Bracketology Thread

[KChiefs1]

TSN had the seeds like this:

Highest to Lowest
1. North Carolina
1. Louisville
1. Pittslburgh
1. Memphis
2. UConn
2. Duke
2. Michigan State
2. Oklahoma
3. Missouri
3. Kansas
3. Syracuse
3. Villanova
4. Wake Forest
4. Florida State
4. Washington
4. Arizona State

It's funny how we talked about the resumes of MU, OU & KU and how similar they were & TSN has them in order with OU first then MU & finally KU....

MU was close to getting that 2nd seed.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

TSN had the seeds like this:

Highest to Lowest
1. North Carolina
1. Louisville
1. Pittslburgh
1. Memphis
2. UConn
2. Duke
2. Michigan State
2. Oklahoma
3. Missouri
3. Kansas
3. Syracuse
3. Villanova
4. Wake Forest
4. Florida State
4. Washington
4. Arizona State

It's funny how we talked about the resumes of MU, OU & KU and how similar they were & TSN has them in order with OU first then MU & finally KU....

MU was close to getting that 2nd seed.

I just cannot fathom how OU can be seeded higher than kansas and Mizzou. What have they done? Who have they beaten?

The RPI ranks them at 5, but if you go by wins and losses, they just don't beat what MU and ku have done this year.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

I just cannot fathom how OU can be seeded higher than kansas and Mizzou. What have they done? Who have they beaten?

The RPI ranks them at 5, but if you go by wins and losses, they just don't beat what MU and ku have done this year.

I agree, but they have been ranked higher all year, so I think the perception is that they are better for some reason.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by doomy3

I agree, but they have been ranked higher all year, so I think the perception is that they are better for some reason.

But isn't the selection process supposed to weed out "perception" to focus on what teams have actually accomplished? Isn't that the whole reason we do it this way instead of just going by the AP top 25 rankings?

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

But isn't the selection process supposed to weed out "perception" to focus on what teams have actually accomplished? Isn't that the whole reason we do it this way instead of just going by the AP top 25 rankings?

Yeah, I know. I don't get it either. I also think that they could be rewarded for having the best player in the nation.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

I just cannot fathom how OU can be seeded higher than kansas and Mizzou. What have they done? Who have they beaten?

The RPI ranks them at 5, but if you go by wins and losses, they just don't beat what MU and ku have done this year.

OU is 0-2 vs MU/KU this year but they were without Griffen vs KU.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

I just cannot fathom how OU can be seeded higher than kansas and Mizzou. What have they done? Who have they beaten?

The RPI ranks them at 5, but if you go by wins and losses, they just don't beat what MU and ku have done this year.

I agree completely.

Based on those rankings, either KU or MU has to be a #2, and a strong case can be made for either. The same cannot be said for OU, however.