Syracuse an 11 seed?!?!
- Thread starter Spare130_rivals
- Start date
their wins in Q2 were quite good, they deserved to make it, albeit they should be in the play in game and not Michigan State
looks like they relied heavily on NET... Uconn at 26 is a joke, RU just 3 spots from play in game makes no sense at all. VCU lost to St Bonnies in the A10 final, how are they seeded ahead of the bonnies...and actually they were not, Bonnies were 9, VCU 10...is this list accurate
The seed list has to be taken with a little wiggle room because the committee has to move people around to avoid matchups within the same conference in the first two rounds. So an 8 may have been a 7 or a 9. and shifting a team to a different slot has a bit of a domino effect on some other teams as well. So you can’t view it as a sequential list of teams from perceived best to perceived worst. There is some movement, granted it may only be from one to three or four spots, but there has to be some shifts in positioning in order to avoid those inter conference match ups.
That's ok. We're better off being the underdog in this
situation. Clemson fans happy they drew us. We shall
see.
Let’s be honest. We would wreck a lot of the teams above us in that Top 40.
I have no problem with SU as an 11. It just adds one more team to our list of whom we've defeated this season - a #1, a #4, a #10, a #11. And when you consider that 6 of our losses came at the hands of 2 #1s and 2 #2s, as well as 1 each against a #7, a #10, and a #11, people can understand, if they care to, that we truly did have the 8th toughest schedule in the country.
Our only other losses were to PSU and Nebraska, both on the road. You can bet our guys would love to get those two games back.
Our only other losses were to PSU and Nebraska, both on the road. You can bet our guys would love to get those two games back.
they did go 10-6 vs Q1/2...they had great wins but some of their losses look disturbing
I don't believe the seedings are in order of performance, the last seeds are pretty inaccurate for the 1 bid leagues too.
The committee wanted Oklahoma and Tre Young in the tournament a couple of years ago when they were ice cold down the stretch in the Big 12....not only did Oklahoma make it, the committee but OU in the 8/9 game and the 1st Noon TV window to start the remaining 64 games.....Young was a 1 and done, so they milked him for all he was worth, when Oklahoma should have been a 10 or 11 seed.
Oklahoma State as a 4 is hideously disrespectful, as is LSU as an 8....the seedings are not merit based, they are only made for TV.
If you get almost all of the picks of who makes it, that's all that matters...
The committee wanted Oklahoma and Tre Young in the tournament a couple of years ago when they were ice cold down the stretch in the Big 12....not only did Oklahoma make it, the committee but OU in the 8/9 game and the 1st Noon TV window to start the remaining 64 games.....Young was a 1 and done, so they milked him for all he was worth, when Oklahoma should have been a 10 or 11 seed.
Oklahoma State as a 4 is hideously disrespectful, as is LSU as an 8....the seedings are not merit based, they are only made for TV.
If you get almost all of the picks of who makes it, that's all that matters...
the Big 10 seedings of the 2nd half of the conference does indicate to me that bias still exists against the Big 10 vs say the ACC. If you look at the Big 10 wins vs the ACC wins it makes you scratch your head.
it is what it is - in this weird year - I have no "real" problems....
but, if anyone ever asked me... 'xCuse should have been a Play-in
but, if anyone ever asked me... 'xCuse should have been a Play-in
While we went 15-11 overall, 6 of those losses came against a #1 seed (Illinois, Michigan) or a #2 seed (OSU, Iowa).
That means we feasted on all other teams, going 15-5 for a 75% winning percentage against those non-elite teams plus that 1 game where we beat Illinois. Clemson is not an elite team.
We did all this with the 8th strongest schedule in the country. Clemson’s SOS = 25.
Fine by me for them to give Syracuse some love. We beat them by 10. At their house.
This is not the Rutgers basketball team that the nation has become accustomed to in the past.
That means we feasted on all other teams, going 15-5 for a 75% winning percentage against those non-elite teams plus that 1 game where we beat Illinois. Clemson is not an elite team.
We did all this with the 8th strongest schedule in the country. Clemson’s SOS = 25.
Fine by me for them to give Syracuse some love. We beat them by 10. At their house.
This is not the Rutgers basketball team that the nation has become accustomed to in the past.
Any chance they do this to spread out the conference teams? That’s the only way some of these make sense. A few conferences have a lot of teams so some lesser teams get slotted ahead to make the brackets work in my opinion.
I think that’s been established - teams get moved around a bit for different reasons - including trying to avoid having conference mates play the first two rounds.
people need to stop looking at the specific seeding #. Totally meaningless.
we have a great opportunity with our placement. That’s all that matters.
I think the bias is not against the Big Ten but against strong conferences in general because people over rely on raw win/loss records. Obviously SOS matters a lot but I think once you get to the middle of a conference like the Big Ten, especially this year the with truncated OOC schedules, people just start to look at the records and go “meh”.
In my opinion the 7/10 seeds are basically the same and both are obviously better than the 8/9. But the main thing is we don’t see a BIG Team for the first few rounds.