Committee not showing you guys any love .tough draw for you guys in wisconsin..kinda don't see why you guys should be lower than a 5 or 6 seed..
Wow #9 seed!
- Thread starter hoofanincelt
- Start date
Committee is biased against certain teams. Not to mention crooked.
Duke beat UNC 2 out of 3 games and got a 2 seed. UNC got a 1 seed. The committee even gave boo hoos a 5 seed which they don't deserve.
They should just put all 64 teams in a hat and draw for seedings and location. They would have better tournament
Duke beat UNC 2 out of 3 games and got a 2 seed. UNC got a 1 seed. The committee even gave boo hoos a 5 seed which they don't deserve.
They should just put all 64 teams in a hat and draw for seedings and location. They would have better tournament
We'll have some trouble with Wisconsin's height inside. They are very similar to Wake with guards that can shoot and a good inside game. I think we can drive on them and we are quick, so we'll see. If we win, we get Villanova. Bad seed. UVa got as good as seed as they could have gotten. But UNCW is good and then Florida and Villanova? Tough.
I can't believe Syracuse got left out. Might as well give Michigan State a bid at the first of the season so they don't have to worry about it.
I can't believe Syracuse got left out. Might as well give Michigan State a bid at the first of the season so they don't have to worry about it.
I'd rather match up against Villanova than the other 1 seeds that would all pound us on the boards. At least against Villanova we can compete on the glass and if we play our game and make 3s could pull the upset.
Wisconsin has size but not like size like The Cheats or FSU. It's a more manageable size, and its balanced by their 3 point defense ranking of 307. Could be an opportunity for Buzz's guys to light it up.
Wisconsin has size but not like size like The Cheats or FSU. It's a more manageable size, and its balanced by their 3 point defense ranking of 307. Could be an opportunity for Buzz's guys to light it up.
9 is about right. I expected them to be somewhere in the 7-9 range. Wiscy probably has more basis for a seed-based complaint than we do if we consider their entire body of work. USC-e as a 7 is a head-scratcher to me, thought UNC would have been a 2 and also don't agree with Vandy getting in, but these are only minor quibbles to me.
If you study their resume, they are almost worthy of a 1 seed. But, without an ACC regular season or tourney title, a 2 seed seems correct.
They have a SOS of 2 overall. Their OOC SOS is 5, which includes wins over Ky., Purdue, and Wichita. They have 4 top 25, 7 top 50, and 13 top 100 wins. They only have 1 loss outside the top 25, and that is still inside the 40, and they have 8 wins away from home. What is not to like?
They should be seeded higher, but we are certainly capable of beating them. This is not a Ryan-coached Final Four-type Wiscy team, IMO. They finished the season 4-6 and have struggled offensively this season at times.
Wiscy is a #8 seed, they are beatable. One thing is for sure, of the 68 teams in tournament, 67 of them are going to lose. Only 1 will go undefeated.
We deserve an 8 or 9. 10 would be to low and 7 would be to high. The committee for it right. If we are in the exact same position next year and had the exact same resume, we would get an 8 seed. If we could somehow get to the sweet sixteen this year, and had the exact same resume next year, we would get a 7 seed. I still believe that a teams history subconsciously plays a part. Does this hold true 100% of the time? Of course not, but I think it holds true far more times than not.
Syracuse this year. Their rsume is just simply to bad, but they should not have got in last year either. They got in partly based on their history. UNC Wilmington is another example. They made the tournament last year as a 15 seed. They also led Duke in the second half of last year's NCAA tournament first round and made it a game. This year, their resume is very similar and boom......they enter as a 12 seed this year.
Syracuse this year. Their rsume is just simply to bad, but they should not have got in last year either. They got in partly based on their history. UNC Wilmington is another example. They made the tournament last year as a 15 seed. They also led Duke in the second half of last year's NCAA tournament first round and made it a game. This year, their resume is very similar and boom......they enter as a 12 seed this year.
Syracuse was 2-10 away from Carrier Dome. That place is tough for visiting teams to win at. Just another reason Syracuse should not have been allowed to join ACC.
I think they got it right with Syracuse and Wilmington both years. Syracuse had a better resume last year, and Wilmington had a better resume this year.
Before the tourney last year, Wilmington was 14-4 IC, and 25-7 overall. They beat no one OOC, and had bad OOC losses to ECU and Radford. They only shared their regular season title, and barely won all 3 CAA tourney games. When looking at the 14 seeds ahead of them last year, a 15 seemed fine.
This year, they went 15-3 IC, and 29-5 overall, and rolled through their conference tourney. They beat St. Bona. OOC, and had no bad OOC losses. They also had more road wins and a better RPI than last year. They are clearly a better team than last year, and deserving of a 12 seed.
Last year, before the dance, Syracuse was 19-13, with only 3 OOC losses. They had 6 wins away from home.
This year, they went 18-14, with 6 OOC losses, including some bad ones, and only won 2 games away from home.
They had real good wins and a bad OOC SOS and low RPI both years, so clearly the lack of road wins combined with bad OOC losses doomed them this year.
Another interesting team is UNC Wilmington who the "experts" all seem to like. If they play aggressively, they could give the Hoos a hard time, especially if the wine and cheese boys have another bad shooting night like they did against N.D.
It seems to me as if we get matched up with Big 10 schools, far too much in almost every sport. Both regular season and NCAA tournaments when we make them, in any sport. Win or lose, I wish we would never play Big 10 in anything.
I seem to think last time we make NCAA basketball tournament, we played Illinois.
How many people remember the 1967 tourney when we beat Indiana to reach Elite 8, then lost to Dayton in Regional Final, on a bad call by the ref, to miss out on Final 4 ?
I seem to think last time we make NCAA basketball tournament, we played Illinois.
How many people remember the 1967 tourney when we beat Indiana to reach Elite 8, then lost to Dayton in Regional Final, on a bad call by the ref, to miss out on Final 4 ?
Last edited:
A disappointing loss to a fine season, but I'm still super proud of these guys. I like that we add Walker and Bede next year (two top 100 recruits), and will have Blackshear back, Tyrie Jackson for guard depth, hopefully a heavier, seasoned Sy and Clarke at 100% (crossing my fingers). I like where this program is headed a lot. We've got a great one in Buzz, IMO!
Congrats on a great year.....Buzz got everything he could out of this team, job well done.
It was hard to watch the Hoos in the second half against Florida. You have to respect Bennett for what he's done there but his team didn't show up last night. A tough way for Perrantes to go out. On the other hand, Wisconsin's win against Villanova takes some of the sting out of our loss to them. The Hokies played well but were missing the big man to match up against them. Great job by the seniors. Just wait til next year.
ACC is still best conference. The brackets & seedings hurt ACC in a couple regions.
I was glad to see Gators eliminate hoos. Now that season is done maybe honey bun and Perantes will find a barber shop.
I was glad to see Gators eliminate hoos. Now that season is done maybe honey bun and Perantes will find a barber shop.
I don't know how anyone could say the ACC is still the best after this ridiculous showing:
An 11 seed lost to an 11 seed.
A 9 lost to an 8.
An 8 lost to a 9.
Two 5s lost to two 4s.
A 3 lost to an 11.
Two 2s lost to two 7s.
And most of these losses were lopsided. The ACC got favorable seeds, and got exposed big time. With a 1 seed, two 2s, a 3 and two 5s, the ACC should have gotten a minimum 4 teams into the sweet 16, but was lucky to get even one. Just an awful showing by the conference.
Guess the VT players had some extra time to find them a barber....I'm not sure anyone in the ACC was as good as we all thought.
And don't forget the only team left a 1 seed struggled with an 8 seed yesterday.....the top 8 teams in the ACC beat up on each other and everyone assumed the conference was strong. When in reality we have 8 teams that were very similar to each other.....but none were really great.
This about sums it up...
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ment-struggles-prove-conference-was-overrated
Pretty well written, I thought.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ment-struggles-prove-conference-was-overrated
Pretty well written, I thought.
Yeah, to me what's so galling is the margin of loss in many of these games, rather than the losses themselves. Don't get me wrong, the results have not been commensurate with expectation even if you throw out margin of victory for opposing teams, but many teams are not only losing, they're not even coming CLOSE to covering the spread. UVa was a 4 pt dog and lost by 26; Miami was favored by a couple and lost by 20; FSU was favored by 5+ and lost by 25 to an 11 seed.
In fact, the only teams who didn't really get blown out were Louisville, Tech and Wake and Tech still didn't cover as a 6 point dog. Louisville's loss isn't horrible, IMO, because Michigan has clearly caught fire at the right time, The B1G has basically demonstrated unequivocally that it's the best conference, and the maize and blue are a very good team. Wisconsin was clearly under-seeded as well, IMO, and I don't find Tech's loss to be that surprising or particularly ugly. We kept it close for 38 minutes, were big underdogs as well, and, if memory serves, Wisconsin is now in its third straight Sweet 16.
Several other things stand out to me: one, even the ACC's "blue bloods" have struggled away from home this year. UNC got blown out by GT, Duke by us, FSU by GT, and UVa lost some head-scratchers on the road this year as well. So, while some of this is surprising, it's not like it's altogether new and seems to reaffirm notions that the ACC was strong but boasted no dominant team. You look at the only remaining ACC team and it's, unsurprisingly, a height-laden team who can rebound extremely well and bang around on defense. Think about Wiscy's 17 offensive rebounds against us and what that did for their second chance points. UNC's recipe for success is basically rebound big, control the ball and nail open the threes. Yet it's their rebounding prowess that allows them to overcome bad games. I don't think another ACC team can make that same claim. Louisville, maybe. FSU, maybe also, but they have some serious, serious chemistry issues that typify Hamilton-coached squads, and despite their talent make a ton of youthful mistakes and are totally different on the road.
I hope that UNC can at least salvage some respect by making the Final Four, but this has been an incredibly weak, disappointing showing by the conference -- no doubt about it.
Last edited:
Well said....surprising and disappointing to say the least. UVA is only losing London, but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Rueter transfer and maybe another surprise transfer. Trying to keep 9-10 guys happy with playing time is about impossible. We are weak inside, Salt is a tank that can't score, he is great at picks but a liability on offense. As you stated you got to have a strong big man presence to compete in the NCAA Tournament. We have a 7 footer red shirting but anybody's guess what he can really do. We have Hunter red shirting as well, he's supposed to be a scorer with height, lord knows we need a scorer. This was a disappointing overall year at UVA, I still believe losing Nichols was a big blow to the plan Bennett had in mind, especially inside. He had the ability to be another Gill type player based on his year at Memphis. I have to believe VT fans were excited about your year. Not sure what you have coming in but to your point you need some bigs inside. Already looking forward to next season....
Only explanation I have is that the two guys who redshirted must be bringing a lot to the table.reuter is no loss Thompson and shayok will hurt us in leadership and depth.i know its been mentioned before that Bennett is honest with his kids and tells them where they stand.no one seems to leave mad.or bad mouth he or the school after they leave..
Similar threads
