I don't need it spelled out like a five year old. I need it supported by facts and reasoning like an adult.
There are no PAC 12 teams that had a resume even remotely as good as Ohio State's on Selection Sunday. Please. Have you actually looked at the schedules of any of the teams you are talking about? the top 2 teams in the PAC 12 were Oregon and USC. Oregon lost to Mizzou in their only non-con game of relevance. They split with Colorado, lost their only game vs. USC, lost 2 of 3 to an Oregon State team that finished 10-10 in the PAC 12 and lost to a Washington State team that finished 7-12 in PAC 12 play. USC? Their non-con matchup with Kansas got cancelled (thank god apparently), they beat BYU (meh), lost to UConn and then lost all 3 PAC 12 games to Colorado and several others, including to a bad Utah team that just fired their coach at the end of the year.
Loyola a two seed?!?! Outside of winning two of three from 11 seeded Drake, their total list of accomplishments against tourney teams was a 14 point loss to an OK Wisconsin that finished 6th in the Big Ten.
We get it. You don't like the Big 10 and you think all their teams got overseeded because of reputation. But at some point, you have to actually look at what people have and have not done. Stop comparing this year to other years. No season in history compares to this messed up year. So many teams had non-con games cancelled and conference games rescheduled into weird slots that it was a nearly impossible task to "properly" seed just about everyone below Gonzaga and Baylor.
Every year we hear this same nonsense about how the tourney overseeded specific teams or conferences. It's as lame as chanting "overrated" when a team beats a ranked team.
This is ridiculous. Like what Pac 12 team should have gotten a 2 seed? There isn't one.
Seedings were invented for one reason, and one reason only: to prevent the better teams (or individuals) from meeting too early in a tournament. A committee is formed to "seed" who they think are the best teams. I want a committee to go with their "gut" and their "eye test" - that's their job.
NET, Ken Pom, etc. are fine, but faulty. Colgate was #9 in the NET. Iowa #6.
I don't need it spelled out like a five year old. I need it supported by facts and reasoning like an adult.
There are no PAC 12 teams that had a resume even remotely as good as Ohio State's on Selection Sunday. Please. Have you actually looked at the schedules of any of the teams you are talking about? the top 2 teams in the PAC 12 were Oregon and USC. Oregon lost to Mizzou in their only non-con game of relevance. They split with Colorado, lost their only game vs. USC, lost 2 of 3 to an Oregon State team that finished 10-10 in the PAC 12 and lost to a Washington State team that finished 7-12 in PAC 12 play. USC? Their non-con matchup with Kansas got cancelled (thank god apparently), they beat BYU (meh), lost to UConn and then lost all 3 PAC 12 games to Colorado and several others, including to a bad Utah team that just fired their coach at the end of the year.
Loyola a two seed?!?! Outside of winning two of three from 11 seeded Drake, their total list of accomplishments against tourney teams was a 14 point loss to an OK Wisconsin that finished 6th in the Big Ten.
We get it. You don't like the Big 10 and you think all their teams got overseeded because of reputation. But at some point, you have to actually look at what people have and have not done. Stop comparing this year to other years. No season in history compares to this messed up year. So many teams had non-con games cancelled and conference games rescheduled into weird slots that it was a nearly impossible task to "properly" seed just about everyone below Gonzaga and Baylor.
Every year we hear this same nonsense about how the tourney overseeded specific teams or conferences. It's as lame as chanting "overrated" when a team beats a ranked team.
He is fun to watch but he also has the swagger of a 70s porn star so it's easy to look at him as a douche.
12-8 in conference is not 2 seed worthy any year.
The criteria needs to be blown up.
I wonder how we'd have done this year with Suggs, a healthy Foster, a healthy Hinson, JCL, and whomever else you want to throw in there. "Ifs and buts" I know.If tonight is any indication, Suggs would have to be in contention for the #1 pick.
I wonder how we'd have done this year with Suggs, a healthy Foster, a healthy Hinson, JCL, and whomever else you want to throw in there. "Ifs and buts" I know.
We get you don’t think they deserved a 2 seed, but what PAC team has a better resume? It isn’t a normal year either, so keep that in mind. Their wins were better during the year. Just give it a rest dude, seriously. Could they have been a 3 or 4 and USC a 3 or 4? Sure, but it’s not crazy in this crazy year.
Charles is the absolute best