A team that consistently had great talent still has great talent. I really don't see what is difficult about this.
I don't see what is difficult about answering the question. And yet you didn't. Unless, hold on, was that your actual answer?
Uh, ya. That was my answer. A title from 3 years ago at a school is relevant because it demonstrates that the school, with a recent (and more) history of winning big is still, gasp, winning big. Do you need an illustration? Further, Kentucky seems to still be making runs just like they have been for a very long time. Citing "parity" is the tail waggin the dog in that the way seeding was conducted, and the way it is usually conducted, sucks. Do you think VCU, Oklahoma, Cincinnati, or Saint Louis were demonstrably better teams than UConn or Kentucky? Of course not, you aren't retarded. Yet they were seeded 2 to 3 spots above those teams. UPSET ALERT!
Cincinnati and UCONN played in the same conference, one that plays a true round robin league schedule. The Bearcats tied for the league title and finished 3 games ahead of the Huskies.
They beat Cincinnati 2 out of 3 times. They made it to their conference tournament finals, knocking off Cincinnati along the way. They had almost identical RPI's on selection Sunday and UConn had a stronger SOS. There is no reasonable way that I can find for putting Cincinnati ahead of UConn by two seeds. Either UConn was underseeded or Cincinnati was overseeded.
(rankings below are from kenpom. feel free to use another ranking if you like it more.) Quality wins = kenpom top 50 teams or teams that made the NCAA tourney at-large. Bad losses = kenpom 100+ teams or getting beat by 30 by anybody. Cincy quality wins: NC State 55 Pitt 19 Nebraska 44 SMU 30 Memphis 37 Louisville 1 UConn 23 Memphis 37 Cincy bad losses: none UConn quality wins: Maryland 40 Florida 3 Harvard 32 Memphis 37 Memphis 37 Memphis 37 Cincy 19 Cincy 19 UConn bad losses: Houston 125 Louisville 1, 48-81 UConn conference: AAC Cincy conference: AAC Cincy conference record: 15-3 UConn conference record: 12-6
Next year everybody is required to do their own seedings before the field is announced or they lose all rights to subsequently [itch bay] about the seeding. New rule.
That's utter nonsense. If you think it's surprising that a team that wins a regular season conference title and finishes three games ahead of another team is a put in the 5 slot while the other team gets a 7, there's no reason for us to continue this debate.
But lost to 2 out of 3 times? Come on. Please also go over VCU, Oklahoma, and Saint Louis. Let's talk about how nonsensical my claim is on those as well.
It's the quality of teams that have to be seeded low due to having lost too many games during the season. That's actually a stronger argument for parity than a 1 and done scenario littered with flukes.
All three played in conferences vastly superior to the SEC and better than the AAC. Take a look at who the best team Kentucky beat outside Rupp Arena during the regular season was. Other than a win over a Florida team missing multiple players, UCONN's profile is exactly what a seven seed usually looks like.
UCONN beat Florida in the regular season. Obviously the Huskies should have received a bye to the Final Four. They beat the number one overall. If UCONN was so wildly underseeded, why did they need a furious rally and overtime to beat the sixth best team in the A-10 in their first game?
Yup. The second best team UK beat was Tennessee. The third best was Providence. They had no other notable wins. They could have had other notable wins, but they didn't win the games.
They didn't even beat UT outside Rupp. When Providence is the best win you have outside your own building, you can't complain much about your seeding.
No doubt. Kentucky and UCONN were so dominant and never tested in the tournament that we should all have seen that coming.
