Question Regarding Seeding

[Duckley Palace]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but heck it's slow season, so I'll ask it anyhow.

 

We are an 11 seed facing South Carolina. Colorado is a potential tenth seed facing Boise State in the First Four. Is there one ten seed, or two? I know a win in the First Four is an official tournament statistic, so I guess it's a way for a small school like Bryant to say they have an official tournament victory.

 

So an eleven seed is better than a ten seed? But is a sixteen seed better than an eleven if the sixteen doesn't have to play an extra game against another sixteen? With expansion talks upcoming, I hope football seeding isn't as confusing. Maybe it's a good thing Mike Leach didn't get his 64 team field.

 

Loved the pirate, but no thanks to his tournament idea. Riddle me this Quackman. When is a sixteen better than an eleven, and when can there be multiples of the same numerical value?

[SmithRiverDuck]

I said it before on another thread and I'll say it again.  The committee seems to like "drama". Or at least, trying to create games that garner extra interest.

 

How else could Dana Altman potentially face his former team, Creighton? Or Rick Barnes (Tennessee) face Texas?  I'm not for conspiracy theories.  Unlike some people out there, I don't think the NFL is fixed.

 

But, there are too many discrepancies in the seedings to think that committee hasn't given some thought as to what would create the most interesting match-ups.  It's also easy to go through the seedings throughout the last several (you decide how many) tournaments and see how the committee has manipulated the pairings to create good match-ups.

 

Th (e beauty of it all, for the committee, is that the metrics give them wide latitude to decide what to do.  Metrics (as in football) are so close that a tenth of a percent might mean the difference between being 10th in the country and being 32nd in any given category.  

 

Sure, Rick Pitino had a gripe, "We beat so and so".   And then you could use metrics (and of course record, meaning bad losses) to shoot him down.

 

Maybe the Ducks "stole" St. John's bid.  Or any of the other four teams that weren't "supposed" to win their tournaments.

 

But, the one undeniable thing about this year's March is that it's already had PLENTY of madness. Virginia scored 14 points in the first half of their game tonight. 14 POINTS!! And the committee had them a 10 seed (granted a play-in).  WHOOPS!!!

 

As for the Ducks in this tournament I'm hoping for:

 

1. No games that are total "stinkers".  We all know what those look like.

 

2.  No foul trouble for N'faly Dante especially in critical times.  His maturity has been evident the last couple of game when he could have go into foul trouble, but managed not to.  Also, it's imperative that he stay healthy.

 

3.  Decent shooting percentages.  See #1 above.

 

4.  Jackson Shelstead to go off.  I think the number one key for the Ducks will be how Shelstead conducts himself during the games.  I've been dogging him all year because he has reminded me more of Will Richardson than Peyton Pritchard in the losses.  I know people have thought that unfair.  But, there are times when the point guard MUST be able to do certain things to ensure a win. Freshman or not, Shelstead certainly has the tools to will his team to a win. I want to see him do it.

 

My dream scenario involves an eventual game against Purdue (provided they make it that far).  Gee, wouldn't that announce our arrival to B1G basketball.

 

 

 

 

[Duckley Palace]

Purdue is a beatable one seed, see last year. Of course Virginia won a title the year following their historic loss. But is there a team that you say is unbeatable?

 

It just seems like you don't have Goliath's anymore. I mean just in the last 19 years we've seen more mid majors make the Final Four than the fifty years before.

 

George Mason

Butler(twice)

Wichita State

Loyola

Gonzaga(twice)

Florida Atlantic

San Diego State

 

You can say Gonzaga isn't a mid major, but they play in a mid major conference.

 

You've had Texas Tech play for the Title, had Baylor and Virginia win titles for the first time in their history. Meanwhile UCLA hasn't won one since the 90's. It's just different. Get hot and you can win it all. Oregon is very hot.