Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?
Selection Sunday Gamethread
#1
Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:18 AM
Kentucky and Syracuse are locked into the top two #1 seeds. UNC, Duke, Kansas, Mizzou, Ohio St, and Michigan St. are all polishing their resumes for the final two slots, and one way or another that list is almost definitely locked in for the top 8 seeds in the tourney. If UNC wins today, they easily get a #1 seed, and even if they don't, the smart money is betting they get it anyways.
I'm as biased as someone could possibly be, but I don't see how Kansas gets the nod over Mizzou. Very, very close, but the Tigers won the conference tourney, they split the season series, and KU played the harder non-conference schedule but didn't fare all that well in those games (relatively). Both games they played were bitterly close, based on my internet readings this morning it does seem like most national pundits come down on the side of Mizzou being the slightly better team this year.
So, it comes down to Mizzou or the MSU/OSU winner for the final #1 seed. No Big Six conference team has ever won 30 games and NOT gotten a #1 seed (Mizzou is 30-4), but I think the Big 10 winner takes the final slot and it's tough to argue. If Mizzou had beaten KU instead of Baylor last night, or even if they had managed to beat K State at home last week, it would have been them. But their resume is just flawed enough, and the Big 10 has gotten so much respect as a basketball conference this year, that it's going to go in the other direction. As a Tiger fan, I can't tell you how ecstatic I am to be in a position to be disappointed in a #2 seed.
6 hours and 42 minutes away. Post your thoughts here.
#4
Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:55 AM
I'd think they'd try to avoid having UNC/Duke, KU/Missouri, and OSU/MSU in the same regions....although if you went straight S curve, would seem like Kansas and Missouri would be 4th and 5th in some order.Looks like Cuse will get the Boston regional as well. An Elite 8 matchup of Duke/UNC??
#7
Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:31 PM
How does Lunardi explain having Drexel OUT for days and suddenly putting them in overnight and removing Miss St? Is he fed inside info?
Edited by shawnrbu, 11 March 2012 - 12:31 PM.
#8
Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:37 PM
That's why I like Lunardi. He created a cottage industry for himself just like Kiper did, but he owns up to not having all the answers and doesn't come off as a smarmy know-it-all, despite actually being right more often than most.
#9
Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:45 PM
How does Lunardi explain having Drexel OUT for days and suddenly putting them in overnight and removing Miss St? Is he fed inside info?
DThom's reinstatement
If FSU holds on and MSU wins, I have:
Atlanta: Kentucky -1, Duke -2
Boston: Syracuse -1, Ohio State 2
St. Louis: MO 1, UNC- 2
Phoenix: MSU -1, Kansas -2
Edited by Hendu's Gait, 11 March 2012 - 12:47 PM.
#10
Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:48 PM
Boston
1. Syracuse
2. Duke
St. Louis
1. Kentucky
2. Ohio State
Atlanta
1. North Caolina
2. Kansas
Phoenix
1. Michigan State
2. Missouri
#12
Posted 11 March 2012 - 02:13 PM
Now I get to dream for 3 hours that the UNC loss actually changed anything.
Edited by JimBoSox9, 11 March 2012 - 02:14 PM.
#19
Posted 11 March 2012 - 05:04 PM
Edit: I'm going off the school logos overhead, looks like they are paired with Cuse.
Edited by JimBoSox9, 11 March 2012 - 05:06 PM.
#23
Posted 11 March 2012 - 05:17 PM
I'm surprised UNC got it over Missouri. I'll take it, though.
You gotta wonder how much the short deadline affected this. It's tough to make last-minute adjustments because of the same-conference rules, especially when you're dealing with a team from a deep conference. Sunday conference championship games are fucking retarded.
#24
Posted 11 March 2012 - 05:21 PM
Lunardi talked about it this morning in SportsCenter. Basically owned up to it as a flip-flop by him, swayed mostly by MissSt's poor non-conference SoS (200-ish) and record against RPI top-50 (3-6).
That's why I like Lunardi. He created a cottage industry for himself just like Kiper did, but he owns up to not having all the answers and doesn't come off as a smarmy know-it-all, despite actually being right more often than most.
Depends on what you consider "most"
http://bracketprojec...m/rankings.html
Lunardi is 27th most accurate bracketologist
#28
Posted 11 March 2012 - 05:37 PM
I love Mizzou's draw. Love it. Pairings seem to imply that the committee ranked them #5 overall. First two games are close to home in Omaha. Three-seed Marquette did not impress me at all when I got to see them in the BET this week. Respect Michigan State but given the alternatives for an Elite 8 matchup I'll take it. Regional final in Phoenix would present no advantage for Mizzou or MSU. Really couldn't have asked for much more.Aaaand the Tigers don't get a favorable region or seed. Of fucking course. 30 wins and a conference title doesn't get you much these days, I guess.
#30
Posted 11 March 2012 - 05:45 PM
I love Mizzou's draw. Love it. Pairings seem to imply that the committee ranked them #5 overall. First two games are close to home in Omaha. Three-seed Marquette did not impress me at all when I got to see them in the BET this week. Respect Michigan State but given the alternatives for an Elite 8 matchup I'll take it. Regional final in Phoenix would present no advantage for Mizzou or MSU. Really couldn't have asked for much more.
Yeah as a #2 they get Mich State, as the #1 they could have gotten Kansas. I'd take what they got.
#37
Posted 11 March 2012 - 06:04 PM
Holy shit. The committee chair says that Michigan St was the lowest ranked #1 and Missouri was the lowest ranked #2 and they're in the same region?? How is that fair to anyone?
He said the decision was based on placing teams closest to their home regions. Maybe I'm wrong here, but haven't there been studies that show that proximity to campus is a greater predictor of tournament success than seed? I recall reading something to that effect.
#42
Posted 11 March 2012 - 07:42 PM
I love Mizzou's draw. Love it. Pairings seem to imply that the committee ranked them #5 overall. First two games are close to home in Omaha. Three-seed Marquette did not impress me at all when I got to see them in the BET this week. Respect Michigan State but given the alternatives for an Elite 8 matchup I'll take it. Regional final in Phoenix would present no advantage for Mizzou or MSU. Really couldn't have asked for much more.
Quick bracket note: Marquette will likely get Murray St. in round 2 in Louisville. Home game for Murray. They are taking down Marquette. Nice boost for Mizzou.
#43
Posted 11 March 2012 - 08:30 PM
#44
Posted 11 March 2012 - 08:55 PM
#46
Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:42 PM
They expanded the tournament last year from 65 teams to 68 teams. So there are 4 "play in games". Instead of making all the 16 seeds play in these games they made it that the 4 lowest teams in the whole tournament would play for 2 spots. And then the 4 lowest at large teams would play for 2 spots. So the lowest 4 at large teams are BYU/Iona and USF/Cal. BYU and Iona winner becomes a 14 seed and USF/Cal winner becomes a 12 seed. The other 14 and 13 seeds are automatic qualifiers so they didn't have to play in these games.
Ah, I see, thanks! So it's basically that Cal/USF are believed to in reality be better teams than the other 13/14 seeds, but everyone else higher-ranked is automatically qualified and thus can't be in a play-in game?
Edited by Gdiguy, 11 March 2012 - 09:43 PM.
#47
Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:59 PM
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users













