NCAAT 1 Seed and 2 Seed Possibilities

[BandAlum83]

Auburn by 22 now, helping the case of UNC and the Big Ten winner as 1 seeds. Also helping Duke's SOS.

UNC #1 in the west with Gonzaga as their #2?

[BlueDevilBrowns]

OPK, I was thinking the same thing. Providence, Clemson and Texas all peaked in February under RB’s guidance.

In over 30 years as a head coach, Rick Barnes has won exactly ONE conference tournament.

[MChambers]

UNC #1 in the west with Gonzaga as their #2?

I'd be okay with that.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

no. it still depends on how much the committee values NET, in which they're only 7.

And that is their own ranking system, after all.

[devildeac]

I'd give you your druthers, were I the committee... Tennessee took themselves and the SEC out of the running for a 1 seed today, which leaves the 3 ACC teams, Gonzaga, and the B1G winner... If MSU wins, I'd have to agree with your take: Duke, UVa, (u*)NC, and MSU as the 1s, and Gonzaga falling to the 2 line. Of course, you're absolutely correct that this raises interesting questions about the 2 seeds having a potential geographic advantage over the 1s come regionals. Perhaps you fix this by putting UK in the Midwest with MSU as the 1 there, put UNC in the west with Gonzaga as the 2, Duke gets the East with Michigan, and UVa gets the south with Tennessee. At the moment, Houston is down 6 to Cincy, but if they win that would be even more interesting. Do you consider dropping one of the 2s to a 3 to move Houston up? Maybe put them in the Midwest and drop Kentucky to a 3? Lot of fascinating questions to be answered this evening...

I'm voting for whatever disadvantages the selections committee can dream of to make the cheats' draw the most competitive/difficult they can, based on match-ups and/or zip codes. Hell, send them to Alaska to play the terps (yea, I realize there are no pods there ). Of course, they'll likely make it easy for them to make up for all the inconveniences the impotent COI made them endure for 23+ years of academic fraud.

[MarkD83]

Just some thoughts that are relevant to this year as well as other years'

1. The experts that put out brackets ahead of time keep updating the brackets as results of tournaments come in. So of course their final brackets are going to look good because they already have results that they are factoring into their "predictions".

2. Has anyone ever gone back and checked the accuracy of the bracket pickers or do we just move on and then next year we believe what they say for no reason.

3. We argue about the brackets that are just predictions but they only thing that might be accurate about them is whatever is picked won't happen.

4. Experts on TV look at the changing bracket predictions and make comments about the selection committee changing their mind. The selection committee only tells us what criteria they use to make selections we never know what their bracket looks like until it is released so we don't know if they change it or not. For all we know the bracket is totally filled in a week ago except for the fact that they put one-bid conference names on the bracket rather than actual team names. Right now committee members could be drinking a beer and watching golf.

[DU82]

Watching the B1G tournament, I’m guessing that both are two seeds because it would take too long to adjust changing everything to move to a different line. Easier to put the winner with the lower seeded #1, and the loser with a higher #1. This assumes that Michigan, per NET, wouldn’t get a #1 even with winning.

This is one of the reasons the ACC went back to a Saturday championship, to give a chance for positive seed adjustments on Sunday (or more likely, Saturday night.)

[Wahoo2000]

I'd give you your druthers, were I the committee... Tennessee took themselves and the SEC out of the running for a 1 seed today, which leaves the 3 ACC teams, Gonzaga, and the B1G winner... If MSU wins, I'd have to agree with your take: Duke, UVa, (u*)NC, and MSU as the 1s, and Gonzaga falling to the 2 line. Of course, you're absolutely correct that this raises interesting questions about the 2 seeds having a potential geographic advantage over the 1s come regionals. Perhaps you fix this by putting UK in the Midwest with MSU as the 1 there, put UNC in the west with Gonzaga as the 2, Duke gets the East with Michigan, and UVa gets the south with Tennessee. At the moment, Houston is down 6 to Cincy, but if they win that would be even more interesting. Do you consider dropping one of the 2s to a 3 to move Houston up? Maybe put them in the Midwest and drop Kentucky to a 3? Lot of fascinating questions to be answered this evening...

I had thought the top 8 were pretty much locked in:
Duke/UVA/UNC/Zags/Mich/MSU/Tenn/KY

I don't think Houston has a resume that can hold a candle to any of those.

In fact, I think the battle for the 3 seeds is pretty competitive as well. Texas Tech, FSU, Purdue, LSU all have claims NEARLY as strong as Houston's (just my opinion I guess though) even if they win handily today (though as of this post they're down 7 to Cinci with 11 min left). I sincerely hope they DO get a 3 seed though, I don't want them as UVa's #4 seed.

[MChambers]

Watching the B1G tournament, I’m guessing that both are two seeds because it would take too long to adjust changing everything to move to a different line. Easier to put the winner with the lower seeded #1, and the loser with a higher #1. This assumes that Michigan, per NET, wouldn’t get a #1 even with winning.

This is one of the reasons the ACC went back to a Saturday championship, to give a chance for positive seed adjustments on Sunday (or more likely, Saturday night.)

I agree that having such a late championship hurts the committee's deliberations. Same thing with Cinn-Houston.

[BandAlum83]

Watching the B1G tournament, I’m guessing that both are two seeds because it would take too long to adjust changing everything to move to a different line. Easier to put the winner with the lower seeded #1, and the loser with a higher #1. This assumes that Michigan, per NET, wouldn’t get a #1 even with winning.

This is one of the reasons the ACC went back to a Saturday championship, to give a chance for positive seed adjustments on Sunday (or more likely, Saturday night.)

It seems to me, after seeing all the results and pending results, that we should have three #1 seeds and 5 #2 seeds. Does anyone really want it?

For a bunch of possible #1 seeds to lose the way they did this week (including Michigan losing last weekend to Sparty), It really does seem the only "deserving" teams are Duke, UVA and uNC.

Even Houston is losing to Cincy right now. This has really been a bloodbath.

[ns7]

With a win today, Michigan is more deserving of a #1 seed than UNC. H2H should be the tiebreaker if there's any debate.

[Acymetric]

I had thought the top 8 were pretty much locked in:
Duke/UVA/UNC/Zags/Mich/MSU/Tenn/KY

I don't think Houston has a resume that can hold a candle to any of those.

In fact, I think the battle for the 3 seeds is pretty competitive as well. Texas Tech, FSU, Purdue, LSU all have claims NEARLY as strong as Houston's (just my opinion I guess though) even if they win handily today (though as of this post they're down 7 to Cinci with 11 min left). I sincerely hope they DO get a 3 seed though, I don't want them as UVa's #4 seed.

Good chance Houston drops to a 4 with this loss, I think. Certainly weakens their case for a 3.

[duke2x]

Houston is going to lose by double digits. I would agree with a #4 in KC for them given their AAC and overall schedule. 37 minutes to go.

[MChambers]

With a win today, Michigan is more deserving of a #1 seed than UNC. H2H should be the tiebreaker if there's any debate.

I'm not sure about that. Michigan isn't that impressive. Very close game, against a team that just lost a key reserve. And I wonder if MSU squeaks by, do they get a 2, with Ahrens looking like he's done for the year? They're a really thin team at this point.

[timmy c]

I'm not sure about that. Michigan isn't that impressive. Very close game, against a team that just lost a key reserve. And I wonder if MSU squeaks by, do they get a 2, with Ahrens looking like he's done for the year? They're a really thin team at this point.

Will the ncaa committee weigh the NET ranking heavily into there considerations? If they do, no way that either Michigan (9) or MSU (8) get a one seed. If the B10 champ gets a 1 seed, why did they even develop the NET?

[scottdude8]

Well I’m heartbroken. Michigan had that game AGAIN but a combination of getting passive and a handful of bad whistles cost us. Looks like my nightmare of Michigan in Duke’s bracket is going to come true.

[toughbuff1]

Is chat up for selection Sunday?

[ns7]

Well I’m heartbroken. Michigan had that game AGAIN but a combination of getting passive and a handful of bad whistles cost us. Looks like my nightmare of Michigan in Duke’s bracket is going to come true.

I hope not. Michigan would be the strongest #2 and shouldn't be with the overall #1.

[El_Diablo]

I am going to guess the #1 seeds will be (in order) UVA, Duke, Gonzaga, and Tennessee. And the #2 seeds will be MSU, Kentucky, unc and Michigan.

Jay Bilas will rant for a good 2-3 minutes on air about unc not getting a #1 seed and will take to Twitter to call the committee a joke.

[-jk]

Is chat up for selection Sunday?

Let's keep it here.

-jk