So did losing (early in) the ACC cost us anything?...
- Thread starter zipp
- Start date
Short answer, no.Little longer answer,just a little confidence.
It seems to have worked out for us, except we don't have any momentum going into the real post-season. After seeing that Oregon injury, I was happy our guys were out of harm's way most of the week. We've already had our share of injuries. Also I wonder how much winning the ACC Tournament may have taken out of Duke.
No. And you are right it is interesting.
The committee must have liked the fact that the Cards beat 3 regular season conference champions. You know who they are: Purdue, Wichita St and that team down the road who we only beat when they are not too good according to you. That line does not hold water this year though.
Go Cards!
The committee must have liked the fact that the Cards beat 3 regular season conference champions. You know who they are: Purdue, Wichita St and that team down the road who we only beat when they are not too good according to you. That line does not hold water this year though.
Go Cards!
Duke winning the ACC helped us the most. We played them tougher than anybody and would have won if we could shoot free throws.
We are more critical of our team than the selection committee. Not surprising I guess. I must admit I thought we would end up best case a 3 worst a 4. Glad I was wrong. Now play Cards ball!
If you read closely--or remember--I always qualify my conclusions with words like "usually" or "typically" because nothing is true all of the time. Go back ten years and see if what I'm saying is true or not....The committee must have liked the fact that the Cards beat 3 regular season conference champions. You know who they are: Purdue, Wichita St and that team down the road who we only beat when they are not too good according to you. That line does not hold water this year though.
And LPT might lose that 2nd round game against the Dayton/Wichita State winner. Then, how good was that win in December?...
It hurt us confidence wise I'm sure, I saw in another post where Rick said "the guys are rattled about the free throw shooting" that's not a good thing no matter how you look at it.. Good thing is , our first game "shouldn't" be close, so we won't have that much pressure to make free throws right out of the shute. Maybe we can make a bunch that game and gain some confidence..
So you saying the regular season doesn't mean anything ? They won the $ec regular season and tournament, they are a 2 seed in the tournament and will probably be ranked higher than us in the Final regular season poll this week. I think regardless of what happens in the tournament, that was a great win, and probably played a part in us keeping our # 2 seed..
Maybe it will be. But if so, it will be the exception historically as far as this series is concerned.
Again, that's not my opinion. It's based on where LPT is ranked in the years we beat them and when we do not. Consistently, we win the games when those victories don't matter except to the little brothers remaining in our fanbase. When LPT ends up having a pretty good team, we usually lose those games which nets us nothing, i.e., good losses.
You can say "we shouldn't lose all of those games." But that's like saying "there shouldn't be world hunger." What SHOULD be doesn't change history or the facts. And those facts are USUALLY what I'm describing...
It didn't appear to cost us anything. I'm surprised. I honestly thought we'd land at 3 or 4. I can't complain about the draw at all. The team stayed out of harm's way this week (no injuries), got unlimited practice time, and a #2 seed with the first two games close to home. Our #1 seed Kansas is not that deep, has turmoil, and lost to a non-tournament team. Although it kinda sucks to play Kansas in Kansas City for the FF, it's hard to beat the draw.
So, a more general question is... Do the conference tournaments matter much--or at all--to your NCAA seeding?
The NCAA has said they don't look at the Sunday games. Was Purdue or Kansas moved down by losing the first game of their tournaments?
I haven't closely followed where other teams have been pegged before and after. Do the conference tournaments appear to have helped or hurt anyone in an obvious way? Maybe Duke?...
The NCAA has said they don't look at the Sunday games. Was Purdue or Kansas moved down by losing the first game of their tournaments?
I haven't closely followed where other teams have been pegged before and after. Do the conference tournaments appear to have helped or hurt anyone in an obvious way? Maybe Duke?...
The committee chair said that Duke was the top 4 seed prior to the conference tourney. The tourney afforded them the opportunity to get 3 high value wins, which pushed them up to a solid 2 seed, so roughly 5 spots. So winning the conference tourney in and of itself didn't necessarily help them but it provided the opportunity to boost their resume because of the high quality teams they faced. Based on his comments each individual game in a conference tourney carries the same weight as an individual regular season game.
The committee chairman said that Duke entered tourney week as a #4, and ended it as a #2. He also said that Duke had the most upward movement of any team.
Committee guy on espn said Duke was a 4 on Wednesday and played their way onto the 2 line.
Had we (Kentucky) lost to Georgia I think it would have dropped us a line.
I guess to answer the question it just depends on how solid the team is.
Apparently you guys were a solid two. You wouldn't have known that if you just went solely off this board lol. I'd like to welcome half of yal back on the ship after you bailed
First of all nobody bailed, most predicted what they thought would happen based on previous head scratching seedings. Wasn't NC the top overall pick before the conference tournament and I know Arizona was at best #3 seed but ended up as #5 pick overall (#1 2 seed). So yes I think conference tournaments do factor into seedings.
Let's be honest then. There were a couple, one in particular, that were screaming at the top of their lungs that the season was over. Not even close to half the posters here.
Don't make me go quote them mr Rhodes because I'll do it. I don't want to but I willWRONG
Well, they might win it too. Misdirection will only take you so far on this topic
Just saying......as much as it hurts me to say this.....uk righted their ship and played good enough to win out thru the SEC tournament and were regular season champs too.
Would be nice if one could say the same about our beloved Cardinals......but facts are facts...and the Cards did not do so. No qualification necessary when the facts speak for themselves.
Go Cards.....and do not take Ray Harper's Jacksonville State team lightly....you know he is passionate about any game vs UofL or uk. Lets put a beat down on him like one has never seen before. Then onto Mich/OK State. Who you like in that match up. My pick is the Wolverines in a close one.
There's no sleight-of-hand going on... LPT is a suspect two-seed coming outta the SEC. And you don't know how good or bad they are because the season ain't over. If they get thumped by Wichita State as they very well may, how good was that December win in hindsight?
One year doesn't matter anyway. As I have said, my analysis goes back a decade or more. We seldom beat LPT when they're a good team, and we beat them when the win ain't worth much. That's not rocket science, and it doesn't really matter to me. But too many of of our fans look past the facts and the historical results and expect to win more DESPITE the facts. If the little brothers in our fanbase can't analyze that situation properly, then other measures like dropping the slappies must be considered.
And that doesn't even address the money it costs us.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Zipp this isn't one of your better efforts. We know how good/bad they have been up to this point and that defines their season more than a bad loss in the tournament. And, as I stated earlier, our win over them, at least in part, probably helped keep us at a 2 seed even though we were bounced in the 1st round of our league tournament.
I would call us a "suspect" two seed anymore than I would call Louisville one at this point.
Maybe I just need to 'splain myself better... Normally, I'm a body-of-work guy, and a OAD tourney is not necessarily a good barometer.
BUT that's judging MOST teams... LPT really has just one good win this year, over Carolina. And it took an historic game from one of their freshmen to pull it off in OT. You really don't know how good LPT is considering their poor schedule and that they didn't beat anyone else. Georgia Tech and Pitt beat Carolina too--are they good teams?
Am I glad that we are PERCEIVED as having a good win over the slappies? Sure. I don't know that it got us a two-seed, but I'm not sure how much seeding matters this year anyway. And if the slapd!cks make an early exit from the tourney, we'll have a better handle on good they really are.
All I can go by is that we generally don't beat them when they're very good. You're arguing against history claiming otherwise.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Well of course you wouldn't. You're a slappy who keeps hangin' around.
And we'll never be QUITE as suspect as you 'cuz we beat that slappy a$$.
"Elite program," my a$$...
You did. At home in December. If we had won that game or the game against UCLA or Kansas we would have been a one. But instead we wasted all 3/4 good opportunities we had this year.
I did underestimate strength of schedule and how the committee has continued its trend of rewarding teams that play tough schedules.It's a trend that cannot be ignored by P5 conference members,but is sometimes more difficult to achieve by mid majors,unless they want to play those P5's away from their home courts.
Well, they THINK they're doing that.
That team up the road had one good win the entire season and ended up with a two-seed.
"Elite program," my a$$...
I wouldn't be too remorseful considering whom you beat to get to a two-seed. The rest of the field should be so lucky.
And I wonder if any LPT fans consider that just MIGHT be a reason your path to a championship is a little more difficult than you expected?
"Elite program," my a$$...
Our path is more difficult than expected because Wichita St was under seeded and so was Cincy. Also an argument can be made that UCLA should have been a two but you are gonna play a good team in the S16 regardless so not much complaining from me. If you can't beat Wichita in the second round you don't deserve to be in the sweet 16
Apparently before the conference tournaments, the Cards were considered the #1 two seed. Losing in the opening round bounced them down to the #4 two seed.
Of course none of us knew that beforehand. Most here thought the opening round loss in the ACC tourney cost us the 2 seed and it almost did. Glad it didn't.
Of course none of us knew that beforehand. Most here thought the opening round loss in the ACC tourney cost us the 2 seed and it almost did. Glad it didn't.
I think you missed my point, maybe intentionally... You don't know for sure that what you described ("underseeding") wasn't done on purpose. You don't know that the Selection Committee doesn't have lingering questions about Cincy, Wichita State, AND LPT. So they downrate a couple and match them up with the unluckiest two-seed. And they let the tourney itself sort that out. Actually, makes a little sense.
The way the ACC teams were seeded pretty much shows that if you play good teams, week in and week out for most of the season, you get treated fairly. Nothing inconsistent with that and LPT getting a too-difficult path in the tourney too often. Remember, most of you guys like playing in the SEC.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Except the committee seeded us as the #5 team. They even released as much. Committee dude said Tennessee loss cost us a one seed. I thought it would have been one of the games we mentioned earlier (Louisville, Kansas, UCLA). I thought had we one one of those three then we are a one but instead we went ofer.
Similar threads
