Dallashoops22 wrote:If we are ranked in the top 25, why should we be anything worse than a 6 seed?
There is no reason why Texas, K-State, Ohio State, Oklahoma State or Baylor should be seeded above us
How do you figure? Because a team is ranked lower in the AP rankings which has nothing to do with anything other than what team is hot at the moment? I can't make much of an argument for K-State or Baylor other than the committee would have a preference because they played in arguably the best conference.
SMU went 23-8. RPI #48. They have 4 RPI 1-50 wins, 0 RPI 51-100 wins. SMU also has two horrible losses in the RPI 150+ range. Those are basically impossible to recover from, teams that had no business playing with them. So very few quality wins and only one on the road, basically we beat a bunch of teams that didn't even have a prayer at the tournament. 16 of the wins came against awful teams, RPI 150+. 8 of those RPI 150+ are from the conference alone, that's not good.
Texas is 22-9, RPI #33. They have one bad loss in the RPI 100-150 range, and 7 RPI 1-50 wins, 4 more wins in the RPI 51-100 range. They have 0 RPI 150+ losses. So they have one extra loss, but have more quality wins and less bad losses. 8 wins are against awful teams of RPI 150+, considerably less wins against awful teams.
Ohio State is 23-8. RPI #22. They have 6 RPI 1-50 wins, 6 RPI 50-100 wins. So over half of their wins come against teams that in theory are/were in the hunt for the tourney. They have two bad losses in the RPI 101-150 range, but no awful losses. 5 wins against RPI 150+, way less wins against completely awful teams.
A chunk of Okie States losses came without Smart, Smart will be playing in the tourney. So they probably would have the same record if he was playing, more quality wins, less bad losses. RPI #40. 0 RPI 150+ awful losses. 5 RPI 1-50 wins. 1 loss to RPI 101-150 which is a bad loss. The rest of their losses are to tournament teams. Only 6 RPI 150+ awful wins, 2 coming from TCU who is complete dog [deleted]. They also blew out every single awful team.
Kentucky, basically same story as the others. Kentucky has a pretty decent resume and some good wins mixed in with no awful losses.
This isn't rocket science in how they figure out what teams are better on paper. Do you see why the bottom feeders of the AAC kill a team like SMU right now? That was my b*tch the whole year and why SMU needs to schedule much tougher in the OOC, not RPI top 50 teams, but they can't have all those RPI 150+ teams. There are too many RPI 150+ in the conference already whereas the other top conferences don't have those teams really.
Hopefully this helps to explain why these teams are seeded higher.