What's the big deal over Louisville's Seeding?

[DFWJC]

Like I said earlier. I thought they clearly deserved a better seeding. And yes, the entire season counts to some degree, but the latter part of the season carries FAR more weight than the very early season. Always has, always will.
They had been playing really well as of late...maybe even #1 seed worthy. But with the early loses, they rightly did not get a #1 seed. I mean early season has to carry at least some weight.
Their problem is that Kentucky is now playing well too, so they may get booted early anyway.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I figured you might respond like that after this weekend.

Not really. My opinion on Louisville hasn't really changed much. I guess we'll see what happens though.

 

[Rogah]

Yeah, I know people feel like that but look at their schedule. Look at the season. Seriously, I'm not all that impressed with it. I mean, they may totally be the best team in the Nation, but they don't deserve a top seed based on their season, IMO.

Giving it to Louisville would have been much less of a joke than giving it to Wichita State.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Giving it to Louisville would have been much less of a joke than giving it to Wichita State.

I am not hugely in favor of the Witchita State Seeding either but at least the reasoning for it was a defendable position by the committee. They had zero losses. Not the case with Louisville.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Giving it to Louisville would have been much less of a joke than giving it to Wichita State.

I still don't understand how giving a #1 seed to a Final Four team from last year who was preseason #16 this year and went undefeated is a joke.

 

[Rogah]

I am not hugely in favor of the Witchita State Seeding either but at least the reasoning for it was a defendable position by the committee. They had zero losses. Not the case with Louisville.

Should the highest seed go to the better team or the team with the better record? IMHO, it should go to the better team.

Wichita State had 0 losses because they played 1 top-50 team. If they were in a power conference, they'd have 7 losses.

 

[Rogah]

I still don't understand how giving a #1 seed to a Final Four team from last year who was preseason #16 this year and went undefeated is a joke.

Because they're not as good as they were last year (not to mention what they did last year is irrelevant) and everyone knows they lose 7 games in a real conference.

Stephen F. Austin tied Florida for the 2nd best record in the tournament. Should they have been a #1 seed as well? How about a #2?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Should the highest seed go to the better team or the team with the better record? IMHO, it should go to the better team.

Wichita State had 0 losses because they played 1 top-50 team. If they were in a power conference, they'd have 7 losses.

According to the Committee, the entire body of work is considered and that body of work is the basis for tourney seeding and selection. I don't know how many losses they would have if they played in a power conference. Neither do you. You can only base decision off of what a team has actually done. That's kind of the whole point right?

 

[big dog cowboy]

Because they're not as good as they were last year

They had a better team this year not last year. Ask Marshall and he will tell you that.

 

[Rogah]

According to the Committee, the entire body of work is considered and that body of work is the basis for tourney seeding and selection. I don't know how many losses they would have if they played in a power conference. Neither do you. You can only base decision off of what a team has actually done. That's kind of the whole point right?

Well before the tournament I said they were a 5-loss team if they played in a power conference. Then they lost to the very first power conference team they played, a very mediocre (but their regular standards) KY team. So now I think in a power conference they are a 7-loss team.

I guess you feel 2-loss SF Austin should have been a top seed as well, huh?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well before the tournament I said they were a 5-loss team if they played in a power conference. Then they lost to the very first power conference team they played, a very mediocre (but their regular standards) KY team. So now I think in a power conference they are a 7-loss team.

I guess you feel 2-loss SF Austin should have been a top seed as well, huh?

Fair enough but you can't know that if they had played 5 games against 5 power conference teams, they would have been 0-5. They lost to Kentucky, who hasn't been all that impressive this year IMO but, who is one of, if not the most, talented teams in the NCAA. Kentucky has a tone of talent.

I don't know about SF Austin, I haven't really broken that team down but, if you feel as if they should have been a top seed, then you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[big dog cowboy]

a very mediocre KY team

KY is very talented top 10 team and did start the season at #1.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

KY is very talented top 10 team and did start the season at #1.

Yeah, they are. As I said earlier, Kentucky was not what I would consider a really good, 28-10 and 12-6 in a weak SEC IMO, but they are certainly as talented as anybody in the NCAA. Final Four.