courtside Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I am indifferent to Joe...but I do agree with him a lot on the seedings and matchups of this year's tourney. Sure Lunardi struggled a lot with his seedings picks in this year's tourney, but I think some points are valid. • Seeding: The following teams were measurably underseeded in the 2007 Tournament: UNLV, Niagara, UCLA, Marquette, Texas, Nevada, Creighton. And the following teams were demonstrably over-seeded: Gonzaga, George Washington, Texas Tech, Long Beach State, Virginia, Albany, Stanford. It was, quite simply, the worst seeding/pairings performance we've seen in my 13 years of Bracketology. I'll discuss the problem at length in Friday's wrap up to this series. In the meantime, let's also not forget the procedural errors in allowing two early-round rematches from 2006 (Indiana versus Gonzaga, Southern Illinois versusVirginia Tech) and one potential rematch (UCLA versus Gonzaga). Time constraints or not, these things have to be checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I think think the committee did a terrible job this year. I still have a big problem with the team placements. I understand that Florida was the number one overall seed and thus was to be sent to the closet regional final site to them, but it didn't make sense not to break that rule this tear. Florida would have brought the same amount of fans no matter where they played this year. None of the sites was an easy drive for UF fans. They really screwed up with what could have been packed house with KU and SIU playing at the Ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 brian, imo, the siu thing was missed simply because the committee had no confidence in what siu could bring to the table (and likely didnt want them to come thru the brackets as well). too many of the committee really never see enough of the teams to have an educated opinion. i still say the answer is to add SIGNIFICANTLY more teams and add a round or two to the tourney. get rid of or incorporate the nit in the real tourney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 maybe my personal dislike is showing here, but wasn't Duke over-seeded? although i say this, i have no idea what the criteria for over- or under- is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 12, 2007 Author Share Posted April 12, 2007 >maybe my personal dislike is showing here, but wasn't Duke >over-seeded? >although i say this, i have no idea what the criteria for >over- or under- is Duke was vastly over seeded this year. Some teams were over-seeded and some under-seeded.....I remember thinking the seeds were way off this year imo. And also the matchups and brackets....too many forced attempts at rematches and made for tv matchups which I thought backfired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.