Originally Posted by dlphg9:
They also have 3 quad 2 losses and lost to Mizzou both times they played. Missouri finished 4th in the SEC, Ten 5th. Tennessee had 1 more quad 1 win.
How is Tennessee 3 spots ahead of Missouri? Missouri should have been a 6 at bare minimum, but a 5 is what they should have been.
I do think Mizzou can actually do some damage and they can definitely beat Alabama if we made it to that point.
If we can just hit 40% from 3, then we have a chance to beat pretty much anyone. Just can't go 5-25 from 3.
Originally Posted by Mosbonian:
The Kansas win was early in the season....The Alabama win was good but it was at home so not all that surprising.
The Committee always talks about "its how a team finished the season" when they talk about seeding along with records".
Tennessee lost 5 of their last 8 with 3 of those to Vanderbilt, Mizzou and Auburn. Then lost to Mizzou in the SEC tourney.
Tennessee should be closer to a 5 or 6 seed based on how they've played the last month but you can't just ignore beating Kansas and Alabama. They also beat Maryland.
For reference, Mizzou's best non-conference win is Illinois (and a 16 seed SEMO that won it's conference tournament).
Additionally, Tennessee's PG tore his ACL less than 2 weeks ago AND the committee basically reiterated that the conference tournament does not mean shit. I don't see how you can advocate for Mizzou to have a higher seed when A&M got fucked way worse based on conference play and going further in the conference tournament.
Mizzou should have MAYBE been a 6 seed over Iowa St, but that's about it. [Reply]
Seed aside, Utah State is a tough potential matchup. They shoot a lot of 3s and shoot them well... 39 percent from downtown on the season.
I think Mizzou did enough to get on the 6 line but was expecting the 7. I think the whole NET system has some flaws. Primarily the way it hammers teams for a team being the 300th best team instead of the 200th best. Kind of silly. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
Tennessee should be closer to a 5 or 6 seed based on how they've played the last month but you can't just ignore beating Kansas and Alabama. They also beat Maryland.
For reference, Mizzou's best non-conference win is Illinois (and a 16 seed SEMO that won it's conference tournament).
Additionally, Tennessee's PG tore his ACL less than 2 weeks ago AND the committee basically reiterated that the conference tournament does not mean shit. I don't see how you can advocate for Mizzou to have a higher seed when A&M got ****ed way worse based on conference play and going further in the conference tournament.
Mizzou should have MAYBE been a 6 seed over Iowa St, but that's about it.
First, injuries are part of the normal part of adversity all teams face. I truly doubt the committee really does give as much weight in injuries as they say...more just smoke and mirrors.
I am not advocating Mizzou being a much higher seed, maybe a 6th. What I find hard to swallow is any explanation that TN should be a 4 seed after losing 5 of their last 8 games, and then losing to MU again in the SEC tournament. And I also don't buy that thecommittee doesn't pay attention to the league tourneys regardless if what they say. How else would you explain Michigan State making the NCAA tournament with an 18-12 record? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mosbonian:
First, injuries are part of the normal part of adversity all teams face. I truly doubt the committee really does give as much weight in injuries as they say...more just smoke and mirrors.
I am not advocating Mizzou being a much higher seed, maybe a 6th. What I find hard to swallow is any explanation that TN should be a 4 seed after losing 5 of their last 8 games, and then losing to MU again in the SEC tournament. And I also don't buy that thecommittee doesn't pay attention to the league tourneys regardless if what they say. How else would you explain Michigan State making the NCAA tournament with an 18-12 record?
The committee head went on TV and excused Houston’s performance to Memphis today because one of their players was hurt.
And regarding Michigan St: because they don’t have any terrible losses and a bunch of average to above average wins as well as 2 losses to Gonzaga and Alabama in non-conference play. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
Tennessee should be closer to a 5 or 6 seed based on how they've played the last month but you can't just ignore beating Kansas and Alabama. They also beat Maryland.
For reference, Mizzou's best non-conference win is Illinois (and a 16 seed SEMO that won it's conference tournament).
Additionally, Tennessee's PG tore his ACL less than 2 weeks ago AND the committee basically reiterated that the conference tournament does not mean shit. I don't see how you can advocate for Mizzou to have a higher seed when A&M got ****ed way worse based on conference play and going further in the conference tournament.
Mizzou should have MAYBE been a 6 seed over Iowa St, but that's about it.
Where has the selection committee said that conference tournaments don't matter? They clearly do. KU would have been the #1 overall seed if they either win the Big 12 tourney or if Alabama loses the SEC tournament.
Beating a top 25 team in your conference tournament doesn't increase your resume because it's a win in a conference tournament? That makes no sense. So no tournaments matter for seeding or just the conference one?
Iowa State shouldn't have a higher seed than MU. Say all you want about Ten, but they should not be 3 seeds higher than Missouri. Also Missouri beat Tennessee when they had their PG and they beat Tennessee when they didn't have their PG.
Your saying Texas AM can gripe about there seed because of the way they played in the conf tournament, but the conference tournament doesn't matter. Those ****s had 2 Quad 4 losses. Missouri has much more to complain about than Texas A&M. They lost to Murray State, a team that finished 7th in the MVC and Wofford a team that finished 5th in the Southern. They have no one to blame but themselves. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
Where has the selection committee said that conference tournaments don't matter? They clearly do. KU would have been the #1 overall seed if they either win the Big 12 tourney or if Alabama loses the SEC tournament.
Beating a top 25 team in your conference tournament doesn't increase your resume because it's a win in a conference tournament? That makes no sense. So no tournaments matter for seeding or just the conference one?
Iowa State shouldn't have a higher seed than MU. Say all you want about Ten, but they should not be 3 seeds higher than Missouri. Also Missouri beat Tennessee when they had their PG and they beat Tennessee when they didn't have their PG.
Your saying Texas AM can gripe about there seed because of the way they played in the conf tournament, but the conference tournament doesn't matter. Those ****s had 2 Quad 4 losses. Missouri has much more to complain about than Texas A&M. They lost to Murray State, a team that finished 7th in the MVC and Wofford a team that finished 5th in the Southern. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Go the 50 second mark for the committee head's decision to put Houston over Kansas:
NCAA Selection Committee Chair Chris Reynolds explains why Houston was kept at No. 2 over Kansas. pic.twitter.com/YrmUXOFzba
— CBS Sports College Basketball �� (@CBSSportsCBB) March 12, 2023
A&M went 12-6 vs Quad 1 and 2 teams. Mizzou went 10-9.
A&M (deservedly) was punished for their non-conference schedule even though they had more impressive wins in the SEC and beat the best team in the nation.
Mizzou has some nice wins but no great wins if you're going to argue beating Tennessee doesn't mean shit since Tennessee, per your words, should have had a lower seed than Mizzou. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
The committee head went on TV and excused Houston’s performance to Memphis today because one of their players was hurt.
And regarding Michigan St: because they don’t have any terrible losses and a bunch of average to above average wins as well as 2 losses to Gonzaga and Alabama in non-conference play.
Yeah I heard his silly explanation....more rationalization than anything else.
And giving kudos to someone who didn't have any terrible losses and average wins is like awarding Participation Trophies/Ribbons. [Reply]
Same shit as it ever was. Mizzou goes 4-0 against Kentucky, Tennessee, and Iowa State, has no Q3 or Q4 losses, and ends up seeded lower than all of them because the committee and the metrics always work backwards from a predetermined conclusion. [Reply]
Quad 1 wins are all that matter, except when they don't
Quad 3 and 4 losses matter, except when they don't.
It's better to lose a bunch of noncon games against teams with high preseason rankings than to beat tournament teams.
Kenpom has Ohio State ranked higher than Mizzou. NET thinks 13 loss Iowa and 14 loss Rutgers are above Mizzou when Mizzou beat their #4 team twice, including on the road and a neutral site.
These metrics flatly do not work and they've never worked. [Reply]
Mizzou lucky to get in the big dance as high as they did, better stay happy for what they got and maybe they get lucky and win a game maybe 2. Anybody upset over where it shook out is delusional. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
Mizzou lucky to get in the big dance as high as they did, better stay happy for what they got and maybe they get lucky and win a game maybe 2. Anybody upset over where it shook out is delusional.
That's the dumbest shit I've ever read. There was nothing lucky about them making the tourney and what an absolutely disrespectful little bitch thing to say. Gates worked his ass off recruiting and coaching and these kids worked there asses off to be as good as they are.
Go fuck yourself with that better be happy and lucky bullshit. [Reply]