As I told you guys, lose that game today and we would have been a 4 seed at best. I could live with a 3 seed but a crappy draw against Nova and Zona to get to FF? BS
As I told you guys, lose that game today and we would have been a 4 seed at best. I could live with a 3 seed but a crappy draw against Nova and Zona to get to FF? BS
As I told you guys, lose that game today and we would have been a 4 seed at best. I could live with a 3 seed but a crappy draw against Nova and Zona to get to FF? BS
The committee uses whatever words they wish to justify each years seedings. And the metrics change every year to suit their agenda. Placing Duke at a 2 is shameful and no one can even find any framework to justify that. Pitiful
Really sad they put us as a three we certainly deserved a two and had consideration for a one. Not only did we have a better sos than both Kentucky and Auburn. We had a better Net ranking than Auburn and a better rpi. We were also 3 and 1 versus the two of them and yet they both get two seeds.
The myth is that THE COMMITTEE knows anything. They don't. You can't tell me they are relying on that twit Lunardi and other projections. They all get it
into their heads early on who should be where--and then they stop paying attention late in the process (late season, conference tourneys).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.