1 Seeds

I do think this is most probable. I didn't read the rest.

 

Yup.

 

Wherever Tennessee gets seeded, and wherever they play - I will wager that the Committee is going to make us beat one of the ACC teams to get to the Final Four, be it Duke, UNC or UVA.

 

How would we be able to do that?

I do think the 2008 team gets a 1 if we win the SEC tournament, but I’m not sure how that could be proven.

 

Palm has us playing the first round in Columbus. Lunardi has us in Jacksonville (as the 2 seed in the South).

It looks like Columbus and Columbia, SC are the two most logical places for us to go in the first round, so we'll be in one of those two places as long as there aren't four teams ahead of us that also make the most sense in those two places. Lunardi has us in Jacksonville because he has Virginia (Columbus), Kentucky (Columbus), Duke (Columbia), and UNC (Columbia) all ahead of us. Jacksonville is probably our worst-case scenario for the first weekend though.

For the second weekend, I think DC, Louisville, and Kansas City would all be reasonable, with the obvious preference for Louisville. Anaheim against Gonzaga obviously the one we're trying to avoid.

 

The last time we were #1 didn't we go from possibly being the last #1 seed to ending up as the last #2 seed?

 

Kinda? I don't remember if they actually released the overall seeds back in 2008, but IIRC there was a lot of speculation that they just sent us to Charlotte for geographic reasons, despite the fact that it made the matchups more difficult. Not sure if anyone ever confirmed either way though.

 

We had as good of a resume as anyone in the country that year, too.

 

The rest just said, “[uck fay] Cotton.”

Nothing you wouldn’t expect, or haven’t heard.

 

Are those point differentials in our favor?

 

of the pool of 7 1or 2 seeds, they probably won't give us UK or Gonzaga. that ups the odds too.

 

I'd guess Michigan or Michigan State.

 

differential, not point spread you degenerate.

 

Came here to post this.

I think basketball media is A) Overrating conference tournaments. B) Ignoring losses and C) Overrating metrics.

No idea what the selection committee will go by year to year, but it seems like they really focus on a "body of work" that includes that crappy loss back in January.

 

Also, if we're a 1 seed, we're not going out west. Gonzaga will be locked in that region. Duke/UVA will be locked into the East regional I believe, so that leaves the South or Midwest region.

 

Interesting point someone mentioned -

UNC gets credit for beating Duke, but Duke gets a pass because Zion was out. How does that add up?

 

You'd be able to do that if a team that wasn't a 1 won it's tourney and got a 1 or if a team that was a 1 lost it's tourney and wasn't a 1.

I can think of some examples of the opposite: 2010 Miss St comes to mind, mainly because I watched it in person, where a bubble team got no credit for a run to the championship game and an overtime loss. Last season, USC played it's way in by finishing runner-up in the PAC-10 tourney, except they didn't get a bid. Also last year, 5 seed Michigan (ranked 20 at the end of the regular season,) seemed to have not helped itself at all by winning the B10 tourney. Notre Dame couldn't play itself off of the 3 line in 2015 despite winning the ACC. Virginnie couldn't lose itself off of the 1 in '16.

So it isn't that hard to find examples where it looks like the committee didn't take tournaments into account at all. And without fully delving into the intricate history of every major conference tournament and their consequent seeding, it seems that teams are seeded after the conference tournament where they would have been seeded before the conference tournament without regard to results in the conference tournament more often than you would expect if the committee actually watched the conference tournaments. At the very least, I think the tourneys have very, very little impact other than if a team wins it that otherwise would not be in at all.

 

Flirting will get you nowhere.

 

that's why when the committee says they consider injuries/personnel availability, I cringe.

 

Hope they also consider unethical reffing. Bad reffing is one thing, unethical is another.