Complete SEED LIST (#16 PU, #18 Minny, #23 Mary, #27 Mich, #29 Wisky, #32 NU, #35 MSU)
- Thread starter FeliSilvestris
- Start date
#16 Purdue
#18 Minny
#23 Mary
#27 Mich
#29 Wisky
#32 NU
#35 MSU
PU seems about right.
Minny and Mary WAY over-appreciated!!!
Wisky unexplicably UNDER-appreciated.
NU slightly over (if you believe in power rankings).
MSU probably OK.
#18 Minny
#23 Mary
#27 Mich
#29 Wisky
#32 NU
#35 MSU
PU seems about right.
Minny and Mary WAY over-appreciated!!!
Wisky unexplicably UNDER-appreciated.
NU slightly over (if you believe in power rankings).
MSU probably OK.
Wisconsin just beat Minnesota by 17 - I don't see how you could have Minnesota so much higher than Wisconsin, let alone above them at all.
As I said in the other thread, the committee must have seen things that no one else did or does. Minny was only briefly, back in January, #24. How/why did they manage to climb to #18 without doing particularly well in the BTT? Maryland which entered the BTT barely in the top 25 should have dropped out after their convincing loss to NU. No reason at all why Wisky should have dropped from the top 25 all the way to 29, when they reached the BTT final.
Oh well.
The same Wisconsin that beat NU by about 30, made it to the BTT final and beat Minnesota by 17 in the regular season finale? Just checking
I don't think the committee looks much at recent performance, if at all. Joey Brackets said they stopped considering this about 10 years ago because they didn't seen a material correlation between recent performance and tournament success.
I had originally hoped for a seven-seed because game #2 for an 8-seed (if we win, of course, which is a very big if) is against one of the top 4 -- but if you look at this year's number 2 seeds, Arizona, Duke, Louisville, Kentucky, you're looking at a who's who of NCAA champs. If we had to play a number one as our possible second game, I would think Gonzaga is a little less frightening than anyone out of that #2 seed gauntlet.
Blatant self-interest here: if we are somehow able to work a miracle, and get into the round of 16, we will play in San Jose, and if that happens you can be damn sure I'll make the 45-minute drive down 680 to see the Cats in action. And I don't think that is a ridiculous dream, it certainly could happen! If the Cats who destroyed Rutgers and beat Wisky in Madison are the ones playing this week, it truly could be "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" for many of us.
That's obvious with the Michigan seed. They just had an amazing run in the BTT and have been red hot in the last few weeks. They may have the best chance to make a deep run from the BIG.
I suppose what you mean is that the committee may not give recent performance higher weight than it gives earlier performance. So, NU victory over Mary in the BTT may not "count more" than NU's loss to Mary during the r.s. But it would be CRAZY that it would count less (or not at all!).
OF COURSE, the committee does consider recent performance. Maybe with the same weight as earlier games. But definitely NOT less.
That is pretty cool that NU is in the top 32 for its first time to the NCAA Tournament. Wasn't that the size of the Tournament at an earlier point in its history before it expanded to 64 and the now 68?
Definitely. Only 32 teams 1975–1978.
Since it has grown steadily over the years (48, 52, 64, 68 with play-in games as appropriate).
Initially (1939–1950) only EIGHT teams were invited. Then 16 for a brief period, and so on.
What math? It's a language issue.
If you expressed precisely and unambiguously what you had in mind then there is no problem at all.
Similar threads
