Quote:
Originally Posted by Rams Fan
Tennessee should be closer to a 5 or 6 seed based on how they've played the last month but you can't just ignore beating Kansas and Alabama. They also beat Maryland.
For reference, Mizzou's best non-conference win is Illinois (and a 16 seed SEMO that won it's conference tournament).
Additionally, Tennessee's PG tore his ACL less than 2 weeks ago AND the committee basically reiterated that the conference tournament does not mean shit. I don't see how you can advocate for Mizzou to have a higher seed when A&M got ****ed way worse based on conference play and going further in the conference tournament.
Mizzou should have MAYBE been a 6 seed over Iowa St, but that's about it.
|
Where has the selection committee said that conference tournaments don't matter? They clearly do. KU would have been the #1 overall seed if they either win the Big 12 tourney or if Alabama loses the SEC tournament.
Beating a top 25 team in your conference tournament doesn't increase your resume because it's a win in a conference tournament? That makes no sense. So no tournaments matter for seeding or just the conference one?
Iowa State shouldn't have a higher seed than MU. Say all you want about Ten, but they should not be 3 seeds higher than Missouri. Also Missouri beat Tennessee when they had their PG and they beat Tennessee when they didn't have their PG.
Your saying Texas AM can gripe about there seed because of the way they played in the conf tournament, but the conference tournament doesn't matter. Those ****s had 2 Quad 4 losses. Missouri has much more to complain about than Texas A&M. They lost to Murray State, a team that finished 7th in the MVC and Wofford a team that finished 5th in the Southern. They have no one to blame but themselves.