Is MU Nation Melting Down?

[TJ]

The fact that we were a 6 seed in the first place is the overachievement.  Given what we had on last year's team I don't see how anybody could or would argue otherwise. 

See above.

I've made my points.  I think that last year's team was more talented than you all seem to want to give them credit for.  They did a great job and got some good results, but it wasn't because of magic.  They were a talented bunch that worked hard, played to their potential, and got good results.

I'm done with this for now.  Have a nice day to all.

[Lennys Tap]

Again, it depends on where the losses come.  Certainly losing to an 11 seed (when you're a six) is an underachievement.   Had we won the first game, losing to the #3 seed in the 2nd round would not have been an underachivement--it would have been expected.

I get that 3<6<11. So in your simplistic world the 3 seed is always more talented than the 6 seed and the 6 seed is always more talented than the 11 seed. One problem - it's not always true - and you'd know that if you actually paid attention. Washington was red hot coming into last year's tournament and was every bit our equal if not our better. I was sure that the winner of our game would have NO problem with the very overrated 3 seeded New Mexico. So when Washington crushed New Mexico 82-64 you were shocked by what you incorrectly assumed was a monumental over/under performance. For me, the game went as expected.