• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

NCAA Tournament, the field of 65

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I think it would be very difficult (read: close to impossible) for any team to navigate a road that would require consecutive wins over Georgetown, Kansas, Syracuse and Kentucky.

I would much rather be the #4 seed in the Duke region.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1674213; said:
...if I were a Kansas fan, I'd be pissed. KU has by far the toughest road to the Final Four of any #1 seed. They will face, in order, the toughest 16-seed by far in Lehigh (Jayhawks won't lose, but it will be a very difficult game for a 1-16 matchup), then after a relatively benign 8-9 game winner they must face the Maryland-Michigan State winner...I really think Kansas will be too tuckered out to beat the Terps in the Elite Eight ...
Click to expand...
I assume you meant, "Kansas will be too tuckered out to beat the Bucks in the Elite Eight", since Kansas would face Maryland in the round of 16. The notion that Kansas would be too worn out to handle OSU seems like fanciful thinking, since OSU's path to the round of 8 figures to be at least as difficult as Kansas's.
 
Upvote 0
Not to harp on the point, but filling out my bracket just now....other than Duke, is there a team in the South bracket that anyone would have predicted as a Final Four team? If Duke goes down, most than likely, one of : Nova, Baylor, A&M, ND, or UL will make it there. Before the brackets were announced, I would have had a hard time envisioning anyone from that list ending up in Indianapolis.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
hdcolumbus;1674356; said:
Committee Chairman on Mike & Mike. Said that the focus should be on (in relation to the 2 line) how things work out regionally--not 5,6,7,8. Bullshit.
Click to expand...
This seems right to me, in the sense that it does look like the brackets came out the way they did because the committee put a high priority on keeping the high ranking teams close to home, to the greatest extent possible, and even at the expense of making the brackets properly balanced according to overall seed. I disagree with the approach, but I suspect that, rather than intentionally trying to favor Duke or disfavor Kansas/OSU, is how they arrived at the outcome they did.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger;1674427; said:
This seems right to me, in the sense that it does look like the brackets came out the way they did because the committee put a high priority on keeping the high ranking teams close to home, to the greatest extent possible, and even at the expense of making the brackets properly balanced according to overall seed. I disagree with the approach, but I suspect that, rather than intentionally trying to favor Duke or disfavor Kansas/OSU, is how they arrived at the outcome they did.
Click to expand...

Which was a really smart thing for them to do now that they have the pod system. :2004:
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705;1674453; said:
Which was a really smart thing for them to do now that they have the pod system.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with the approach whether they used the pod system, or re-seeded/re-bracketed after each round. Prioritizing "regional authenticity" just creates too much potential for brackets that are poorly balanced and/or which do not accurately reflect the formal overall seedings, both of which clearly happened this year. The only tangible upside to "regional authenticity" is that fans of highly ranked teams generally don't have to travel as far. Most people are flying or would be perfectly willing to if need be; proximity doesn't matter nearly as much as getting a favorable bracket in proportion to your overall seeding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
ESPN has a poll: Which No. 2 seed is most likely to win it all?

ESPN.com Poll Results by State

It's always interesting to me with these polls to see how the other B10 states look relative to overall. Currently...

Overall: OSU 28% (2nd, WVU 1st @ 38%)
Ohio: OSU 61% (1st)
Minny: OSU 36% (1st)
Indiana: OSU 35% (2nd)
Wisky: OSU 34% (2nd)
Illinois: OSU 33% (2nd)
Iowa: OSU 29% (2nd)
Mich: OSU 29% (2nd)
Penn: OSU 18% (3rd) - low here because Villanova is high
 
Upvote 0
wells;1674246; said:
Recommendation for a good spot to watch the game in Vegas? I am in town over that weekend for a Bachelor party.
Click to expand...


There's a Buckeye alumni bar, I wanna say, out west of town. Took in the Pur-don't football game two years ago. Good people, all S&G. Lot's of fun.

Look it up in the Alumni Watch locations thread.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger;1674458; said:
I would disagree with the approach whether they used the pod system, or re-seeded/re-bracketed after each round. Prioritizing "regional authenticity" just creates too much potential for brackets that are poorly balanced and/or which do not accurately reflect the formal overall seedings, both of which clearly happened this year. The only tangible upside to "regional authenticity" is that fans of highly ranked teams generally don't have to travel as far. Most people are flying or would be perfectly willing to if need be; proximity doesn't matter nearly as much as getting a favorable bracket in proportion to your overall seeding.
Click to expand...

What they can't seem to work around is the perennial paucity of good teams in the West, (especially if UCLA is down) and the overabundance of good teams, north and south, east of the Mississippi.

1. Make the brackets BEFORE the conference tournaments -- What could be sillier than putting an undeserving team into the big dance just because they got hot for three games?
OR​
Use that weekend to allow ALL Div 1 schools in to the dance and determine the final 64 on the court.​

2. Throw out the idea of regions, place more emphasis on SOS/SOC and then set up a balanced bracket designed to produce 1 against 4 and 2 vs 3 in the finals.
 
Upvote 0
I actually thought there was something odd about the way in which all of the Big Ten teams were treated, some good and some bad:

OSU -- we got treated worse than I would have thought, as we were ranked #5/7 going into championship week, won the Big Ten tournament, and yet we got the worst #2 seed, implying that the committee thought we were only the 8th best team

Wisconsin -- they seem to have gotten treated better than I would have thought, as they entered championship week ranked #13/18, lost their first game in the BTT to an NIT team, and finished the regular season fourth in the Big Ten; yet they get a #4 seed, with the committee apparently thinking they're one of the top 16 teams

MSU -- they got treated worse than I would have thought, as they were ranked #11/11 going into championship week; although they lost early, I don't see how they get a worse seed than Wisconsin, considering they both went out in the same round of the BTT, they split their regular season games, and yet MSU tied for the Big Ten title whereas Wisconsin finished fourth and MSU was ranked higher going into Championship Week

Purdue -- they got treated better than I would have thought; although they had an unfortunate injury, I don't see how the committee can justify giving a #4 seed to a team that is clearly a shell of itself without Hummell
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top