On 1 seeds, 2 seeds and geographic preference

[Blind Karl Hess]

Full disclosure: Kentucky is the best team in the world and I have as much supreme confidence in them to win it all as is humanly possible, as winning the tournament is hard no matter how good you are. Bring everybody on.

Now then, onto the major talking point this year from Lego man Joe Lunardi, who insists that the committee will give the 2 seeds equal geographic preference as the 1 seeds. The argument is that the 1 vs. 2 matchup in the elite 8 round happens so infrequently that it would be unfair to the 2 seed to not get geographic preference as well in case the 1 seed loses before that round.

This felt like complete crap as soon as I heard it, so I went to sports-reference.com/cbb to check it out. Since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been 120 elite 8 games. In those 120 games...

The 1 seed has played the 2 seed 41 times.

The 1 seed has played somebody else 41 times.

The 2 seed has played somebody else 18 times.

So the 1 seed makes the elite 8 roughly 2/3 of the time and the 2 seed makes the elite 8 around half the time. About 1 in every 6 times the 2 seed gets there and somebody other than the 1 seed is waiting for them.

I think Kentucky would beat Wisconsin. But that game doesn't need to happen in a regional final because those are (JMO) the two best teams in the country. Surely they won't do this for real, right?

 

[jedwar]

BKH, I don't think the committee will do that. The backlash would be immense. Of course, we are talking about the NCAA here.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

I tend to agree about Wisconsin.

But if they are the 2nd best team in the country, they will be on that 1 seed line and we won't see them until the Final Four or title game

 

[Blind Karl Hess]

Originally posted by Jerry.Edwards:
BKH, I don't think the committee will do that. The backlash would be immense. Of course, we are talking about the NCAA here.

I think the committee should make Missouri our 2 seed for geographic preference. That's fair, right?

We won't be able to play them all, but I'm fully expecting Wichita, Louisville and Wisconsin all in the bracket with us. Like you said, it's the NCAA we're talking about.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Originally posted by Blind Karl Hess:
Full disclosure: Kentucky is the best team in the world and I have as much supreme confidence in them to win it all as is humanly possible, as winning the tournament is hard no matter how good you are. Bring everybody on.

Now then, onto the major talking point this year from Lego man Joe Lunardi, who insists that the committee will give the 2 seeds equal geographic preference as the 1 seeds. The argument is that the 1 vs. 2 matchup in the elite 8 round happens so infrequently that it would be unfair to the 2 seed to not get geographic preference as well in case the 1 seed loses before that round.

This felt like complete crap as soon as I heard it, so I went to sports-reference.com/cbb to check it out. Since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been 120 elite 8 games. In those 120 games...

The 1 seed has played the 2 seed 41 times.

The 1 seed has played somebody else 41 times.

The 2 seed has played somebody else 18 times.

So the 1 seed makes the elite 8 roughly 2/3 of the time and the 2 seed makes the elite 8 around half the time. About 1 in every 6 times the 2 seed gets there and somebody other than the 1 seed is waiting for them.

I think Kentucky would beat Wisconsin. But that game doesn't need to happen in a regional final because those are (JMO) the two best teams in the country. Surely they won't do this for real, right?

1. No one knows if it will happen for real. The committee will catch a lot of hell if they do it...especially if Wisconsin wins today and beats everyone next week to win the Big Ten tourney (and they have a cakewalk to the finals IMO), with Jackson back to help them to boot? Oh hell no.
2. Once again, and I keep asking this and no one will give me a good answer, how is Wisconsin being even 1% rewarded for a great season and not getting a 1 seed by being placed in the bracket of an undefeated juggernaut that they have little chance of beating? All in the name of geography? Hell no once again. Wisconsin has NO geographical advantage in Cleveland due to the BBN. They will be in the minority by a ton if we play them in the Elite 8.
3. Ultimately I keep going back and forth on if Wisconsin will be UK's 2 or not if they are in fact a 2 seed. The committee honestly has a tough job to do this year with 1's and 2 seeds. Logically, if they take balance and then geography (in that order) as factors it should look like this.

Midwest: 1. UK, 7. Gonzaga
East: 2. UVA, 8. Kansas
South: 3. Duke, 5. Wisconsin
West: 4. Villanova, 6. Arizona

Now you see in my projections UVA is getting the easiest two...but overall it is much more fair than UK getting the best 2. Giving the 3rd 1 the best 2 and giving the 4th one the second best 2...is fair. Duke and Nova deserve the toughest two seeds, and I fairly keep both Wisconsin and Arizona closer to home instead of shipping Wisconsin out west and Arizona to the south. Geography should matter...but only after balance is applied IMO. It really should not matter what happens with the one seeds (assuming one drops down) as what I suggested with the 2 seeds should happen. UK should 100% get Gonzaga or Kansas and that is not debatable.

This post was edited on 3/8 9:41 AM by UKWildcats#8

 

[KYBallCoach]

The thought process on placing teams because of geographical preference is stupid. The Midwest will always have the majority of the top teams

 

[Willahelm]

I think UVA should drop to a 2 seed and hope they are in our region.

 

[jedwar]

For geographic and story lines I expect:
2 Gonzaga
3 ND
4 WSU
IU if they make it
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by KYBallCoach:
The thought process on placing teams because of geographical preference is stupid. The Midwest will always have the majority of the top teams

I once thought this but it's not exactly true for a couple of reasons

1) You do have some restrictions on where teams can be placed. On the first four lines, each of the first four teams from a specific conference must be placed in different regions. So it separates it out somewhat.

2) After you get past the first four lines, it appears that the geography is more about the first two rounds and not the regionals.
So let's say Villanova is the last one. They go West region but play their first two rounds closer to home. The teams that get placed in that pod will also be close to Villanova, yet some will go with Villanova and go W.

But in general yes.........and the W will always be the weakest region in theory.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

FWIW when they did the mock media one a few weeks ago this was the totals based on the seed line (lower indicates stronger region)

Midwest 420
East 463
West 493
South 530

So Midwest was the strongest........but the South was actually the worst.

I understand this was just a mock but it's supposed to simulate the actual selection process. Looking at these numbers, it's clear to me they don't care about balancing regions out.

After the first four seed lines, they are supposed to check for balance. Generally the difference between the best and worst should be no more than 5 points according to their procedures but looking back on previous tournaments, I found that most of the time there's more separation. I guess it would be hard to explain to a team "oh we go with geography but the regions were imbalanced so we are going to move just you to balance it out".

It doesn't say anything else after the first four seeds about checking for balance so maybe they don't.
This post was edited on 3/8 10:23 AM by The_Answer1313

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Originally posted by Jerry.Edwards:
For geographic and story lines I expect:
2 Gonzaga
3 ND
4 WSU
IU if they make it
Posted from Rivals Mobile

That would be ideal for UK. The Wiltjer angle COULD save UK from Wisconsin as their 2 seed. It COULD. Of course the geography rules all nerds will say "You can't do that! You can't put poor Wisconsin in the South and little Gonzaga in the Midwest! They are too far from home! How will they find their way home?!!!"

 

[catfanlou]

I want Gonzaga as our two seed . We will beat them forty points. Wisconsin ? we would PROBABLY win be ten or less. Would maybe lose two out of ten games to them but one of those two could be in the NCAA.

Bring on the ZAGS.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

The only way I see Gonzaga in our region is

1) If Gonzaga is ahead of Wisconsin on the 2 line
2) If Arizona is ahead of Gonzaga.

In that case Zona will go W, Zaga MW and Wisconsin S or E.

 

[KingOfBBN]

The geographical thing never pissed me off more than it did in 2010. WVU who was ranked fifth and was competing with Duke as the final one seed got put in our region in Syracuse (a more home advantage for them) while Duke got Nova. That was BS. WVU and Duke should have been in the same bracket while we got the 7th ranked team.

It really isn't hard. 1 Vs 8, 2vs 7, 3 Vs 6, 4 Vs 5

That is supposed to be the reward for how you did all season.

 

[kyjeff1]

I like what ukwildcats#8 has for the pairings but I would like to see one change. Put Wisconsin with UVA and put KU with duke*.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
The geographical thing never pissed me off more than it did in 2010. WVU who was ranked fifth and was competing with Duke as the final one seed got put in our region in Syracuse (a more home advantage for them) while Duke got Nova. That was BS. WVU and Duke should have been in the same bracket while we got the 7th ranked team.

It really isn't hard. 1 Vs 8, 2vs 7, 3 Vs 6, 4 Vs 5

That is supposed to be the reward for how you did all season.

I agree. They should do that......it would balance everything out.

That being said they are more concerned with keeping most teams closer to home so I don't think we ever see it again like that.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
The geographical thing never pissed me off more than it did in 2010. WVU who was ranked fifth and was competing with Duke as the final one seed got put in our region in Syracuse (a more home advantage for them) while Duke got Nova. That was BS. WVU and Duke should have been in the same bracket while we got the 7th ranked team.

It really isn't hard. 1 Vs 8, 2vs 7, 3 Vs 6, 4 Vs 5

That is supposed to be the reward for how you did all season.

They were competing with Syracuse for the last 1, not Duke.

I think people on here forget that UK was not the overall number 1 in 2010. The 1's were 1. KU 2. UK 3. Duke 4. Syracuse (who lied about an injury to get a 1).

I'd say WVU was the best two though for sure...so while we have never seen the number 1 overall seed get the best 2, it has happened to the 2nd 1 seed before so the committee can one up UK again this year as the top 1 by giving them the top 2.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
The geographical thing never pissed me off more than it did in 2010. WVU who was ranked fifth and was competing with Duke as the final one seed got put in our region in Syracuse (a more home advantage for them) while Duke got Nova. That was BS. WVU and Duke should have been in the same bracket while we got the 7th ranked team.

It really isn't hard. 1 Vs 8, 2vs 7, 3 Vs 6, 4 Vs 5

That is supposed to be the reward for how you did all season.

They were competing with Syracuse for the last 1, not Duke.

I think people on here forget that UK was not the overall number 1 in 2010. The 1's were 1. KU 2. UK 3. Duke 4. Syracuse (who lied about an injury to get a 1).

I'd say WVU was the best two though for sure...so while we have never seen the number 1 overall seed get the best 2, it has happened to the 2nd 1 seed before so the committee can one up UK again this year as the top 1 by giving them the top 2.

I don't recall that. The AP had Duke at 3 and the Coach's poll had them at 4. But you may be right because the way the bracket was constructed UK (#2) would have played Duke (#3) in final four. Still, WVU should have been in Cuse's or Duke's bracket. We should have got K-State or Nova.

 

[Bluest Member]

I could care less about distance,you can't convince me that Kentucky wouldn't fare better by being in the South Region than in the Midwest and being stuck in some Northern Arena full of UK Haters,even if it is closer.

Being the Overall #1 Kentucky should get at least the preference of what region,in 2003 they screwed UK by sticking them in the Midwest to play in Minneapolis against Wisconsin and Marquette with hostile crowds that UK Fans couldn't buy their way in,

Who cares if Houston is farther than Cleveland,it will be UK Friendly more than Cleveland will be.

Kentucky belongs in the South,UVA or Duke in the East,Arizona in the West,and whoever gets the other #1 whether Wisconsin or Villanova in the Midwest.
This post was edited on 3/8 11:10 AM by Bluest Member

 

[BoulderCat_rivals187983]

There's little doubt that whoever the 1's and 2's are, and how they are paired all of them will not end up playing in the regional final's. I believe there have been some years when only one 1 seed made it to the Final 4. Heck just last year we had a 7 and an 8 who played for the title. With the single elimination format so many things can happen, and they always do. That's what makes the NCAA tournament so compelling. I've felt for years that once the final 32 are set anyone can beat anyone. Really the 1st round (I don't care if the NCAA calls it the 2nd, the first 4 are just play-in games) is usually the only guaranteed win, and even there some 2's have lost over the years. Hopefully this year goes like 2012 where the Cat's were not seriously challenged until the last 2-3 minutes of the title game. Of course just AD's presence on the court put an end to that. But I'm certainly not counting on that. This is a strong year for college basketball with probably a half dozen or so legitimate title contender's, and many, many more very good teams. It's one of the things that makes UK's run at #1 all year long so impressive.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Originally posted by Bluest Member:

I could care less about distance,you can't convince me that Kentucky wouldn't fare better by being in the South Region than in the Midwest and being stuck in some Northern Arena full of UK Haters,even if it is closer.

Being the Overall #1 Kentucky should get at least the preference of what region,in 2003 they screwed UK by sticking them in the Midwest to play in Minneapolis against Wisconsin and Marquette with hostile crowds that UK Fans couldn't buy their way in,

Who cares if Houston is farther than Cleveland,it will be UK Friendly more than Cleveland will be.

Kentucky belongs in the South,Duke in the East,Arizona in the West,and whoever gets the other #1 whether Wisconsin or Villanova in the Midwest.

Agreed. It does nothing for us when Ohio is Big Ten country. It puts us in the exact situation as the 2010 bracket did. We travel to an arena that the 2 seed has already played in and will have more fans (a more hostile environment is a better description) .

South- Kentucky (Houston)
East- Duke (Syracuse)
West- Arizona (Los Angeles)
Midwest- Wisconsin (Cleveland)

2 seeds I would prefer

South- Gonzaga
East- Kansas/Maryland/Notre Dame 2 seed
West- Villanova (swap Arizona here if you want)
Midwest- Virginia (Cleveland just to get them away from Duke but East would work too)

 

[kyjeff1]

Bluest member, Kentucky to the South??? LOL, why? To avoid Wisconsin? You do realize that by playing in the Midwest UK will be playing in the YUM center and Cleveland? Yet you want to put them in Houston? Makes no sense at all.
UK WILL be in the Midwest.

 

[Xception]

I don't think wsu gets in our region , everybody and the NCAA knows they screwed wsu last year so they cant make up for it by putting them in our bracket . This year has to be an apology from the NCAA to wsu , they could be in the easiest bracket which excludes them from making ours .

 

[jedwar]

UK would be at the Yum no matter the region they are in.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[BoulderCat_rivals187983]

Originally posted by Bluest Member:

I could care less about distance,you can't convince me that Kentucky wouldn't fare better by being in the South Region than in the Midwest and being stuck in some Northern Arena full of UK Haters,even if it is closer.

Being the Overall #1 Kentucky should get at least the preference of what region,in 2003 they screwed UK by sticking them in the Midwest to play in Minneapolis against Wisconsin and Marquette with hostile crowds that UK Fans couldn't buy their way in,

Who cares if Houston is farther than Cleveland,it will be UK Friendly more than Cleveland will be.

Kentucky belongs in the South,UVA or Duke in the East,Arizona in the West,and whoever gets the other #1 whether Wisconsin or Villanova in the Midwest.

This post was edited on 3/8 11:10 AM by Bluest Member

The committee will feel though they are doing UK fans a favor by sending them to Cleveland, but your right it will be more hostile than Houston would be especially if Wisconsin, or another B10 team is there. I like the idea of giving the overall #1 their pick. That would make achieving it a legitimate thing worth having. As it is, it means essentially nothing if geography outweighs pairing them with the 8th overall seed. Then give the 2nd overall their pick of the remaining 3, etc. Before someone pointed out the site locations to me I of course thought UK would be in the South. I mean come one, they're the SEC champions.

I've pointed out a number of times that if we assume the top four are Kentucky (that's a given), Duke, Virginia, and Villanova, making Villanova a 1 seed, and sending them to LA if they make it is hardly doing them a favor. Quite the opposite.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Is it wrong that I don't think both Virginia and Villanova deserve one seeds? Either one or none. How is Wisconsin not a 1 seed? We have to hope for a flameout by Virginia or Villanova early and for Wisconsin to win the conference to avoid them until the final four.


I like the poster's suggestion on letting the overall number one seed have their choice. What good does playing in Louisville mean to us if it suggests we get a Big Ten opponent in a Big Ten arena who will be hostile against us? I'd rather completely neutralize it in Texas and Charlotte isn't a bad place to travel for the opening round games.

 

[Bluest Member]

Originally posted by kyjeff1:
Bluest member, Kentucky to the South??? LOL, why? To avoid Wisconsin? You do realize that by playing in the Midwest UK will be playing in the YUM center and Cleveland? Yet you want to put them in Houston? Makes no sense at all.
UK WILL be in the Midwest.

Not to avoid anyone,but because it Kentucky's normal environment in the "SOUTH". Last time I checked Kentucky played in the Southeastern Conference,Kentucky has and will get a better fan draw more favorable for them in Houston than they will in Cleveland.


I argued against people thinking like you in 2012 when they wanted UK stuck in St Louis instead of Atlanta,St Louis would have been far more hostile than Atlanta was,just like Cleveland will be extremely UK Hostile compared to Houston.

It's not the matchup as much as having that Sixth Man there for the Cats

 

[KYBallCoach]

No way Villanova deserves a #1 seed over Wisconsin. Villanova has lost twice to two unranked teams.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by Bluest Member:

Originally posted by kyjeff1:
Bluest member, Kentucky to the South??? LOL, why? To avoid Wisconsin? You do realize that by playing in the Midwest UK will be playing in the YUM center and Cleveland? Yet you want to put them in Houston? Makes no sense at all.
UK WILL be in the Midwest.

Not to avoid anyone,but because it Kentucky's normal environment in the "SOUTH". Last time I checked Kentucky played in the Southeastern Conference,Kentucky has and will get a better fan draw more favorable for them in Houston than they will in Cleveland.


I argued against people thinking like you in 2012 when they wanted UK stuck in St Louis instead of Atlanta,St Louis would have been far more hostile than Atlanta was,just like Cleveland will be extremely UK Hostile compared to Houston.

It's not the matchup as much as having that Sixth Man there for the Cats

Really? You think we'd draw better in Houston compared to Cleveland? I'm not sure.

I do agree the South is their natural region. But Cleveland is way closer than Houston.

 

[Bluest Member]

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by Bluest Member:

Originally posted by kyjeff1:
Bluest member, Kentucky to the South??? LOL, why? To avoid Wisconsin? You do realize that by playing in the Midwest UK will be playing in the YUM center and Cleveland? Yet you want to put them in Houston? Makes no sense at all.
UK WILL be in the Midwest.

Not to avoid anyone,but because it Kentucky's normal environment in the "SOUTH". Last time I checked Kentucky played in the Southeastern Conference,Kentucky has and will get a better fan draw more favorable for them in Houston than they will in Cleveland.


I argued against people thinking like you in 2012 when they wanted UK stuck in St Louis instead of Atlanta,St Louis would have been far more hostile than Atlanta was,just like Cleveland will be extremely UK Hostile compared to Houston.

It's not the matchup as much as having that Sixth Man there for the Cats

Really? You think we'd draw better in Houston compared to Cleveland? I'm not sure.

I do agree the South is their natural region. But Cleveland is way closer than Houston.

Mileage isn't as important as location,I've been watching NCAA BB and the Tourney long enough to know that there are way more hostile Anti-UK fans north of the Ohio River than there are far south,there are a lot of UK Fans in Texas and the south in general .


As to KyJeff, Why are you o emphatic on putting UK in Cleveland? Do you live in Ohio or north?

 

[ukalum_rivals311718]

Originally posted by BoulderCat:

Originally posted by Bluest Member:

I could care less about distance,you can't convince me that Kentucky wouldn't fare better by being in the South Region than in the Midwest and being stuck in some Northern Arena full of UK Haters,even if it is closer.

Being the Overall #1 Kentucky should get at least the preference of what region,in 2003 they screwed UK by sticking them in the Midwest to play in Minneapolis against Wisconsin and Marquette with hostile crowds that UK Fans couldn't buy their way in,

Who cares if Houston is farther than Cleveland,it will be UK Friendly more than Cleveland will be.

Kentucky belongs in the South,UVA or Duke in the East,Arizona in the West,and whoever gets the other #1 whether Wisconsin or Villanova in the Midwest.


This post was edited on 3/8 11:10 AM by Bluest Member

The committee will feel though they are doing UK fans a favor by sending them to Cleveland, but your right it will be more hostile than Houston would be especially if Wisconsin, or another B10 team is there. I like the idea of giving the overall #1 their pick. That would make achieving it a legitimate thing worth having. As it is, it means essentially nothing if geography outweighs pairing them with the 8th overall seed. Then give the 2nd overall their pick of the remaining 3, etc. Before someone pointed out the site locations to me I of course thought UK would be in the South. I mean come one, they're the SEC champions.

I've pointed out a number of times that if we assume the top four are Kentucky (that's a given), Duke, Virginia, and Villanova, making Villanova a 1 seed, and sending them to LA if they make it is hardly doing them a favor. Quite the opposite.

If the the four 1 seeds are as you assume, somebody has to go west. If not Villanova, who would you send?

 

[KyCat]

Originally posted by Jerry.Edwards:
UK would be at the Yum no matter the region they are in.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

^ This is my understanding too.

I believe when the NCAA went to what they called the 'Pod' groupings for the early round games that teams from at least 2 regions are played in each of these Pod locations.

I personally would much prefer going to a game in Houston than Cleveland because well first it is Cleveland.. it is March and Kentucky identifies more with the south than the north. And let's be honest, the NCAA wants fans to attend and we all know how well Kentucky travels so BBN is showing up no matter where we go. Cleveland might attract northern teams who would not travel as well to Houston.

I seem to recall some where in my mind that the schools that are the top seeds are asked if they have a preference to a region. My guess is that if asked, Kentucky would have said Cleveland just because of proximity though.

 

[barryn2000]

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
The geographical thing never pissed me off more than it did in 2010. WVU who was ranked fifth and was competing with Duke as the final one seed got put in our region in Syracuse (a more home advantage for them) while Duke got Nova. That was BS. WVU and Duke should have been in the same bracket while we got the 7th ranked team.

It really isn't hard. 1 Vs 8, 2vs 7, 3 Vs 6, 4 Vs 5

That is supposed to be the reward for how you did all season.

Duke always appears to get a bonus...in 2010 they way into obvious. Usually the selection committee plays right at the edge of plausible excuses with their Duke handicapping.

 

[RACdad]

the committee chairman was just on CBS he basically said it's going to be Wisconsin without saying it's going to be Wisconsin. geographical location comes first not the season

 

[tmuck]

The head of the selection committee was just on CBS, and he said they go by Geography, after Gottlieb asked him

about the possibility of putting the overall 2 seed (Wisconsin) in the same region as the overall 1 seed (UK). We are about

to get screwed. I think we win the title anyway, though. It will just motivate the team even more.

 

[fisherscat]

wildcatglenn,
Yes but he also said this hasn't happened since they went to this process where top 1 has played the top 2.

How do you geographically fit in the 2 seeds if they are Arizona, Wisconsin, Gonzaga, and Kansas.

Ship Gonzaga all the way to Syracuse? Or keep geography in mind and have them play in Houston? Which then would ship Kansas somewhere and Cleveland is closer than Syracuse.

 

[John Calipoobah]

What's the point in seeding the tournament if they hold geography in such high regard?

If I'm Villanova, why would I want to be "rewarded" with a "1" seed only to be shipped out west, when apparently a "2" seed would get them a location MUCH closer to their campus?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by John Calipoobah:
What's the point in seeding the tournament if they hold geography in such high regard?

If I'm Villanova, why would I want to be "rewarded" with a "1" seed only to be shipped out west, when apparently a "2" seed would get them a location MUCH closer to their campus?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Good question. But in this case, Villanova might WANT to be in the West. The west region has been the weakest for some time now. Plus nova would still get the first two games close to home anyways regardless what region they are in.

Then again I'm not really sure they'd be thrilled with a regional final out west against Arizona.

That's always been the question.....would u rather the 1 seed and play outside your region as the last 1 or would u rather be the best 2.

But you have to remember ......the 2 has to play potentially the 3 seed..........I'd still rather be the 1 honestly

 

[HenryMuto]

The chair just said "we will review this in the offseason".......

It's ok for them to send Nova over 2,000 miles out West but can't move Wisky 250 extra miles to the South

So why even seed the teams 1-68

Ok well here is your best next thing to root for I guess root for Ohio State to beat Wisky then maybe another team moves ahead of them to 5 spot and they are close to the MW.

Kansas losing all those games hurt their chances of being in the MW as they are now going to be shipped to the West maybe.

 

[yabbadabbadoo_rivals213851]

I think Wisconsin ultimately ends up a 1 seed so it won't matter.