Bracketology - updated 3/10

[fall01nk]

I disagree.

If two teams playing in a title game are neck and neck, you better believe its going to matter. If we were to make it to the finals and beat KU, there is no way we get sent to Phoenix unless it's as the #1 seed.

 

[KosherHorn]

If Texas beats KU with 30 minutes to go until the Selection Show, the only teams UT would be able to bump would be in their own conference, so the absolutely only way the title game matters is if the game is a winner-take-all for a 1 seed. But that's not going to happen. UT and KU will already be 2 seeds in the bracket before the game ends, and the committee will be putting the final touches on the whole bracket by the time the game ends, if they haven't given it to CBS already.

 

[fall01nk]

Not true. In fact, I'm almost positive that last year someone from the committee said that had we beaten Kansas, we would have been bumped up to a #3 at least.

Also, if both teams are #2s like you predict, who's to say they can't switch the locations? Surely that wouldn't be hard for the committee to do.

 

[cochamps]

Agree with Kosher

 

[bierce]

For all of you complaining about how Kansas can be ranked higher than Texas, consider the following two things:

1) how Texas has played over the last 10 days; and
2) if the teams are seeded and placed on the s curve, Texas is already seeded higher (playing overall #3 UCLA instead of overall #2 Memphis).

Now, the locations don't make much sense for the conference (does KU care if it goes to Detroit instead of Houston?), but I've been commenting for weeks on the fact that the Big 12 top teams nearly always get screwed on locations, and few of you have joined that discussion.

Once, just once, couldn't they do something like, oh, I don't know, maybe not give the ACC's second team the nearest option? Let Duke go play out west for once.

 

[KosherHorn]

Bierce, agree somewhat, though the Aggies being in SA certainly was an advantage to a Big XII team. Same with KU getting a free ride as a 6 seed through KC and St. Louis, as another poster mentioned, and even UT in 2003. If all that has happened before, why would the committee care about those things now?

I've been guilty too of overanalyzing the hell out of this stuff, and every year I'm frustrated because the committee doesn't care about things like location of teams in regionals. While we post about this stuff, since they're ADs they're out just trying to make money for their programs and not wondering about S-curves. They do it for five days, starting Wednesday, and then after Sunday they go home and try to raise more money for their schools the next day. In other words, they don't think about this enough to even consider a few of the things we'd love them to think about.

We should have a "Guess Which Team Gets Screwed" thread, because there will be at least one. But the committee won't care because all they need to do is follow the NCAA rules. Then they go home.

fall, I like your positive thinking, but I think it's wishful thinking. Who would UT have switched with last year? The only possibility was A&M, since they were a 3 seed and from the same conference. A&M was way too good for a 4 seed last year, though, and one can argue the committee as a whole put way too emphasis on conference tournaments last year anyway (see: Arkansas). The Aggies might have received a 2 if they didn't lose their first conf tourney game to OSU.

 

[bierce]

I wasn't thinking about Texas as the team being screwed so much as the Big 12 conference, as its top seeded team only got a most favorable location once in 5 years (2003), with one year (2006) having no good choice. Texas was the beneficiary in 2003 and had no real reason to ***** in 2006. In 2007, 2005 and 2004, KU and OSU were screwed pretty badly.

 

[TheContractor]

I still dont see how we cant be a #2 in Houston and Memphis #1. Memphis is not the overall #1 or #2. UNC/Tenn take that i assume.
IF UT/KU match up in the conf finals and UCLA loses b4 conf finals:
Why cant KU be #1 in west and UCLA #2 in west and we get #2 in Houston?
maybe this is wishful thinking by me.
I think it is possible if we get the the BIG 12 title game.
Hell, i will take #3 in Houston, just get me into that bracket dammit.

 

[SL Xpress]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[UTatYale]

The Big 12 title game definitely mattered last year. We would not have gone to Idaho as a #4 with the BIg 12 crown in tow.

 

[KosherHorn]

Yale, so A&M would have been the 4 seed? You sure?

I'm not trying to preach, and we're all entitled to our opinion here, but all I'd like to see is some backbone to these arguments. What I'm saying is that the Big XII Title game ends at 4:30. This after 4 days of the committee examining teams, seeds, etc.... By the time 4:30 rolls around, the committee is placing the bracket together. They are no longer debating seeds - they have already made those decisions. So if UT "definitely" would have not been a 4 seed last year had they won the conf tourney title, then there is no choice but to switch them with another Big XII team. That would have been A&M. There would have been no other option. The Aggies were a likely 2 seed heading into the conf tourney last year, so if you want to think they would have dropped two seeds due to one loss, then that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.

There is certainly a chance UT could get the 2 seed in Houston, but it will not be something the committee rewards to KU or UT. It will be simply because, as the committee determines seeds (which I can't stress enough ends before the Big XII Title game does), it just may simply happen that the S-curve puts UT under Memphis in the same regional. But it is something the committee has not thought about in the past, and during the mock bracket exercise with the media a month ago Andy Katz and others stressed repeatedly the committee probably won't start thinking about it now. That ties into bierce's point that the Big XII top seeds have been screwed in the past. He's right that Big XII teams have bee screwed, but it's not a conscious decision by the committee to do so. It's just a crappy coincidence, more than likely, the same coincidence that has screwed Memphis the past two years. But it's not something the committee has purposefully done.

Next year, with the Big XII Title Game on Saturday, the committee will therefore have time to consider the result before they finalize their seeds.

 

[jimmyjazz]

I don't know why it's such a stretch to assume that some years the committee might wait until the conclusion of the Big XII tournament to choose between two different brackets. The Big XII is a major conference, and the champion is usually going to be a top 10 (if not top 5) team. There are only two possible outcomes to that game -- it's not like all seeding and positioning would have to wait until end of day Sunday for that game to "matter".

Of course, some years, it clearly doesn't matter. Still,, imagine that UT plays KU in this year's final, and that the committee thinks the final #1 seed should go to one of those two teams. Are you sure they'll just arbitrarily make that call ahead of time instead of doing the 5 minutes of extra work it would take to "correctly" seed those two teams?

 

[Bob in Houston]

Jimmy, the only reports I've ever seen or read are that in comparison to the selection and seeding, the bracket is thrown together at the last minute.

I agree, they could have two. But I really doubt they have time to make two, based on one potential result.

I think it's a good thing that the committee is convening beginning tonight instead of tomorrow, as in years past. They might have a chance to come up with Plan B for the B12 and the B10.

 

[TXSooner518]

my updated seeds 3/11/08:

1: UNC, UCLA, Tennessee, Memphis
2: Duke, Texas, Georgetown, Kansas
3: Xavier, Stanford, Louisville, Wisconsin
4: Drake, Butler, Purdue, Notre Dame
5: Vandy, UConn, Mich St, Wash St
6: Indiana, Clemson, BYU, Miss St
7: Kansas St, Oklahoma, USC, Gonzaga
8: W. Virginia, Miami, Marquette, Pitt
9: Baylor, Kentucky, St. Mary's, Davidson
10: Arkansas, UMass, Illinois St, Kent St
11: S. Alabama, Arizona, UNLV, Oregon
12: San Diego, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Syracuse
13: Siena, W. Kentucky, Utah St, Oral Roberts
14: George Mason, Austin Peay, Cornell, S.F. Austin
15: Winthrop, Cal-Northridge, Belmont, UMBC
16: American, Sacred Heart, Alabama St/Morgan St, Portland St

LAST FOUR IN: Oregon, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Syracuse
LAST FOUR OUT: Ohio St, Arizona St, New Mexico, VCU

 

[jimmyjazz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[SL Xpress]

I don't know, jimmyjazz. The few times I've ever tried to create potential brackets following their guidelines, it didn't take much to throw the whole thing out of whack. I don't think putting together two different brackets depending on title game results is as easy as you're making it out to be. And I don't think there are any compelling incentives for them to do so. KosherHorn is right. I think fans put a lot more thought into this throughout the season than the people on those committees, and once they're there, they have a host of higher priority items --- like who gets in, and crafting brackets which at least follow some kind of minimum standard already created --- to put much weight into EXACTLY how each bracket is set up.

I do know they're meeting a day earlier this year with the express purpose of putting more thought into how the brackets are composed, but with 64 organizations represented, someone is going to be disappointed with what the process churns out. It's inevitable.

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---