just the #1 overall.
 
I think some are underestimating the importance of geography. If it goes 4. (1) UNC/TN, 5. (2) UNC/TN, 6. (2) ARIZ, then whoever between the two is number five on the s-curve will 99.9% go to the East or South, respectively. And Arizona will get the 2 in the West with the higher rated of UNC/TN as the 1.

The committee considers geography more so than the s-curve. So long as the resulting regions aren’t TOO unbalanced competitively, they’ll let it fly. Look no further than last year when Purdue (4) and Marquette (8) were the 1 and the 2 in the same region. In fact, last year’s East had a seed sum of 37. For comparison, our West had a sum of 31. Outside of placing 1 and 5 together, anything goes.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
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.
Expand ...
Same. But I would think that loss might push them down to the 10 or even 11 seed, then no worries. Hard to see them getting a 9 seed but stranger things have happened.
 
I’d rather not play uk this season. They have three 7fters to send at clingan to try to get him in foul trouble, and we all know about the offense.
 
.-.
BGesus4 said:
I’d rather not play uk this season. They have three 7fters to send at clingan to try to get him in foul trouble, and we all know about the offense.
Expand ...
true they are the 3 seed i want to avoid and if they win the sec tourney by beating tenn again then i def dont want them as our 2 seed
 
I'm assuming our 2 seed won't make it past the first weekend.
 
UConNick said:
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)
Expand ...
really interesting post. Maybe it's just the names, but I would not be happy if I was Houston with those three teams lurking.
 
I cannot emphasize enough how stupid it is that the Committee will likely use geographic factors to override the S Curve.

The #4, 5, 6 overall are set, in some order. Whichever of Tennessee or UNC doesn't end up in the West, conventional wisdom is that they will be our #2 in the East, regardless of where we sit in the pecking order. It is also conventional wisdom that Arizona will be in the West, even as a #2. Both are ludicrous. Both disadvantage us and the West #1.

If Houston and Purdue lose and we run the table and end up as #1 overall, are we really going to be saddled with #5 UNC, while Tennessee is stuck with a disadvantage facing Arizona in LA?
 
Tenspro2002 said:
I cannot emphasize enough how stupid it is that the Committee will likely use geographic factors to override the S Curve.

The #4, 5, 6 overall are set, in some order. Whichever of Tennessee or UNC doesn't end up in the West, conventional wisdom is that they will be our #2 in the East, regardless of where we sit in the pecking order. It is also conventional wisdom that Arizona will be in the West, even as a #2. Both are ludicrous. Both disadvantage us and the West #1.

If Houston and Purdue lose and we run the table and end up as #1 overall, are we really going to be saddled with #5 UNC, while Tennessee is stuck with a disadvantage facing Arizona in LA?
Expand ...
Why do you believe they wouldn't put the school that doesn't end up in the west (of UNC & Tennessee) in the south region?
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Why do you believe they wouldn't put the school that doesn't end up in the west (of UNC & Tennessee) in the south region?
Expand ...
I think Tennessee would go to the South and UNC would go to the East. It literally comes down to how far the school is from the site lol.

Knoxville > Dallas: 843 miles
Knoxville > Boston: 920 miles
Chapel Hill > Dallas: 1,161 miles
Chapel Hill > Boston: 710 miles

The South being in Dallas instead of like Atlanta or somewhere in Florida is definitely playing a role.

There is SOME consideration given to where the teams might have a larger alumni base and be more familiar, but that’s more so for times like, say, UK is a one seed and picking between, idk, Philadelphia and New Orleans (they’d probably prefer New Orleans despite Philly being geographically closer). I don’t think Tennessee would have such a preference for Boston compared to Dallas to override the geography.

I don’t disagree it’s not straightforward to do it this way instead of the straight s-curve, but I like it. More quirky. More traditional to the roots of the tourney as a regional competition. So long as things don’t get too unbalanced, keep it going. This is a strange year for the format given the regional sites and the seemingly clean breaks between tiers of teams.
 
.-.
I suppose I will call shenanigans if we end up in the same regional as Creighton, otherwise I feel just like last year. I don't care who. We can beat anyone and will beat anyone with our A game. It's going to take a perfect storm of the bad guys hitting threes while the good guys go cold to beat UConn. And even in that scenario they can prevail.
 
August_West said:
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.
Expand ...
I'd be happy with Iowa, K State or Mich State. While there are teams we can dominate inside I'd prefer to avoid teams with multiple 3pt shooters than can get hot at any time. Those teams are always dangerous. Even Colorado with a sketchy inside game has athletes that can get hot. A strong inside game is great when your shooting isn't coming through but it's tough to deal with guys just going on a tear.

Here's a sampling of some of those teams.

NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Three Point % | TeamRankings.com

NCAA Basketball three point %, by team.
www.teamrankings.com www.teamrankings.com
 
Waquoit said:
I suppose I will call shenanigans if we end up in the same regional as Creighton, otherwise I feel just like last year. I don't care who. We can beat anyone and will beat anyone with our A game. It's going to take a perfect storm of the bad guys hitting threes while the good guys go cold to beat UConn. And even in that scenario they can prevail.
Expand ...
We can't end up with Marquette or Creighton due to bracketing principles limiting the top 3 teams from each conference needing to go into different regionals.
 
None of this bracket speculation matters. You have to show up and beat whoever the committee puts in front of you.

Instead, look at the brackets from the perspective of the other tournament teams. UConn presents problems that most teams haven’t had to scheme, or play, against.

First, Clingan. Other than B10 teams who’ve had to deal with Zach Edey, Clingan is a 7’3” unicorn that most players haven’t seen before.

Second, whack a mole. 5 starters, all who can go off if left unguarded. Stop 1, 4 others pop up. Stop 4, the 5th one pops up. Not sure there’s another team in the country who puts that level of stress on a defense, requiring 100% focus and effort across the board for a full 40 minutes.

UConn poses a unique set of problems. Typically that’s a recipe for success in the NCAA’s. Anything can happen, but I like our chances.
 
Looking through the scenarios for us, there's a couple key facts:

If Purdue is overall #1 (as it likely stands right now)
  • If UNC is #1, Tenn goes South to Dallas. We end up with Iowa St as our 2 pretty much 100% of the time since Arizona wants West and Marquette can't be in our region..
  • If Tenn is #1, UNC goes East with us as they can't go to Detroit.
If Purdue is NOT overall #1, then it doesn't really matter if it's us or Houston, the same stuff plays out.
  • Both UNC and Tenn (whichever doesn't get the #1) as the top #2 would go with Purdue to Detroit due to closer distance. We end up with Iowa St as our 2 for the same logic as above (Arizona goes West and Marquette can't be in East).
So if I were a betting man, I think it's pretty likely we end up with Iowa St except in the scenario where Purdue is the overall #1 and Tenn gets the 4th #1. This is one of the most likely scenarios, though.

This hinges on Marquette hanging on to a 2 seed without Kolek playing in BET. Creighton winning the BET and joining Marquette as a 2 would probably force UNC/Tenn as the 2 in our East since neither could be in our region and Arizona has strong West preference. Creighton instead replacing Marquette makes it a similar outcome to the bullets above.

If Baylor supplants Iowa St as the Big 12's 2 seed, the same would apply (unless they finished ahead of Arizona, in which case we'd probably end up with Arizona. Baylor is the rare team in the top 16 that is closer to LA than Boston).
 
I don’t want to see UNC in our region - I think they are really good. my wallet is going to take a massive hit over the next 4 weeks — UNC in Boston would make ticket prices much worse.
 
.-.
August_West said:
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.
Expand ...
What you’re saying about MSU is exactly what I said about us in 2012, when I happened to be in Vegas and put my money where my brain was. That didn’t work out too well for a team that, with individual talent, hadn’t accomplished a damn thing against good teams all year.
 
auror said:
We can't end up with Marquette or Creighton due to bracketing principles limiting the top 3 teams from each conference needing to go into different regionals.
Expand ...
Last year we played St Mary’s and Gonzaga before the final four. Those two teams were clearly in the top three of the same conference but appeared in the same bracket. I think the rule is they can’t play each other in the first two rounds but I am not certain. Just know we played both of those WCC schools in the tournament b4 we got to final four.
 
Inyatkin said:
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.
Expand ...
Talking about how the Committee dealt with placement 26 years ago is interesting historically, and hats off for remembering, but as a predictive measure is just not relevant. Tourney placement is not like Supreme Court precedent (not that Supreme Court precedent is worth much these days).
 
An article was posted a couple months ago that claimed if teams from the same conference faced off twice during the regular season, they couldn't meet until the regional finals (where St Mary's would have met Gonzaga). If they faced off only once, they could meet any time after the first round and if (for future expansion as it hasn't happened yet) they didn't meet in the regular season they could meet at any point in the tournament.

It sounds reasonable.
 
Secure Dog said:
Last year we played St Mary’s and Gonzaga before the final four. Those two teams were clearly in the top three of the same conference but appeared in the same bracket. I think the rule is they can’t play each other in the first two rounds but I am not certain. Just know we played both of those WCC schools in the tournament b4 we got to final four.
Expand ...
That was different because St Mary's was a 5 seed, teams from the same conference have to be placed in different regions for the top 4 seeds only
 
navery12 said:
That was different because St Mary's was a 5 seed, teams from the same conference have to be placed in different regions for the top 4 seeds only
Expand ...
Reply: The post said top three teams from a specific conference. Not top three seeds in the tournament. But like @business lawyer you were itching. I get it. I was just replying to the post from memory. I can go look but I am fairly certain St Mary’s was top three in the WCC. So it was the post I was responding to not the rules you note.
 
.-.
Secure Dog said:
Reply: The post said top three teams from a specific conference. Not top three seeds in the tournament. But like @business lawyer you were itching. I get it. I was just replying to the post from memory. I can go look but I am fairly certain St Mary’s was top three in the WCC. So it was the post I was responding to not the rules you note.
Expand ...
Why do you ask questions if you're just gonna complain when someone gives you the answer? This is why it matters for UConn/Marquette/Creighton and not for Gonzaga/St Mary's last year

IMG_6717.jpeg
 
navery12 said:
Why do you ask questions if you're just gonna complain when someone gives you the answer? This is why it matters for UConn/Marquette/Creighton and not for Gonzaga/St Mary's last year

View attachment 97552
Expand ...
Again I did not doubt your accuracy I was just responding to the post about top three teams from a conference. Thank you for clarifying the question the OP I guess was going for when he said top three teams from each conference.
 
businesslawyer said:
Talking about how the Committee dealt with placement 26 years ago is interesting historically, and hats off for remembering, but as a predictive measure is just not relevant. Tourney placement is not like Supreme Court precedent (not that Supreme Court precedent is worth much these days).
Expand ...
Regardless, they still do it. We can hope they wouldn't take geography into consideration, but they will
 
businesslawyer said:
What you’re saying about MSU is exactly what I said about us in 2012, when I happened to be in Vegas and put my money where my brain was. That didn’t work out too well for a team that, with individual talent, hadn’t accomplished a damn thing against good teams all year.
Expand ...
Good example. You werent the only one. All the pundits had us penciled in to a 2nd round matchup against the Anthony Davis Kentucky team. Iowa State had plenty of bulletin board material going into that one. Royce White stole our manhood that day like few others in our history.

Even still, I don't like flirting with that.
 
Secure Dog said:
Last year we played St Mary’s and Gonzaga before the final four. Those two teams were clearly in the top three of the same conference but appeared in the same bracket. I think the rule is they can’t play each other in the first two rounds but I am not certain. Just know we played both of those WCC schools in the tournament b4 we got to final four.
Expand ...
Secure Dog said:
Again I did not doubt your accuracy I was just responding to the post about top three teams from a conference. Thank you for clarifying the question the OP I guess was going for when he said top three teams from each conference.
Expand ...
Yeah I was talking about UConn, Marquette, and Creighton specifically, so I omitted the part of the rule that mentioned it was only top 4 seedlines. Apologies for lack of clarity. The rule will come into play this year a good amount because the SEC and B12 have 4 teams each likely in the top 4 seeds (and B12 could possibly get a 5th in) and Big East has 3.

There's another rule after the top 4 seedlines that is closer to what you remember Secure Dog. Depending on how many times conference members played during the regular season (and how many teams from each conference are in the field) dictates how early they can play. We played Cincinnati in 2011 in the 2nd round because the Big East had a million teams in the field. Whereas St Mary's and Gonzaga last year could be in the same regional, but not play before Elite 8.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,285
Messages
4,561,387
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom