dew1679666265

I think this is a very important point not to overlook. I don't like the lineup projected in the story, but even if the regular season starts with this lineup, the chances of Lou leaving it as is are next to 0. Changes will be made, and I fully expect Theriot to be one of the changes if he doesn't play well.

Some were clear upsets, some were just a lower seed beating a higher seed (some more improbable than others). I'd say UK over Marquette is pretty clearly an upset, as is Vandy over Kansas. Tennessee over UNC is a minor upset - only because UNC's reputation will have them perceived to be favorites - as is, perhaps, South Alabama over Butler. I call that an upset only because Butler is better than a 7 seed. They should have been a 5 seed or so, which would have been a much bigger upset on paper. Some games aren't really upsets. I have Davidson winning first round - not a big deal. Pitt over Memphis is a bit of going against the grain, but nothing of great significance. The championship is really no upset either - I figure there will be quite a few people with one or both of UCLA and Georgetown in the final game.

Nothing official but my guess is he'll be held out Thursday and will play Saturday (if, of course, UCLA wins on Thursday). He's off crutches, still in his precautionary walking boot but shot around after his final yesterday. Haven't heard back about today's practice yet. Thanks. Last I heard nobody knew when he'd get back.

No major upsets in the East for me. Biggest surprises are South Alabama over Butler (just a hunch, probably stupid - or wishful thinking :D ) and Tennessee over UNC to go to the Final Four. I'm really going out on a limb in the Midwest, though, calling Vandy over Kansas in the Sweet 16. Nothing against Kansas on that pick, I just think Vandy's due one major upset in the tourney. On a lesser note, I have USC taking out Wisconsin before falling to Georgetown. Only real surprises in the South are Kentucky pulling a miracle in the first round and taking down Marquette before likely getting crushed by Stanford. I also have Pitt (who I really like) eliminating Memphis and heading to the Final Four. In the West I've got Drake hitting the Sweet 16 before losing to UCLA - who in turn I have defeating Xavier for the Final Four bid. My Final Four is Tennessee v Georgetown and UCLA v Pitt. Georgetown handles Tennessee fairly easily at that point and UCLA takes out Pitt. Georgetown then defeats UCLA for the title. Raisin, when is Luc Richard scheduled to return? That could make a big difference in my tough decision between them and Xavier.

I'll go out on a pretty big limb and say it's a 100% chance Marmol, Wood or Howry gets the closer job. :wink:

Name me a good closer who does hold runners well. I seriously can't think of any. Guys like Flash Gordon, Rod Beck, Mariano Rivera, Smoltz, etc. haven't cared about baserunners because they're so focused on the batter. If you can get the batter out in the ninth, it's not that important if the runner swipes second. Letting your attention get diverted, though, can cause the runner to be safe and allow the hitter to get on. I'm in the Wood for closer camp by the way. His biggest weaknesses (injury issues, control problems) are hidden better in the closer role. Marmol and Howry's strengths are then highlighted by being firemen.

Dear Lord, I hate Verne Lundquist. He does every major SEC college football and basketball game and he sucks - badly. Even if the Vols didn't get Gus Johnson, I was hoping like heck we'd avoid Verne... ](*,)

Arkansas is definitely a tournament team - the only ones left on the bubble before the SEC tourney were Kentucky and Ole Miss. The Razorbacks have an RPI of 32 with a strength of schedule of 25. They've had some bad losses (UGA for instance) but also some good wins - I thought they were placed just about right in the tourney. Memphis' one loss came to #2 ranked (at the time) Tennessee. Otherwise, they beat USC (neutral site), Georgetown, Arizona and Gonzaga since Dec. 1. How exactly were they not tested? Tennessee beat Western Kentucky, Xavier (on the road), Gonzaga (on the road), Ohio State, Memphis (on the road) and Kentucky since Dec. 1. All those teams are either in the tourney or just missed it (OSU). How exactly were they not tested? I used past 3 months to refer to March, February, January, essentially meaning the start of conference play, but I definitely was not clear. Arkansas has more losses to non-tourney teams as they do wins against tourney teams. And other than Tennessee none of those teams were particularly good. Thinking back, I guess I would have them in after the Tennessee win, but before that what are they hanging their hat on? A Baylor team that nobody thinks belongs? They beat Miss. St. by 20, but they've beaten even less good teams than Arkansas. The 2 wins over Vandy are respectable, but there really isn't a lot of heft for Arkansas. Not a lot of great wins, but before the Tennessee game they should have been squarely on the bubble - which does contradict my earlier statement that they weren't on the bubble before the SEC tourney, so I retract that. But, they probably should have squeaked in before the UT win and were definitely in after beating the Vols. And I did misunderstand your 3 month comment - Memphis has beaten Gonzaga and Siena (both tourney teams but Siena isn't a marquee win by any stretch). The Georgetown and Arizona wins were the 22nd and 29th of December. Tennessee still has wins over Vandy, Ohio State, Kentucky, Miss St, Arkansas and Memphis since December. Xavier and Gonzaga came the 22nd and 29th of December. Still some solid wins and certainly enough for Tennessee to be tested entering the tourney.

Arkansas is definitely a tournament team - the only ones left on the bubble before the SEC tourney were Kentucky and Ole Miss. The Razorbacks have an RPI of 32 with a strength of schedule of 25. They've had some bad losses (UGA for instance) but also some good wins - I thought they were placed just about right in the tourney. Memphis' one loss came to #2 ranked (at the time) Tennessee. Otherwise, they beat USC (neutral site), Georgetown, Arizona and Gonzaga since Dec. 1. How exactly were they not tested? Tennessee beat Western Kentucky, Xavier (on the road), Gonzaga (on the road), Ohio State, Memphis (on the road) and Kentucky since Dec. 1. All those teams are either in the tourney or just missed it (OSU). How exactly were they not tested?

I have yet to argue - or see anyone else argue for that matter - that Tennessee should be a 1 seed because of the strength of the SEC. Despite the SEC being down this year, Tennessee still managed the #1 strength of schedule in the nation - and did just as well (or better) than Kansas throughout the regular season. The Vols then got knocked out of a 1 seed and down to the lowest 2 seed because Arkansas' Shawn Hill (I think that's his name - the big 7 footer) hit a shot at the end of the tournament game to give the Razorbacks a 1 point win. So basically, the committee said a 1 point loss in the conference tournament meant more than 30-ish games in the regular season. That's my beef. It has nothing to do with actual or perceived strength of the SEC in football or basketball.

I haven't seen them in the NCAA tourney. I'm thinking they're in the NIT.

I'm now in with the coolest name in college basketball (at least of basketball teams in Knoxville): Duke Crews.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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. Or they should have not played so many good teams early in the season. Tennessee played - and beat - good teams throughout the season. I find it interesting that the committee supposedly awards teams for scheduling tough non-conference games and then gives the nod to a team that was worse in the regular season and scheduled crap non conference. USC is the only top 30 team RPI-wise that Kansas played non-conference.

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.

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.

And shouldn't be used to determine seeding between teams when there is very strong evidence that one has accomplished more than another. That was my point; not sure if I did a good job expressing that. Who cares what I think? I know and I appreciate the help. I was just expounding on the point and venting. :D

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.

that is the biggest reason I believe they deserved a #1 Yeah, Kansas may play in a tougher conference, but Tennessee's non-con schedule dwarfed any difference between the SEC and Big 12.