Fedya posted:The NCAA is as pure as FIFA.
That's like, "Which is a purer skank", Madonna or Jenny McCarthy?
Fedya posted:The NCAA is as pure as FIFA.
N one is quite that pure. As pure as manure.
Xavier dispatching Terps.....Big Ten not starting Tourney well.
If it wasn't for the committee the Badgers would not have had the chance to knock out number one and beat the defending champs.
Bucky was never slighted and the seeding was close (I thought they were a 7, maybe a 6 if they win the B10 tournament. There were worse seedings (See MN).
Just because an underdog beats a higher seed doesn't mean someone was disrespected, it means it is a one and done tournament and they play the games for a reason.
I suspect Joe is just so involved in 40 times and consensus boards right now putting a quality take on the Badger board was really just asking to much.
Pikes Peak posted:If it wasn't for the committee the Badgers would not have had the chance to knock out number one and beat the defending champs.
Thank you, ****ing committee.
All 5 starters with tournament experience and multiple Sweet 16 appearances is a big reason why they won. It's also a big part of why Bucky was indeed slighted. I mean Gophers playing in Milwaukee as a 5 seed? Give me a break.
Kaminski and Dekker both going public in agreement:
In any event, it was a huge blessing in disguise. I think being the underdog really helped this team out. It made their job easier and made their whole season. They are loving it and so the whole country right now.
[EDIT: No idea why that link is busted but it is easy to find at MSN.]
El-Stalker-Bong posted:Bucky was never slighted and the seeding was close (I thought they were a 7, maybe a 6 if they win the B10 tournament. There were worse seedings (See MN).
They were slighted.
For whatever reason they got the whole Big Ten wrong except for Purdue. And when the get it this wrong, the only conclusion to me is bias. Wisconsin was not the 4th or 5th best team in the conference. That's how they were seeded, and both you and the committee are dead wrong. And this weekend proved it.
phaedrus posted:Music City posted:There is no logical explanation for what the committee has done to Wisconsin... none.
Yeah there is. FIVE straight losses when it counts the most in the regular season. We're not talking one game or two games or three games.
Their All-Conference PG was playing hurt for 3 of those games, then didn't play in the 4th. After his return, they won all the way to the BT title game and trounced Minnesota.
We have seen this kind of thing before with the committee. Legacy teams get all kinds of concessions- for instance Duke. An 8 loss as team a 2 seed? Well, they played a tougher scedule, they have good wins. They were 11-7 in league play, with losses to NC State, Syracuse, Miami... we have seen similar Wisconsin teams with similar RPIs and just as many quality wins get 4 seeds, 5 seeds. So how do they get a 2? Benefit of the doubt. The default is that "they're Duke".
Now I don't have a problem with Duke at #2. I do have a problem with the fact that Wisconsin had a bad stretch and the committee saw it fit to place them 3 seeds below a team they beat twice, including at season's end in a blowout.
The only time Wisconsin get the same benefit of the doubt that Duke got this year is when the Big Ten has 2-3 potential 1 seeds and Wisconsin has beaten them. In my opinion, the Wisconsin program has built up that default- the program is at that status.
I'm guessing Villanova thinks the Badgers would have made a fine 4 seed.
Bucky played like ****, like complete and total **** the month of Feb (yup guys were hurt. Still played like ****). The big Ten is not a great conf (this is also playing out in the tourney). Piss and moan all you want, an 8 seed was about right (like I've said a bunch of time, to low in my opinion, but not that low). MN was wrong, very wrong, but to assume that means Bucky should have been higher is also wrong, it just means MN was some moronic seeding. All the "relative to MN" talk is horse**** not because every other team was wrong, it was horse**** because MN was seeded wrong.
Villanova can wish Bucky was one of the other #1 seeds, doesn't mean mean **** because Bucky was the better team today. I'm glad to see Bucky got the ship right at the right time. 4 seniors + Happ should be a tough out in the tourney, I'm just glad they are not playing like they did a month ago.
Music City posted:. In my opinion, the Wisconsin program has built up that default- the program is at that status.
Oh for ****s sake. "Program" seeding is horse**** too.
El-Stalker-Bong posted:MN was wrong, very wrong, but to assume that means Bucky should have been higher is also wrong, it just means MN was some moronic seeding.
No it shows they were wrong on both.
The February slump was long over by the time Bucky finished second in the Big Ten tournament. They didn't just fall apart and suck in February and that was the end of them. In the Big ten tourny, it was the same team that had rolled people for most of the season. It was the same team that had made 3 Sweet Sixteens in a row. The committee should have seen this. It is their only job.
Obviously, by the current state of things alone, the committee was wrong about Bucky when they seeded them this year. Is it that big a deal? No, but neither is pointing it out. And Minnesota is the glaring, in-conference comparison that makes it that much more obvious.
To use your words, it was moronic seeding. On both of them.
I'm done being a Badger fan with an inferiority complex. If they wanted a higher seed they should have beaten Iowa, or Michigan and taken the Big10
I'm glad they are taking care of business now. I'm glad they are playing like I thought they should play
It'll be really interesting to watch tomorrow... if Michigan and Michigan State advance, that sure would make for interesting debate on the merits of saying how down the B1G was this year.
Pikes Peak posted:If it wasn't for the committee the Badgers would not have had the chance to knock out number one and beat the defending champs.
So that's why the committee gave Wisconsin an 8 seed? They wanted The Badgers to face Villanova? So, they gave the Gophers a 5 seed so they could face Middle Tennessee and the Terps a 6 seed so they could face Xavier? I guess that worked out for everyone except Villanova, Minnesota and Maryland, then, didn't it. So far, my picks with the Big Ten teams are right on the money. Here's hoping this 8 seed goes all the way!
I don't see State or Michigan winning today, but man would I love to see Louisville and Kansas go down. Purdue beating IaSt was nothing to laugh at, IaSt is very, very talented (and often not smart with the ball). Painter did try to lose last night, I guess Swanigan would have nothing to do with that.
I actually think the best chance for an upset today will be one of the 11 seeds, even though Michigan has been playing on heart for a month now, they have had to squeak a few through.
Best tournament in sports
Here is the listing, 1-68 from the NCAA.
NCAA just put out the 1-68 seed list. Here it is: pic.twitter.com/PKT1jhIWNL
— Luke Winn (@lukewinn) March 12, 2017
I think Bucky should have been a 6 or a 7. They didn't belong in the top 16 when the first list came out, but certainly could have played their way on to it by beating (NW at home, MI, MISt, O$U, and Iowa at home) a couple teams. Seeding as a 6 or 7 puts them just outside the top 20, which is about right. The mistake people are making is looking at the head to heads and making a decision based on that. The committee considers head to heads also, but it is part of the factor and certainly not a Wisconsin-centric perspective like we have ('But how did Wisconsin do against them?"). When you look at RPI, I think it answers a lot about the committees seeding.
You can see, Purdue also could have done themselves a favor by playing better down the stretch, but based on RPI the committee did them a favor, RPI is about the only reason I can fathom MN got what they got, primarily because RPI doesn't take into account teamwork or heart, something MN had neither of. I suspect the committee felt it did Bucky a favor by seeding them 26 considering the RPI was much lower, of course that metric didn't account for how the slump was impacted by injuries, but it also shouldn't. The committee also doesn't consider who was hurt when (that would be a nightmare, and subjective as hell) and in the end you get Bucky, seeded a little lower than most people thought and MN seeded higher than most people thought. I'd never say MN passed an eyeball test (I said after the game, talented as hell, but no heart or teamwork) but the committee is working more off raw numbers (as they should). If RPI contributed as much as it looks like here, then I would say RPI is overvalued, but that is just one man's opinion, I'll let Barry deal with that.
Bucky has always been a better team than they played early in 2017. I give a lot of credit to Guard for righting the ship, and tons of credit to Hayes and Koenig for being huge as seniors so far (and Vitto, perhaps his best game as a Badger yesterday).
Now it is time to focus on Florida, seedings don't mean **** anymore.
Attachments
Images (1)
I wouldn't have thought it should be based on an eyeball test either, except that is what a committee member admitted they sometimes actually do. It was last year or the year before on Rome or one of those guys, and he actually used the words "eyeball test" on the air!
I can't remember if it was a member or a former member or what, but he actually said that is what it sometimes comes down to. That was the only reason I said that.
Happy as a pig in **** it went that way now, it totally helped our boys out. And that adrenaline rush yesterday was a personal best on my end. Holy crap I almost passed out.
The committee screwed things up no matter how you slice it. No way UW is or was an 8 seed and making matters worse was shipping them out to Buffalo.
In the end the reverse psychology may have helped take the edge off as it looks like they are loose and having fun. Nova looked like the team that was pressing snd playing under pressure.
Nova ended up getting screwed, They were the overall number one seed & UNC should have not even have been a number 1. However look at who each got for their second round. Does anyone in the country think that Arkansas is anywhere near as good as UW?
Michigan advances... from the "down" Big Ten Conference...
I feel like I wandered into a Hawkeye or Gopher message board, that is a population that always feels slighted.
Great work by Michigan though, Sweet 16 is a nicer place without Pitino's cluttering it up.
Love to see State beat Kansas. Anytime Kansas loses is a good thing for college hoops. Harder to cheer for USC over Baylor. That is like picking getting punched in the neck or getting punched in the balls. Similar with Duke and SC. Rhode Island is the easy one to cheer for this afternoon.
El-Stalker-Bong posted:I feel like I wandered into a Hawkeye or Gopher message board, that is a population that always feels slighted.
You frequent Iowa and Minnesota message boards? Whatever floats your boat dude...
Forgot Wichita State, another easy cheer this afternoon
Music City posted:You frequent Iowa and Minnesota message boards? Whatever floats your boat dude...
I'd seed this burn as a play in game. PJ gives it a two seed.
And like this topic, you'd be wrong again.
I originally posted that Wisconsin deserved the seed they got, but when reminded of Koenig's woes in February, posted that I was wrong.
A couple thoughts.
Believing Bucky was seeded poorly need not be motivated by some "inferiority complex." No need to add to the discussion what may not be relevant.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/...-villanova/99360396/
excerpt:
It’s true Wisconsin lost five of its next six games, and didn’t look particularly good in doing so. But Koenig wasn’t at full strength for part of that stretch because of a leg injury — he missed the Feb. 16 loss at Michigan — and anyone who has watched the Badgers the last few days knows how vital he is.
Koenig made eight three-pointers to lead Wisconsin over Virginia Tech in the first round, then scored 17 on 7-of-11 shooting against Villanova.
end of excerpt
While seeding is inexact, a consideration that has been used historically is how good the team is considered at the present time. The most significant example that comes to mind for me is the 1999-2000 Cincinnati team which was #1 or #2 in the country the entire year. They were a lock as a regional #1 seed, but was seeded #2.
Why?
Because Kenyon Martin, their best player, suffered a season ending injury in I believe their final game before the tournament.
Wisconsin should have been a 5, perhaps a 6.
And DOWN goes Dookie. 3, 4, 7 & 8 alive in the East. Bet nobody has those 4 in their bracket.
Lots of close games, lots of parity in the NCAA.
Well, that's a nice write-up. thanks GL. IF we can make our free throws...and maintain the discipline on Defense...I do believe we have a shot at Going to Phoenix!
Goalline posted:
I wonder if this is even unprecedented. As a #8, Wisconsin was slated as anywhere from being ranked 29-32 in the country.
That article places Wisconsin third.
That's why I think the Badgers got dissed a bit. Duke? a #2 Seed this year? I mean, really? It's based on history. Wisconsin has EARNED their place over the past 17 years....definitely now over the past 10 years. It's a solid program, with a down year here and there. I hope Gard can keep it going with the recruiting as Bo was one of those quirky personalities that recruits love....time will tell.
Bo Ryan was actually not the best recruiter. That was Gard. Most of the important gets were Gards.
But Gard has some work to do- there's a serious lack of development that has me concerned about the underclass kids. I fear that there may be a big drop off next year, and that would be damaging. With Reuvers, King, and the Davison they have promising talent coming in... but wil they develop?