Seems like the committee got it right

[NavinRJohnson]

For the first time in a number of years, my initial reaction is that the committee did a very good job.

[ozmetal71]

I think that they treated the Big East quite fairly this year.  One could quibble with ND getting a 5 and MU a 6, but ND did have a better conference record, and in the end, that is what won out.  I was very happy with Villanova making it in as that reflects the overall strength of the conference, and I also really respect and like that school and their program because it seems to be a mirror image of our own.

[mwbauer7]

Apparently they met earlier this year. Seems to have been a little more common sense to it this year... Fewer blatent "huh?'s"

[mwbauer7]

One could quibble with ND getting a 5 and MU a 6, but ND did have a better conference record, and in the end, that is what won out.

Apparently they didn't take into account that ND was 5-7 away from The Joyce this year.

[TJ]

I completely agree - the bracket looks pretty good this year, especially compared to some of the recent brackets.  None of the teams out have a really great argument.  I would have liked to see Illinois State in, but still I think it's a very good field with no big question marks.

[MUfan12]

Agreed... MU-ND aside, I only had two minor issues. I thought Miami was a little overseeded at 7, and MSU and Purdue should have switched 5-6. Other than that, no complaints.

[CTWarrior]

We got a 6, which was fair.  I think it was easy for the committee this year because this year's bubble teams did so lousy over the weekend that nobody really could complain that much.  I mean if Baylor, Arizona and Villanova didn't make it and Illinois State, Arizona State and Virginia Tech did, there still wouldn't be much complaining.

[Pardner]

Washington State as a 4 is an outrage. 

[MR.HAYWARD]

I agree the Wash St. I questionable, but the BE seds need to be taken in context with the rules.  Forexample Mu very well may have been a 4 or 5 seed in the commitees minds but with all the Big East teams in the tourney and with all of them being in the 3-4-5-6 range they had to seed them so they woul not meat right away.  Perfect example is with us and Pitt, maybe they had us a s a 5 yet with Pitt at the 4 we got bumped to a 6.  Same with Louisville, Uconn, Nd, etc.  Maybe Louisville was 4 but got bumped to a three etc etc. It really does not matter, unless you are a top 3 seed you are going to play agood team in the first round and a good team for sure, no matter what the seed in round 2.  It's not like 20 years ago where you could sleepwalk thru a round or two.  The conference winners are better than ever and even the middle seeds are closer to the top seeds than ever before.  win or go home...seems like the teams that bitch about there seed get beat in the first round every year anyway...and the bubble teams that got "snubbed" seem to lose in the 1st round of the NIT.  shut up and play

[muwarrior69]

The committee did us a favor. I would take a 6 seed over a 5 or 4 seed. Rather play the "tougher team" seeded lower and the "weaker teams" seeder higher.

[AlumKCof93]

I think the committee did a very good job this year.  They looked at the conferences and determined that the Big East and Pac 10 were very good and slotted them accordingly. The looked at the Big 10 and thought 'blech' and seeded them with that thought in mind.  My quibbles,
1) Miami overseeded at 7
2) Butler underseeded at 7
3) Wisconsin, in winning both the Big 10 conference season and tourney and a big win at tx - deserved a 2.

I think we were seeded correctly, as was Kentucky, as was Stanford.  Should be a fun tournament.

[Nukem2]

I think Butler got the correct seed at 7.  They have really struggled in the Horizon.  Winning, but with great difficulty in a league that was really down this year.  They are ripe for a 1st round loss to So. Alabama.   ( as will Drake be  vs. Western Ky. )

[MR.HAYWARD]

what 2 seed is Wisco better than?  They have an overinflated record due to being in a terrible confernce and won there tournamnt title game over a sub .500 team while not playing a ranked team the whole way.  Now compare that resume to the Big East or playing in the BE tourney.  Big11 is not better than a mid major conference this year.  losing at home to MU getting absolutely drilled by Duke etc i beleive held more weight than racking up wins against Northwestern and Michigan.  The other big ten teams are pretenders as well all with overinflated Big11 records against the bottom 6 teams that are absolutely horrible

[JetCityWarrior]

I still think Duke is overrated at a 2 seed.  Five losses, one of which not that long ago to Wake Forest?

[BrewCity83]

Duke has some great wins though...UW-Madison, Marquette, North Carolina just off the top of my head.  I don't see any lower seeded teams clearly better than Duke.

[rugbydrummer]

Duke has some great wins though...UW-Madison, Marquette, North Carolina just off the top of my head.  I don't see any lower seeded teams clearly better than Duke.

Ok . . . didn't we just say that UW wasn't all that great??!?  I mean . . in my mind, Duke's pretty good, but they are beatable.  Same with UW.  These teams can just have really really good days and some not so good days, and also, there is a sort of circle where Team 1 beats Team 2, team 2 beats team 3, and then team 3 goes and beats team 1, so it gets a little muddy as to who's the "best" of the three, i'm thinking as in pitt beating duke, duke beating us, and then us beating pitt 1x and then pitt beating us, etc.  It's just really too close to call sometimes

[BrewCity83]

Right.  But what I meant was that UW-Madison really can't complain about being seeded behind Duke.

[rugbydrummer]

oh, i agree, that would be crummy to be seeded behind a team whom you've beaten . . . oh wait   i was speaking more in generalities, too, i guess, about the ranking of team merit & correlating that to a seed