Question on NCAA seeding and ACC final.....

[pitt-girl]

I'm wracking my brain but I can't remember what show I was watching the last week that was a sit down interview with a member of the Selection Committee. I distictly remember him saying that in terms of the #1 seeds Kentucky and UVA were clearly ahead of all the other teams in terms of a #1 seeds, regardless of conference tournaments. Now I just heard Bilas and Co. saying that Wisconsin will definitely be a #1 seed along with DUKE, not UVA. I'm confused.

 

[ratking17]

Joe Lunardi spoke

 

[pitt-girl]

Originally posted by ratking17:
Joe Lunardi spoke

Ahhhhh..... Well Lunardi has good results with the overall team selection, not so much seeding, so I guess we shall see. I know what I heard because at the time I was a bit surprised he was that adamant about UVA.

 

[ratking17]

What I don't understand is how many times pitt would advance to the big East finals, but never really see a seed bump. Now Wisconsin beats some big ten softies and they are moving up? If true I don't get it

 

[pitt-girl]

Originally posted by ratking17:
What I don't understand is how many times pitt would advance to the big East finals, but never really see a seed bump. Now Wisconsin beats some big ten softies and they are moving up? If true I don't get it

Agree! Or the year (?) Duke lost early in the ACC tournament and the prognosticators said "tournaments don't count", but for Pitt it did? I'd like to think the double standard has narrowed lately, but not so sure after what I heard tonight.

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply

That was pretty much the rap by all the talking heads--so your memory is not faulty. Apparently UVA's early loss, in addition to Justin Anderson not looking great upon returning from his injury...appears to be persuading? Frankly, the team that always gets incredibly favorable seeding is Duke. Year in and year out...from my perspective, they get over-seeded. I would not be outraged if Arizona or Wisconsin managed to get a 1 seed...they both have pretty good arguments. Unfortunately will not be much fun watching the show tonight...will not have to hit the USAirways web site or the Starwood site to arrange for my travel to the Dance Hail to Pitt!

 

[UPitt '89]

Originally posted by ratking17:
What I don't understand is how many times pitt would advance to the big East finals, but never really see a seed bump. Now Wisconsin beats some big ten softies and they are moving up? If true I don't get it

This is a myth.

In 2008, Pitt entered the BET around a 7 or 8 seed and came out a 4 seed after winning it.

In 2009, Pitt lost in the first round, but still got a #1 seed. Same thing in 2011.

In 2006, Pitt entered the BET around a 6 or 7 and get a 5.

there is a great myth that Pitt hasn't gotten the seed it deserved... and with the possible exception of 2004, the committee has been very fair to us.

 

[pitt-girl]

Originally posted by UPitt '89:
This is a myth.

In 2008, Pitt entered the BET around a 7 or 8 seed and came out a 4 seed after winning it.

In 2009, Pitt lost in the first round, but still got a #1 seed. Same thing in 2011.

In 2006, Pitt entered the BET around a 6 or 7 and get a 5.

there is a great myth that Pitt hasn't gotten the seed it deserved... and with the possible exception of 2004, the committee has been very fair to us.

You are correct. My beef has been that it always appears Duke is impervious to tournament results, whereas everyone else seems to be effected. I really dont understand how yesterday and today Duke is somehow more deserving of a #1 seed than UVA, when the selection committee all week kept saying UVA and KY were far ahead of everyone else.

This post was edited on 3/15 3:37 PM by pitt-girl

 

[panthers76]

Agree - 2004 trip to Wisky which we survived was only shaky placement

 

[Piranha]

Duke gets preferential treatment because of their name. More people watching = more money for the Man.