MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: jesmu84 on March 10, 2009, 11:02:41 AM

Title: rivals' seeding
Post by: jesmu84 on March 10, 2009, 11:02:41 AM
http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=921743

interesting that rivals places marquette not only as a #6, but as the "strongest" #6 seed out there...  i wonder how much that would change with the results of the BET, if at all.  seemingly, many people on this board think we're at stretch at 6.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: mu_eyeballs on March 10, 2009, 11:14:43 AM
Complete side note...but how nice is it to have a proper logo.  I remember being at the final four and seeing some of the crap that had a generic M on it or the old golden eagle logo, and being embarrassed.  I love our new MU logo.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: NavinRJohnson on March 10, 2009, 11:30:17 AM
I have to say, the closer I look, the more I think MU does belong in the 5-6 range. Looking up, I could make a case for MU to be ahead of Purdue, Butler, and Illinois. The drop off after the 1 and 2 seeds is pronounced, and the difference between 3's and 8/9's is minuscule. Avoid the top 6-7 teams until the Sweet 16, and you might have something. These conference tournaments are going to matter, especially to MU. Gotta get a win.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: bradforster on March 10, 2009, 01:04:50 PM
The selection committee places an inordinate emphasis on post season conference tournaments.  They are used as tie breakers for teams in bubbleville, and as major determinants for overall seeding purposes.  I don't agree with Bob Knight that post season conference get togethers are completely without merit, but I do believe the committee is a bit overzealous in utilizing them as a measuring stick for NCAA seeding.  Three years ago Syracuse had to win the Big East tourney to gain entry to the field of 65.  After the Orange made the improbable run to the title, they were rewarded with a five seed.  How do you go from completely out of the conversation to a five seed in just four days?  The conference tournaments can provide incredible theater, but they are weighted far too heavily for my taste.  What ever happened to a team's resume over the entire course of a four month season?   That being said, I think Marquette will be slotted as a 7 or 8 come Sunday.   
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: Mayor McCheese on March 10, 2009, 01:07:58 PM
I think I might puke if Illinois is a 4 seed... any team that scores in the 30's twice in a season isn't a 4 seed.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: NavinRJohnson on March 10, 2009, 01:09:30 PM
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on March 10, 2009, 01:07:58 PM
I think I might puke if Illinois is a 4 seed... any team that scores in the 30's twice in a season isn't a 4 seed.

I would agree, unless of course we can be the 5 seed opposite them.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: reinko on March 10, 2009, 02:29:17 PM
Quote from: bradforster on March 10, 2009, 01:04:50 PM
  Three years ago Syracuse had to win the Big East tourney to gain entry to the field of 65.  After the Orange made the improbable run to the title, they were rewarded with a five seed.  How do you go from completely out of the conversation to a five seed in just four days? 

To that same point, they did then get buzzsawed by Texas A&M in the first round. 

Would you rather MU go 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, or 4-0 in the BET?  Sure if we win the BET we might get a 4, but we would be completely gassed.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: AlumKCof93 on March 10, 2009, 02:46:27 PM
The only way I'd be content with Illinois being above us is if we played them in the 2nd round.  They don't have any great wins and a few bad losses.  They seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt b/c they finished 2nd.  I guarantee they would not finish ahead of us if they played in the BE.

With the lack of depth, I think getting to the championship game in the BET would hurt this team come the tournament. I'd be pleased if we beat Nova.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: jesmu84 on March 10, 2009, 02:47:02 PM
looking through this seeding more thoroughly i think there's some definite stretches here... MSU a #1 seed? over louisville or OU? as said earlier...illinois a 4?? and i can't make a case in putting UCLA, butler, or purdue ahead of us AT ALL.  the one thing i dont agree on about marquette, is that i think if the committee does put more value on the last 10 or so games of the regular season, it would make me think syracuse gets seeded higher than we do.
Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: BrewCity83 on March 10, 2009, 02:58:04 PM
Quote from: reinko on March 10, 2009, 02:29:17 PM
To that same point, they did then get buzzsawed by Texas A&M in the first round. 

Would you rather MU go 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, or 4-0 in the BET?  Sure if we win the BET we might get a 4, but we would be completely gassed.

I'd take 4-0 (in a "cocaine heartbeat").

1) Winning the BET this year would be a HUGE accomplishment that would make our entire season.
2)  Gassed?  We would have 4-5 days to rest before taking advantage of a 4-13 matchup.

Title: Re: rivals' seeding
Post by: NavinRJohnson on March 10, 2009, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: BrewCity on March 10, 2009, 02:58:04 PM
I'd take 4-0 (in a "cocaine heartbeat").


My Man!
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev