College Basketball 2007-2008

[illiniguy]

Can someone explain to me how KU was the lowest 1 seed, yet has a much easier region than UNC? Tennessee could have been a 1, so they should be in with Kansas not UNC. The committee missed the boat on that one.

 

Yeah, UNC got thoroughly screwed. There are basically two 1 seeds and a near-two seed (Louisville) in their region. Easily the toughest of the four.

 

UNC fans are also upset at IU being the #8. Now, as an IU fan, I think the Hoosiers will lose to Arkansas. Still, IU should've been higher and having to (potentially) face two Wooden Award candidates in the second round isn't much of a reward for the #1 overall team.

UNC is going to run you off the court.

 

I doubt that matchup occurs; like I said, I think Arkansas beats IU. If IU does win, UNC will crush them, I agree.

You guys got hosed. Oklahoma is seeded higher than you. In what world have they done more to warrant a higher seed than you?

[dew1679666265]

Tennessee was 16-4 v. the RPI top 100, Kansas was 15-3. Maybe Tennessee should've beaten a team that was a double digit seed(before that win bumped them up to their current 9 seed) on a neutral court.

 

Tennessee and Kansas had identical records (KU with one less loss) and Tennessee played a significantly tougher schedule.

 

I'm sorry we lost as many games as Kansas when we were playing better teams. Maybe everybody should schedule toward the lower end of the RPI top 100 if that's what the committee rewards.

[dew1679666265]

Can someone explain to me how KU was the lowest 1 seed, yet has a much easier region than UNC? Tennessee could have been a 1, so they should be in with Kansas not UNC. The committee missed the boat on that one.

 

Yeah, UNC got thoroughly screwed. There are basically two 1 seeds and a near-two seed (Louisville) in their region. Easily the toughest of the four.

Yeah, but in KU's I only see Georgetown and KU.

 

Yeah, KU shouldn't have been a 1 seed and they get an easier road than the top overall seed. Wow...

[dew1679666265]

Can someone explain to me how KU was the lowest 1 seed, yet has a much easier region than UNC? Tennessee could have been a 1, so they should be in with Kansas not UNC. The committee missed the boat on that one.

 

Yeah, UNC got thoroughly screwed. There are basically two 1 seeds and a near-two seed (Louisville) in their region. Easily the toughest of the four.

 

UNC fans are also upset at IU being the #8. Now, as an IU fan, I think the Hoosiers will lose to Arkansas. Still, IU should've been higher and having to (potentially) face two Wooden Award candidates in the second round isn't much of a reward for the #1 overall team.

 

Yeah, IU could easily have been much higher seeded than an 8. Another tough draw for UNC.

[JimSorgi]

I have picked North Carolina to beat Stanford in the national title game.

UNC over Xavier

[dew1679666265]

The SEC was also a much weaker conference than the Big 12 was and that certainly has to be taken into consideration.

 

Taken into consideration...but like I said, Tennessee played a brutal non-con schedule and ended up with a significantly better strength of schedule (#1 for UT vs #50 for Kansas).

 

That should outweigh a slight difference inside the conferences.

 

If Tennessee wanted No. 1 seed, they should have won the SEC tournament. Their resume was similar to that of Kansas in the regular season but they flamed out in the SEC semis. Kansas won the tournament.

 

Tennessee's regular season resume is actually much better. And the fact that two wins by Kansas canceled out a much better regular season by Tennessee is ridiculous.

 

I'm on your side here. However, I might take Butler over Tennessee. If Butler doesn't turn the ball over against the press, they can dictate tempo and turn the game into a grinder. It's this type of game that could cause Tennessee to take ill-advised quick 3's while Butler grinds away. And away. And away.

 

Tennessee is definitely susceptible to a bad matchup. Butler beat us last year (very early in the year) because they dictated the pace. This team is better than last year, but can still be beaten by a slow-down type team.

[snoodmonger]

Tennessee was 16-4 v. the RPI top 100, Kansas was 15-3. Maybe Tennessee should've beaten a team that was a double digit seed(before that win bumped them up to their current 9 seed) on a neutral court.

 

Tennessee and Kansas had identical records (KU with one less loss) and Tennessee played a significantly tougher schedule.

 

I'm sorry we lost as many games as Kansas when we were playing better teams. Maybe everybody should schedule toward the lower end of the RPI top 100 if that's what the committee rewards.

 

 

Meh, I wouldn't complain if we were a two and you were a one, but you got to coast through the SEC. And you lost in your tourney. And we really are a better team. But as far as resumes go, yours is better.

[NCCubFan]

I think Kansas vs. Tennessee is debatable, but what I don't think is debatable is that Tennessee should certainly not be THE LOWEST #2 seed. IF they're a #2 seed they should have been the highest, not the lowest.

 

BTW, I've set up a new thread in Social so March Madness can have its own thread rather than being buried in this thread.

[dew1679666265]

Tennessee was 16-4 v. the RPI top 100, Kansas was 15-3. Maybe Tennessee should've beaten a team that was a double digit seed(before that win bumped them up to their current 9 seed) on a neutral court.

 

Tennessee and Kansas had identical records (KU with one less loss) and Tennessee played a significantly tougher schedule.

 

I'm sorry we lost as many games as Kansas when we were playing better teams. Maybe everybody should schedule toward the lower end of the RPI top 100 if that's what the committee rewards.

 

 

Meh, I wouldn't complain if we were a two and you were a one, but you got to coast through the SEC. And you lost in your tourney. And we really are a better team. But as far as resumes go, yours is better.

 

Like I've said, the SEC is easier than the Big 12 - but Tennessee didn't coast anywhere. Our strength of schedule is much higher than yours. Meaning, we played a tougher schedule than Kansas - regardless of conference strength.

[dew1679666265]

I think Kansas vs. Tennessee is debatable, but what I don't think is debatable is that Tennessee should certainly not be THE LOWEST #2 seed. IF they're a #2 seed they should have been the highest, not the lowest.

 

BTW, I've set up a new thread in Social so March Madness can have its own thread rather than being buried in this thread.

 

Yeah, I'm not seeing this supposed emphasis people say the committee puts on non-conference strength of schedule. If they do look at it, they certainly ignored it - and a lot of other factors - when looking at Tennessee.

 

And thanks for the new thread NCCubFan.

[snoodmonger]

Tennessee was 16-4 v. the RPI top 100, Kansas was 15-3. Maybe Tennessee should've beaten a team that was a double digit seed(before that win bumped them up to their current 9 seed) on a neutral court.

 

Tennessee and Kansas had identical records (KU with one less loss) and Tennessee played a significantly tougher schedule.

 

I'm sorry we lost as many games as Kansas when we were playing better teams. Maybe everybody should schedule toward the lower end of the RPI top 100 if that's what the committee rewards.

 

 

Meh, I wouldn't complain if we were a two and you were a one, but you got to coast through the SEC. And you lost in your tourney. And we really are a better team. But as far as resumes go, yours is better.

 

Like I've said, the SEC is easier than the Big 12 - but Tennessee didn't coast anywhere. Our strength of schedule is much higher than yours. Meaning, we played a tougher schedule than Kansas - regardless of conference strength.

 

 

I said you coasted through the SEC, which is weak. Your non-con was excellent. I also said I wouldn't really complain if you were the one and we were the 2, as I think the argument could easily be made in favor of Tenn. But you also have to realize the worst time to lose is early in the conference tourney. You guys couldn't make it to the finals of a weak SEC, and that happened while you were being scrutinized by the committee. Not good.

 

Besides, we deserve a bit of payback for being the #1 seed last year and having to play the 2 in the 2's backyard. (UCLA in anaheim.)

[Exile on Waveland]

Can someone explain to me how KU was the lowest 1 seed, yet has a much easier region than UNC? Tennessee could have been a 1, so they should be in with Kansas not UNC. The committee missed the boat on that one.

 

Yeah, UNC got thoroughly screwed. There are basically two 1 seeds and a near-two seed (Louisville) in their region. Easily the toughest of the four.

 

UNC fans are also upset at IU being the #8. Now, as an IU fan, I think the Hoosiers will lose to Arkansas. Still, IU should've been higher and having to (potentially) face two Wooden Award candidates in the second round isn't much of a reward for the #1 overall team.

UNC is going to run you off the court.

 

I doubt that matchup occurs; like I said, I think Arkansas beats IU. If IU does win, UNC will crush them, I agree.

You guys got hosed. Oklahoma is seeded higher than you. In what world have they done more to warrant a higher seed than you?

 

I am really upset about the 8-seed. I'm incredulous that Oklahoma, Miami (FL), Gonzaga, etc., got better seeds than IU. Oregon, at 18-13, got basically the same seed at #9. I'd rather be a 12-seed than stuck in the 8-9 game. Now, I also think all my complaining is irrelevant as IU is playing terrible ball and wasn't likely to do much anyway. Still, I think an 8-seed is unfair.

[dew1679666265]

Tennessee was 16-4 v. the RPI top 100, Kansas was 15-3. Maybe Tennessee should've beaten a team that was a double digit seed(before that win bumped them up to their current 9 seed) on a neutral court.

 

Tennessee and Kansas had identical records (KU with one less loss) and Tennessee played a significantly tougher schedule.

 

I'm sorry we lost as many games as Kansas when we were playing better teams. Maybe everybody should schedule toward the lower end of the RPI top 100 if that's what the committee rewards.

 

 

Meh, I wouldn't complain if we were a two and you were a one, but you got to coast through the SEC. And you lost in your tourney. And we really are a better team. But as far as resumes go, yours is better.

 

Like I've said, the SEC is easier than the Big 12 - but Tennessee didn't coast anywhere. Our strength of schedule is much higher than yours. Meaning, we played a tougher schedule than Kansas - regardless of conference strength.

 

 

I said you coasted through the SEC, which is weak. Your non-con was excellent. I also said I wouldn't really complain if you were the one and we were the 2, as I think the argument could easily be made in favor of Tenn. But you also have to realize the worst time to lose is early in the conference tourney. You guys couldn't make it to the finals of a weak SEC, and that happened while you were being scrutinized by the committee. Not good.

 

Besides, we deserve a bit of payback for being the #1 seed last year and having to play the 2 in the 2's backyard. (UCLA in anaheim.)

 

And I'm saying one loss in a tournament that there's really no reason to have anyway completely erasing what happened throughout the regular season is, at best, silly. The conference tournaments should be one of many factors, not the be all, end all.

[imb]

if i was indiana, i'd be more upset that West Virginia (5-9 vs RPI top 100) got a seven seed and Indiana (8-5) got an 8.

[Banedon]

Boo. I thought Il State would make it. :(

 

Can we get the football version of Louisville-Boise State please?

[rawaction]

In what world does Oklahoma, Gonzaga, USC, Miami, and West Virginia have a better resumes than IU and Butler?

[snoodmonger]

IU lost three of their last four, with two of them to PSU and Minnesota. They haven't looked good for a while, and the committee factors that in.

[rawaction]

IU lost three of their last four, with two of them to PSU and Minnesota. They haven't looked good for a while, and the committee factors that in.

 

Yeah, looking at the brackets it definitely looks like more emphasis was put on the last 2 weeks than the other 5 months of the season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Butler played two, two teams in the RPI Top 50. They beat Ohio State(who was barely in the Top 50 at 49), and lost on their home court to Drake. Drake was the only team in the tournament that they played. It's hard to make an argument for them being higher than anyone.

[rawaction]

Hansbrough/DJ White would make for an interesting matchup though. Maybe the 2 best pure college 5's, with apologies to Hibbert. We actually don't matchup too poorly against UNC, they are probably just a touch more athletic across the board. That and IU has been playing like crap while UNC is playing their best.

[Exile on Waveland]

IU lost three of their last four, with two of them to PSU and Minnesota. They haven't looked good for a while, and the committee factors that in.

 

Oh, I'm certain that is why IU dropped. However, I think it's ridiculous such a small sample size has such an affect. Second, one loss was on the road against a top-20 (yes, it was a beat-down), one was without a key starter (NCAA is supposed to factor this in), and the last was on a miracle shot. Overall, IU has a better resume than quite a few teams ahead of them -- besides that, an 8-seed is a complete death knell.

[gflore34]

I'd like to see Kansas State get past USC, assuming Wisconsin advances, it'll be interesting to see what the Badgers can do against Beasley. I'm thinking he'll will have most, if not all, of the Badgers starting front line in foul trouble by halftime and have a couple of them fouled out by the ten minute mark of the 2nd half. Edited March 17, 2008 by gflore34

[soapy]

I really don't understand why people are so upset about IU at 8. I understand they may have a better "resume" than some of the other teams at 6 and 7, but they have played like absolute garbage for a few weeks now. Honestly, I don't think they are better than any of the teams ahead of them at this point. It's pretty clear they aren't anything close to even resembling the team they were a month ago, and the committee responded accordingly.

 

As and IU fan, I obviously hope I'm completely wrong and they turn it around. I'd love to see DJ and Hansborough match up. As a realist, I can't imagine them even beating Arkansas. Fortunately for IU, Arkansas is also fading lately and may play bad enough to keep IU in it.

[Exile on Waveland]

I really don't understand why people are so upset about IU at 8. I understand they may have a better "resume" than some of the other teams at 6 and 7, but they have played like absolute garbage for a few weeks now. Honestly, I don't think they are better than any of the teams ahead of them at this point. It's pretty clear they aren't anything close to even resembling the team they were a month ago, and the committee responded accordingly.

 

As and IU fan, I obviously hope I'm completely wrong and they turn it around. I'd love to see DJ and Hansborough match up. As a realist, I can't imagine them even beating Arkansas. Fortunately for IU, Arkansas is also fading lately and may play bad enough to keep IU in it.

 

I doubt many would disagree that Indiana isn't very good at all right now. I'm not sure how many teams in the tournament they could actually beat at this point. My bracket will have North Carolina beating Arkansas. However, that's arbitrary and the resume is what should matter.

 

Also, while Indiana was 3-3 over their final six, compare that to: Vanderbilt (2-3), Michigan State (3-3), Marquette (3-3), Washington State (3-3), Oklahoma (4-3), Miami (FL) (3-3), and Purdue (3-3). Seems Indiana wasn't the only team to struggle late; though they were the only one to lose their coach.

[CuseCubFan69]

The NIT list is out:

 

http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/10714811

 

whoopie...