Proof the committee did a good job?

[TheFied]

ESPN and co. liked to criticize the job the NCAA committee did in doing the seeding and picking the teams... but what is proof in 3+ weeks that they did a good job? In theory, if all the higher seeds win, then doesn't that mean they did their job right?

From a fan's perspective, I want to see good games. But I also like seeing Duke lose to VCU and George Mason going far. But those upsets are proof the committee didn't do a good job. Duke should have been seeded differently and so should have VCU. So maybe we don't want the committee to do a good job?

 

[Mr. Orange]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BornOrange]

Putting Texas in the South Regional was proof enough that the committee did a great job.

 

[BigTEX40]

Texas in the South region sucks. That is the toughest reason as I break down my brackets. I like them meeting Memphis in the Elite 8 though. Should be a hell of a game if it happens

 

[HornJD79]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[4realhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TheContractor]

sadly i dont think he was joking.
Texas in the south is the best thing that could have happened. Little Rock will suck A LOT more than people think but the 2 team there are teams we should be able to handle.
Once we get to Houston it will be pretty tough. Potential matchups with Stanford and then Memphis/Pitt/Mich St. To get to the final 4 we have to play 2 pretty dam good teams, but that is the case for most teams. Not taking anything away for the other 3 teams in little rock but we are better and if we play to our level we should win.
We will be playing 2 hard teams at Home. It better be 90% UT crowd. I am going to the games, assuming we make it there.

 

[cochamps]

^ Correct on all points.

Little rock will be brutal (I hope no one gets hurt).
We will play 2 really good teams in Houston, but before a huge pro UT crowd. Fact is, most of the weak sisters are gone at this point. You would prefer to have the crowd, and reduced travel.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

First of all I disagree with the entire premise of this post. Just because a low seed beats a high seed, that doesn't necessarily mean that either was seeded improperly. (Well, ok if a two seed loses to a 15, I would go along with that.) But the fact is that there is so much parity in college basketball, so many calls over the course of the game can go either way, so many shots can lip out or lip in, it's not a stretch to say that there are only a handful of teams in this tournament that are immune to a first-round upset. There may not be more than five or six! That doesn't mean they are overseeded, it means that in hoops, teams have nights when they just don't hit anything, and some teams have nights where everything falls their way.

 

[OrangeChipper]

We have arguably

a) The toughest 1 seed.
b) The strongest 3 seed.
c) The strongest 4 seed.
d) The strongest 5 seed
e) The strongest 6 seed.

IN THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT. Marquette is strong. They have beaten 5th seed ND twice. Beat 4 seed pitt once. Beat 3 seed Wisconsin and barely lost in OT to 2 seed Georgetown.

 

[madscientist]

why do we have the toughest one seed? who have they beaten? they lost at home to a utenn team that we mopped up early on. ain't no reason to be scared of memphis - especially if we've got gary johnson back and healthy at that point.

 

[Mr. Orange]

I agree with the madscientist. Of all the #1 seeds, Memphis would be my choice to play. They are a good team and will be difficult to defeat, but I would much rather face them to get to the final four than UCLA, UNC or Kansas.

 

[Jive_Turkey]

As stated above, the committee's job wasn't to predict the winners of the games and seed accordingly.

Their job was to pick the at-large teams, then seed those teams based on what they've done the past 5 months.

After that, it's up to the teams to see whether they deserved their seed.

 

[blonthang]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Seattle Husker]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[whereiend]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[S197HQQKEM]

I like the fact that they put Rick and Frank up against each other in the second round.

 

[forshizzzle]

I don't get all the hand-wringing about Stanford. I'd rather play them than Louisville for sure, and I don't think they'd be much tougher than Wisconsin either.

 

[Nytejag]

I am not on the committee, but here is what I have read they do to come up with where each team goes. They seed the teams 1-64, then use an s-curve for placement. So supposedly, no region has the best of each seed. Here is what it looks like, and let me explain it.
UNC UCLA KU UM
TENN DUKE G/T UT
LOU XAV WISC STAN
They have ranked these teams ranked 1-12. UNC#1 to UM #4, then UT #5 to Tenn#8, then LOU #9 to Stan#12. A continuous s-curve. This makes UNC have the worst ranked #2 seed, but the highest ranked #3 seed, UM the highest #2 seed, but the lowest #3 seed, and so forth. This is what I have read, but I'm not there, so this is just for what it's worth. Wish I could remember where I saw it to provide a link.

 

[OrangeChipper]

My point was that UT doesn't have the easy road like Duke & UCLA seem to have to get to the final four.

Give another bracket an upset or two, and its smooth sailing to the final four.

Not so much in our bracket, seeds 1-6 are stout in our bracket.

Look in the west - Uconn, Purdue, drake, & Xavier... compared to our murderers row.

 

[94Horn]

If we win our first 2 games, we basically get to play home games for the rest of the season. That's a good bracket. You would have to be insane to complain.