Heard him on Mike Pratt's show this morning and he said there is no justifcation for it unless they lose one or two more games.
DeCourcy said putting Wisconsin in UK's region is indefensible
- Thread starter SilentsAreGolden
- Start date
It's so obvious... probably why the Selection Committee won't see it that way.
Hopefully, they win the B10 tournament championship.
They'll just fall back on what we've been hearing for a month or more now, it's a favor to Wisconsin because Cleveland is closer to Madison than any of the other regional sites. Never mind they'd be paired with the overall #1 seed. That's insignificant, or so they will say. What they would be ignoring is it's even closer to Lexington, and doesn't require navigating through or around Chicago. It's good to be the overall #1!
The committee of knuckleheads don't have to justify anything, just look back at last year's bracket as proof.
That's what I thought when I saw the projection. Even Duke a #2 in our bracket doesn't look right to me. UK, Virginia, Wisconsin and Duke to me should be #1's. And we should have the lowest #2 seed in our bracket, whoever that should be.
It really is ridiculous that that's their line of thinking.
"Hey Wisconsin, we know you're the 5th best team but trust us, it's way more beneficial for you to be closer to home and matched up with the overall #1 - who by the way did I mention is undefeated, super talented and ended your season last year? You can thank us later for looking out for you guys and rewarding you for a great season."
It'll have shades of 2010 written all over it if we get Wisconsin. Good thing we are a much better outside shooting team in 2015 vs 2010.
West Virginia could have easily been a #1. They were certainly the strongest #2. They should have been in Duke's region. But Duke got super soft Villanova as their #2 and a cakewalk to the Final 4.
West Virginia could have easily been a #1. They were certainly the strongest #2. They should have been in Duke's region. But Duke got super soft Villanova as their #2 and a cakewalk to the Final 4.
You know, as far as having to play them is concerned, it wouldn't bother me. It's likely we'll have to play them at some point anyway. But as far as fairness is concerned, it wouldn't be fair to either UK or Wisconsin.
Here's how it SHOULD work...
The top #1 seed gets the worst #2 seed. So, that would mean that UK should be getting the #8 rated team for its #2. That's how it should work. That's certainly not how it worked last season, which was a HUGE screw-up by the committee, making UK an 8-seed and making their #1 overall have to play UK in the second round. It was a travesty for everyone.
Wisconsin, if they are the best of the 2-seeds, should get the weakest of the #1 seeds in their bracket. That's just my opinion.
The easiest way to accomplish this is to rank the team 1-68 and try your best to group the teams properly.
Top overall team gets the #8 team as its 2-seed, the number 12 team as its 3-seed, the number 16 team as its 4-seed, and so on. Now, after the top 4 teams in a region, the rankings aren't as critical, but the best teams should break down this way.
Here's how it SHOULD work...
The top #1 seed gets the worst #2 seed. So, that would mean that UK should be getting the #8 rated team for its #2. That's how it should work. That's certainly not how it worked last season, which was a HUGE screw-up by the committee, making UK an 8-seed and making their #1 overall have to play UK in the second round. It was a travesty for everyone.
Wisconsin, if they are the best of the 2-seeds, should get the weakest of the #1 seeds in their bracket. That's just my opinion.
The easiest way to accomplish this is to rank the team 1-68 and try your best to group the teams properly.
Top overall team gets the #8 team as its 2-seed, the number 12 team as its 3-seed, the number 16 team as its 4-seed, and so on. Now, after the top 4 teams in a region, the rankings aren't as critical, but the best teams should break down this way.
This makes way too much sense for them to ever adopt it! At the very least, I agree with Dukie V., they should reseed the teams at the Final 4 to offset their mistakes in initial seeding...
While I agree with this somewhat, it should be done on an S curve to be fair to everyone involved. In other words, it should be the top 1 seed, the lowest 2 seed, the highest 3 seed, the lowest 4 seed, and so on. This rewards everyone involved and is fair to all. However, it will never happen that way.
The Regional sites next year are: Philadelphia, Chicago, Lousiville, and Anaheim.
What would you guys say next year if UK is the top 2 seed and they send us to Anaheim instead of to Louisville because the lowest 1 seed is out West?
Just curious if everyone would be okay with that or if some of you would think it was a slight to UK?
What would you guys say next year if UK is the top 2 seed and they send us to Anaheim instead of to Louisville because the lowest 1 seed is out West?
Just curious if everyone would be okay with that or if some of you would think it was a slight to UK?
Yeah because they are almost a lock to get to the FF unless they put them in with UK and in that case they will go home early.
It would be a slight to UK under the system they have used in recent years. However, if everyone were on notice that the emphasis on geographic location would give way to better seeding practices, I'd be okay with it.
How good do you guys think Villanova is? they're the one elite team this year record wise that I have probably seen the least of and I haven't really assessed their schedule. I did see on RPI that their SOS is 32.
If UK were the BEST #2 seed and were placed in the same bracket with the overall #1 seed, it would be still be ridiculous. We as fans would be thankful for the opportunity to potentially see them play in Louisville, but I don't think many would believe that it was fair nor made much sense.
And quite frankly, I'd be furious if I were the #1 overall seed and the committee essentially set up a game against UK in a virtual road game in order to reach the Final Four.
Regardless, this isn't so much about us worrying about proximity for Wisconsin. We know we'd still be the dominant fan base in Cleveland. The scenario you're describing would be similar to the NCAA placing UK in a Cleveland regional with OSU as the #2 (if they were good enough), In that scenario, I think UK fans would prefer to be the #1 seed in the South instead.
Agreed. And in Buc's scenario UK would go to Chicago or Philly, not Anaheim. You do not put the top 2 seed with the 1...it defies logic and Wisconsin does not have to go out west as a 2, they could go to Houston or Syracuse. What is the issue here?
If Wisconsin wins out I would make them a #1 seed and only take one team from the ACC. Sorry Duke, you are a number two seed if I am doing the selecting.
Wichita State was not the overall #1 seed last year, Florida was. WSU was the third #1. UK was considered the first 8 seed...their overall rating was 29. Strictly by the numbers UK should have been paired with Virginia which was the fourth #1. Again by the strict S-curve WSU would have received Gonzaga which was the #30 overall team.
I agree with everyone's opinions in this thread but don't forget that the NCAA is really in the business of selling tickets and making $$$$. As soon as NCAA tournament tickets sales took a noticeable decline they ditched the S-Curve and went to this geographic non-sense to sell more tickets because nobody east of the Mississippi was going out west to watch there team play in that regional. The NCAA doesn't get any money from the college football playoff there entire budget comes from March Madness so remember to look through that prism when judging the NCAA's actions in this area.
This post was edited on 3/6 3:52 PM by Untouchables22
This post was edited on 3/6 3:52 PM by Untouchables22
The claim is that they seed based on geographical location so that's probably the defense they will use. I don't agree with that seeding practice, I think it leads to super brackets like the one we were in last year. But regardless of whether or not it's the right way to seed it seems to be the way they are doing it
I agree with Vitale on that, and am very much of the same opinion IL. But if that's what happens, and we are all just speculating, I'm certain most will say geography was the reason. It's just the luck of the draw on where the sites are this year.
I also think given the map of where the power lies in college basketball the NCAA needs to give some thought to putting the Western Regional further east closer to the Big 10/12 teams. Let say, oh gosh I don't know, it were in Denver. Then sending Wisconsin there wouldn't be much different than Cleveland. Of course the Pac 12 would howl, and these things do vary over time, but the current reality is there just aren't many great programs west of the high plains. San Antonio, Albuquerque, and SLC would also be better alternatives. I don't really know how the site selection works though, it may be just a bidding war on the part of different locations.
I was talking about the S-curve. According to the S-curve UK would go West in that scenario. The lowest 1 gets the highest 2. Geography does not matter.
A lot of people are arguing for the S-curve over geography, I was just curious if their stance would be the same if it displaced us.
If we are the 4th #1 next year and get sent out West, it will suck for fans traveling but will probably mean that we get the easiest bracket. More often than not, the West bracket is the weakest.
The question is whether the committee really means to go by the S-curve. They have said in interviews that they want to use better seeding practices, but does that mean strict adherence to the S-curve. Doubtful.
Also, keep in mind they have stated that they were also considering proximity, so while the S-curve is the most important criteria it is still just one factor.
In the end, they aren't going to send UW to LA and Zaga to Cleveland just to make sure that the top 1 gets the worst 2 and the worst 1 gets the best 2, so geography will play a big part, IMHO.
Strict S-curve would look like this if the tourney started now (based on what most people believe with the top 8 being in this order: UK, UVA, Duke, Nova, UW, Zona, Zaga, KU):
Midwest- UK/KU
East- UVA/Zaga
South- Duke/Zona
West- Nova/UW
No way they do that. No team west of the Rockies in the West region? Nova and UW both sent West? Zaga and Zona having to travel thousands of miles as 2 seeds? All that in the name of better seeding practices.
Who is happy in that situation? UK and UVA are the only teams that are happy. Nova, UW, Zona, and Zaga should all be upset. KU is stuck with us in Cleveland (but as the lowest 2, they have no room to argue). Should the tourney cater to the top two teams?
Just some questions to ponder. I am all for UK getting the easiest path, but this is not about what is best for UK, it's about a balanced competitive tourney. Or at least that is how it should be.
I am trying to figure out what the committee will do, not what I hope they will do, or what they should do to be fair. Those things are probably all different scenarios.
Midwest- UK/KU
East- UVA/Zaga
South- Duke/Zona
West- Nova/UW
No way they do that. No team west of the Rockies in the West region? Nova and UW both sent West? Zaga and Zona having to travel thousands of miles as 2 seeds? All that in the name of better seeding practices.
Who is happy in that situation? UK and UVA are the only teams that are happy. Nova, UW, Zona, and Zaga should all be upset. KU is stuck with us in Cleveland (but as the lowest 2, they have no room to argue). Should the tourney cater to the top two teams?
Just some questions to ponder. I am all for UK getting the easiest path, but this is not about what is best for UK, it's about a balanced competitive tourney. Or at least that is how it should be.
I am trying to figure out what the committee will do, not what I hope they will do, or what they should do to be fair. Those things are probably all different scenarios.
This. Read this on Mark Titus' power rankings. Selection Sunday would be one of the most fascinating sports events of the year. It would really bump up the storylines and you know ESPN would love to over-analyze and breakdown coaches' reasoning for their selection.
I bet RP would take a 7 seed just to not be in UK's bracket.
I hope they put the top 6 teams in UKs bracket so they can beat them all and shut everyone up once and for all.
The S Curve is done. It's been done for awhile.
If Wisconsin is a 2 seed (which I'm not entirely sure they will be as I think they have the chance for a 1 seed), more than likely they will be in UK regions.
Geography over balance.
It is what it is honestly.
If Wisconsin is a 2 seed (which I'm not entirely sure they will be as I think they have the chance for a 1 seed), more than likely they will be in UK regions.
Geography over balance.
It is what it is honestly.
I like your idea of moving the West region into the mountain west. This alone would alleviate many of the concerns associated with geographic issues. Frankly, I think the far western teams just need to either a) get better; or b) travel in the tournament.
The S Curve is done. It's been done for awhile.
If Wisconsin is a 2 seed (which I'm not entirely sure they will be as I think they have the chance for a 1 seed), more than likely they will be in UK regions.
Geography over balance.
It is what it is honestly."
Folks in this mindset have not been paying attention. Honestly the only way to seed the teams is to use the S curve while being cognizant of geography. Also it's a hell of a lot more than just looking at who the 1s and 2s are. You gotta at least look at the 3s and 4s to determine where teams go. It starts with UK and okra from there...if the tourney were today UVA would be the next best team and definite 1 seed. After that I would think Villanova would be the number 3 team. Then Arizona, based on geography and common sense. They are as good as Duke or Wisconsin; however, they are close to LA. Hello!
Since UK is overall 1 they will get the first round home games in louisville playing out of the Midwest and UVa playing in Houston vs Syracuse is not a huge difference. Their fans will have to fly regardless. Villanova in the east makes geographic sense but really no more than Cleveland if nova were to fall to a two seed. Nevertheless, the two seeds are difficult but I think it would look like this...Duke in the east with Villanova. They aren't going to put duke and UVA together so Duke goes east unless they win out and UVA lose two. Wisconsin heads to Houston as the two seed. Again Wisconsin like UVA will haves to look at flying it's not like the quarters are going to be in Minneapolis. Kansas is by far the worst of the twos, they are a Midwest team and again the quarters aren't in KC so no difference between Houston or Cleveland. Which leaves again using common sense, Gonzaga in the west as the two seed. The only real time I see geography playing a factor is with the west regionals bc 3 time zones is ridiculous to force a team.
The way Wisconsin get the one seed is if Duke and Villanova lose, then they would move to one in the east with Duke as two which would set up 3 potential rematches in regionals Villanova going south or if KU were to win out Villanove could end up in Cleveland.
UK/KU
UVA/Wisconsin
Villanova/Duke
Arizona/Gonzaga
If Wisconsin is a 2 seed (which I'm not entirely sure they will be as I think they have the chance for a 1 seed), more than likely they will be in UK regions.
Geography over balance.
It is what it is honestly."
Folks in this mindset have not been paying attention. Honestly the only way to seed the teams is to use the S curve while being cognizant of geography. Also it's a hell of a lot more than just looking at who the 1s and 2s are. You gotta at least look at the 3s and 4s to determine where teams go. It starts with UK and okra from there...if the tourney were today UVA would be the next best team and definite 1 seed. After that I would think Villanova would be the number 3 team. Then Arizona, based on geography and common sense. They are as good as Duke or Wisconsin; however, they are close to LA. Hello!
Since UK is overall 1 they will get the first round home games in louisville playing out of the Midwest and UVa playing in Houston vs Syracuse is not a huge difference. Their fans will have to fly regardless. Villanova in the east makes geographic sense but really no more than Cleveland if nova were to fall to a two seed. Nevertheless, the two seeds are difficult but I think it would look like this...Duke in the east with Villanova. They aren't going to put duke and UVA together so Duke goes east unless they win out and UVA lose two. Wisconsin heads to Houston as the two seed. Again Wisconsin like UVA will haves to look at flying it's not like the quarters are going to be in Minneapolis. Kansas is by far the worst of the twos, they are a Midwest team and again the quarters aren't in KC so no difference between Houston or Cleveland. Which leaves again using common sense, Gonzaga in the west as the two seed. The only real time I see geography playing a factor is with the west regionals bc 3 time zones is ridiculous to force a team.
The way Wisconsin get the one seed is if Duke and Villanova lose, then they would move to one in the east with Duke as two which would set up 3 potential rematches in regionals Villanova going south or if KU were to win out Villanove could end up in Cleveland.
UK/KU
UVA/Wisconsin
Villanova/Duke
Arizona/Gonzaga