what will our seed be?

[warriors1991]

I'm thinking 9 or 10

[CTWarrior]

We deserve 9/10 but could get jostled to anywhere from 7-11 to accomodate keeping the Big East teams apart as much as possible.  This is one year I won't complain about seeding unless Villanova is seeded ahead of us.

[mileskishnish72]

They might be.

[lab_warrior]

10, please.  I would like to avoid that 8/9 game like Ebola.

[robmufan]

I say 10, I hope 10, but could easily see 11

[Silkk the Shaka]

I think 10, but I'd almost rather see an 11.  There's more of a drop-off from 2-3 than there is from 6-7 in my opinion, which would give us a better shot at the sweet 16

[NersEllenson]

My vote:  7 or 8.

[oldwarrior81]

Syracuse, UConn and Louisville all have a shot at a 3 seed.
West Virginia, Cincinnati, St Johns and Georgetown all have shots at a 6 seed.

I would think with all the possible 3's and 6's coming from the B-East, that may leave only one 11 seed open for Marquette. 
More likely to move up or even a slight chance at moving down to a 12.

[muarmy81]

Would prefer a 7, 10, 11, or a 12.

[Norm]

If we get a 8/9, I wouldn't mind it too much if we got either ND or Duke on a "neutral court". I gotta imagine that if we played ND in a Midwest location, we'd have the fans on our side. We beat them once and had a lead on them at home. Stick Butler on Hansborough and I like our chances.

[brewcity77]

Strictly my guesses, but here's where I'm at now:

1: Pitt
2: ND, Louisville (3 if they lose tomorrow)
3: UConn, Syracuse
5: St. John's, WVU
6: Cincy
7: Marquette
8: Villanova
9: Georgetown

As far as the bottom 3, here are my thoughts. We are playing the best and our resume is befitting a 7 despite the 14 losses. Only SHU won't be in the field. 'Nova drops because of recent play. Their resume is too strong to drop them much further. G'Town is the surprise at the bottom. They are a lock to get in, but so many losses of late drops their seed, and we've seen key injuries drop seeds even further before (Purdue and Hummel last year). Mounting losses and no Wright puts them at the bottom of the Big East seeds.

[flash]

an 8 or a nine seed would be awful, I'd rather have a 12

[warriors1991]

I know everyone here is moaning about a possible 8 or 9 but the reality is that is about the kind of season we've had which you always see are the 8s or 9s: good but not great teams from the bigger conferences who have had good wins and a lot of losses though not a lot of bad ones, who could beat anybody but could lose to anybody depending on the day you catch them.
I think we'll be a 10 but we would be a typical 8 or 9 and I think there are some '1s' this year that could be had. We have the potential to play with anybody and 'could' beat just about anyone.
I guess I just went into this season thinking this is about where we were going to be. I always want us to win, I go in a funk when we lose, but the reality is that I wasn't necessarily expecting a season of magic this year. 
I'd love to see us make the 2nd weekend of the NCAA; if we have to beat a 1 to do it, then so be it. Bring it on and let's take it to 'em!!
At the very least we'll score more than 33 points.........

[brewcity77]

I think the real fear of the 8/9 game is running into Ohio State or Kansas, as the current leaders for the other 1-seeds seem to be Big East teams. Personally, I'm okay with the idea of facing Kansas. They've only faced one top 25 team according to kenpom and they lost that game. The Morris twins are scary, but we have a solid defending 5 in Otule to help offset them. I think we could give them quite a game.

The only team that I really feel we should be unnerved by is Ohio State. A monster in the middle in Sullinger and excellent experienced guards. There's not a 2 or 3 seed out there that really seems all that devastating. Very good teams, yes, but none are unbeatable. I'll be pretty happy with any draw that doesn't feature tOSU in the third round.

Assuming we get to the third round, that is...

[BME to MD]

I am hoping for the closest possible site!  Here is an interesting analysis on the effects of travel distance on tournament outcomes:

"Another way to look at these numbers: the team playing closer to home has won 59 percent of tournament games since 2003. When one team has to travel at least 500 miles more than the other, its advantage has been 67 percent. And when one team has been at least 1,000 miles closer to home than the other, it has been 73-25, winning nearly three-quarters of the time."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/in-tournament-theres-no-place-like-close-to-home/#more-7079

[Jay Bee]

When our opponent and location is revealed, I won't so much scout that other team, rather I'll be calculating the distance each time must travel. 

The selection committee can mix things up however they want, right, with respect to what games are played where?  That is, city X may have a 7/10 game, or they may not?  Or is some of that set? 

[MUMac]

The selection committee can mix things up however they want, right, with respect to what games are played where?  That is, city X may have a 7/10 game, or they may not?  Or is some of that set? 

Correct.  The only thing they do is try to POD the top teams close to their home.  That, though, is not set in stone - just ask Pitt about that when they visited Milwaukee.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I am hoping for the closest possible site!  Here is an interesting analysis on the effects of travel distance on tournament outcomes:

"Another way to look at these numbers: the team playing closer to home has won 59 percent of tournament games since 2003. When one team has to travel at least 500 miles more than the other, its advantage has been 67 percent. And when one team has been at least 1,000 miles closer to home than the other, it has been 73-25, winning nearly three-quarters of the time."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/in-tournament-theres-no-place-like-close-to-home/#more-7079

That might be a bit misleading, as they give preferential seeding location to the top seeds, who are already better teams to begin with.  It may have more to do with relative strength of the teams doing the traveling than the actual travel itself.  After all, what's the difference between 1,000 miles and 600 miles or even 350 miles when you're taking a plane either way?

[brewcity77]

That might be a bit misleading, as they give preferential seeding location to the top seeds, who are already better teams to begin with.  It may have more to do with relative strength of the teams doing the traveling than the actual travel itself.  After all, what's the difference between 1,000 miles and 600 miles or even 350 miles when you're taking a plane either way?

Especially when you are a team like McNeese State, who may have to travel over 1,000 miles to Dayton for a 16-seed play-in game, followed by a bonus 200 miles more to Cleveland to take on Ohio State. Even if you do win the first game, you're all but guaranteed to get pounded in the second.

[BME to MD]

That might be a bit misleading, as they give preferential seeding location to the top seeds, who are already better teams to begin with.  It may have more to do with relative strength of the teams doing the traveling than the actual travel itself.  After all, what's the difference between 1,000 miles and 600 miles or even 350 miles when you're taking a plane either way?

They address the fact that stronger teams get location preference in the article and attempt to control for it by modeling winning percentage based on a teams seed.  Maybe Henry Sugar can weigh in on the statistical validity of the work...