Do we want the No. 1 seed?

S

South Austin

2,500+ Posts
Hard to make a case against taking a No. 1 seed. But, would you rather be the No. 1 seed in the West Region playing your games in Little Rock then Phoenix, or the No. 2 seed in the South playing your games in Omaha, then essentially home games in Houston?

I pitch it this way because I don't see us overtaking Memphis for the No. 1 seed in the South, so after last night's win over K-State, I think Texas either gets the No. 1 seed in the West or the No. 2 seed in the South.

Braketology
 
we dont have to run the table in the tournament...we win the big12 outright arguably the toughest conference in the country...beat 3 teams vying for a no1 seed including the no 1 team in country ...we are a no 1 seed...
 
id rather have a 2 and be in houston but i agree, i think we are a lock for a #1 if we win out, we have the best resume in the country.
 
only if we're in the south; if not, it wouldn't hurt to drop 1 of our next few games so we could end up with the 2 and go through Houston. A 1 in Phoenix won't benefit us, considering our fans travel for **** compared to other big time bball schools. We have some great fans but you know what I mean.

hookem.gif
 
The selections are made and brackets typially set before the end of the Big 12 Championship game. It is a big assumption that Texas and Kansas will be in it, but if they are, it will have no bearing on who gets a #1 seed.

My two cents, with the big names vying for a #1 seed, we may be on the outside looking in. ESPN bracketology is one thing, but the committee members are human and they will be hard pressed to put us ahead of a UNC, Duke, or even a Kansas.
 
If it's close for a No. 1, the committee almost certainly will deal with the result.

If Texas can win the B12 outright, that will help, but if Memphis, Tennessee, UCLA and, say, UNC, win their tournaments, and Texas doesn't, it'll be a two.

Lunardi, stepping into the prognosticator role, said he thought UCLA would win the Pac-10 title and tournament and move up to No. 1. If Texas happened to win the B12 and tournament, there is no question in my mind that they should be ranked ahead of UCLA. If not, I imagine they would stick with the S-curve and Texas would not be placed in Houston, but rather with the weakest No. 1.

I would be curious how high on the S-curve Texas would have to rank in order to be placed in Houston. One would figure that at some point, the wins over Tennessee and UCLA would count for something, instead of just getting them to the No. 1 line.

Still a lot of hoops to be played, though. Frankly, I'd be happy with the two if it meant Texas could leave KC on Saturday night. I believe we saw the impact of that third game, in OT, no less, the following week in Spokane.
 
Ok. To add to that, why is it assumed that we'd be placed in the Houston region if we are not a 1 seed? Is it just because we'd - hypothetically - be the top 2 seed or because of geography. If Memphis is the hypothetical top seed and given a 1 in Houston, wouldn't the 2 seed in that bracket be the 8th overall seed? (The worst 2 seed).

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm genuinely confused.
 
There are basically 6 teams that are playing for a 1-seed: UT, Tenn, Memphis, UCLA, Duke & UNC. (Sorry Kansas - you're a solid 2 at best) Given that most UT fans would rather take the South Regional vs. a 1-seed elsewhere, the committee will make us a 2 in the South (Memphis will be the 1) and probably send the ACC runner-up out west to play UCLA. This is assuming Memphis, UCLA, Tennessee and the ACC champ don't F things up with a couple losses.
 
S-curve: The theoretical path through which the teams are seeded.

The committee eventually ranks the teams from 1-65.
The seeding then could take place by matching 1 and 64/65, 2 and 63, 3, and 62, etc.

In terms of the top seeds, you would want to match 1 and 8, 2 and 7, 3 and 6, 4 and 5. It's an "S-curve" because the seeding goes back and forth across the lines, like an S.

It doesn't work out that way because of other rules regarding conference matchups and putting teams in pods close to home, etc.... the committee can move a team up or down a line to accommodate these.

But in terms of the top two seed lines, it's not as theoretical. They want No. 4 and No. 5 to be paired, if it came to that.

What I wonder if whether Texas would have to be No. 1 to get its choice of sites. They can make an argument if it comes to that.
 
It doesn't make sense to me to send Memphis to Houston (150 miles closer than Detroit, 100 closer than Charlotte) and send Texas to Detroit (1000 miles further than Houston). If it's Phoenix, it might make more sense.
 
What I'm most interested in knowing at this point is where the committee would rank UCLA, which has an rpi (9th) that would suggest that it might not even deserve a 2 seed. I know the committee doesn't rely on (or even refer to for at least some purposes) rpi, but given UCLA's weak non-conference schedule, will the committee put them above Xavier, Georgetown, UNC/Duke loser, Texas, and Kansas?

Of course, when was the last time the top Pac 10 team wasn't either a 1 or a 2 seed in the West regional? 2002 when Oregon got a 2 seed in the Midwest.
 
Here's my "Bracketology" (top 6 seeds)
South Regional - Houston
1. Memphis
2. TEXAS
3. Xavier
4. Indiana
5. Butler
6. UConn

East Regional - Charlotte
1. Duke
2. Stanford
3. Georgetown
4. Wisconsin
5. Marquette
6. Mississippi St

Midwest Regional - Detroit
1. Tennessee
2. Kansas
3. Michigan State
4. Louisville
5. Drake
6. Washington State

West Regional - Phoenix
1. UCLA
2. UNC
3. Purdue
4. Vanderbilt
5. ND
6. Gonzaga

The biggest challenge is spreading out the conference teams, while maintaining their appropriate seeds (and trying to avoid early re-matches). The Midwest would be the toughest of the 4 to get out of - and I'd love to see a Tennessee/Kansas matchup. The East (Duke) would be the easiest road - not all that hard to believe.
 
The committee has historically given champions of power conferences a lot of love. Just look at Virginia last year, who got a 4 seed even though their profile didn't come close to suggesting that. But they won the regular season ACC title, which stood for a lot. So on that note I think UCLA as Pac 10 Champion is in good shape for at least the top 2 seed, which would probably put them in Phoenix. If UNC and Duke knock each other off and UCLA runs the table the rest of the way, they should get the 1 in Phoenix.

Chest, why Duke over Texas?
 
Texas is every bit as deserving of 1-seed as Duke, but I think (as most that have responded to the original question at hand) geography is more important than seed this year for us.
 
VinceFord, there have been two ESPN articles stating that the head of the committee has states that "best" is the criterium over "most deserving". Proof of that was putting Florida as the overall 1 seed last season. Sure, they were the best team, but their profile didn't suggest that.

Chest, I don't think the committee would drop Texas to a 2 simply for geographical purposes. Hopefully the committee will stick to the S-curve as is but reward the 1 seeds with geography as much as possible.

Someone on Orangebloods gave a link to the NCAA rules on seeding and brackets that made it look like the geography rule is one the committee doesn't stray from,so if that's the case Memphis would get Houston if they're a higher 1 seed than Texas, regardless of any other factors. That would mean the committee wouldn't even think about shifting Memphis to Detroit if they're seen as better than Texas. They're closer to Houston than Detroit, and that's all that would matter. Hopefully for purely selfish purposes an exception could be made if it comes to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top