3 Final Things

[jimhagle]

Minnesota got a break by getting an undeserved 5 seed.

[CA Mustang]

Minnesota got a break by getting an undeserved 5 seed.

Maybe so, but they lost. So how did that help them?

If SMU got a #5 seed we'd felt better about seeding, but it wouldn't have mattered if we lost to MTSU.

[SMU Section F]

Minnesota got a break by getting an undeserved 5 seed.

Maybe so, but they lost. So how did that help them?

If SMU got a #5 seed we'd felt better about seeding, but it wouldn't have mattered if we lost to MTSU.

I may be in the minority here (in fact, I'm pretty sure I am), but I'm of the opinion that seeding only matters until tip-off. Not sure why we're still talking about it.

Not to mention I think we got a very favorable draw, if only because we got Tulsa on Friday. Seeds be damned. You can't have everything.

[Stallion]

I agree-I wouldn't change a thing-a great opportunity that we just couldn't quite convert.

[sadderbudweiser]

I agree-I wouldn't change a thing-a great opportunity that we just couldn't quite convert.

As am I.....please let's not use seeding as an excuse! You've got to beat whoever you draw. It was a dream draw. We just weren't up to it.

[mrydel]

The only seeding problem was that USC was an 11 because Boatright was out for 15 games. I think they may have been higher if he had been in all year. But we still were in position to win.

[jimhagle]

I agree-I wouldn't change a thing-a great opportunity that we just couldn't quite convert.

As am I.....please let's not use seeding as an excuse! You've got to beat whoever you draw. It was a dream draw. We just weren't up to it.

A dream draw just because it was in Tulsa-really? A team we had already lost to -a dream draw? Come on..

[UCincinnati]

First of all how does the 11th ranked team in the country draw such a tough opening game-harder than Minnesota, a 5th? seed. What a joke . The rankings have to count for MORE or get rid of them. Secondly how does Cincinnati a team with we drubbed twice and should have beaten at their place draw a weaker first round game than us and be a 6th seed? And lastly, how many teams had to play their first game in the tourney against a team that they lost to on their opponents home court early in the season-exactly-none.

Kansas State Metric's:
KenPom- 28 (before UC loss)
Sagarin- 33 (after UC loss)
ESPN BPI- 36 (after UC loss)
Wins over tournament teams- @Oklahoma State, @Baylor, vs. Baylor (neutral), and West Virginia

USC Metric's:
KenPom- 59 (before SMU win)
Sagarin- 52 (after SMU win)
ESPN BPI- 57 (after SMU win)
Wins over tournament teams- SMU and UCLA

By these numbers, who had the weaker opponent?

[jimhagle]

You can throw those stats out the window-USC is the better team and they showed that yesterday.

[SMU Section F]

By these numbers, who had the weaker opponent?

I wouldn't bother arguing. Some people seem intent on blaming the loss on our seeding, instead of the actual game. (I'll never understand why some people think we could have beat Baylor or Duke, but USC was just too tough.) Congrats on your win and good luck Sunday.

[UCincinnati]

By these numbers, who had the weaker opponent?

I wouldn't bother arguing. Some people seem intent on blaming the loss on our seeding, instead of the actual game. (I'll never understand why some people think we could have beat Baylor or Duke, but USC was just too tough.) Congrats on your win and good luck Sunday.

Thanks. Trust me, we've been in your shoes too many times in the last 20 years (though we preferred to have our heart breaking chokes in the Round of 32). It's rough when you have as special of a regular season as SMU did this year to end like that. Moore and Brown had terrific careers.

[mrydel]

Congrats Cincy. Keep it going.

[mustangxc]

Kansas State probably had a better tournament resume, but USC is the better team. The committee did not factor in that they played half the season without their best player. I always had USC as a lock in the NCAA tournament. The committee downgraded Oregon in the seeding because their best player got injured. If they are going to penalize Oregon for losing their best player then they should have rewarded USC for bringing back their best player. The seeding doesn't matter but the team you face clearly matters. I think USC is a very good team, and even if they are better than SMU we should not have had to face them this early in the tournament. I would have been ok with them being a second round opponent.

[jimhagle]

Kansas State probably had a better tournament resume, but USC is the better team. The committee did not factor in that they played half the season without their best player. I always had USC as a lock in the NCAA tournament. The committee downgraded Oregon in the seeding because their best player got injured. If they are going to penalize Oregon for losing their best player then they should have rewarded USC for bringing back their best player. The seeding doesn't matter but the team you face clearly matters. I think USC is a very good team, and even if they are better than SMU we should not have had to face them this early in the tournament. I would have been ok with them being a second round opponent.

Well said!

[sadderbudweiser]

I agree-I wouldn't change a thing-a great opportunity that we just couldn't quite convert.

As am I.....please let's not use seeding as an excuse! You've got to beat whoever you draw. It was a dream draw. We just weren't up to it.

A dream draw just because it was in Tulsa-really? A team we had already lost to -a dream draw? Come on..

No not just Tulsa.

A chance to ding Baylor then probably Duke in front of the entire nation at MSG.

THAT's a dream opportunity for instant respect.