|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 23, 2016 14:55:54 GMT -5
Everybody wants into a Kansas regional... I'm hoping that the committee won't be placing UW and Nebraska in the same regional for the third straight year (and five out of the last seven years, six out of the last nine years), as well as sending Hawaii to Seattle (three out of the last six years). With Nebraska likely a perennial regional host going forward, I really would like to see more diversity in who gets sent where - Oregon hasn't been to Lincoln lately... That's not how it works. If Nebraska is #1 overall, then Washington WILL be in their region if they are #8, #9 or #16. I think the committee does have directives to try to not send teams to the same subregional year after year but the regional matchups are strictly based on seeding. If UW doesn't win tonight, IMO they have a really good chance of falling into the 12-13 range behind Stanford, Michigan St. and BYU. The Committee doesn't give that much credit for no bad losses, and there'll be a paucity of big wins (no Top 10 and only 3 Top 25) and no conference title. Similar profile to Florida, but Florida would be starting with a higher RPI. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 23, 2016 14:57:51 GMT -5
Everybody wants into a Kansas regional... I'm hoping that the committee won't be placing UW and Nebraska in the same regional for the third straight year (and five out of the last seven years, six out of the last nine years), as well as sending Hawaii to Seattle (three out of the last six years). With Nebraska likely a perennial regional host going forward, I really would like to see more diversity in who gets sent where - Oregon hasn't been to Lincoln lately... That's not how it works. If Nebraska is #1 overall, then Washington WILL be in their region if they are #8, #9 or #16. I think the committee does have directives to try to not send teams to the same subregional year after year but the regional matchups are strictly based on seeding. Everybody knows they joggle seeds to manipulate who is likely to go where in the regionals, in order to hold down travel costs. Hooking up Washington and Nebraska five out of seven years, and especially six out of, pardon, eight years (I miscounted), would make sense only in a crooked casino. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 23, 2016 15:00:49 GMT -5
That's not how it works. If Nebraska is #1 overall, then Washington WILL be in their region if they are #8, #9 or #16. I think the committee does have directives to try to not send teams to the same subregional year after year but the regional matchups are strictly based on seeding. Everybody knows they joggle seeds to manipulate who is likely to go where in the regionals, in order to hold down travel costs. Hooking up Washington and Nebraska five out of seven years, and especially six out of, pardon, eight years (I miscounted), would make sense only in a crooked casino. So Washington and Nebraska playing in Kentucky last year was to minimize travel costs? |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 23, 2016 15:07:35 GMT -5
If I'm a committee member right now, these would be my seeds:
1- Nebraska
2- Winner of the Minneosta/Wisconsin match
3- Loser of the Minnesota/Wisconsin match
4- Texas
5- Kansas
6- UCLA (assuming they win v UW)
7- BYU
8- Missouri
9- Michigan State
10- Stanford
11- Florida
12- Washington (assuming they lose v UCLA)
13- North Carolina
14- Utah (assuming an Arizona win)
15- San Diego
16- Western Kentucky/Creighton/Michigan/Kentucky
|
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 23, 2016 15:09:26 GMT -5
In all fairness to Kentucky and the committee, back in 2011 (the first year UK was scheduled to host a regional), it was Texas A&M out of the Big 12 who was awarded the final Top 16 seed, and unseeded Kentucky was sent to College Station where the Wildcats ended up winning that sub-regional. Most of us figured the committee would seed Kentucky, especially since they were the regional host.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 23, 2016 15:10:51 GMT -5
That's not how it works. If Nebraska is #1 overall, then Washington WILL be in their region if they are #8, #9 or #16. I think the committee does have directives to try to not send teams to the same subregional year after year but the regional matchups are strictly based on seeding. Everybody knows they joggle seeds to manipulate who is likely to go where in the regionals, in order to hold down travel costs. Hooking up Washington and Nebraska five out of seven years, and especially six out of, pardon, eight years (I miscounted), would make sense only in a crooked casino. There are a number of examples to show that the committee doesn't manipulate seeds to get more regionally favorable match ups. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 23, 2016 15:17:25 GMT -5
The issues the committee has had in the recent past is working around pre-determined hosts. It caused the committee to have to bump teams up and down one seed to accommodate the hosts.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 23, 2016 15:20:55 GMT -5
Simply the exception that proves the rule (with only one western regional, western teams were going to be flying east anyway). Remove that and it would still be six out of nine years with Washington and Nebraska meeting in Lincoln/Omaha or Seattle.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 23, 2016 15:21:53 GMT -5
Simply the exception that proves the rule (with only one western regional, western teams were going to be flying east anyway). Remove that and it would still be six out of nine years with Washington and Nebraska meeting in Lincoln/Omaha or Seattle.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 23, 2016 15:22:03 GMT -5
Everybody wants into a Kansas regional... I'm hoping that the committee won't be placing UW and Nebraska in the same regional for the third straight year (and five out of the last seven years, six out of the last nine years), as well as sending Hawaii to Seattle (four out of the last seven years). With Nebraska likely a perennial regional host going forward, I really would like to see more diversity in who gets sent where - Oregon hasn't been to Lincoln lately... I guess it depends on how you define "lately". Oregon was in Lincoln for the first weekend of the tournament in 2013, losing to Nebraska on the second day. FWIW, they also played in the regional in Omaha in 2012, where they beat BYU the first day and Nebraska in the Regional Final the second day. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 23, 2016 15:22:45 GMT -5
In all fairness to Kentucky and the committee, back in 2011 (the first year UK was scheduled to host a regional), it was Texas A&M out of the Big 12 who was awarded the final Top 16 seed, and unseeded Kentucky was sent to College Station where the Wildcats ended up winning that sub-regional. Most of us figured the committee would seed Kentucky, especially since they were the regional host. I believe Kentucky's facility was unavailable. That subregional also contained 2 drive-in schools for Lexington. One would infer it was a last-minute switch with Kentucky as the intended seed. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 23, 2016 15:24:02 GMT -5
Everybody wants into a Kansas regional... I'm hoping that the committee won't be placing UW and Nebraska in the same regional for the third straight year (and five out of the last seven years, six out of the last nine years), as well as sending Hawaii to Seattle (four out of the last seven years). With Nebraska likely a perennial regional host going forward, I really would like to see more diversity in who gets sent where - Oregon hasn't been to Lincoln lately... As long as the seeds are adequate and the criteria is fairly applied, why does it matter? The same team Washington and Nebraska had 3 years ago isn't the team now. Why should historic matchups and prior results play a role? That's the type of subjective crap we should NOT have. And then we end up saying- "team X had an easy path" etc. It sounds like running scared, frankly. Any team aspiring to be called elite should relish at the opportunity to play and beat other teams considered elite. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 23, 2016 15:27:00 GMT -5
Simply the exception that proves the rule (with only one western regional, western teams were going to be flying east anyway). Remove that and it would still be six out of nine years with Washington and Nebraska meeting in Lincoln/Omaha or Seattle. So the Lincoln-Seattle trip is one to hold down costs? I can't imagine that's a cheap flight either... |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 23, 2016 15:31:03 GMT -5
If I'm a committee member right now, these would be my seeds: 1- Nebraska 2- Winner of the Minneosta/Wisconsin match 3- Loser of the Minnesota/Wisconsin match 4- Texas 5- Kansas 6- UCLA (assuming they win v UW) 7- BYU 8- Florida 9- Michigan State 10- Stanford 11- Missouri 12- Washington (assuming they lose v UCLA) 13- North Carolina 14- Utah (assuming an Arizona win) 15- San Diego 16- Western Kentucky/Creighton/Michigan/Kentucky Florida only has 4 Top 50 wins, none over a Top 10 team and went 0-2 versus Mizzou and Kentucky. Their RPI is quite high but I would be surprised to see them at #8, particularly ahead of Mizzou. Kentucky has more or less locked down a seed at this point, H2H over Creighton, they have enough Top 25 wins and they are quite conveniently located. San Diego has 3 good wins, but hasn't beaten a Top 50 team since September and took two pretty poor losses in the past two weeks. Those normally wouldn't be disqualifying, but with how the committee has emphasized play down the stretch in recent years I think they tell a bad story with nothing on the good side of the ledger in recent memory. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 23, 2016 15:38:05 GMT -5
In all fairness to Kentucky and the committee, back in 2011 (the first year UK was scheduled to host a regional), it was Texas A&M out of the Big 12 who was awarded the final Top 16 seed, and unseeded Kentucky was sent to College Station where the Wildcats ended up winning that sub-regional. Most of us figured the committee would seed Kentucky, especially since they were the regional host. I believe Kentucky's facility was unavailable. That subregional also contained 2 drive-in schools for Lexington. One would infer it was a last-minute switch with Kentucky as the intended seed. I do not recall that. If that was the case, it would have made more sense to seed Kentucky, but still place the sub-regional in College Station; I believe that's what they did with Creighton last season. |
|
