35-2

[Aargh]

In the last 37 games, WSU has won 35 of them. The two they lost were to the National Champion last year and either the National Champion or the runner-up this year. The Shox are still making history.

A 7-seed playing an 8-seed for the National Championship. Is this the worst Selection Committee ever or what?

[Dave Stalwart]

In the last 37 games, WSU has won 35 of them. The two they lost were to the National Champion last year and either the National Champion or the runner-up this year. The Shox are still making history.

A 7-seed playing an 8-seed for the National Championship. Is this the worst Selection Committee ever or what?

It's even dumber when you look at the name on both jerseys. I hate elitism crap most of the time, but its pretty funny to see two teams that are usually national contenders facing off in a title game where they are both ranked so low. Maybe they both should have gotten the benefit of the elitist doubt this year.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I can see the arguments for Kentucky being seeded higher than an 8. I don't see any reason UConn deserved better than a 7.

[RoyalShock]

I don't think this is on the selection committee at all. It's on teams like UK and UConn waiting until March to hit their strides in an era where parity rules the day. Reminds me of a certain Missouri Valley team from last year.

[Aargh]

I forgot to include the 4 wins in the NCAA last year. It's actually 39-2 and includes wins against the #1 team in the polls, and a 1-seed and a 2-seed.

[Dave Stalwart]

I don't think this is on the selection committee at all. It's on teams like UK and UConn waiting until March to hit their strides in an era where parity rules the day. Reminds me of a certain Missouri Valley team from last year.

But those were the good guys so that doesn't count :)

[Rlh04d]

I don't think this is on the selection committee at all. It's on teams like UK and UConn waiting until March to hit their strides in an era where parity rules the day. Reminds me of a certain Missouri Valley team from last year.

Yup. Kentucky might have deserved better than an 8. UConn definitely deserved a 7.

Most of the people that would complain about those two being ranked that low would also have been shouting about elitism if they were ranked higher.

[HenryMuto]

Yup. Kentucky might have deserved better than an 8. UConn definitely deserved a 7.

Most of the people that would complain about those two being ranked that low would also have been shouting about elitism if they were ranked higher.

I had both UK and UCONN at a 6 and ironically I had them next to each other on my S-Curve I had UCONN at 22 and UK at 23. I even posted all 68 teams ranked 1-68 on your board on the selection Sunday thread.

So while I thought both should be slightly higher not a big difference though really the 8 seed had me annoyed mostly because it meant we had to play Wichita State in the 2nd game and I hated that so much I wanted both teams to make the Final 4.

[WSUwatcher]

Good call on UConn, Rlh -- in a good but not great AAC they finished in a fairly distant three-way tie for third, being swept by SMU and going 0-3 against Louiville, one an 81-48 drubbing.They're a legitimate #7 seed that got hot at the right time and appears to match up well against Florida.

That's really the key to the finalists this year -- hot at the right time. Kentucky could have been seeded a little higher, but not that much -- not on their record, anyway. They had the talent of a higher seed, but not all that obviously the performance of one, and if you want to criticize the selectors for anything they did regarding Kentucky, it could just as easily be that they punished UK by forcing them into a round of 32 matchup against a top seed (which as luck would have it happened to be WSU instead of one of the other #1s). Right now Kentucky is riding a combination of their talent and good fortune, as Wisconsin joined WSU in having a decent shot for the win against them at the buzzer, but missing it.

I hope Kentucky wins Monday and keeps WSU's new tradition of losing to the champ going one more year. And then next year I hope WSU tries something different by being on the other end of that "champ vs. vanquished foe" matchup. (And by the way, isn't it cool and amazing to be talking like this about WSU -- about their actually grabbing the brass ring -- and not feeling like it's some sort of fantasy out there in dreamland, but that it could actually happen?)

[CBB_Fan]

I don't think this is on the selection committee at all. It's on teams like UK and UConn waiting until March to hit their strides in an era where parity rules the day. Reminds me of a certain Missouri Valley team from last year.

Here's the problem I have. KU lost 9 games, with the #1 SOS, and was missing arguably their best player. 2 seed. Kentucky lost 10 games, with the #3 SOS, completely healthy. 8 seed. How did 1 more loss and 2 spots lower in SOS translate to a six seed difference?

[Rlh04d]

Here's the problem I have. KU lost 9 games, with the #1 SOS, and was missing arguably their best player. 2 seed. Kentucky lost 10 games, with the #3 SOS, completely healthy. 8 seed. How did 1 more loss and 2 spots lower in SOS translate to a six seed difference?

The gap between Kansas' SOS and Kentucky's is a bit more than just 2 spots.

Kentucky played 6 games against the top 25, going 1-4 against them. 10 against the top 50, going 4-6. 23 against the top 100, going 14-9. 6 games against sub-150 teams.
Kansas played 8 games against the top 25, going 4-4 against them. 19 games against the top 50, going 12-7. 27 against the top 100, going 18-9. 3 games against sub-150 teams.

Kansas had one of the toughest schedules in NCAA history, according to the RPI. Kentucky also had a far worse loss ... #137 South Carolina, whereas Kansas' worst loss was to #87 WVU.

Trying to paint the only difference between them as "1 more loss and 2 spots lower in SOS" is ridiculous. Kansas had a far stronger resume, with better winning percentages against every group of top teams. Kentucky did not have a good resume. Anyone arguing for Kentucky to be beyond maybe a six seed is basically saying the committee should completely ignore the resume and just seed teams based on their perception of the talent of the team. You don't reward Kentucky for playing a number of good teams but losing to all of them. They should have been seeded higher because #1 RPI Florida beat them three straight times? Talk about your quality losses.

[Rlh04d]

That's really the key to the finalists this year -- hot at the right time. Kentucky could have been seeded a little higher, but not that much -- not on their record, anyway. They had the talent of a higher seed, but not all that obviously the performance of one, and if you want to criticize the selectors for anything they did regarding Kentucky, it could just as easily be that they punished UK by forcing them into a round of 32 matchup against a top seed (which as luck would have it happened to be WSU instead of one of the other #1s). Right now Kentucky is riding a combination of their talent and good fortune, as Wisconsin joined WSU in having a decent shot for the win against them at the buzzer, but missing it.

Agreed. Kentucky absolutely had the talent of a top seed. They also absolutely had the resume of a mid-tier seed.

They're finally living up to their ability, but that doesn't mean they were seeded wrong. Unless people here want to argue for ignoring the results of the regular season in terms of seeding and just going off of maybe Vegas odds for seeding? No one here would have been making a similar argument if the committee had decided we didn't deserve a one seed because they didn't think we were talented enough.

[wufan]

Should Kentucky win Monday, this will be the third time in 4 years that the National Championship team beat WSU. In 2011 WSU had 3 non-con losses. Sweet 16 San Diego State, Final Four bound VCU, and eventual Nat Champ UConn. The NCAA Championship goes through Wichita!