So did losing (early in) the ACC cost us anything?...

[zipp]

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.

Yeah, when those Committee guys talk, you don't know what you're gonna hear. I'm not relying on what they SAY, I'm analyzing what they DO. They also SAY they don't simply S-curve the bracket anymore, that a lot of it is done by geography to sell overpriced tickets. (I added that last part...) If that's true, it really doesn't matter whether you're the best or worst two-seed. In essence, they put you where they want.

And they've done this many times in the past. If there are doubts about your team, you often get a tough draw for your seed or a lower seed outright. Both LPT and U of L have personally experienced that.

I don't believe for a minute these results happen accidentally. You've beaten one undeniably good team this season, and the Committee is asking you to beat more than your fair share in the NCAA tourney. That's equitable from my POV.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[ThroughBlue]

agree with you about tickets. If we truly were the #5 then we should be in Gonzagas cake walk instead of the region of death

 

[nccardfan]

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.

The Tennessee loss is considered a bad loss and bad losses are being weighed more importantly. Losing to the other three because they are all tournament teams are not bad losses. Even U of L's loss to WF late in the season was not considered a bad loss because Wake made the field.