NCAA Tournament - Tennessee Vols

I know a kid that plays for them, Trae Hollowell.

Go Woffords!

 

Seth Davis has been arguing that conference tournaments are overrated by fans, and that winning your conference tournament doesn't really mean anything, but who you beat along the way does. He may be overstating the point, but I think there's at least some truth in it. He argued that Tennessee is rightfully ahead of Michigan State even after Sunday, because the top of Tennessee's resume is just as good (three wins against top two seeds) and we have three fewer losses to teams named Indiana and Illinois. Honestly kinda think he's right about that one.

I haven't necessarily compared Auburn to all the other fours and fives, but even after winning the SECT, they only have three wins all season against teams who have been seeded 1-8 (Tennessee neutral, Tennessee home, Mississippi State home).

 

What good did beating Kentucky do Tennessee? What good did beating Michigan do Sparty?

They had this thing in the books Thursday afternoon and sat in the committee room watching games, drinking cocktails, and making up dirty limericks all weekend while ESPN kept fans on the edge of their collective seats with 183 possible scenarios that didn't mean anything.

 

And they won two games last year before losing in the Sweet 16 to the same nun that beat us.

 

Subtle 'I have black friends post'.

 

The selection committee dude said we'd have been the #1 had we won the SEC tourney so that goes against what he says.

 

He's Isaiah Victor's nephew.

So I have UT athlete friends, too.

 

the selection committee tailors the explanations to the outcomes. Lunardi said as much. it's easy to say that when Tennessee loses. what seed was auburn going to get had they lost early in the tournament? they're under seeded even after winning the thing based on S-curve.

 

They were projected as a 5 on ESPN before the tourney IIRC

 

Oh, double whammy. Nice.

 

I'm not sure it does. . . it just means that we were close enough that a win against Auburn would've done it (FWIW Davis was arguing that we should've been a #1 seed even with a loss to Auburn, and I believe the committee had us as the first two seed, so we were obviously closer even losing to Auburn than a lot of pundits expected--I didn't see many projections that had us 5th overall after losing the SECT)

 

Oh I 100% agree that the explanation is tailored to the case. I didn't hear what the committee people said when asked about these things and assume it's probably BS. Davis was saying that he's sat in on the actual discussions though and that they have contingency brackets for various tournament results. I dunno, I'm not there. But I find it plausible that the committee didn't think Michigan State did enough to earn a one seed. Like I said, haven't looked that deep into Auburn and don't have a strong opinion on them.

I do think the SECT did something for us--I don't think there's any way we're 5th overall without that win over Kentucky.

 

It did a a lot of good for me. Just saying

 

Speaking of ex-Vols, Ron Slay was roaming the halls of Bridgestone on Sunday, and my 9yo got his picture taken with him. H0w do you explain Ron Slay to a 9yo?

Best I could do was tell him that everybody in the SEC hated him when he played. That's how good he was.

 

Got us to Louisville.

 

No, it didn't.

 

How do you figure? Looks fairly straightforward to me.

 

I wasn't in the room, so I guess I shouldn't be so definitive. However, I find the idea ludicrous that a bunch of white hairs are sitting there Sunday at 4:30 (about when the Big 10 tourney, which didn't change anything either, ended,) tallying points, and if we beat UK we go to Lousiville but if we lose, it's KC, and UT is the #2 2 seed or 3 based on quad whatever. I find it much more likely that they put us in Louisville on Sunday because they had us in Louisville on Thursday because we are a pretty good team and Louisville is a good place for us, close enough to drive, while they can send Kentucky to Kansas City and they'll still fill the arena; they don't need UK in Louisville. Who were they going to put in the Yum Center if we lost?

PS--finding a bracket that has all of the cities on it is harder than it should be.

 

Tell him he was Admiral with a headband.

Also, I've talked to Slay's cousin a time or two, so it's like Ron and I are friends.

 

Their official methodology is going down the 1-68 ranking and assigning teams to whichever region is their geographical best fit. The Louisville region is the geographic best fit for every single two seed, which means the only way we could get into the South Region was by being the best two seed. If we lose to Kentucky, I don't think there's any way that we're still ahead of Kentucky and Michigan State.

BTW I totally agree about the annoyance of finding a bracket with all the locations, but you're mixing up the regional and the first weekend locations. Kentucky is in the Kansas City regional, Michigan State is in Washington DC. Based on the methodology that they're supposed to be using, either Kentucky or Michigan State would've ended up in Louisville if they had been the top two seed.

FWIW I share your suspicion that Michigan State didn't really help itself at all by winning the Big Ten. I think they were too far behind Tennessee for one win (even a top ten win) to make a difference. Losing might've knocked them behind Kentucky or Michigan, but I actually don't think they would've been too mad about dropping behind Kentucky or Michigan, given that their "reward" for being the 2nd-best two-seed was playing in Duke's region.