Joe now has MU as a 7 seed per today's update. Pomeroy and Real time have our RPI at 23 (unchanged from prior to the Pitt game). Guess we'll need Pitt, G-Town, Bucky, Texas Tech, Delaware State to keep winning to maitain our RPI to prevent deep runners in conference tourneys from bypassing us. Still hoping for a 6 seed. Although I'm not sure that makes any difference as matchups are more important. But, a 6 would be nice to show improvement from a year ago.
I think getting a 5 or 6 seed is huge b/c there is a big difference b/w facing Illinois in a 5/11 matchup or either Indiana or MSU in a 7/10 matchup. The difference is MSU and Indy are good while Illinois stinks. I understand the curse of the 5 seed, but it will be an appropriate seed for us and garner us a better matchup than a 7 seed would.
maybe i am just naive but Lunardi's wrong here. With an RPI of 23, SOS of 13, 6 wins against the RPI top 50, 8 road/neutral site wins, and a schedule that was the 2nd toughest in the Big East --- that's better than a 7 seed. Sorry Joe. MU was a 7 last year, and the team's resume is MUCH stronger in 06-07
A 7th seed is terrible in my opinion for the second round matchup alone versus a #2 seed. I'd much rather play a #3 or #4 (ie UNLV, SIU) in the second over a Georgetown or UNC or UCLA.
The only way I'm happy with a #2 seed is that if we get matched up against Bucky in the second round. If thats the case I'll take that 7 seed over a 3 seed.
Upon further reflection, what is this guy thinking in the first place? He has 5 #5 seeds. Who does he think he is?
BUT WAIT!!! If you have 5 #5 seeds, and MU is still a 7 seed! This is truly March Madness.
I don't put too much stock into Lunardi's seedings. He's all right predicting the overall field, but there's really no way to correctly predict where each team will be seeded.
That said, if MU doesn't get a 6seed or better, I'd say we've been hosed.
Maybe his kid did this bracketology. In addition to 5 #5 seeds, he also has a 7 seed versus a 9 matchup. Since this is his baby, wouldn't you think he'd clean it up before he posted it?
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on March 09, 2007, 02:54:31 PM
Maybe his kid did this bracketology. In addition to 5 #5 seeds, he also has a 7 seed versus a 9 matchup. Since this is his baby, wouldn't you think he'd clean it up before he posted it?
why pick on his kid? ;D
The vast majority of our numbers include/assume Jerel McNeal's presence. Without him we will (and should) get dinged. We are nowhere near as good without him.
I agree we're not the same team without Jerel, but we did go 2-1, putting up 79 points against PITT in our one loss during his brief absence.
We are certainly a different team without him, but "nowhere near as good" might be a bit of a stretch.
Get healthy, Jerel. We'll need you for the tournament!
Quote from: NaivinRJohnson on March 09, 2007, 03:18:40 PM
The vast majority of our numbers include/assume Jerel McNeal's presence. Without him we will (and should) get dinged. We are nowhere near as good without him.
The vast majority of Wisconsin's numbers include/assume Brian Butch's presence. Without him Wisconsin is still getting talked up as a #1/2 seed.
NY Warrior,
Lunardi's kid doesn't even know who Kinsella is.
Don't what you guys are talking about, his bracket looks fine right now. Last year he had us a 5 and we got a 7. Also, sometimes you get moved around to avoid other teams in your own conference, etc. Right now, according to his bracket, our projected path to the Final Four would be Indiana, North Carolina, Memphis and Kansas. Yikes!
Wow. Kind of quiet around here. Anyway, here's Yoni Cohen's take on injuries and seeding. Naivin (and isn't it Navin in the movie? Or is it Naivin?) has made these points already, but Cohen addresses the entire injury report:
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/6550280
Portions:
Brian Butch, Wisconsin -- The Badgers recently lost their starting center for the season. In his absence, Wisconsin nearly lost to Michigan State at home. Butch isn't a prolific scorer, but his 5.9 rebounds per game leads the team. With Butch out, the Spartans outrebounded the Badgers. Yet there is reason to believe that his injury won't drastically impact Wisconsin's seed. Why? Though Butch reached double-figures in eight of his first 14 games, but only three times in the following 16 contests. In Big Ten play, he averaged fewer than 20 minutes a game. Mastermind coach Bo Ryan will surely tweak his offense and defense to adjust to Butch's absence, but the committee can't ignore it entirely.
Jerel McNeal, Marquette -- Without the all-purpose McNeal, the Golden Eagles were grounded by Pittsburgh in the Big East tournament. Without McNeal's defense, Marquette also had surprising trouble stopping St. John's. But according to coach Tom Crean, the second-team all-Big East selection will soon return from a thumb injury and bring back his 14.7 points, 4.8 rebounds, and 3.8 assists a game. "We anticipate having him back and no longer being an assistant on the bench," Crean said. Sometimes around Selection Sunday, however, coaches become public relations professionals. Aware that the committee considers injuries in seeding, they provide optimistic assessments of players' health. How should the members treat McNeal's potential absence or his return at less than full strength?
That guys got it absolutely correct. From an impact perspective, there is no comparison between losing Butch and losing McNeal. Butch truly is an average to below average player, and McNeal is 2nd team All BE, and many argue (not me personally) he should have his teammate's place on the first team. We caught a glimpse of our defense without McNeal the last couple nights and it was not a pretty sight.
And yes, I did spell Navin wrong. It has been my alias for I don't know how many years, and I just realized within the past few weeks I have been spelling it wrong. Maybe I'll try to fix it.
The strength is in Numbers. I'm going with the Bracketology report at the top of this page. Currently we are a 6 playing Purdue, with a second round match up against Washington State.
Quote from: MUDPT on March 09, 2007, 10:27:50 PM
The strength is in Numbers. I'm going with the Bracketology report at the top of this page. Currently we are a 6 playing Purdue, with a second round match up against Washington State.
I can handle that. I don't want to face Stanford.
I don't think Stanford will make it with an RPI of 66 and losing 6 of its last nine games.
Quote from: Nukem2 on March 10, 2007, 12:31:25 PM
I don't think Stanford will make it with an RPI of 66 and losing 6 of its last nine games.
I'm with you on this one, but still believe there's an outside shot - especially if the committee is kind to an underrated team from the West (the region that usually critizes seedings the most because the NCAA's "East of the Mississippi" mentality).
Robin and Brook Lopez are phenomenal as the FRESHMAN twin towers.
At the moment I see 18 teams I would say for sure will be seeded ahead of MU, with another small handful of possibles. Independent of the NcNeal factor which I think could cost us a line - I think a 6 looks likely.