Results since NCAA reveal

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Plus - unless Baylor wins out they will have 10 losses - the "eye test" of double-digit losses. Tried to ask ChatGPT how many times two seeds have had 10 or more losses - I don't think we have to worry about AI taking our jerbs anytime soon....

"Since the NCAA men's basketball tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, 2 seeds have had 10 or more regular season losses only a few times.

To be more specific, only four teams have been selected as 2 seeds despite having 10 or more losses in the regular season. These teams are:

UCLA in 1986 - finished the regular season with a record of 18-11
Oklahoma in 1992 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-11
Michigan State in 2001 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-12
Michigan State in 2016 - finished the regular season with a record of 26-5, but lost its first game in the Big Ten tournament, finishing the season with a record of 26-6"

Incidentally - I think UNC in 2018 is the only 2 seed in the modern era with 10 or more regular seasons losses - but I could be wrong since ChatGPT couldn't help me out.

Not the way this works.

[muwarrior69]

Based on the information updated, here's the records of each school since the last announcement in easy to read format and my guess where they'll be seeded.

Rank     School   Seed   Record   Guess
1     Alabama    1   4-1      1
2    Houston   1   4-0      1
3    Purdue   1   1-2      3
4    Kansas    1   5-0      1
5    Texas    2   2-2      2
6    Arizona   2   2-1      2
7    Baylor    2   2-2      2
8    UCLA    2   4-0      1
9    Tennessee 3   3-2      3
10   Virginia    3   3-2      4
11.    Iowa St   3   0-3      Out
12.    Kan. St   3   4-1      2
13    Indiana    4   2-3      Out
14    Marquette   4   3-0      3
15    Gonzaga    4   4-0      3
16    Xavier    4   2-2      Out

Notably, I would expect Indiana, Xavier and Iowa State to be out of the Top 4 seeds.

The four "1" seeds would be UCLA, Houston, Alabama and Kansas. All have been leaders all season and are playing well now.

I see Texas, Arizona and Baylor with Kansas State to be two seeds.

Purdue has played so poorly lately, I'd imagine them a three seed, along with us, Gonzaga and Tennessee. I can't see us, given the NCAA's historical bias against us and our comparative schedule strength being any higher than 3 absent running the table and having three or four teams ahead of us lose.

Well, we're the only school in history to give them the middle finger and told them to pound sand in 1970.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

To suggest that there has been a "historical bias" against Marquette by the NCAA is just laughable. There were maybe a couple of questionable placings back fifty years ago, but that has ZERO bearing on why we might be a three seed.

It is very obvious as to why we would have that seeding. And it has been explained as such repeatedly. It's like people just don't want to see it.

[wisblue]

To suggest that there has been a "historical bias" against Marquette by the NCAA is just laughable. There were maybe a couple of questionable placings back fifty years ago, but that has ZERO bearing on why we might be a three seed.

It is very obvious as to why we would have that seeding. And it has been explained as such repeatedly. It's like people just don't want to see it.

The snub of the NCAA in 1970 over geographic placement is such ancient history that I doubt many people on the committee remember it or know about it, much less care about it.

MU has had many cases of getting seeds more favorable than expected so the idea that the NCAA has a historical bias against MU is absurd.

[StillAWarrior]

To suggest that there has been a "historical bias" against Marquette by the NCAA is just laughable. There were maybe a couple of questionable placings back fifty years ago, but that has ZERO bearing on why we might be a three seed.

It is very obvious as to why we would have that seeding. And it has been explained as such repeatedly. It's like people just don't want to see it.

Who’s more likely to be biased…the NCAA against Marquette in seeding the tournament? Or self-avowed Marquette fans in favor of Marquette?  Hmmmm…

The next time all the teams’ fans are satisfied with the selection and seeding will be the first. There will be 350+ teams in the tournament, and all of them will be on the 1-4 lines.

[HowardsWorld]

Who’s more likely to be biased…the NCAA against Marquette in seeding the tournament? Or self-avowed Marquette fans in favor of Marquette?  Hmmmm…

The next time all the teams’ fans are satisfied with the selection and seeding will be the first. There will be 350+ teams in the tournament, and all of them will be on the 1-4 lines.

I think a lot has to do with how the big 12 is being represented. At some point the amount of losses needs to catch up with a team no matter how many good wins they have. Its a serious question when looking at Texas and Baylor. Yes they have twice the amount of Q1 wins which seems to be the main component of seeding. They have also had about twice the amount of opportunities and when they lose it doesn't seem to do anything to them but when they win the shoot up a seed line. So back to my questions how many losses would it take to knock them down. Baylor has 3 more losses than Marquette and Texas 2 more losses. Would it take both teams to have 4, 5, 6 more losses than Marquette to get a worse seed. I think its up for discussion? Marquette won their conference by 2 games so the comparison is fair, its not like we are comparing a 4th,5th place.

If conference champions mean nothing they should go away and just have all 350 D1 teams play random schedules across every time zone and do away with conferences moving forward.

[willie warrior]

I think a lot has to do with how the big 12 is being represented. At some point the amount of losses needs to catch up with a team no matter how many good wins they have. Its a serious question when looking at Texas and Baylor. Yes they have twice the amount of Q1 wins which seems to be the main component of seeding. They have also had about twice the amount of opportunities and when they lose it doesn't seem to do anything to them but when they win the shoot up a seed line. So back to my questions how many losses would it take to knock them down. Baylor has 3 more losses than Marquette and Texas 2 more losses. Would it take both teams to have 4, 5, 6 more losses than Marquette to get a worse seed. I think its up for discussion? Marquette won their conference by 2 games so the comparison is fair, its not like we are comparing a 4th,5th place.

If conference champions mean nothing they should go away and just have all 350 D1 teams play random schedules across every time zone and do away with conferences moving forward.

Those are good questions. We will know in a week. It really comes down to how the selection Committee perceives the strength of the various conferences. Obviously everybody is in love with the Big 12, but is it their strength or besides Kansas, they just have 5 or 6 other good teams. Hardly anybody appears to think there is an elite team in BEast. I think UConn is close to elite and MU also close, with 4 other good teams. Dont think Big 20, ACC, SEC, etc. are any stronger than BEast. Guess that is why they have a selection Committee.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Being a conference champion means something as evidenced by how excited Marquette was post game yesterday and the long line fans had to deal with to get their picture with the trophy.  And also conferences are useful for scheduling and media contract purposes.

But it means nothing in terms of NCAA selection or seeding. It COULD mean something in terms of selection, but conferences have decided that tournaments should determine that.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I will also point out that Scoopers never seemed to be on the "winning a conference championship should mean something in terms of NCAA seeding" until Marquette won one. Very strange.

[82fanatic]

Updated.

         since Feb  14     
1   Alabama     1   4-2  L Tenn   W Georgia   W SC.  W Ark. W Aub   L TAMU
2   houston      1   5-0. W smu   W Mem W tulane. W E. Car. W WSU
3   purdue       1.  2-2  L Maryland.  W Ohio S.  L Indiana. W Wis
4   Kansas       1   5-1. W OklS   W Baylor   W TCU. W W Vir. W TxTech. L TX
5   Texas         2   3-2. W okl   W iowa St   L Baylor L TCU. W Kan.
6   arizona       2   3-2. W Utah   W Col   L ASU  W USC L UCLA.   
7   Baylor        2   2-3. L Kan   L kansas St.   W Texas. W OkSt.  L Iowa st
8   UCLA          2   6-0 W Stanford   W Cal. W Utah. W Col. W ASU  W Arz
9   Tennesee    3   3-3 W Bama   L Kent   L TAMU.    W SCar. W Ark. L Aub
10. Virginia      3   4-2 W Louisville   W ND   L BC.   L NC. W Clem. W. Louis
11.  Iowa St     3   2-4  W TCU L Kan   L Texas     L  Ok. L WVU   W bay. 
12.  Kansas St  3   4-2 L OklSt   W Iowa S   W Baylor.  W OkSt W OK. L WVU
13   Indiana      4   2-3 L NWU   W Ill      L MSU.    W Purdue. L Iowa
14   Marquette  4   5-0 W Xavior   W creighton   W DePaul.  W But.  W SJ
15   Gonzaga    4   5-0 W LMU   W pepp. W SD. W St M. W CHST
16   Xavier        4   4-2 L Marq   W Depaul   L Nova. W SH W PROV.  W BUT

[Dr. Blackheart]

I will also point out that Scoopers never seemed to be on the "winning a conference championship should mean something in terms of NCAA seeding" until Marquette won one. Very strange.

I think fans would still be bitching.  However, this discussion (and I think we are a solid three seed currently) shows me MU is very close to a two and even a one seed (have to win the BET).  That's exciting.

Where I think MU has and will always be screwed is geographical placement because of the B12 and B1G history, location, composition and power. It just is a fact and honestly it's tough for a committee, especially with the super conferences to figure out where to put MU where we have always been an odd slot.

That said we have no one to blame  but ourselves (Badger loss) and our conference brethren (Georgetown, DePaul for the crap they have cobbled together for too long). Where won loss record will matter is our ranking.  Top 5 is a definite possibility this week with the reporters and coaches to finish the regular season. Wow

[muwarrior69]

I will also point out that Scoopers never seemed to be on the "winning a conference championship should mean something in terms of NCAA seeding" until Marquette won one. Very strange.

Well, we have not been winning on this scale in a long time. So cut Scoopers who see it differently a little slack.

[Goose]

Dr. B

No doubt the Q9 loss to the Badgers hurt them and I agree with your take on Big 12 and Big 10. They likely will be three, but very close to a two and that is life.

I think finishing regular season ranked in the top five is validation of a fantastic season. They need to win six games in NCAA and I am ready,  regardless of the seeding.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I get overall body of work yadda yadda - but at the level of the last 2 seed presumably the committee takes a REALLY close look at the specific comparison. Baylor is 2-3 since the reveal and that ISU loss is *just* Q1  - and it was a large margin loss. Marquette will have those Nova and SHU wins *just* outside Q1 - I get the line is the line - but when you combine that with the fact that MU SPANKED Baylor head 2 head how in the world could the committee but Baylor ahead of MU we win the BET and Baylor loses in the B12T?

You can keep adding factors outside the official criteria if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they smoke us in almost every official criteria. Baylor is ahead of Arizona on the S-Curve.

Also the ISU loss isn't "just Q1", they're 11 spots from falling out.

Plus - unless Baylor wins out they will have 10 losses - the "eye test" of double-digit losses. Tried to ask ChatGPT how many times two seeds have had 10 or more losses - I don't think we have to worry about AI taking our jerbs anytime soon....

"Since the NCAA men's basketball tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, 2 seeds have had 10 or more regular season losses only a few times.

To be more specific, only four teams have been selected as 2 seeds despite having 10 or more losses in the regular season. These teams are:

UCLA in 1986 - finished the regular season with a record of 18-11
Oklahoma in 1992 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-11
Michigan State in 2001 - finished the regular season with a record of 19-12
Michigan State in 2016 - finished the regular season with a record of 26-5, but lost its first game in the Big Ten tournament, finishing the season with a record of 26-6"

Incidentally - I think UNC in 2018 is the only 2 seed in the modern era with 10 or more regular seasons losses - but I could be wrong since ChatGPT couldn't help me out.

Go and look up what seed a team with 11 Q1 wins usually gets.  Let me know if you find a 3 seed.

[82fanatic]

Updated.

         since Feb  14     
1   Alabama     1   4-2      2 losses,  ranked 12 and 24
2   houston      1   5-0
3   purdue       1.  2-2   2 losses to unranked teams
4   Kansas       1   5-1. 
5   Texas         2   3-2.  2 losses ranked 7 and 22
6   arizona       2   3-2.  2 losses unranked and 4 th.
7   Baylor        2   2-3.  3 losses. #3,#11, and unranked
8   UCLA          2   6-0
9   Tennesee    3   3-3  3 losses. #23,#24, and unranked
10. Virginia      3   4-2  2 losses. Both unranked
11.  Iowa St     3   2-4   4 losses.  #3, #22, #9, and 2 unranked
12.  Kansas St  3   4-2  2 losses to unranked teams.
13   Indiana      4   2-3   3 losses to unranked teams.
14   Marquette  4   5-0
15   Gonzaga    4   5-0
16   Xavier        4   4-2

I think we are 8th right now.  Loosing to unranked teams is going to drop you. 
I think Baylor is #9.  MU maybe even 7 th. Losses to unranked teams will drop you a seed!

[Tyler COLEk]

We really need Marquette to win the BET title so we can resolve this question. There’s a couple posters here with all of their chips pushed to the center.

[bilsu]

The Big East this year is probably one of strongest conferences ever. The conference's fifth place team is seventh in the NET.

The Big 10 and Big 12 will get teams in with losing conference records. The Big East has two teams with 10-10 conference records who are not even considered bubble teams. That should tell you this is a weak Big East compared to other Big East years.

[bilsu]

The grouping at the top is stronger than usual. The bottom is weak.  In the recent past you usually had Nova hunting a 1 seed and then a bunch of 7-10 seeds.  This year you have a bunch of 3-5 seeds and then out of the Tournament.

I do not think this is true.

[bilsu]

I think a lot has to do with how the big 12 is being represented. At some point the amount of losses needs to catch up with a team no matter how many good wins they have. Its a serious question when looking at Texas and Baylor. Yes they have twice the amount of Q1 wins which seems to be the main component of seeding. They have also had about twice the amount of opportunities and when they lose it doesn't seem to do anything to them but when they win the shoot up a seed line. So back to my questions how many losses would it take to knock them down. Baylor has 3 more losses than Marquette and Texas 2 more losses. Would it take both teams to have 4, 5, 6 more losses than Marquette to get a worse seed. I think its up for discussion? Marquette won their conference by 2 games so the comparison is fair, its not like we are comparing a 4th,5th place.

If conference champions mean nothing they should go away and just have all 350 D1 teams play random schedules across every time zone and do away with conferences moving forward.

This is the problem as I have said earlier. These ratings are largely to do with how conferences have done in the non-conference season. The Big East had weaker than usual non-conference results, which hurts the number of quad 1 possible wins in the conference. The Big 12 had a great non-conference record, which results in them having a lot of quad 1win opportunities in conference play. The system does not recognize that teams in March are not the same teams they were in November. The true conference strength measurement is who is left in the sweet 16.

[StillAWarrior]

The Big 10 and Big 12 will get teams in with losing conference records. The Big East has two teams with 10-10 conference records who are not even considered bubble teams. That should tell you this is a weak Big East compared to other Big East years.

I wasn’t serious. I was making the point that just looking at a team’s rank in a conference (e.g., Michigan at 2) doesn’t necessarily tell you how strong the team or the conference is. In other words, cherry picking a stat to make a point can lead to absurd comments (like mine that you quoted).

[rocket surgeon]

I think fans would still be bitching.  However, this discussion (and I think we are a solid three seed currently) shows me MU is very close to a two and even a one seed (have to win the BET).  That's exciting.

Where I think MU has and will always be screwed is geographical placement because of the B12 and B1G history, location, composition and power. It just is a fact and honestly it's tough for a committee, especially with the super conferences to figure out where to put MU where we have always been an odd slot.

That said we have no one to blame  but ourselves (Badger loss) and our conference brethren (Georgetown, DePaul for the crap they have cobbled together for too long). Where won loss record will matter is our ranking.  Top 5 is a definite possibility this week with the reporters and coaches to finish the regular season. Wow

good stuff doc  the thing about the badger loss is WHEN we lost to them, they were at the height of their season a little too early obviously.  they started out 11-1 with wins over kansas, maryland(#3 at the time) and at iowa.  then they went on a bad roll and really haven't recovered for any number of reasons-injuries, lack of talent, lack of depth, etc.  but in all fairness, they were peaking too early and we had yet to find ourselves.  we'd kick the chit out of them today on anyone's floor

[wadesworld]

I do not think this is true.

Outside of having Nova as legit title contenders, the 4 best teams this year (Providence not on the level as MU, Xavier, UCONN, or Creighton) are better than the 2nd best team in a number of years in the BE

[CountryRoads]

I do not think this is true.

Ok, then you’d be wrong.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Updated.

         since Feb  14     
1   Alabama     1   4-2      2 losses,  ranked 12 and 24
2   houston      1   5-0
3   purdue       1.  2-2   2 losses to unranked teams
4   Kansas       1   5-1. 
5   Texas         2   3-2.  2 losses ranked 7 and 22
6   arizona       2   3-2.  2 losses unranked and 4 th.
7   Baylor        2   2-3.  3 losses. #3,#11, and unranked
8   UCLA          2   6-0
9   Tennesee    3   3-3  3 losses. #23,#24, and unranked
10. Virginia      3   4-2  2 losses. Both unranked
11.  Iowa St     3   2-4   4 losses.  #3, #22, #9, and 2 unranked
12.  Kansas St  3   4-2  2 losses to unranked teams.
13   Indiana      4   2-3   3 losses to unranked teams.
14   Marquette  4   5-0
15   Gonzaga    4   5-0
16   Xavier        4   4-2

I think we are 8th right now.  Loosing to unranked teams is going to drop you. 
I think Baylor is #9.  MU maybe even 7 th. Losses to unranked teams will drop you a seed!

We are 9th or 10th. It doesn't matter if an opponent is ranked or unranked.

[We R Final Four]

good stuff doc  the thing about the badger loss is WHEN we lost to them, they were at the height of their season a little too early obviously.  they started out 11-1 with wins over kansas, maryland(#3 at the time) and at iowa.  then they went on a bad roll and really haven't recovered for any number of reasons-injuries, lack of talent, lack of depth, etc.  but in all fairness, they were peaking too early and we had yet to find ourselves.  we'd kick the chit out of them today on anyone's floor

Kansas beat Wisconsin.