Your Nomination for the Team That Got Absolutely Cornholed in the Tourney
- Thread starter KYtotheCore
- Start date
Death and taxes. Fans bitching about how their team easily got screwed the most and how they are deserving of a higher seed, and then....at the same time arguing how their team is superior and probably going to the final four. If you are final four good, you'll beat the teams ahead of you. Kansas has some tough games early on---Penn and NC State----but if we cant beat those two teams to get to the second weekend, we weren't good enough to be there and it has nothing to do with how and who the committee seeded in our bracket.
I did NOT say that at all! I said 2 conference champs had to play each other in second round. You and Barcus want to nit pick what that word means.
UNC was a 6 seed in the ACC tourney,so, they did not win the regular season nor the tourney, and yet they are a 2 seed. If conference tourney has no meaning, then why have it. I know you are a UK hater, and that's fine, but stop putting words in my mouth.
BTW, UNC=10 losses
UK=10 losses
UNC=2 seed
UK SEC tourney champs=5 seed
Are you even coming close to understanding what I am getting at here?
I am not even complaining about our seed. Our overall body of work does not justify a seed better than 4. My beef is that you have UVA, Arizona, UK, all conference tourney champs facing each other in 1/2 of one bracket, while UNC, has a clear path.
MSU won regular season title (very weak unbalanced schedule. Purdue once at home, Ohio St which they lost and Michigan once which they lost at home. They only won the title by one game.)
MSU has better overall record than both (somewhat due to a weak schedule)
MSU has no bad losses (4 total) (no argument here)
Purdue has 2 bad losses (WKy and Wisc) (6 total)
Both losses (Western Kentucky and Wisconsin) were quad 1 losses so according to the committee they aren't bad losses. I'd agree the Wisconsin one was bad. Especially considering that was the worst game Purdue played all year. They were horrible. Western Kentucky isn't a bad loss by almost any metric.
Last edited:
Exactly... Obviously neither team was playing at the levels they were capable of if they were playing for 8th place in an 8 team tournament. Surely not playing like a 2-seed at the time...
This all started with you making shit up, about how 2-seed UNC was playing poorly when MSU beat them. They weren't, they won 10 of their first 11 games, including beating 6! NCAAT teams (Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio State, Bucknell, Davidson, and @Tenneessee) and their only loss coming to MSU.
MSU overall resume sucked this year, but the UNC win is probably the conference's best win of the season.
When did they start to lose games? I didn't follow them that closely. I thought they had a few in the non con.
Sure they are playing better than there seed indicates. I agree. But the NCAA doesn't seed on that. They seed you on your entire body of work; not what you have done the past 2 weeks. Kentucly went 2-6 vs UT, Missouri, Florida, Arky and Auburn in the reg. season; including being swept by UF and UT. Those were the only teams to have winning conference records. Yet UK went 2-6 against them. They lost to UCLA. An 11 seed playing in the First Four. They were seeded accordingly. So where do you put them? AS Kansas' 4/5? Or Nova's? Or Xavier's. I mean I guess you could argue that.
Either way, UK and AZ, though playing good ball, were seeded accordingly. And hell if Schoflield doesn't get hurt, they may not have even beaten UT. Kentucky is playing better ball, but their not some juggernaut that UVA may run into.
You have a conference TOURNAMENT champ. There is a difference. Are you coming close to seeing the difference? UK beat a bad UGA team. A 9 seed Alabama team; who was playing their 3rd game in 3 days, and w/o their big man. Beat a pretty darn good UT team. But a team that had swept them already. So what was the committee to do?
I'm nowhere near a UK hater. But understand the process; Disagree with UK fan= UK hater. Is what it is.
Also, you do realize just b/c UNC and UK both have 10 losses, that doesn't mean they stand on equal ground, right?
UNC had 6 Top 25 wins.
UK had ZERO.
UNC had 12 Top 50 wins
UK had 7.
Look at UNC's wins; Tenn( a team UK went 1-2 against), Duke 2X's, , Michigan and OSU. UK beat WVU and then............finally UT. Huge difference there.
Losses. UNC had a terrible loss to Wofford. But other than that, their losses were to Duke, UVA(2x's), MIchigan State, Miami and Clemson. All vs Top 30 teams. Other three were vs FSU, VATech and NCSU. All Top 60. All NCAA teams.
UK's worse loss was to South Carolina(86). Then UCLA(11 seed). Other losses were to UT(2) and UF(2). Spanked by UF and A&M.
All W/L records are not created equal. If you cannot see why a team with 6 Top 25 wins is a 2 seed, and a team with ZERO Top 25 wins is a 5, then I dunno what to tell ya. I mean if you think these two resumes are equal, well, again----nothing for you.
But hey, what do us "UK haters know"?
There you go moving the goal posts again. Impossible to debate you when you do thatmy whole point went tight over your head.
That's, like, a load of 1v16 games... No?
Similar threads
