MUScoop

I picked 5.  I think all the upsets helped MU.  Hard to single them out.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 15, 2009, 08:38:42 AM
I picked 5.  I think all the upsets helped MU.  Hard to single them out.

Actually, the James injury makes it pretty easy to single them out.

Should be a 5/6, will be a 7.  Hoping for Minny as the site with Mich. St. as our 2 seed.

I'd take the current version of Bracketology...7 seed MU in Minneapolis with 2 seed MSU, opposite 3 Wake Forest/6 LSU to be played in Indianapolis. As much as MSU is typically a team to be avoided early in the NCAA, I'd gladly sign on for that right now.

Latest bracket projection has them at 10. I rather be an 11th. Potential 2nd round against a 3 is preferable to a second round game against a 2. I believe we will beat a 6th or 7th seed.

I believe every projection I have seen has Illinois, Xavier, Clemson, and UCLA all seeded ahead of MU. Can anyone make the case for those teams?

I think we have a legitimate argument for a 6 but will wind up a 7 just because it seems  that's always what happens.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 15, 2009, 10:34:58 AM
I believe every projection I have seen has Illinois, Xavier, Clemson, and UCLA all seeded ahead of MU. Can anyone make the case for those teams?

If you believe the RPI, Illinois has 10 wins vs the top 50 versus only 3 for MU.

Our resume using this type of analysis is not compelling.

I think we could beat a lot of the big 11, who are top 50 rpi teams, with James out however.  This includes Illinois.

I'm going to say 9, with a very difficult first round match-up.

I just hope we get in, period! Don't want to get Syracused.

Absolutely no way we don't get in

Quote from: 1990Warrior on March 15, 2009, 10:58:39 AM
If you believe the RPI, Illinois has 10 wins vs the top 50 versus only 3 for MU.

Our resume using this type of analysis is not compelling.

Same with Memphis who is going to get a number 1 seed. Its time to scrap the RPI.

Question really comes down to whether the committee does their homework or simply takes the easy, lazy approach. If they do the former, they will see that MU's recent losses came to 3 number 1 seeds, and two 3/4 seeds. Bounce the teams have slated on the 5/6/7 lines against that schedule and reasonably apply the eye test to estimate how they would fare. When you talk about Illinois, Xavier, Clemson, UCLA, Purdue, Butler, I'll take MU over most of them. Even if you don't like that, now do the same thing with the 8/9/10 seeds, and gets silly.

Gameday called us a 8/9.

::)

Quote from: MUWeb7 on March 15, 2009, 12:03:24 PM
Gameday called us a 8/9.

::)

If that happens, hopefully Memphis is the 1 in our bracket.

Navin your last post is excellent.  You know I think what gets lost in all of this is seedings are determined with so much stock being put into statistics.  It has to be that way to some extent, because the committee can not base their decisions on in-person viewing of the games.  You are right - if other teams that are currently being considered as 5 through 10 seeds played the schedule we did the last six games, most of them would have fared worse than us IMO.  So the question should be which is the better team - statistics aside?  Impossible to answer since no one on the committee has watched every game for every team - so they rely on statistics (wins, losses, RPI, SOS, etc)

Our 5-7 final 12 game record and 1-5 since the loss of DJ, need for p/c conference balance, and others in the BE peaking is gonna cost us dearly.   A 8th seed seems right in the selection committee's eyes.  Every other team has their story.  Ours isn't that compelling.  

Is it too late for Buzz to make a press release indicating the DJ's condition has unexpectedly improved to Chester Frazier status, and he MAY be available for tournament play?

Quote from: 1990Warrior on March 15, 2009, 12:07:42 PM
If that happens, hopefully Memphis is the 1 in our bracket.

Yea, it would be great to play the best defensive team in the country.

So you would rather play Pitt or NC?

Just looking at the "Bracket Project" history, and they have been on the money with the exception of 2007 when McNeal broke his hand and we were projected as a 6 and ended up a 9. Not quite the same situation this year given the time difference and games played since the injury. MU also lost 5 of 8 down the stretch against nowhere near the level of competition they saw at the end of this season. MU currently projecting as a 7.

Mentally preparing more and more for the 8/9 game on Thursday at 11:30 in Greensboro.

Quote from: 1990Warrior on March 15, 2009, 12:37:18 PM
So you would rather play Pitt or NC?

I would rather play UNC.  I'm not saying we'd win but I think we match up better against them than a team like Memphis.

Here is a question:  With the talent of this team and the incredibly tough schedule we ended with, can being underseeded a good thing?  See Nova last year.  Most of our bad match-ups are with BE teams, who we won't see for a couple of rounds. 

7 seed playing mich state in the 2nd round. please.

Quote from: MUSF on March 15, 2009, 12:41:18 PM
I would rather play UNC.  I'm not saying we'd win but I think we match up better against them than a team like Memphis.

I am just hoping not to see an 8 or 9 next to our name tonight.  I would rather be under seeded.

Quote from: Pardner on March 15, 2009, 12:10:23 PM
Our 5-7 final 12 game record and 1-5 since the loss of DJ, need for p/c conference balance, and others in the BE peaking is gonna cost us dearly.   A 8th seed seems right in the selection committee's eyes.  Every other team has their story.  Ours isn't that compelling.  

+1.  Enough with the excuses for losing.  The committee sees the 1-5.  They won't reward a team for losing, because a good team has to be able to pull one or two of those games out even if they aren't the overall better team.  Saying two of our best players shot poorly is another excuse, to which the committee says "they must not be very good then".  

Quote from: Pardner on March 15, 2009, 12:51:40 PM
Here is a question:  With the talent of this team and the incredibly tough schedule we ended with, can being underseeded a good thing?  See Nova last year.  Most of our bad match-ups are with BE teams, who we won't see for a couple of rounds. 

It's very possible.  As a 12 last year, Nova had to beat a 5 and a 4.  A 7 seed has to beat a 10 and a 2.  If your team is talented enough, it's a blessing to be underseeded and have to beat two mid-level tournament teams rather than one average and one elite team.  Unfortunately, our underseeding is likely to cause us to play an 8/9 and a 1, in which case we may have wished to have been given an even worse seed.  There's also the "deja vu" matchup of being a 7 seed and running into Oklahoma, which with two brothers, one better than the other will resemble last year's Standford, i.e. a nightmare matchup.

I think a 7 is the best we can hope for.  I abhor the fact that Illinois is at a 6 in Lunardi's latest; the Big 10 blows not matter what RPI says (no teams have good wins outside of their own conference) but with DJ's injury plus our huge skid I think that a 7 is our ceiling.

Quote from: Pardner on March 15, 2009, 12:51:40 PM
Here is a question:  With the talent of this team and the incredibly tough schedule we ended with, can being underseeded a good thing?  See Nova last year.  Most of our bad match-ups are with BE teams, who we won't see for a couple of rounds. 

It completely depends on how the bracket shakes out.

It's all about match-ups.

Thinking and hearing more...I am more convinced that our seed and where we'll go will be influenced more by those BET teams ahead of us.  Having three BET teams with strong seeds moves us in a different spot....and add in Nova, SU and WV...and the possibilities of where we will get slotted are closing.  Seeding becomes affected as we are in the murky middle.

Quote from: MUSF on March 15, 2009, 01:12:01 PM

It's all about match-ups.

That's exactly my point, the teams we don't match up well against (big and quick) are mostly in the BE (ex UNC and Okla)...and the NCAA typically won't slot conference teams against each other until the third game.  I am guessing MSU as a 2 seed would not be looking forward to playing MU in the second round.

Quote from: Pardner on March 15, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
That's exactly my point, the teams we don't match up well against (big and quick) are mostly in the BE (ex UNC and Okla)...and the NCAA typically won't slot conference teams against each other until the third game.  I am guessing MSU as a 2 seed would not be looking forward to playing MU in the second round.

I agree completely but it is a complete crap shoot at that point.  We won't face a BE team regardless of seed so I'm not sure what seed has to do with that.  You're right though, I'd take a match-up with a team like Duke or MSU but it is very difficult to speculate on match-ups based on seeding.  It worked out well for Nova last year but it just as easily could have gone the other way. 

At this point we just roll the dice and hope we get lucky.

I just wish there was some way we could get Kentucky into the tournament.  That's one win you can bank on every year. :)

Im getting so anxious for the show to start...hopin for that 6

We are a six seed in the west.  Just like the weekly ranking poll, this crowd is again WAY too pessimistic.