9 Seed Anyone

[TallTitan34]

http://www.bracketography.com/

Prior to the Providence game we were in the last four out.  Now they have us as a 9 seed against Florida.

If I remember, this website has been pretty accurate the last couple years in their picks.

[VegasWarrior77]

I will take any seed as long as we are in!

[TallTitan34]

Surprising they have Pitt as a 3 seed.

[romey]

I will take any seed as long as we are in!

Just for argument's sake, what do you all think is the worst seed we would get if we get in?  Obviously, there are conference winners with automatic bids that are no where near as good as us.  So the 16, 15, 14, etc seeds will be filled "from the bottom up" so to speak.

I have to think (without doing a lot of research) that we couldn't be lower than a 12. Am I wrong?

[MU B2002]

yes please.  What number 1 would we be taking down?

[romey]

yes please.  What number 1 would we be taking down?

According to this version, Kansas.  Wiscy number three seed in the same region (West) with Georgetown 2

[greenman]

I know this site gets posted quite a bit but:

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm

has MU as one of the first four out. Interestingly they list us as an 11 seed, but that is the average seed of the 14 out of 45 or so that include us in.

EDIT: this matrix includes the bracketography site as well.

[DomJamesToTheBasket]

If MU makes the tourney,  I want to see the reaction of the higher-seeded team when they see a Marquette match-up.  Opponents dread seeing the name Marquette.

[HoopsMalone]

MU has the firepower to keep up with any team.  However, MU can't stop good teams.  Many of our close losses came down to getting stops, among other things.  I would not want to draw us though.

[Coleman]

Just for argument's sake, what do you all think is the worst seed we would get if we get in?  Obviously, there are conference winners with automatic bids that are no where near as good as us.  So the 16, 15, 14, etc seeds will be filled "from the bottom up" so to speak.

I have to think (without doing a lot of research) that we couldn't be lower than a 12. Am I wrong?

Usually its 11 or 12, depending on how many teams got auto-bids that wouldn't have already been an at-large selection.

I'd rather be a 10-12 than a 9. I'd rather not play a Kansas in the second round.

[Eye]

Usually the lowest at-larges are 12s. I think the lowest at-large in the 64/65-team era was Oklahoma as a 13 in '99, where they beat Arizona as a 4 at the BC.

[TallTitan34]

yes please.  What number 1 would we be taking down?

Based on recent success, how about Kentucky 

[willie warrior]

Surprising they have Pitt as a 3 seed.

I believe that the Pitt game is our key---we go 4-3 with a Pitt win, we most likely are in, at 19-11. Pitt will be huge!

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

The committee should seriously take us if only because we'll guarantee a nailbiter. 

[Hards Alumni]

I want revenge on Kansas.

Sweet, sweet revenge.

[The Man in Gold]

Usually the lowest at-larges are 12s. I think the lowest at-large in the 64/65-team era was Oklahoma as a 13 in '99, where they beat Arizona as a 4 at the BC.

It was UGA as a 14 seed 2 years ago.  They finished last in the SEC but ran the table in the conference tournament to get in.  Including winning 2 games in the same day after the Georgia Dome roof got destroyed.

[NavinRJohnson]

It was UGA as a 14 seed 2 years ago.  They finished last in the SEC but ran the table in the conference tournament to get in.  Including winning 2 games in the same day after the Georgia Dome roof got destroyed.

Then that wasn't an at-large bid.

[Benny B]

If MU makes the tourney,  I want to see the reaction of the higher-seeded team when they see a Marquette match-up.  Opponents dread seeing the name Marquette.

As I've said before, if my team worked hard all season and was rewarded with a 5 seed, I would be pi$$ed off to draw Marquette.  Whoever ends up opposite MU at the 5 seed will be whining to the media all week about how MU is much better than a 12 and should have been seeded higher.  And when they lose, they will whine even more about how the committee completely screwed them by seeding a team who lost to #1 seed Nova twice and #2 seed WVU by a combined 4 points as a 12.

My prediction -- that whiner will be Bruce Pearl.

Assuming brackets were announced today... if it was about fairness, there would be no way the committee could put MU any lower than 10.

[MarquetteDano]

As I've said before, if my team worked hard all season and was rewarded with a 5 seed, I would be pi$$ed off to draw Marquette.  Whoever ends up opposite MU at the 5 seed will be whining to the media all week about how MU is much better than a 12 and should have been seeded higher.  And when they lose, they will whine even more about how the committee completely screwed them by seeding a team who lost to #1 seed Nova twice and #2 seed WVU by a combined 4 points as a 12.

My prediction -- that whiner will be Bruce Pearl.

Assuming brackets were announced today... if it was about fairness, there would be no way the committee could put MU any lower than 10.

That being said, not knowing the matchup, I would prefer a 11 or 12 seed versus 10 or 9.  There isn't that big of difference playing 5 through 8 seeds in the first round.  However in the second round the idfference of playing a 1/2 versus a 3/4 is huge.

[______]

I would rather have a 12 seed so that the second round match up would be easier.

[Benny B]

8/9 seed path: 9/8-1-4-2
10 seed path: 7-2-3-1
11 seed path: 6-3-2-1
12 seed path: 5-4-1-2

10 & 12 seeds aren't so bad, but the 11 is what I'd prefer.  By the time you get to the #1 seed, they might already have been knocked off.  In that case, you have no worse than a 6-3-2-4 path... certainly not out of the realm of possibility for MU.

I'm not saying they will make it to the FF, just that it doesn't appear as impossible as some may think.