Mid-Major diss

[engrshock]

The seedings given to the B12 this year are ridiculous. A 2 seed for KU and three 3 seeds for Baylor, Iowa State and OU. That is saying that there are four teams in the top 12 in the nation. BS!. WV at a 5 seed indicates that there are 5 teams from the B12 that are better than WSU.
I watched a lot of B12 games this year. They have a lot of good teams. But not many very good teams. OU has looked impressive this year and also looked not so good, sometimes in the same game.

[jdshock]

I know we all like to play the disrespect card, but I don't think it's anything more than the committee wanted to place us in Omaha.

There was lots of talk over the last few months that the committee is more interested in keeping teams close to home, than they are worried about seeds +/- a few places.

I have absolutely never heard that. I HAVE heard that there is no such thing as an s-curve where the top number 1 plays the bottom number 2. Instead, they place the top number 1 by their home first, then move throughout the 1's, then through the 2's, etc. KU is in the midwest because Wisconsin got a 1 seed.

Look at the seed list that was posted elsewhere. WSU was something like #27. That seed list wouldn't have anything to do with geography.

Find me a source for your claim, and I will concede that could have been an option.

[Shoxtastic]

2. The committee fully looks at match-ups, contrary to what we've heard publicly a lot lately. They gave us a 7 seed to see the match-up with KU. Feeling the 7 seed was a little lower than we deserved, they bumped Indiana up a few lines.

It's really hard for me to wrap my head around a different scenario.

Winner Winner! The committee can play the transparency card all it wants. There is no coincidence that Oregon is overrated, and going to Omaha (think Dana coming home wouldn't sell a ticket or two?), that we are in Omaha under seeded and set up with a potential meeting with KU. The committee can publish its 'seed list' all it wants. But this year especially, they had all day Sunday to jerk around with the bracket since the bubble was so small.

ZERO chance this is coincidence.

[wu_shizzle]

I have absolutely never heard that. I HAVE heard that there is no such thing as an s-curve where the top number 1 plays the bottom number 2. Instead, they place the top number 1 by their home first, then move throughout the 1's, then through the 2's, etc. KU is in the midwest because Wisconsin got a 1 seed.

Look at the seed list that was posted elsewhere. WSU was something like #27. That seed list wouldn't have anything to do with geography.

Find me a source for your claim, and I will concede that could have been an option.

#2 http://www.si.com/college-basketball...caa-tournament

[calfan]

All I know is that Joe Lunardi, the bracket expert,
had WSU as a 5 seed before the brackets came out.

[jdshock]

#2 http://www.si.com/college-basketball...caa-tournament

And I quote, "The committee assigns teams to be as close to their natural regions as possible. So if, for example, Gonzaga is awarded the No. 4 overall seed and Arizona is slated at No. 8, then there is a good chance that they would be assigned the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the West region."

What they're saying is that even though a traditional s-curve would have Gonzaga playing the No. 5 overall seed, they have them playing the No. 8 overall seed. They're talking about within each seed line. That's exactly what I said in my quote. I would still like a source that says they move them up or down seed lines for the purpose of geography. Never heard that before. Doesn't mean it's not true.

[wu_shizzle]

And I quote, "The committee assigns teams to be as close to their natural regions as possible. So if, for example, Gonzaga is awarded the No. 4 overall seed and Arizona is slated at No. 8, then there is a good chance that they would be assigned the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the West region."

What they're saying is that even though a traditional s-curve would have Gonzaga playing the No. 5 overall seed, they have them playing the No. 8 overall seed. They're talking about within each seed line. That's exactly what I said in my quote. I would still like a source that says they move them up or down seed lines for the purpose of geography. Never heard that before. Doesn't mean it's not true.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/03/15/ncaa-tournament-selection-chair-scott-barnes-bracket

Conspiracy theories once again proliferated as to the motivations of the committee, when it came to the matchups that appear in the bracket. But anyone who has sat through the mock selection process the NCAA provides to media members—as I did in February—can attest that these appear to be mere accidents of the process. Guidelines about geography and same-conference representation push the bracketing process one way or another.

[jdshock]

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...barnes-bracket

I understand that you're saying that the selection committee doesn't do match-ups. I get that there have been a lot of articles lately suggesting that they do not do that. I assure you, my reading comprehension is just fine, and I get that.

The selection committee slotted us at a 7 seed. They did not slot us as a 5 seed and then put us as a 7 seed for geography purposes. I don't know if you think that quote suggests that is the case or not. It does not say that anywhere, though. The committee just doesn't drop teams seed lines (let alone two!) for the purpose of geography.

I get that saying they look at match-ups seems like a conspiracy theory. Somewhere else on this forum when I first suggested it I prefaced it by saying I was pulling out my aluminum foil hat. I get that it seems like a crazy conspiracy theory. But the options here are 1. they wanted the match-up, 2. they put us as a 7 seed because they believe that is what we deserved. I think number one is a conspiracy theory, but likely. I think number two is about disrespect, but again I think it is likely. There is no 3rd option in which the committee thought we deserved a 5, dropped us two seed levels to get us to omaha, but somehow doesn't pay attention to match-ups.

I think people forget that seeds aren't tied to regions anymore. In this situation, the committee would have had to know in advance that KU was going to get the omaha slot as a 2 seed and then realizing we weren't going to be high enough to get the other Omaha pod they decided to drop us to a 7 seed for the purpose of getting us to Omaha. But somehow that seems realistic but saying they wanted the WSU KU match-up seems like a nutty conspiracy theory?

[OregonShocker]

If we beat Utah, and were a 5 seed, our ranking would be shockingly close to our seed. It would be even more of a joke than the WSU that lost to Utah being a 7 seed. There is no possible way any sane person can make a reasonable argument for WSU as a 7 seed this year. There just isn't. Every single number, metric, and eye test mocks them.

End of the day though, we are in the tournament. I hope the boys are just as angry as me, but much less vocal. I hope they saw that 7 pop up and immediately went to the gym.

However, I'm extremely tired of the "it doesn't matter" crowd. That's bullcrap. There are a lot of reasons it matters. We should be playing a lower seeded team. We should be playing a lower seeded team in the next round, should we advance. And, perhaps most importantly, we should be given what was earned. Things like 28-4 WSU getting a 7 seed and 30-3 UNI getting a 5 seed (don't get me started, that's even more of a joke than WSU at a 7), are exactly the sort of thing that scare me about Marshall leaving. I think he has the money, the support and the amenities he wants to win, right here. But if the cards are going to intentionally be stacked against him every March....

Sorry... I'm one of the "it doesn't matter" crowd. And I'm still part. The "we should be playing a lower seed" is meaningless...look at the Portland regional (loss to a lower seed) and last year (loss to a lower seed). The only difference is WHEN we meet, which is a shame. I have no problem with playing KU, but believe it shouldn't be a second round game. BUT, I want to play Ky, and at SOME point we've got to beat a higher seed to get there. Makes no difference. I'm just not satisified with saying we're a good team; I want to show we're an ELITE team! We won't lose Marshall to a "seeding" bias. He's had high seeds here and lost, and low seeds here and won. Seeding isn't what motivates him.

[jocoshock]

@EnthusiAdams: http://www.hoopville.com/2015/03/15/...na-texas-ucla/ this guy gets it!

[jocoshock]

http://www.businessinsider.com/wichita-state-ncaa-bracket-2015-3