Its sites like this that piss me off

[kcshocker11]

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/

3 seed with a perfect record? KU a #1 seed?

[HockeyShock]

teamrankings.com? More like jerseynamerankings.com, amirite? :P

[TheDover1018]

Hater's gunna hate. They'll get to see in March.

[proshox]

I think you need to look at the detail page for the Shockers. The three seed is the seed that occurred most of the time during their simulations (26% of the time they are a 1 or a 2 seed). This site seems to be about as fair as it can be.

I have never been to the site, but found the analysis to be pretty interesting. Especially the round by round analysis of the actual tournament.

[tw805]

Maybe I'm simple, but why do we really care to this level of detail about seeding, even when it comes to the actual selection committee? Barring something catastrophic, and I mean really catastrophic, could we at least agree that WSU is unlikely to be seeded lower than four? All roads in the tournament lead to the same place, you know, and I'm just not convinced that the 1 seed has it a lot easier than the 4 seed. There's a legitimate argument to be made the 1 seed has it worse than the 2 and 4, because it seems that every year there is a very under-seeded 8 or 9 seed (ahem!) sitting in that second game waiting for the 1. Unpopular as this opinion may be, I'm not even sure I'd want the 1. That's a lot of pressure.

So since this is how I feel about the actual seeding, I don't give two shits about some random internet sit. Neither should you.

[ShockerPrez]

Doesn't matter. We can win it all from the 16 seed line if need be.

[kcshocker11]

@proshox: Really did you notice Creighton as a 2 seed and a better chance at progressing in the tourney?

[OTR Shockfan]

@proshox: Really did you notice Creighton as a 2 seed and a better chance at progressing in the tourney?

I'm thinkin they should set there sites on a more realistic goal ,,,, like winning a second game in the big dance LOL

[Novacat91]

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ Not sure if you guys follow this site, but it's updated daily with links to 74 different brackets to drive yourself crazy

[proshox]

@proshox: Really did you notice Creighton as a 2 seed and a better chance at progressing in the tourney?

Sure, the stats show them to be a dangerous team. It isn't like WSU was dominant against CU in the head to head match-ups ( WSU went 1-2 against CU last year). I like WSU better, predict that WSU will get the better seed, and WSU will progress further in the tournament. This site doesn’t agree and I can’t find a reason to be “upset” about it. Those that are upset remind me of a girl looking for reasons to be pissed off at her friends and family (irrational and emotional).

[Novacat91]

You can disagree with the site but you really can't be mad at that site. It's done purely on algorithm's for the remaining games. No bias based on personal preference like a lot of other brackets.

[wsushox1]

Maybe I'm simple, but why do we really care to this level of detail about seeding, even when it comes to the actual selection committee? Barring something catastrophic, and I mean really catastrophic, could we at least agree that WSU is unlikely to be seeded lower than four? All roads in the tournament lead to the same place, you know, and I'm just not convinced that the 1 seed has it a lot easier than the 4 seed. There's a legitimate argument to be made the 1 seed has it worse than the 2 and 4, because it seems that every year there is a very under-seeded 8 or 9 seed (ahem!) sitting in that second game waiting for the 1. Unpopular as this opinion may be, I'm not even sure I'd want the 1. That's a lot of pressure.

So since this is how I feel about the actual seeding, I don't give two shits about some random internet sit. Neither should you.

I don't think that we were underseeded last year. In fact, the argument could have been made that PITT was underseeded.

[martymoose]

I'm Angry!


....actually, not really.

[tw805]

I think we were both underseeded, if we're just talking body of work. The idea behind the seed is that a one seed from each bracket is the favorite to make the tournament. I realize there's some give there, but a nine seed that makes the final four, by definition, is underseeded on some level. The committee does that every year with about four or five teams. Like the year VCU got a 12 and we all had a collective scream.

[Shockeriffic]

Maybe I'm simple, but why do we really care to this level of detail about seeding, even when it comes to the actual selection committee? Barring something catastrophic, and I mean really catastrophic, could we at least agree that WSU is unlikely to be seeded lower than four? All roads in the tournament lead to the same place, you know, and I'm just not convinced that the 1 seed has it a lot easier than the 4 seed. There's a legitimate argument to be made the 1 seed has it worse than the 2 and 4, because it seems that every year there is a very under-seeded 8 or 9 seed (ahem!) sitting in that second game waiting for the 1. Unpopular as this opinion may be, I'm not even sure I'd want the 1. That's a lot of pressure.

So since this is how I feel about the actual seeding, I don't give two shits about some random internet sit. Neither should you.

I don't think there's that much difference between a 1 and 2 but there's a pretty big difference between a 1 and 4 seed. Just in the first round a 1 seed gets a game that they've won 100% of the time. A 4 seed could get a team like Green Bay that lost to Wisconsin by 3 and beat Virginia by 3.