The seeding all around this tournament was horrible. That’s the Kentucky effect 😀
“Kansas Deserves Better.”
- Thread starter Random UK Fan
- Start date
He’s still got Baylor playing.....
Sure this has been mentioned....But wow....Kansas has failed to make the SW 16, eleven(11) times as a 4 seed or better. Damn.
Yep. And a fresher one than yours. 😆
But hey--maybe you can change that. You might get by that team that crushed you a month ago and then Gonzaga.
Yep. And a fresher one than yours. 😆
But hey--maybe you can change that. You might get by that team that crushed you a month ago and then Gonzaga.
Take a lap
Some of those were overseeded and limping into the tourney.
But obviously you're going to have more than most when you're a top 4 seed almost every year for 3+ decades. The GOAT K's done it 9 times by himself.
The percentage is what matters, and I don't remember the exact numbers, but they're on par with Duke and UCLA and not far below Kentucky and UNC (playing to seed).
Lost me with the GOAT K. Wooden. Then you can mention K.
Big Ten was way off. Big 12 wasn't honestly that bad, they just had some 3s and 4s that probably should have been 5-8. Still impressive that 70% of the league were solid tournament teams.
Ya big 10 is a real nuts
I agree with you. We were over seeded. 6-1 in round 1 being offset like that in round 2 proved it.
OU was under seeded tho. Played Zags hard
WVU: 4-5
KU: 5-6. Was wayyy over seeded.
OU: 5-7 - better than a 8/9.
Pokes right at 4. Just bad game
Texas: 3-5. 3 was a stretch but 4 was right.
Baylor right at 1.
Tech actually was good at 6 or even a 5.
Big 12 was tough. I think Baylor was obviously a 1. Everyone else was pretty close. I wouldn't argue much with what you got.
What process do you use and expect the committee to use? Point and say "that looks like a 6?"
True. No 3 point shot. Shot clock. Lol at the multitude of teams that would try and freeze the ball. Would still lose 40-20. Oh yeah, freshmen weren’t eligible for varsity play. 1966 and Kareem and his group of freshmen All-stars had to watch UCLA struggle to 18-8 and miss the Tourney. The freshmen beat the returnees from the ‘65 NC team in a pre-season game by 20. Glory Road and Texas Western were grateful.
Also a much smaller tourney field and a field that didn't include a lot of the best teams. Very little parity. A few teams had all the talent. Made the tourney a lot more predictable and easier to win. No matter how great a modern coach could be, they'd have no shot of pulling off a dynasty like that.
Bud, I don't have, or want a dog in this fight, but I gave you a like because Good Fellows is one great movie!!!!!!!Yep. And a fresher one than yours. 😆
But hey--maybe you can change that. You might get by that team that crushed you a month ago and then Gonzaga.
You’re correct. However there were some great teams during the UCLA era. Just weren’t great enough by and large. The Tourney had to start somewhere. It was the beginnings. To think, UCLA was a freshman rule and one of the first great skywalkers- David Thompson away from 12 straight!
Wait, was the committee supposed to assume the PAC12 teams that got in, were going to go nuts on the field and the BIG10 teams would flounder?
Lets not act like the PAC12 has been any good in the tournament until this year. Nobody saw this coming.
One thing is for sure, all 5 PAC12 teams are/were playing unreal at the right time. Congrats PAC12 fans.
Lets not act like the PAC12 has been any good in the tournament until this year. Nobody saw this coming.
One thing is for sure, all 5 PAC12 teams are/were playing unreal at the right time. Congrats PAC12 fans.
Self sure didn't put them in a position to win last night, I'd rather lose the games just Jayhawk nation is watching than get literally punk'd on a national stage like that. Last night was a program low top 10....
Not sure what you wanted him to do differently. They had plenty of open jumpers and layups that didn’t go down. They were at a major disadvantage in size vs 7 footers who were raining in threes. And with their best rebounder barely getting onto the court, their only chance was to hit outside shots and they didn’t.
Maybe you’d rather go 9-16 or miss the tourney?
I am talking about how teams from certain conference’s got over seeded. WVU and Syracuse both had almost identical records yet one was a 3 and the other an 11, the 11 is beat the 3. You’re saying that the PAC shouldn’t have been seeded low because of their past tournaments, the committee is supposed to only look at this year’s results.
I wasn't referring to your posts, but just because two tems have the same record, doesn't mean their strenth of record is anywhere close to the same.
As far as the PAC12 thing, I'm not saying the committee was supposed to use previous seasons to judge those teams. What I am saying is, those teams didn't wow anyone in the regular season. What did any of them do to warrrant higher seeds?
But also, we were all blind sided by how well those teams are doing. Nobody saw this coming, not even the biggest PAC12 fan thought these teams would do as well as they have. Coming into the tournament, those p12 teams looked like the same old p12 teams we are used to seeing.
I think the fact that they're out on the west coast and play too late for anyone to watch them, certainly didn’t help.
But, after this season, that league will get more respect on selection Sunday, but it's weird to pile on the committee and say they did a terrible job when recent tournament results and resumes from this season, didn't indicate that they should have been given higher seeds.
Did any PAC12 teams beat a string of good teams out of conference? I'll admit, I didn't notice if they did.
There weren't a ton of OOC opportunities but the PAC 12 really got hurt perception wise because the lower half of the league took some really bad OOC losses. The league had some decent OOC wins like USC beating BYU. Stanford beating Alabama.
The PAC 12 didn't do amazing in their OOC but what huge OOC wins did the Big Ten have?
I was not high on the big 10 but then i watched the semi's and finals for their conference championship and came away much more impressed. They seemed liked balanced teams that had a very good idea what to do on offense and ran offenses that created good looks for players. There also appeared to be a greater ability to put the ball on the floor and get their shot than I expected.
The big 12 was pretty good but the talent level outside of Baylor is just not there this year (well ok Texas was talented but Shaka).
The Pac teams have looked INCREDIBLE, no doubt about that but as others have said I don't think anyone expected that. This seemingly came from nowhere but man they have been awesome. The thing is, everything gets so magnified in the tourney because really it is just a hand full of games at this point.
Runs happen...no one thinks George mason or VCU was one of the 4 best teams when they made the final four bu tthis is quite a streak the pac is on.
They kicked KU's ass and I quit watching at half time...I think that is the first tournament game of KU's that I have not watched until the end since the late 80's
The big 12 was pretty good but the talent level outside of Baylor is just not there this year (well ok Texas was talented but Shaka).
The Pac teams have looked INCREDIBLE, no doubt about that but as others have said I don't think anyone expected that. This seemingly came from nowhere but man they have been awesome. The thing is, everything gets so magnified in the tourney because really it is just a hand full of games at this point.
Runs happen...no one thinks George mason or VCU was one of the 4 best teams when they made the final four bu tthis is quite a streak the pac is on.
They kicked KU's ass and I quit watching at half time...I think that is the first tournament game of KU's that I have not watched until the end since the late 80's
We also had very few OOC matchups. Even in a normal year it's a small sample size to determine conference strength. This year, it was way too small of a sample size to be taken seriously. And honestly, the PAC has played well, but it's definitely being amplified by the tournament.
Beavs got hot but they weren't great all season. Oregon, USC and Colorado have all been good. UO and USC should have been higher seeds. UCLA was a bit lucky that Texas laid and egg. They haven't played like a top 16 team all season.
That said, the PAC 12 has a lot of negative results amplified in the past so they could use some positive coverage.
Yeah, the BIG10 really didn't play anyone all that great out of conference. They started conference play really early.
As we're seeing now, the BIG10 was actually not very good, but that's hindsight.
It is definitely a weird year.
Kenpom on twitter talked about how his algorithm was flawed this year due to in conference stats.
To be honest their matchups with the ACC really skewed the perception of the Big Ten. The Big Ten got quality wins in everyone's eyes vs. the ACC before we realized the ACC was having a down year.
I would say the East have had many down years, including the Central. Kansas got what was coming!
Very true.
Good luck to the Ducks tomorrow night. That should be a great game.
Similar threads
