I realize he had to leave during discussion of the SEC, but seriously giving the tournament champ a 13 seed and then making the East and West champs have to play one seeds IF they got past the first game. It absolutely could not have been any worse for the SEC. A little jealousy or payback over football maybe?
The more I think about it, Slive really is a puss.
- Thread starter Hanmudog
- Start date
I realize he had to leave during discussion of the SEC, but seriously giving the tournament champ a 13 seed and then making the East and West champs have to play one seeds IF they got past the first game. It absolutely could not have been any worse for the SEC. A little jealousy or payback over football maybe?
Playing a 4 seed can make even an 8 or 9 seed look like a 13 seed. Who is to say that if we were playing as an 11 seed that we wouldn't knock of a 6 seed? I really don't have much complaint with our seeding but as an SEC fan, it does piss me off that the two best teams in the league get stuck playing the hardest road in the tournament. </p>
State obviously would've been a bubble team at best if the SEC tourney didn't carry an automatic bid. Based on your resume and the whole body of work, I don't think they could've given you much more than an 11 or 12 seed.
UT maybe could've argued for a 7 seed, but that's about as much as they could ask for. LSU won the SEC title, but their RPI was still only in the 30s, and honestly if you look at LSU's resume based on who they beat, their record, their record versus Top 50, their RPI, etc., it looks very similar to Creighton, who got left out of the tourney altogether. They won the regular season SEC title, but still they didn't have an impressive resume, and I don't think you could argue for anything more than maybe a 7 seed at best, and you could argue for worse.
So, I don't really feel like the SEC got snubbed that bad. The league didn't deserve more than the three teams that got in this year, and you really couldn't have justified giving anyone that much better of a seeding.
UT maybe could've argued for a 7 seed, but that's about as much as they could ask for. LSU won the SEC title, but their RPI was still only in the 30s, and honestly if you look at LSU's resume based on who they beat, their record, their record versus Top 50, their RPI, etc., it looks very similar to Creighton, who got left out of the tourney altogether. They won the regular season SEC title, but still they didn't have an impressive resume, and I don't think you could argue for anything more than maybe a 7 seed at best, and you could argue for worse.
So, I don't really feel like the SEC got snubbed that bad. The league didn't deserve more than the three teams that got in this year, and you really couldn't have justified giving anyone that much better of a seeding.
The SEC was horrendous this year BUT essentially the selection committee said that the best teams in the SEC were no better than the 32nd best team in the nation. As bad as it was, the SEC was still around the 6th toughest conference. It just seems a bit harsh. Even a 1 or 2 spot bump up in the seeding would have helped any of us. Here's hoping that the ESPN deal next season helps all of our reputations in the SEC.
The SEC was down this year..... AND we got screwed on the seeding. We should have been a 12 at worst, probably an 11. Lunardi even had us as an 11. LSU and UT should have been 7's at worst. Lunardi had both as 6's..... and they get 8's. When 1 team gets bad seeding that could be an anomaly. When every team in the league gets bad seeding, that's getting screwed. Not to mention we get sent to the freaking Washington Husky Invitational. You act like you have to be seeded 4 or 5 spots worse than you deserve to get snubbed. The only 3 teams that got in got seeded 2 spots worse than they should have. That is getting screwed.
how the hell can anyone argue they should have been seeded higher? You could maybe argue that we should have been seeded higher (losing to a #4 seed doesn't prove that we didn't deserve a #11 seed for example), but overall the SEC made its own bed in non-conference play and the proved the committee right with its performance in the tournament. The conference wasn't 0-3 because of bad seeding. It was 0-3 because it sucks.
...is that they had San Diego State or Saint Mary's in that spot, and when we won the tourney, they got kicked out of the tourney and we got that slot. For them to reseed us would've meant having to redo an entire bracket.
We got put in the best possible position by the committee. We were playing an overrated four seed with a chance to blow up the bracket.
We got put in the best possible position by the committee. We were playing an overrated four seed with a chance to blow up the bracket.
I don't think single games in the first round of the tournament prove that teams were seeded correctly or incorrectly. It helps the argument, sure, but doesn't make it true. And didn't LSU win anyway?
The only SEC team I picked to lose was the only one that won. Doh! But bottom line is, they didn't do anything in their non-conference schedule to prove they deserved better than a #8 seed. And none of the 3 SEC teams looked like they really deserved much better than they got in their 1st round games.
Well no **** we would have a better chance of knocking off a 6 seed versus a 4 seed!!! Good lord, that is really your point? On that note, we have a better chance of knocking off a 4 seed versus a 2 seed.Hanmudog said:
Thats why they are seeded...it shows a team's viewed strength.
And your entire first post in this thread contradicts you saying you dont have much complaint.
How would they have done in the OOC schedule we had? Would they have done better?Hanmudog said:
And we didnt finish 13-7. I know why you want to say we did(because we won 4 extra games), but that wasnt our SEC record, so lets not try to say it is.
and N. Iowa the 13 seed just so I could have seen us play a team from another power conference on a TRUE neutral court. Yea, UW would have likely taken us out on Saturday but I still would have like to have seen us play Purdue first. Yesterday's crowd made the game a virtual home game for the Huskies. We didn't have a lot of energy or emotion left anyway on the quick turnaround but to play UW in an atmosphere where they were being energized by their fans made the game nearly impossible for us. </p>
According to the RPI and selection committee we did finish 13-7 in the SEC. They always look at the total conference record. That is how Arkansas sneaked into the NCAAs a couple of years back by winning a few in Atlanta and getting above .500 in the SEC. I realize some of you on here would have preferred that we were not even in the tourney but it is weak to say the least to say we did not deserve better than a 13 seed because we lost to a 4 seed. If a 5 seed loses to a 4 by 13 points does that make them a 13 seed? Obviously no.
If you went strictly by RPI and by the teams that got in the tourney, these are the seedings you'd have seen:
Tennessee - 7 seed (25th highest RPI in tourney)
LSU - 9 seed (36th highest RPI in tourney)
MSU - 13 seed (50th highest RPI in tourney)
So, I really don't see the argument that the SEC got shafted. Bottom line, no team from the SEC had a really impressive resume. Obviously Lunardi was giving the SEC a lot of credit for whatever reason, but I just don't think the league got the shaft. I don't think it really mattered what seeding the SEC teams got, I don't think any of them were Sweet Sixteen bound, and definitely none of them would make it further than that, regardless of seeding.
It's a down year for the SEC, and yes that's part of the reason why we were able to win 7 conference games despite playing only 8 scholarship players most of the year (one of which was expected to redshirt before the year started). I thought I was being optimistic back in December when I predicted we'd find a way to go 5-11 in conference play despite the injuries. However, the SEC was down enough for us to win even more than that.
Tennessee - 7 seed (25th highest RPI in tourney)
LSU - 9 seed (36th highest RPI in tourney)
MSU - 13 seed (50th highest RPI in tourney)
So, I really don't see the argument that the SEC got shafted. Bottom line, no team from the SEC had a really impressive resume. Obviously Lunardi was giving the SEC a lot of credit for whatever reason, but I just don't think the league got the shaft. I don't think it really mattered what seeding the SEC teams got, I don't think any of them were Sweet Sixteen bound, and definitely none of them would make it further than that, regardless of seeding.
It's a down year for the SEC, and yes that's part of the reason why we were able to win 7 conference games despite playing only 8 scholarship players most of the year (one of which was expected to redshirt before the year started). I thought I was being optimistic back in December when I predicted we'd find a way to go 5-11 in conference play despite the injuries. However, the SEC was down enough for us to win even more than that.
We went 2-3 against the 3 teams in the tourney, and we were a pretty bad basketball team.
In most years we shouldn't have won more than 4 games in conference, but we actually won 2 road games this year, after losing Warren, Polynice and Gaskins.
I think Pearl had absolutely no control over his basketball team. Smith and Chism did whatever they wanted to, just a horrible job.</p>
In most years we shouldn't have won more than 4 games in conference, but we actually won 2 road games this year, after losing Warren, Polynice and Gaskins.
I think Pearl had absolutely no control over his basketball team. Smith and Chism did whatever they wanted to, just a horrible job.</p>
in the SEC would equate to about a 6-10 or 7-9 record in most years. And on top of that, even with losing Rhodes, Gordon and Hansbrough, we came within a whisker of going 11- 5 in the league if a couple of things had gone our way in the 2 2OT losses. We've certainly had better MSU teams that didn't make the NCAAs. No doubt the team that made the NIT final four a couple of years ago was better but the team this year at least peaked at the right time.
I sure think we were more of an 11 seed, but maybe the sheep in me just wanted to think we deserved to be a little higher on the totem pole.Hanmudog said:
We may have played 20 games against SEC opponents, but we werent 13-7. we were 9-7 in the SEC, and 4-0 in the SEC Tournament. Those tournament wins can help/hurt at large bids, but since the SEC tournament isnt necessary for an auto bid, it isnt part of the conference record. The SEC T could disappear and we would still have an auto bid.
That is an inaccurate measure of conference teams then, since the teams would almost all play different amounts of games. There is a reason why we have a Regular Season Champ and an SEC Tournament Champ...they are different and seperate.
Duke would be the #1 overall seed and Arizona State and Marquette would have been 11 and 12 seeds, respectively, instead of 6's. And to add an SEC flavor to it BC (a 7?) and Arizona wouldn't have gotten in over Florida and S Carolina. And they definitely wouldn't have gotten in over SDSU and Creighton. The point is that they have constantly said over the years that RPI is only one part. 2 other parts they constantly harp on are SOS (although this always seems redundant to me since it's in the RPI) and how you finished. Well I can't really make much of a case for LSU, but UT is the picture of a team they would have given a good seed based on SOS and we are a pretty good example of finishing well (finishing on a big winning streak with our best wins of the year). But let's just throw those factors out this year because the SEC is down.
Can't disagree on that. The selection committee seems to pick and choose which factors to emphasize for each given team. I really wish they'd get just go ahead and create a formula (like the BCS) to rank teams. It could be something like the RPI, but they could find ways to emphasize the things they like (like maybe increasing the value of your most recent games in the formula).
That way everyone would know where they stand, and you'd even know exactly what seed you were going to get. I'd still allow for automatic bids and just let whatever RPI-like rating scale determine those seedings as well. It definitely would eliminate a lot of the argument.
The reason the BCS gets so much flak is because it doesn't include enough teams. If you were to apply the BCS formula to a 16 or 8 team playoffs with seeding determined by the formula, you wouldn't have any gripes.
That way everyone would know where they stand, and you'd even know exactly what seed you were going to get. I'd still allow for automatic bids and just let whatever RPI-like rating scale determine those seedings as well. It definitely would eliminate a lot of the argument.
The reason the BCS gets so much flak is because it doesn't include enough teams. If you were to apply the BCS formula to a 16 or 8 team playoffs with seeding determined by the formula, you wouldn't have any gripes.
It's a summation of the factors. Otherwise it's just a ******** term so they can put in whoever they want without having to justify it.
I don't have a problem with there being a selection committee. It adds a lot of excitement and discussion. I much prefer the discussion of who should be in to the discussion of who the formula will put in. I do have a problem with them seemingly deciding each year to emphasize different things.
and how teams do, no matter whether it's the last 6, 8, 10, or even 30 games does not equal a summation of the factors. That being said, I would like to see some sort of quantification. I'd also like to know how Boston College was awarded a 7-seed based on their RPI, SOS, and performance.
The fact the committee made us travel 2500 miles after playing 4 straight games was not fair. I don't give a crap if we took St, Mary's place or anybody elses, they could have looked at that fact and stated for the integrity of the tourney, this isn't fair. We looked no where close to the team we were in Tampa and I don't think Washington was that much better than UT or LSU. What the hell was the committee doing on Saturday when they saw we had a chance to win the tourney? That should have been thought through and I doubt if they had any true basketball coaches or experts on the committee they would have done that. If Slive and his greedy AD's from the SEC had raised hell, then maybe it would have been a little more fair. Slive reminds me of a politician and I don't think Roy Kramer or a C.M. Newton would have done that to us or for that matter LSU and TN. If we had been a 13 in the south, then I wouldn't have any gripe but if we are going to rake in a ton of money off of the SEC tourney, then we shouldn't penalize a team for playing 4 straight games and winning and then giving them a long trip and make them play in the early games. As the post stated, "Slive is a puss" and this would have never happened to most teams.
I'm sure Purdue wasn't crazy about it either and they won their tournament too. If anything, they have a bigger gripe. While I don't like the way lower seeds are just shipped wherever, there is no reason the 4-5 matchup should have such a homecourt advantage. Then UCLA gets sent clear across the country to play in Villanova's group in Philly.... that's fair. It just seems like they could make more of an effort to keep teams at least on their half of the country. I guess that's just part of playing for that higher seed.
but the seeding was atrocious. No way in the world one can justify having both LSU and UT looking at playing the 1 seed in their respective brackets if they won their first game. As for MSU, yeah, we were under seeded and probably would have been a 12 had the SEC Tournament outcome been known by the committee at the time they drew up the brackets. Slive said the brackets were set before we played UT for the conference tournament championship. We simply took the 13 seed away from some poor smuck of a bubble team, probably St Mary's. Which brings me back to this: the SEC is hurting itself time and again by not starting the SEC Tournament on a Wed and having it end on Saturday before selection Sunday. Is there any justification for this stupidity? At least every other year, some SEC team is seeded lower than they deserve b/c the outcome of the SEC tourney is not known when seeds are set.
But they've made the decision long ago they'd rather have the TV ratings on Sunday than get their teams the best seeds in the NCAA tournament. If you'll recall, our 1996 team was under-seeded because the SEC tournamant final was actually played AFTER the bracket had been finalized by the seeding committee (but just before it was announced).seingeyedog said: