We are NOT an 8 seed | Page 7 | The Boneyard

We are NOT an 8 seed

Except they absolutely were. Go rewatch the Louisville game. UConn won that game - ON THE ROAD - by 18. The team that was ranked #5 at the time and was the tournament's overall top seed.


That game was hilarious. Look at how mad the Louisville players were getting that Thabeet was just altering everything LOL
 
I would now say that we would be a 7 seed if everything ended today. But it doesn't. The better way to look at it is this. We are an 8 seed minus the number of wins in the BET. If we win game 1 and lose game 2, we are a 7 seed, Win two, and we go to a 6 seed. Win the whole thing and we are a 5 seed.
 
I wonder if the teams with better seeds than UConn will have more wins or less wins than the Huskies.
 
I wonder if the teams with better seeds than UConn will have more wins or less wins than the Huskies.

By that measure, Belmont, having played 30 games, has nothing to worry about. And Baylor, having only played 22, can't possibly be a 1 seed.

Of course, you're extrapolating out this bizarro year to next, so i guess the Ivy League won't ever play again?
 
I would now say that we would be a 7 seed if everything ended today. But it doesn't. The better way to look at it is this. We are an 8 seed minus the number of wins in the BET. If we win game 1 and lose game 2, we are a 7 seed, Win two, and we go to a 6 seed. Win the whole thing and we are a 5 seed.

Basically every bracketologist has us between 8-10. Very few have us as a 6-7 or 11-12.
 
Thoughts?
My guess is that we end up with an 8 seed because, based on various ratings, that is where the lowest ones put us. We should be a 6 seed. Maybe, if we are lucky, we get a 7.
 
We are not locked into a 7 seed. Look at any of the top bracketologists on bracketmatrix.com. Almost all of them had us in an 8/9 game going into yesterday. That’s where the resume has us. Just need to hope that the Bouknight return makes the committee put us on the 7/10 line.
 
I don't know if the committee gives good wins or bad losses more weight. Meaning this: is it better to have a bunch of great wins again top 25 level teams but also have a bunch of bad losses, or is it better to have few top 25 wins but no bad losses? We're obviously the latter. I could see that holding us back from getting a higher seed. We've beaten one NCAA tournament team all year.
 
A Gtown win today and we are not worse then a 7. If not then hope for a 7 .
 
I don't know if the committee gives good wins or bad losses more weight. Meaning this: is it better to have a bunch of great wins again top 25 level teams but also have a bunch of bad losses, or is it better to have few top 25 wins but no bad losses? We're obviously the latter. I could see that holding us back from getting a higher seed. We've beaten one NCAA tournament team all year.
In a normal year, yes. This is not a normal year, and I think the committee will utilize more of an eye test. We haven't fared well against top competition, but we have gone down to the wire in two of those games with Bouk, beat USC early in the year, and have beaten everyone else by double digits when other big east teams have struggled or lost against them. Eye test is a pass for us to get a 7 seed IMO.
 
In a normal year, yes. This is not a normal year, and I think the committee will utilize more of an eye test. We haven't fared well against top competition, but we have gone down to the wire in two of those games with Bouk, beat USC early in the year, and have beaten everyone else by double digits when other big east teams have struggled or lost against them. Eye test is a pass for us to get a 7 seed IMO.
That's the hope.

By eye test, we're a 6. By resume, we're an 8.

I think it averages out to a 7, maybe with some benefit of the doubt due to Bouknight being out.

But even that excuse only goes so far at this point.

We lost to Villanova and Creighton twice with him anyway.

The only difference is we don't have bad losses with Bouknight, but still only one notable win.
 
I find it difficult to say even at full strength we were better than UNC that year; to me, 09 UNC is one of the top teams of the last 20 years.

That said, there’s little doubt we’d have given them a better game than Sparty, with or without Dyson, and would definitely have been capable of winning. We were much closer to UNC than any other team in the country, including UL and Pitt (let alone Memphis, lol), was to either the Heels or us.

After the leg the team aid against that awful msu front court it looks worse, but that team seemed to matchup well with unc.

But that team also had zero depth (I think 7 guys played most of the minutes).

And had to Start Craig freaking Austrie in a final four game.
 
I don't know if the committee gives good wins or bad losses more weight. Meaning this: is it better to have a bunch of great wins again top 25 level teams but also have a bunch of bad losses, or is it better to have few top 25 wins but no bad losses? We're obviously the latter. I could see that holding us back from getting a higher seed. We've beaten one NCAA tournament team all year.

OK scratch that, our number of wins against tourney teams has now tripled.
 
I wish the team had played more games and was able to get a few more quality wins - and I'm not uninformed
Whatever place UConn is rewarded it all comes down to luck (draw) and just WIN
 

Online statistics

Members online
260
Guests online
2,963
Total visitors
3,223

Forum statistics

Threads
164,251
Messages
4,388,863
Members
10,196
Latest member
HockeyMikeD


.
..
Top Bottom