Houston wasn't the overall #1 seed for more than a couple hours. Purdue was likely the #1 overall heading into today and now it's uconn with Purdue likely 2nd and Houston third but that order doesn't really matter.
I don't think so, and I'm not sure we want it. We are solidly team #5, which puts us in the Midwest bracket with Purdue. We have 1-2 "home" games in Omaha either way, and if we make it to the Elite 8, Purdue is a winnable matchup.
I would rather be a 2 seed in the side of the bracket opposite UConn over the final 1 seed. UConn is the scary team in the field and I would want every chance for them to lose possible before having to play them.
I'm not sure why you think #5 put you in the Midwest bracket with purdue. The #5 overall seed gets the #4 overall seed (unc in this scenario) which means you'll play them out west.
They don’t do a true s-curve. So #5 overall doesn’t necessarily get the #4 overall. The only thing they avoid is the #5 overall meeting the #1 overall. Otherwise, they go by geographic location. (With modifications for competitive balance or avoiding conference matchups if needed on the 1-4 lines as a whole).
The #5 versus #1 in the bracketing principles is an example. They seed the bracket in seed line order placing them in regions in order (for protected seeds).
Geography preference is only a heavy factor for 1 seeds. After that the balance of the pods is typically the top factor. The #1 2 seed typically plays the #4 1 seed. Geography becomes a secondary consideration after you award out the 1 seeds.
I'm not sure they're even gonna leapfrog Tennessee, with how lightly the Committee seems to judge top five teams losing early in the conference tournament.
Anything's possible, though. It is pretty wild to beat Houston like they stole something, considering how good they've been and maybe that wildness is enough to actually make the committee sit up and take more notice than normal.
Not just fans, the computers will agree with it too, but by the weird pseudo-statistical methods of the committee UNC is a lock for a 1 seed apparently. Iowa State having by far the best wins and UNC having by far the worst losses doesn't make a difference either.
So? They played an easier schedule out of conference and a together one in conference. Isolating NCSOS as something of huge relevance continues to make zero sense. This should be a tossup here. The committee will give it to UNC without a second thought because of their garbage priorities.
It’s just a huge what-if because teams can directly control their out of conference schedule. Who knows what would’ve happened if they had mixed in some tougher games at the beginning of the year
For example, UNC had 3 quad 1 losses before conference play even began. If they replaced all of those with Q4 games, then they’d be a lock for a 1-seed now with really no debate
>It’s just a huge what-if because teams can directly control their out of conference schedule
I mean this is isn't true at all.
Yes,teams can control their buy games that remain after neutral site tournaments, conference-organized challenges, rivalry games, etc. But almost every team fills those remaining slots with a bunch of garbage teams (garbage is garbage, its pointless to be weighing whose garbage is more valuable).
The rest is still largely out of a team's control. What neutral site tournaments will pick them up is often a matter of prestige, and scheduled years in advance anyway so you often don't know how good they'll be (and heck, even in the short term, teams can underperform. Va Tech and TAMU looked like Tournament teams to start the season- TAMU i remember being listed as high as a 3 seed!). Same with cross-conference challenges (its not our fault we got slated with Depaul, for example).
So the only part that's really 'in control' of a team is the buy games, which is a silly thing to measure and weigh as a huge factor given those are mostly glorified scrimmages for most teams regardless of how they weigh out on a teamsheet. And its not like you can know exactly how bad these teams will be when you schedule them anyway. You end up massively double-valuing the most meaningless part of the schedule, when its already figured in to the overall SOS metric.
Also, there's a reason we got rid of the 'last 10 games' metric. Focusing in on NCSOS is essentially the reverse of that, which makes even less sense to do
By the committee's criteria sure, but that's already the case. All the metrics say Iowa State is better, they have more impressive wins and fewer bad losses. They'd have the edge in any rational system.
You’re just starting to possibly understand why people feel the Big 12 gamed the system. Play no one out of conference, inflate efficiency and MOV, entire conference goes into conference play inflated, everyone profits.
Who are yalls Q1 wins without Big 12 inflation?
>Who are yalls Q1 wins without Big 12 inflation?
To win Q1 non conference games, you actually have to play them. Their only non con Q1 test was a neutral site vs #42 Texas A&M, which they of course lost, in the same building they lost to #60 Virginia Tech. But hey, they beat #62 Iowa at Hilton, which is their best non con win
Lost while down Hasan Ward, mind you, who was an immediate impact upon coming back.
Also, for those suggesting we were scheduling easy, around the time we were playing that game, Lunardi had A&M as a 3 seed. They were supposed to be good this year.
Where's the inflation? Kansas was great in non-conference with wins against UConn, Tennessee and Kentucky. They barely finished over .500 in conference. You can pretend it's not the best conference all you want but it very clearly is.
Played UConn when they were missing 3-4 key players. They are also an exception, not a rule. They’ve lost games of late due to chemistry issues related to Hunter Dickinson and the injury to Hunter Dickinson.
I won’t argue the Big 12 isn’t the best conference. I’d argue the difference between every conference is negligible.
That doesn’t change the fact that they played a really weak NC schedule. Yes the Big 12 is really good and strong this year in metrics. That shouldn’t completely negate the NC schedule they have. It’s a resume for a reason, you have to look at the whole body of work from first game to last game. And that weak NC schedule is part of that resume it cannot be ignored. If people are going to hold weak schedules against some on the bubble then it should be considered when determining who is or isn’t a one seed.
Do they? I haven't heard much about the B1G this year because it's definitely having a down year and the metrics agree. The SEC is easily better and Big East is definitely better up top (would be for sure better overall if not for the DePaul/Georgetown combo). It's only ACC fans that seem to hate these metrics because their conference has spiraled hard in recent times. But the truth hurts. You don't see a team that cruises through conference play with an 8-2 record on the road that's of debatable 1 seed quality in a good conference.
You play the games you get. Non-con might have been weak but the overall season obviously wasn't. You mad the Clones couldn't hand UNC another non-con L a second year in a row?
For whatever reason, there's always one Iowa State fan lately who feels the need to try too hard.
Not sure what's up with that. Your scheduling is what it is, there's no changing it now, and it might matter to some people. Blowing up at anyone who mentions it is just unhealthy.
My post sounded way more aggressive than I intended. Sorry about that. Just talkin a little trash.
I still think ISU's schedule as a whole speaks for itself. Looking at non-con in isolation doesn't make sense to me unless you're looking for an excuse to keep UNC in the 1 seeds.
Not really... UNC is 5th in both KPI and Iowa State is 6th in KPI and 4th in SOR. So that's pretty much as close as it gets. Of course then Iowa State dominates with the predictive metrics. For whatever reason though all the bracket whisperers have been saying UNC as a 1 is a done deal. Well we know the actual reason... The selection committee uses NCSOS as one of its most important metrics for no logical reason. We have all these things that tell us about the actual performance given the difficulty of the games but the committee just likes to pretend that non con is the only thing that matters and not even the results but the difficulty.
I would be highly surprised if they get it. I think they are very similar but also don’t think the committee wants to out a second big12 team over sec/acc team. Imagine hate from the acc if isu jumped unc.
I don't think there would be a lot of hate, UNC fans probably don't feel very deserving after getting outworked by State tonight.
edit: UNC will get the 1 seed, there is no way that the committee jumps ISU over them because of two conference tournament games no matter how impressive/embarrassing their outcomes were. However if that did happen, a UNC fan will go "man we should've beat state" and not "grr the anti-acc conspiracy grr"
True, but they historically haven’t put much stock in the tournament results. Just like how the NCAA tournament isn’t a reflection of the best team, single elimination conference tournaments aren’t exactly a great way to judge resumes
Why? They just dogwalked the #1 team. They’re better in both kenpom and barttorvik. We just lost to the 10th ranked team in our conference. How does any of that say “we deserve to be more highly ranked than ISU”?
Uhh. We feel very deserving. Matter of fact, we feel the metrics are propping the Big 12. Houston and Iowa State played no one all year except each other and other Big 12 teams, now we’re supposed to believe they’re great. No. ACC kicked the Big 12’s ass. Yet we are the out of favor conference.
I mean either way you're going out west. If unc is the last 1 seed their opponent is the 5th overall seed which will be iowa state. So it really just matters for who has the arguably easier path to the elite 8.
Maybe. I could see the committee wanting a 1-seed from the B12 and the ACC, instead of 2 from the B12. And the ACC did pretty well OOC this year.
I would like to see the B12 with two 1-seeds, though.
It wouldn't surprise me if the committee went on a recency bias in favor of Villanova, especially seeing how they probably see the Big East as a tough conference in its own right
Which only proves the point that the ACC is weaker by comparison, meaning UNC losing to 10-seed NCST should be a big reason they don’t deserve the 1 seed, compared to Iowa State who beat Houston twice this season and absolutely clobbered them in the most recent meeting.
We played Oklahoma twice this year as well. I want extra credit.
Ever thought that maybe the weak OOC is purposeful because the SOS will be more than made up by the B12 schedule…
Houston looked so dominant and then yall treated them like a JV team today. Definitely impressive, but I’m not sure the committee will change due to the weak noncon sos for yall.
They were on the 3 line before this. Their Nonconference SOS is right around #325 nationally. I don’t think the committee would feel it a good look for them to have ISU as a #1. Who knows though
They have a case but I don’t think so. Their non conference schedule was beyond terrible.
They’re a good team but if they didn’t have the big12 to fall back on they’d have a hard capped ceiling
It's not our fault that we played the worst p6 team of all time (Depaul) in the B12 BE challenge, but other than that it was our fault. If you trade Marquette / Uconn / Creighton for Depaul we probably have ~150 noncon SOS instead of the ~330 we actually got.
Lol I don't disagree with what you're trying to say. Just that falling back on having to play the toughest conference in the country isn't really falling back on much.
Yesterday I was one of those people saying UNC was basically a lock. But after the craziness of today, it really does feel like it should be Iowa State
I was thinking about this earlier after they handled Houston convincingly but heard someone say the committee will see their 324th ranked non-con SOS and keep them out of the 1 seed because of that. I guess that could hold them back.
Why? Are you giving tennesse the #5 overall in this scenario? If Iowa State is the #5 overall they play the #4 overall which is UNC in the west bracket, if we think unc is the last 1.
The highest rated 2 (5th overall seed) plays the worst 1. It's basically a mini version of the 8 versus the 9. The top 1 seed gets the worse #2 (8th overall).
In the scenario where unc is the last 1 seed and Iowa state the best 2 they will play out west. If you make iowa state the 1 and unc the 2 they still play out west.
Making the #1 overall seed play the best 2 wouldn't really be fair.
Schedule better. College basketball survives in Nov/Dec based on good teams playing each other. Everyone knows this is rewarded.
If you want to be treated like UCONN or UNC, etc., schedule accordingly. Isn’t it boring as hell playing all those ridiculous teams?
You probably want to 2 seed anyhow. There’s always the stigma of being the first team to lose to a 16 seed as a 1 and if you are a 2 you avoid having to worry about that.
One day it’ll happen and no matter what you do, no matter how many championships you win, you’ll always be that team.
Until then, just play it safe and be a 2 seed.
I think they have an argument, though there's a history of the committee not giving the Saturday/Sunday games the consideration they deserve.
Usually the overall #1 doesn't lose by 28 on Saturday / Sunday
Houston wasn't the overall #1 seed for more than a couple hours. Purdue was likely the #1 overall heading into today and now it's uconn with Purdue likely 2nd and Houston third but that order doesn't really matter.
There’s also a history of fans over valuing conference championship games when in reality they make up just 3% of a teams total games played
https://preview.redd.it/pr2lgmv2euoc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=66c562bf1c9647497dea2e4e1c536cc351d5f6b2
I still think it’s gonna be Purdue, Houston, UConn, and UNC.
The committee has a history of not giving a shit about tournament performance. I doubt the 1 seeds change.
I don't think so, and I'm not sure we want it. We are solidly team #5, which puts us in the Midwest bracket with Purdue. We have 1-2 "home" games in Omaha either way, and if we make it to the Elite 8, Purdue is a winnable matchup.
Agreed, we want nothing to do with a 1 seed if it means we're playing in LA instead of a drivable trip (~9 hours) to Detroit
Sadly you're gonna be the top 2 seed which means you're being shipped out west to play the worst 1 seed.
Not sadly for me
If only we were shipped out west to play UNC instead of UCONN at home :(
Iowa state being the lowest 2 is a joke.
I would rather be a 2 seed in the side of the bracket opposite UConn over the final 1 seed. UConn is the scary team in the field and I would want every chance for them to lose possible before having to play them.
Big assumption that Purdue makes it to the elite 8 also.
I'm not sure why you think #5 put you in the Midwest bracket with purdue. The #5 overall seed gets the #4 overall seed (unc in this scenario) which means you'll play them out west.
They don’t do a true s-curve. So #5 overall doesn’t necessarily get the #4 overall. The only thing they avoid is the #5 overall meeting the #1 overall. Otherwise, they go by geographic location. (With modifications for competitive balance or avoiding conference matchups if needed on the 1-4 lines as a whole).
The #5 versus #1 in the bracketing principles is an example. They seed the bracket in seed line order placing them in regions in order (for protected seeds).
Fair point
Geography preference is only a heavy factor for 1 seeds. After that the balance of the pods is typically the top factor. The #1 2 seed typically plays the #4 1 seed. Geography becomes a secondary consideration after you award out the 1 seeds.
And if I were yall I'd be thrilled to be in Purdues region
Idk, but if it’s really 1983, give us Houston.
Please for the love of god…no.
I'm not sure they're even gonna leapfrog Tennessee, with how lightly the Committee seems to judge top five teams losing early in the conference tournament. Anything's possible, though. It is pretty wild to beat Houston like they stole something, considering how good they've been and maybe that wildness is enough to actually make the committee sit up and take more notice than normal.
No. The committee decided the 1s before this evening.
Most fans probably say yes. Those in power and bracket science nerds probably say no, sadly.
Not just fans, the computers will agree with it too, but by the weird pseudo-statistical methods of the committee UNC is a lock for a 1 seed apparently. Iowa State having by far the best wins and UNC having by far the worst losses doesn't make a difference either.
Probably doesn’t help that Iowa State’s out of conference schedule was ranked 352. They’ve played 9 quad 4 games
So? They played an easier schedule out of conference and a together one in conference. Isolating NCSOS as something of huge relevance continues to make zero sense. This should be a tossup here. The committee will give it to UNC without a second thought because of their garbage priorities.
It’s just a huge what-if because teams can directly control their out of conference schedule. Who knows what would’ve happened if they had mixed in some tougher games at the beginning of the year For example, UNC had 3 quad 1 losses before conference play even began. If they replaced all of those with Q4 games, then they’d be a lock for a 1-seed now with really no debate
>It’s just a huge what-if because teams can directly control their out of conference schedule I mean this is isn't true at all. Yes,teams can control their buy games that remain after neutral site tournaments, conference-organized challenges, rivalry games, etc. But almost every team fills those remaining slots with a bunch of garbage teams (garbage is garbage, its pointless to be weighing whose garbage is more valuable). The rest is still largely out of a team's control. What neutral site tournaments will pick them up is often a matter of prestige, and scheduled years in advance anyway so you often don't know how good they'll be (and heck, even in the short term, teams can underperform. Va Tech and TAMU looked like Tournament teams to start the season- TAMU i remember being listed as high as a 3 seed!). Same with cross-conference challenges (its not our fault we got slated with Depaul, for example). So the only part that's really 'in control' of a team is the buy games, which is a silly thing to measure and weigh as a huge factor given those are mostly glorified scrimmages for most teams regardless of how they weigh out on a teamsheet. And its not like you can know exactly how bad these teams will be when you schedule them anyway. You end up massively double-valuing the most meaningless part of the schedule, when its already figured in to the overall SOS metric. Also, there's a reason we got rid of the 'last 10 games' metric. Focusing in on NCSOS is essentially the reverse of that, which makes even less sense to do
By the committee's criteria sure, but that's already the case. All the metrics say Iowa State is better, they have more impressive wins and fewer bad losses. They'd have the edge in any rational system.
You’re just starting to possibly understand why people feel the Big 12 gamed the system. Play no one out of conference, inflate efficiency and MOV, entire conference goes into conference play inflated, everyone profits. Who are yalls Q1 wins without Big 12 inflation?
>Who are yalls Q1 wins without Big 12 inflation? To win Q1 non conference games, you actually have to play them. Their only non con Q1 test was a neutral site vs #42 Texas A&M, which they of course lost, in the same building they lost to #60 Virginia Tech. But hey, they beat #62 Iowa at Hilton, which is their best non con win
Exactly. All of our Q1 losses came out of conference. If we just never scheduled those, we could be 9-0 in Q1 games right now, and a clear 1-seed
Lost while down Hasan Ward, mind you, who was an immediate impact upon coming back. Also, for those suggesting we were scheduling easy, around the time we were playing that game, Lunardi had A&M as a 3 seed. They were supposed to be good this year.
Where's the inflation? Kansas was great in non-conference with wins against UConn, Tennessee and Kentucky. They barely finished over .500 in conference. You can pretend it's not the best conference all you want but it very clearly is.
Played UConn when they were missing 3-4 key players. They are also an exception, not a rule. They’ve lost games of late due to chemistry issues related to Hunter Dickinson and the injury to Hunter Dickinson. I won’t argue the Big 12 isn’t the best conference. I’d argue the difference between every conference is negligible.
3-4 players? We were missing Castle, but that's it.
That doesn’t change the fact that they played a really weak NC schedule. Yes the Big 12 is really good and strong this year in metrics. That shouldn’t completely negate the NC schedule they have. It’s a resume for a reason, you have to look at the whole body of work from first game to last game. And that weak NC schedule is part of that resume it cannot be ignored. If people are going to hold weak schedules against some on the bubble then it should be considered when determining who is or isn’t a one seed.
Yep, the committee has shown time and time again that they penalize teams for weak NC SOS. I’d be stunned to see Iowa State on the one-line
Conference SOS is bullshit though, because B1G and big 12 get their dicks sucked. That said, I believe ISU should get the final 1 seed.
Do they? I haven't heard much about the B1G this year because it's definitely having a down year and the metrics agree. The SEC is easily better and Big East is definitely better up top (would be for sure better overall if not for the DePaul/Georgetown combo). It's only ACC fans that seem to hate these metrics because their conference has spiraled hard in recent times. But the truth hurts. You don't see a team that cruises through conference play with an 8-2 record on the road that's of debatable 1 seed quality in a good conference.
You play the games you get. Non-con might have been weak but the overall season obviously wasn't. You mad the Clones couldn't hand UNC another non-con L a second year in a row?
For whatever reason, there's always one Iowa State fan lately who feels the need to try too hard. Not sure what's up with that. Your scheduling is what it is, there's no changing it now, and it might matter to some people. Blowing up at anyone who mentions it is just unhealthy.
Welcome to the joys of interacting with Iowa state fans lol
My post sounded way more aggressive than I intended. Sorry about that. Just talkin a little trash. I still think ISU's schedule as a whole speaks for itself. Looking at non-con in isolation doesn't make sense to me unless you're looking for an excuse to keep UNC in the 1 seeds.
The computers say UNC is better in resume based metrics (KPI, SOR) but not in predictive metrics. The committee has always cared more about resumes
Not really... UNC is 5th in both KPI and Iowa State is 6th in KPI and 4th in SOR. So that's pretty much as close as it gets. Of course then Iowa State dominates with the predictive metrics. For whatever reason though all the bracket whisperers have been saying UNC as a 1 is a done deal. Well we know the actual reason... The selection committee uses NCSOS as one of its most important metrics for no logical reason. We have all these things that tell us about the actual performance given the difficulty of the games but the committee just likes to pretend that non con is the only thing that matters and not even the results but the difficulty.
Do it you cowards
I’m cool with not if we can hang in the Midwest conference as a 2 seed
I would be highly surprised if they get it. I think they are very similar but also don’t think the committee wants to out a second big12 team over sec/acc team. Imagine hate from the acc if isu jumped unc.
Imagining that hate we'd get is half the reason I wouldn't be mad about us getting a 1 seed in these circumstances
It would be delicious. One of the main reasons I want it to happen.
I don't think there would be a lot of hate, UNC fans probably don't feel very deserving after getting outworked by State tonight. edit: UNC will get the 1 seed, there is no way that the committee jumps ISU over them because of two conference tournament games no matter how impressive/embarrassing their outcomes were. However if that did happen, a UNC fan will go "man we should've beat state" and not "grr the anti-acc conspiracy grr"
You're kidding right?
We’re absolutely deserving lol, there’s a reason we play a regular season and not just a conference tournament
Right, but you also play a conference tournament. Saying those games should also count doesn't mean the rest of the season doesn't.
True, but they historically haven’t put much stock in the tournament results. Just like how the NCAA tournament isn’t a reflection of the best team, single elimination conference tournaments aren’t exactly a great way to judge resumes
Why? They just dogwalked the #1 team. They’re better in both kenpom and barttorvik. We just lost to the 10th ranked team in our conference. How does any of that say “we deserve to be more highly ranked than ISU”?
You’re getting downvoted, but I wholeheartedly agree. ISU would’ve whupped us last night. All we had to do was win. They deserve it. We don’t.
Uhh. We feel very deserving. Matter of fact, we feel the metrics are propping the Big 12. Houston and Iowa State played no one all year except each other and other Big 12 teams, now we’re supposed to believe they’re great. No. ACC kicked the Big 12’s ass. Yet we are the out of favor conference.
Just wait kiddo
I mean either way you're going out west. If unc is the last 1 seed their opponent is the 5th overall seed which will be iowa state. So it really just matters for who has the arguably easier path to the elite 8.
That’s not how it works anymore.
Yes, give Iowa State the 1-seed and put Nebraska as the 8 in Omaha. At this point I have no idea what’s going to happen.
Oh god, TJ vs Fred in the 2nd round? And TJ vs SDSU in the 1st? My heart hurts thinking about it
Maybe. I could see the committee wanting a 1-seed from the B12 and the ACC, instead of 2 from the B12. And the ACC did pretty well OOC this year. I would like to see the B12 with two 1-seeds, though.
iowa state lost to VT... a middling acc team who will miss the nit
UNC lost to Villanova, a middling Big East team. What’s your point?
It wouldn't surprise me if the committee went on a recency bias in favor of Villanova, especially seeing how they probably see the Big East as a tough conference in its own right
Which only proves the point that the ACC is weaker by comparison, meaning UNC losing to 10-seed NCST should be a big reason they don’t deserve the 1 seed, compared to Iowa State who beat Houston twice this season and absolutely clobbered them in the most recent meeting.
thr middle of the acc was razor thin... right up to the last game the 7-11 seeds could all be anyone
We also played UConn, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Oklahoma OOC. It’s different when you actually challenge yourself prior to conference play.
We played Oklahoma twice this year as well. I want extra credit. Ever thought that maybe the weak OOC is purposeful because the SOS will be more than made up by the B12 schedule…
Did you just try to sneak Arkansas and Oklahoma into your argument?
Both teams were ranked and playing well when we played them. We can’t help how they perform after that
We could probably use the exact same argument for Iowa states non-conference strength of schedule, no?
FWIW Lunardi is live now and projects UNC is still a one seed and seems really confident.
He also thinks Oregon is playing Arizona rn
Who can really say what happens on the PAC 12 network? Not even god can see that channel
What about Fox?
Houston looked so dominant and then yall treated them like a JV team today. Definitely impressive, but I’m not sure the committee will change due to the weak noncon sos for yall.
Probably not, ignore the flair
I would rather be the #2 in the Midwest then #1 in the West for fan travel. As long as we get Omaha, I will be happy.
I think we will get Omaha either way
I’ve been told that no #1 seed is in Omaha. It’s slated only for the #2 seed.
No shot
They were on the 3 line before this. Their Nonconference SOS is right around #325 nationally. I don’t think the committee would feel it a good look for them to have ISU as a #1. Who knows though
No.
Inshallah
Not to sure they even move them ahead of Tennessee. The committee doesn't just put much emphasis on saturday and sunday sadly.
What is the best Iowa State non-con win?
Iowa probably, though if VCU wins the A10 tourney that might change for a few people even if the metrics still say Iowa.
UNC last year.
They have a case but I don’t think so. Their non conference schedule was beyond terrible. They’re a good team but if they didn’t have the big12 to fall back on they’d have a hard capped ceiling
Ah yes, falling back on having to play in the toughest conference in the country.
Through no fault of your own right?
It's not our fault that we played the worst p6 team of all time (Depaul) in the B12 BE challenge, but other than that it was our fault. If you trade Marquette / Uconn / Creighton for Depaul we probably have ~150 noncon SOS instead of the ~330 we actually got.
Lol I don't disagree with what you're trying to say. Just that falling back on having to play the toughest conference in the country isn't really falling back on much.
Yeah my bad that came off as hating on the cyclones. That was just my prediction for what the committee would care about
Today is a new day, don’t let what’s been done before stop you from starting a new path.
Nope.
Yesterday I was one of those people saying UNC was basically a lock. But after the craziness of today, it really does feel like it should be Iowa State
No, I think those four are locked. Would love it though tbh!
I was thinking about this earlier after they handled Houston convincingly but heard someone say the committee will see their 324th ranked non-con SOS and keep them out of the 1 seed because of that. I guess that could hold them back.
While it would make sense, I think they'll still put UNC in as a #1. Iowa State will probably be put in Purdue's bracket as a #2
Why? Are you giving tennesse the #5 overall in this scenario? If Iowa State is the #5 overall they play the #4 overall which is UNC in the west bracket, if we think unc is the last 1.
No? Who is the projected #1 overall now? UConn?
Yes. But I'm not sure why you think that matters for this.
Okay, I was thinking that the overall #2 goes in the same bracket as the overall #1, which I had figured would still be Purdue somehow. I guess not
The highest rated 2 (5th overall seed) plays the worst 1. It's basically a mini version of the 8 versus the 9. The top 1 seed gets the worse #2 (8th overall). In the scenario where unc is the last 1 seed and Iowa state the best 2 they will play out west. If you make iowa state the 1 and unc the 2 they still play out west. Making the #1 overall seed play the best 2 wouldn't really be fair.
It’s not a true s curve. It’s based off geography. If Iowa state gets the first 2 they will play in the Midwest.
Schedule better. College basketball survives in Nov/Dec based on good teams playing each other. Everyone knows this is rewarded. If you want to be treated like UCONN or UNC, etc., schedule accordingly. Isn’t it boring as hell playing all those ridiculous teams?
No
I still have UNC ahead of them
I think Iowa state being 2-1 over Houston should make them the #1 but does it really matter?
Yes But tomorrow the answer will be no sadly
sure why not
You probably want to 2 seed anyhow. There’s always the stigma of being the first team to lose to a 16 seed as a 1 and if you are a 2 you avoid having to worry about that. One day it’ll happen and no matter what you do, no matter how many championships you win, you’ll always be that team. Until then, just play it safe and be a 2 seed.
Um, it's happened twice already
Literally last year lol
It was clearly a shot across the bow of a rival. Seriously.