View Full Version : Did Oklahoma just steal #2 seed from Rutgers??
catfan28
03-11-2006, 11:31 PM
In my opinion.......Oklahoma has been underrated all year and should be in the Top 5. I've seen them play in person in Manhattan.......seen them on television in person several times. And there is no one other than maybe North Carolina who has caught my attention like the Sooners have.
If Rutgers still ends up getting the #2 seed instead of OU........as a Big 12 fan...........I'm gonna be pissed.
:OU:
Robin
03-11-2006, 11:54 PM
I'm with you, catfan.
35TangoTango
03-11-2006, 11:58 PM
I don't care - I want two things:
(1) I want Rutgers for our regional semi-final game, and
(2) I want that game to be in San Antonio or Albequerque!!
In my opinion.......Oklahoma has been underrated all year and should be in the Top 5. I've seen them play in person in Manhattan.......seen them on television in person several times. And there is no one other than maybe North Carolina who has caught my attention like the Sooners have.
If Rutgers still ends up getting the #2 seed instead of OU........as a Big 12 fan...........I'm gonna be pissed.
:OU:Well, I certainly know this much: Since the 1999-2000 season no team playing in a major conference (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC) that won all of their conference games and won their conference tournament has NOT received a #1 seed, and not all of those teams had higher RPI's or SOS than the Sooners.
People have been saying OU is a 3-seed. Tonight ESPN leads off their story about the Big 12 Championship Game with the teaser "Oklahoma made a strong case for a No. 2 seed, beating Baylor for the third time this season in Saturday's Big 12 final."
Personally, I've been feeling insulted as a fan of this team for quite some time now. The Big 12 is young and injured this year as a whole, but hardly not a top conference, yet the entire masses of people from elsewhere act as though what OU has done is no big deal, since we play in "a weak conference". I'm so tired of that attitude.
Oklahoma will go into selection day at #6 in the RPI, likely with the seventh strongest schedule in the country. Not to mention 29 wins against only 4 losses, with none of those in crunch time, the last eight weeks of the season. No other team can make that claim among the top teams. Duke's supposed to get a #1 because they didn't win the ACC and didn't make their tournament final. Maryland is supposed to get one because they played a disgustingly lousy non-conference schedule, but won two of their six most important games. And Tennessse is supposed to get one because they played such a tough schedule, although they lost to conference teams
three times before winning the SEC tourney. And they don't have one single point guard on their team.
I don't know, why exactly is it that OU doesn't deserve a #1? Is it because when we were a relatively inexperienced team with a true freshman post, a point guard with a grand total of seven career starts, and a former post moved outside, we actually lost four games, three of them against better than just good teams? What counts for more these days, dominating your non-conference schedule, or dominating your conference?
I'm not convinced that OU is out of the discussion for a #1 seed. While the entire media and buzz speculation leaves OU entirely out of the discussion, I only have to refer to my early comments in this reply. If OU is snubbed for a #1 we will have sufficient motivation to go far in the NCAA's, based upon past history of selection. If OU fails to get a #2, then I pity any team that stands in their way. You will be facing something you won't be ready for.
YemenBear
03-12-2006, 12:17 AM
Pretty remarkable run for the OU Sooners to go 19-0 throughout conference play and tournament. Congratulations.
I think Oklahoma played its way into a 2 seed. I just hope the OU team and staff aren't as obsessed with tournament seeding as some of its fans. Big 12 was down this year (and close conference games don't necessarily mean everybody is good....it just means everybody is on near-equal footing). Conference strength definitely hurt OU.
Time to get stoked about March Madness. OU looks primed to make a deep run. TAMU should generate some excitement. Not much fun to see Baylor struggling with its offensive output this late in the season. Things need to come around QUICKLY if the Lady Bears want to do any damage. Missouri probably represents conference fourth and final entry. Tigers can surprise some people. Three teams in the Sweet Sixteen wouldn't surprise me.
swok34
03-12-2006, 12:26 AM
I thought win or lose OU is a 2 and Baylor is a 3......
still haven't changed my mind on either team with tonite's game.
I thought win or lose OU is a 2 and Baylor is a 3......
still haven't changed my mind on either team with tonite's game.So you don't think OU should be in the discussion of the best four teams in the country?
Why?
sybarite
03-12-2006, 01:05 AM
The four best teams are OU, Rutgers, LSU, and NC. OU wins.
I do think that OU is in the discussion for a one seed. North Carolina is a lock for a one, and then you have probably six other teams in contention for the other three spots: Tennessee, Duke, Connecticut, LSU, Oklahoma, and Ohio State. Of this group, only OU and OSU have gone without any losses during the past 17 games.
Tennessee has lost to #26 Florida and #22 Kentucky, in addition to losses to LSU and Duke. They are 10-3 against top-25 teams.
Duke has recently lost to #8 Maryland, besides losing twice to North Carolina. They are 8-3 against the top 25.
Connecticut has recently lost to #9 Rutgers twice, and also has losses to North Carolina and Tennessee. They are 6-4 against top-25 teams.
LSU has lost to Tennessee, Florida, and Connecticut. They are 8-2 against the top 25.
OSU has lost only to LSU and #24 Purdue, and that was by two points at Purdue more than two months ago. They are 6-2 against the top 25.
OU has lost to Connecticut, Ohio State, #19 Michigan State, and to #152 Illinois. They are 4-3 against the top 25.
Oklahoma has two problems: one is the mysterious early-season loss to Illinois. None of the other contenders have any losses outside the top 26. It's a small thing, but it's exactly that type of loss (to Nebraska) that took Baylor out of the running for a #1 last year. If it weren't for that loss, I think OU would be a lock for a #1 now. The other problem they have is fewer top-25 wins than the other contenders.
I think Ohio State will get a one seed, based on their great winning streak and lack of bad losses. That leaves Connecticut, Tennessee, LSU, Duke, and OU for the final two spots. It's kind of a toss-up. All of these teams except OU have shown significant weaknesses in the past few weeks. But only OU has a "bad" loss, and they also have the fewest top-25 wins. It could go either way, but I'm guessing they're a two. But I don't think that matters. What COULD make a difference is exactly where they are seeded, that is, as the strongest two-seed (i.e., #5 overall), or below that (through #8). That could affect the match-ups later on. I'm guessing they'll get #5 or #6 overall, and that shouldn't be much of a problem in the end. They might also end up with #4 overall (the "weakest" of the #1 seeds), and that is essentially the same as getting #5. In fact, I really think you're better off with #5 since when you're a strong #2 seed you can have a "grudge" factor to help motivate your players, as Tennessee did back in 2002 and Baylor did last year.
DblT81
03-12-2006, 02:16 AM
If OU is snubbed for a #1 we will have sufficient motivation to go far in the NCAA's, based upon past history of selection. If OU fails to get a #2, then I pity any team that stands in their way. You will be facing something you won't be ready for.
If I was a coach, I'd hope that attempting to win a national championship would sufficient motivation to go far into the NCAA tournament.
...the entire masses of people from elsewhere act as though what OU has done is no big deal, since we play in "a weak conference". I'm so tired of that attitude.
Unfortunately, this same general perception about the Big 12 has been going on for many years. First it was the conference was weak, proof was that no team had been to a Final Four. Well, the conf. hadn't had much history then. Then OU & UT made a FF. Then it was the conference couldn't win the big one. So Baylor won the big one. The east and west coast fans don't watch Big 12 games, they don't have a clue, so I quit worrying about them.
The difference between a #1 seed and a #2 seed is that you are more likely to face a bit better team in the Sweet 16 as a #2. Got to beat either one to play the next weekend anyway. If you are one of the best teams that shouldn't matter.
Without looking it up, tell me what was Purdue's seed the year they lost to Notre Dame in the NC game? Nobody remembers their seed. They remember that they played their way to the NC game.
The four best teams are OU, Rutgers, LSU, and NC.
The really neat thing is that there will be games played starting next weekend to decide this very thing. How about that?
Scamp
03-12-2006, 06:14 AM
...The really neat thing is that there will be games played starting next weekend to decide this very thing. How about that?And for those of us who can't wait, the committee will give us its expert opinion Monday afternoon. :D
swok34
03-12-2006, 06:19 AM
So you don't think OU should be in the discussion of the best four teams in the country?
Why?
They may be in the discussion, but you can look back at the history of the "committee" and pretty much see why OU will be a #2 seed.
And it doesn't matter much what I think....
like Sherri sez:
“In my gut, I think they will give us a two,” Coale said. “I think if we can win this conference tournament and go undefeated in league play, you deserve a one. But they didn’t really ask me, and I don’t figure they will call. So we’ll go play wherever they tell us to play.”
Anytime, anyplace, anywhere...
I hope basketball fans around the nation realize how very special this kid Courtney is and go and see her play. If you haven't seen her live, you haven't really seen everything that she brings to the court.
labcoatguy
03-12-2006, 08:53 AM
OU is certainly in the discussion of the best 4 teams in the country. Problem is, 8 other teams are also in that discussion.
If you're going to make the argument that OU should get a #1 seed based on running the table in the conference and winning the tournament, you have to include Ohio State in there too. Ohio State has won 19 games in a row, and their only loss in conference was to next-best-in-conference Purdue, which they later avenged twice. I think that puts them on equal footing with OU, and I think Ohio State owns the tiebreaker because they beat us.
North Carolina is ahead of OU, of course, and I think LSU and Duke are as well. Tennessee, Connecticut, Rutgers and Maryland, in my own biased view, are not as good as OU, but it still means that OU wouldn't get a #1 seed if the committee saw things like I see things.
Although this is interesting: I went back and looked at my predictions for the #1 seeds that we had on here about 6 weeks ago and looked at the things that each team would need to do to get a #1 seed. Only three of them actually won out from that point: North Carolina, Ohio State and OU.
wwi_flying_ace_17
03-12-2006, 09:37 AM
I'm guessing OU is going to just miss out and be the top 2 seed. In this coming tournament, does anyone feel that there is much difference between a two and a one seed? I really don't, but I know some of you have been able to watch a lot more ball from than I have.
Scamp
03-12-2006, 10:02 AM
That Baylor team did just fine last year, despite starting out as a #2 seed and being sent far, far away (Seattle) for subregionals. ;)
Guns Up!
03-12-2006, 10:41 AM
Just WIN and the seedings won't matter at all in the end! ;)
The selection committee does look at things such as injuries and team youth as factors, especially when there's a noticeable difference in a team with or without those at different parts of the season.
While there's no question that OU has the albatross of the Illinois loss hanging around their heads, but I think from the perspective of the committee a loss like that doesn't necessarily preclude a team from being a top seed, although it clearly doesn't help.
Oklahoma has played 25 teams in the top 100, where the most danger of a upset loss is greatest. In comparison, only Connecticut played that many, while Tennessee played 22, Duke 22, LSU 20, Ohio State 20, Maryland 18, and Rutgers 21.
Playing well down the stretch is a significant factor to the committee, and North Carolina, Ohio State and Oklahoma are hands-down the winners in that category. Yes, Oklahoma lost to Ohio State in January, but I think it's quite reasonable to believe that if that game had been played in Norman, the outcome likely would have been reversed. Some of the candidates have fewer road wins over top teams than OU, and I think that is a factor.
Some of the unfortunate aspect of being "only 4-3" against top 25 teams is that OU has just lost out on having many more top 25 wins. New Mexico's unexpected road weakness took them from 11 to 34 in two months, taking away two top 25 wins. TCU was clearly in the hunt for a 25 until they didn't get past the quarterfinals of the MWC tournament, and they are at 28 now. And A&M was knocking on the door of the top 25 until finishing at 28.
There's more to just the numbers here, you really have to look at all the factors. It's my personal belief, based upon past seedings, that Oklahoma has a better chance of a top seed than most think, simply because of that history. I've been unable to determine yet if any teams before 1999-2000 didn't get a #1 in OU's situation, but none have since.
Baylor was just edged out for a top seed last year, but had the first 2, and their RPI was 9 and SOS 33 compared to OU at 6 and 7. They lost two conference games, OU was unbeaten. The loss to Nebraska may or may not have been the deciding factor, but clearly those other two things just noted could easily have been the difference as well.
What I most worry about is getting the last 2 seed and potentially facing North Carolina in a regional final, a final that would very likely be in Bridgeport, with a huge crowd advantage for the Tar Heels. That's not the near-neutral court situation that I'd envision if OU gets one of the top 7 seats.
DblT81
03-12-2006, 11:23 AM
What I most worry about is getting the last 2 seed and potentially facing North Carolina in a regional final, a final that would very likely be in Bridgeport, with a huge crowd advantage for the Tar Heels. That's not the near-neutral court situation that I'd envision if OU gets one of the top 7 seats.
Drawing a bracket opposite North Carolina is a valid concern. If it happens, perhaps they will underachieve in the tournament like they have for a few years now.
Just beat 'em all one at a time (like Baylor did) and worry about Little Latta when and if they appear next on the schedule.
Gummy
03-12-2006, 11:27 AM
Oklahoma has two problems: one is the mysterious early-season loss to Illinois. ... The other problem they have is fewer top-25 wins than the other contenders.
All of these teams except OU have shown significant weaknesses in the past few weeks.
I understand the macro look at OU as a top seed, but if you think that abysmal free-throw shooting and 32 turnovers are going to impress the committee as one of the top four teams in the country, then I have some land to sell you.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around _32_turnovers_. No Big 12 team -- be it Colorado, Oklahoma State, or anyone else -- had that many against any other team, including Texas A&M's harassing defense, this season. Not a recipe for success, in my opinion. Heck, 20 turnovers wouldn't be acceptable in a championship game. But 32?!
Jennifer
03-12-2006, 11:30 AM
What I most worry about is getting the last 2 seed and potentially facing North Carolina in a regional final, a final that would very likely be in Bridgeport, with a huge crowd advantage for the Tar Heels. That's not the near-neutral court situation that I'd envision if OU gets one of the top 7 seats.
Does North Carolina have a huge following? I didn't think so...I wouldn't think the location would matter that much. I think many Uconn fans would cheer for OU and alum Hansmeyer.
Regardless, OU just has to win wherever they are sent against whoever they are up against and not worry about if they got jipped or not. I think they'll do just that; it's the fans who get carried away in the other stuff. :)
Drawing a bracket opposite North Carolina is a valid concern. If it happens, perhaps they will underachieve in the tournament like they have for a few years now.
Just beat 'em all one at a time (like Baylor did) and worry about Little Latta when and if they appear next on the schedule.
Certainly playing away from home hasn't seemed to be that big a factor, except for the early season losses at UConn and narrowly at Ohio State.
North Carolina fans think I'm completely insane, because I actually think we match up pretty favorably with them. OU is a very strong rebounding team that is powerful in the paint, which is a strong plus for the Sooners, and while there's no question that NC's guards are quicker than OU's, I think that with the exception of Latta, the Sooners' outside shooters are superior. I would expect a lot of turnovers against them, but it should be noted that they also turn the ball over quite a bit. Latta has 108 turnovers this year, and NC averages 18.7 per game, compared to 17.9 for OU.
And since OU plays a pretty up-tempo game, it wouldn't be the same kind of culture shock that some more deliberately paced teams face when playing them.
What I most worry about is getting the last 2 seed and potentially facing North Carolina in a regional final, a final that would very likely be in Bridgeport, with a huge crowd advantage for the Tar Heels. That's not the near-neutral court situation that I'd envision if OU gets one of the top 7 seats.
I can't see this happening. OU is one of only two top teams with an unblemished record over the past two months and their RPI is 6; that should put them in the top seven overall.
And I also wonder whether there is ANYWHERE UNC would actually have a huge crowd advantage. Have they ever managed to get a huge crowd for any game that wasn't against NC State or Duke?
walkaway
03-12-2006, 12:22 PM
32 TO's is a problem but if you replay the tape you will see that of Baylor's 12 steals in the first 10 minutes, 7 involve muggings.
Gummy
03-12-2006, 12:54 PM
32 TO's is a problem but if you replay the tape you will see that of Baylor's 12 steals in the first 10 minutes, 7 involve muggings.
OK, so now we're down to 25 in a normal game... still think that'll work against the top teams? Baylor couldn't make them pay with consistent buckets. CP or not, other teams can (and Baylor would too on most other nights), and likely will.
JohnHenry
03-12-2006, 01:24 PM
Call me an apologist, but I think the 32 TOs was a bit of an outlier. Since their average is actually less than the vaunted Tarheels, I don't see why one bad game like that should make or break their seed. If it does, the committee should have their heads examined.
One could also marvel at OU's ability to beat a top-10 team so handily in spite of having so many TOs (They did win the game, after all).
I also wouldn't worry too much about a HC advantage for UNC in Bridgeport. The Tarheels don't travel that well.
ChipperF1
03-12-2006, 01:34 PM
When you go 19-0 in a major conference with 3 wins against the defending national champion who won 29 games. I think that should earn discussion of a #1 seed.
I think Oklahoma will be the strongest #2 seed, and any team that faces them better eat their wheaties, and the same goes for Baylor.
I see Texas A&M and Missouri making the show, but not having as great an impact. Both teams will be snakebitten by their ragged edges, but they'll be competitive.
After what this team did, and given that Courtney Paris could be the most dominant player in the nation, not giving the undefeated Big 12 tournament and regular champions a top seed would be a slap in the face to the Sooners, their conference and women's college basketball in general.
So sez The Dallas Morning News' Kevin B. Blackistone...
OU women deserve more respect at this point (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/kblackistone/stories/031206dnspoblackistone.3393ff0.html)
swok34
03-12-2006, 02:56 PM
OK, so now we're down to 25 in a normal game... still think that'll work against the top teams? Baylor couldn't make them pay with consistent buckets. CP or not, other teams can (and Baylor would too on most other nights), and likely will.
Will the committee also penalize Baylor for shooting 19% in the first half. :confused:
I have never heard the Committee say that the quality of a team's play in some particular win was held against them. If you win against a good team, that's adequate redemption for a weakness in some aspect of your performance in that game.
AngelSong20
03-12-2006, 03:39 PM
Big 12 was down this year (and close conference games don't necessarily mean everybody is good....it just means everybody is on near-equal footing).
YemenBear, I think you've got it exactly right. Hopefully the few Big 12 teams that do get into the tournament will be able to defend the conference honor, but I just don't think at this point the Big 12 is as big an asset as usual. Perhaps the committee will look at the historical perspective and how strong the Big 12 "always" is, but I don't see it this year.
Before conference schedule started, I posted a message about Baylor's weak non-conference schedule. RPI and other factors not withstanding, there were few games against quality opponents, and after Baylor withstood UCLA, I said then and there that Baylor should have a relatively easy time the rest of the way to conference play. But I also said that I wasn't sure that this schedule would prepare Baylor for conference play and that based on what I had seen so far, I did not think that Baylor would be the dominant team most people expected in the Big 12. It took one game to validate that.
But now we've seen 19 games in which OU has won -- against whom? Just as YemenBear says, perhaps the reason that all the games in the Big 12 have been so close this year is that we're all down and using each other to disguise it. I think the rankings and RPI's certainly reflect such an idea, and we will have to wait until the tourney to find out. The Baylor-LSU game worries me, I'm not sure it was such an aberration as others.
So why will I not be surprised if OU doesn't get a #1 seed? Let's follow the season. We start with 3 big wins in the NIT that make me wonder if OU is going to have a magical year -- but then comes the beating at UConn. Okay, it's just CP's 4th game, little bit of a learning curve. So it's off to SF and the 2 point win over #264 RPI San Fran. Have you looked at the rest of their season? Out of their 9 wins, exactly 3 have come against teams in the top -- not 100, but 200. No wins over a top 150 team even! Still early in the season, and I know everyone gets a bad game, but still.
So it's back home and a couple nice wins to make us feel better, but it's against TCU and ORU, so maybe not so much. Then UCLA comes to town, and again OU escapes with a 5-point win. MO St keeps it closer than it should have been, and then there are back-to-back losses to Illinois and the beatdown at home by MSU. Wake-up call perhaps, and the Sooners head to NM to finish the sweep against a depleted Lobos team.
Remember, the focus here is not on should OU go to the tourney, no one argues that. But is OU deserving of one of the top 4 spots in the tourney? Based on the first half of the season, I've got to say no. So what happens in the Big 12?
2 relatively easy wins to start off, but then it's off to OSU and a big loss to a non-conference foe. This one worries me a lot because it's the beginning of a pattern of Big 12 losses to non-Big 12 opponents, including the aforementioned Baylor-LSU fiasco. Is this the turning point that everyone claims?
I say it depends -- is your goal to beat good to mediocre teams or is your goal to prove that you deserve a #1 seed? I love my Lady Raiders, but a #1 seed shouldn't need horrible FT shooting to pull off a win at home against a team that won a whole 2 games on the road this year. Then a last second 3 keeps the record alive over Baylor -- who one week later is going to get crushed by a real top 5 team...
A relatively easy next couple of weeks, only close game is A&M who is just starting to pull the pieces together at this time. But then Baylor comes to town, and this time it takes OT to stop the Bears. Remember LSU? I keep bringing them up because it's Baylor's only tangle with a top 10 team (other than OU of course). But it brings up YemenBear's point again pretty vividly...
Now we're at the home stretch, and A&M is the only opponent within the Top 50. So a #1 seed should sweep through right? A 7-point win, 2-point halftime lead at Texas does not inspire confidence. A&M was a lot closer than the final score too, and it was tied during the second half. KState led by 3 at the half and had it tied with 6 left. Nebraska was a big win, but should we expect anything less from a #1 seed? Then again my Lady Raiders, emotion, USA and all, still not in the top 50 RPI and OU gives up a 17-point lead to win at the buzzer. Sweep the Big 12, yes, but top 5 team? The pollsters don't think so either...
Let's hit the tourney. The rest of the Big 12 played Iowa State pretty close too, but shouldn't we expect more from a #1 seed? This game shouldn't have come down to the last minute if OU is a Top 5 team. I already posted about Mizzou earlier and was reminded that they were the #4 seed. Anyone still want to argue about Mizzou's mediocrity?
So then there's the big win over Baylor in the finals, that should impress the committee right? Let's just hope they weren't watching the game. 32 turnovers against Baylor's pressure defense does not bode well, especially against teams like Rutgers, Tennessee, Duke, and North Carolina. And from what I saw, Baylor's abysmal shooting was only partly due to OU's defense. Like another poster said, most Top 10 teams (and Baylor too for that matter) are almost certainly going to shoot better than that. And with even a decent 35%-40% FG percentage that game is a blowout the other way.
So does OU get a #1 seed? Only the committee knows for sure, and I think it depends on two factors. How does the committee view the rest of the Big 12, and is the W more important than the manner it's gotten? I'm not saying OU won't get a #1, but I won't be surprised if they don't (and I will be somewhat surprised if they do.)
Bball Girl
03-12-2006, 03:40 PM
OU or OSU probably deserve the #1 seed that's going to Tennessee. I hope I'm wrong...but they usually find a way to sneak Tennessee in there. LSU did us no favors by losing to Tenn.
As LONG as OU is one of the top 2 #2 seeds...all will be fine.
Gummy
03-12-2006, 03:41 PM
Will the committee also penalize Baylor for shooting 19% in the first half. :confused:
This thread, and my comments, have come into the context of Oklahoma being considered among the top four teams in the country deserving of a No. 1 seed. My point has been that No. 1 seeds do not commit 32 turnovers and shoot poorly from the free-throw line.
Neither do teams, to answer your question, who shoot 19 percent in a half and go on to lose to a team for the third time in a season. So no, they won't get a No. 1 either. :p
swok34
03-12-2006, 03:44 PM
I don't believe either are criteria for determining seedings, gummy.
Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket (http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/womens/story/9183597)
The undisputed #1 team in the entire tournament averagaes more turnovers per game than OU.
Maybe we should examine the entire body of evidence. I realize a lot of people like to talk about this or that game, particularly early in the season, but there can't be much more compelling evidence that the team that stumbled into misfortune early in the season no longer exists is our current Big 12 conference record 19 game winning streak against conference foes. If the team that struggled against San Francisco (I listened to that game, and it seemed as though the officials there were dead set on fouling Courtney Paris out of the game.), and lost 4, including to one team well out of the top 100 (and three well inside the top 25), then OU wouldn't have come close to doing what they've done.
The best evidence is the eyeball test combined with their accomplishments. I think on the first test they pass admirably, while being a little shaky on the second, but all of the shakiness is within the first half of the season.
I don't believe either are criteria for determining seedings, gummy.
Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket (http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/womens/story/9183597)
I agree with this. I have never, ever heard comments from Committee members regarding the quality of play in a particular game. They also don't consider victory margin. They have enough data to look at, and things like number of turnovers or shooting percentage just don't figure in.
labcoatguy
03-12-2006, 06:42 PM
Does the selection committee have lobbyists? If so, I nominate YCN to represent OU and the Big XII.
IamBigRed
03-12-2006, 07:22 PM
If the committee has the time to look at individual game stats for all 64 teams to determine where they belong, then this seeding procedure must be pretty easy. If they have the time to consider TOs by one team from one game, what do they use to detemine who is an 8 seed and who is a 9. How far back do they go? I think some of you all are over analyzing all this.
walkaway
03-12-2006, 07:39 PM
overanalyzing? is that possible?
swok34
03-12-2006, 08:11 PM
If the committee has the time to look at individual game stats for all 64 teams to determine where they belong, then this seeding procedure must be pretty easy. If they have the time to consider TOs by one team from one game, what do they use to detemine who is an 8 seed and who is a 9. How far back do they go? I think some of you all are over analyzing all this.
ya....we don't call ourselves obsessed basketball fans for nothing. I'm not sure we know the meaning of that "over analyzing" :D
Welcome to Hoopscoop, IamBigRed!!!
ya....we don't call ourselves obsessed basketball fans for nothing. I'm not sure we know the meaning of that "over analyzing" :D
Welcome to Hoopscoop, IamBigRed!!!Personally, I've never heard of such a thing...
:D
MsProudSooner
03-12-2006, 10:12 PM
Speaking of obsessed bb fans, I have a kind of a cute story to relate.
My sister and I were STARVING after the game yesterday. (Who can eat before a big game? Not us!) We decided to hop off the Dart at the West End and go to Tony Roma's. When we got there, there was about a 5 minute wait and 10 or 15 other OU fans were right behind us. They showed us to a table for 4. We decided to invite two other women who had been in line behind us to sit with us.
They turned out to be sisters as well. They live in MWC and are originally from Walters. They are both retired and will travel to follow the team as far as they go this year (lucky them!).
Anyway the funny thing was that we all admitted to being so obsessed that we used to sit in the car to try and catch games on the car radio in the PI (Prior to Internet) days.
I guess our obsession w/ our teams is strange to those who don't share it. But, when you find someone who does share it, it's like meeting a long lost friend.
labcoatguy
03-13-2006, 07:34 AM
So did OU steal a 2 seed away from Rutgers? According to <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/bracketology">Charlie Creme</a>, yes!
And, he's got us playing 15 seed Missouri State.
First out of the field is Wyoming, fifth out of the field is Missouri. If anything, those should be switched.
catfan28
03-13-2006, 07:40 AM
Maybe Charlie wasn't as dumb as I thought.
Either that or he got tired of hearing from us disgruntled Midwest fans. ;)
Scamp
03-13-2006, 08:02 AM
Mel Greenberg's Top 11
I ranked teams as follows but fell on my own sword predicting what the committee might do:
1. North Carolina (speaks for itself)
2. Duke (also speaks for itself)
3. Ohio State (I really liked Maryland to be a No. 1 but don't know if an unprecedented lack of conference regular or tournament title will be a hinderance. And this works better for placement).
4. Tennesseee (Redeemed with an SEC tournament win).
5. Maryland (very strong)
6. LSU (was strong all year)
7. Oklahoma (toss-up with Connecticut for this and No. 8. Sooners might even be a No. 6).
8. Connecticut (unless the Huskies are a No. 7).
9. Rutgers (Costly loss to West Virginia).
10. Baylor (Seems strongest from other contenders for upper slots).
11. DePaul (Stay home in Chicago for early rounds).
http://womhoops.blogspot.com/2006/03/sold-and-buried.html
So did OU steal a 2 seed away from Rutgers? According to <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/bracketology">Charlie Creme</a>, yes!
And, he's got us playing 15 seed Missouri State.
First out of the field is Wyoming, fifth out of the field is Missouri. If anything, those should be switched.Nice of him to do that. So instead of playing in Chicago, he has them in Nashville, before playing Rutgers in Cleveland, then North Carolina.
The only thing that changed between Sunday and Monday was that Charlie figured out he could give OU a bigger shaft that he already had them getting by swapping them to Nashville, where they could play ANOTHER regular season opponent again in the first round before playing Vandy in front of their home crowd.
And he has SIX Pac-10 teams in the field, which is the maximum possible number he could stuff in there, because none of the other four teams are any good at all.
I sure hope that the selection committee has more common sense than Creme (or Jerry Palm) regarding seedings and placement. To me their brackets give me the distinct opinion that the Big 12 is being punished because Texas and Texas A&M suffered injuries which hurt all of our RPI's.
That's some kind of the thing to do, kick a wounded conference like that.
I'm disgusted.
swok34
03-13-2006, 08:10 AM
If we are a 2 to North Carolina's 1, doesn't this make us the last #2 to be awarded?
#1 seeds: North Carolina, Duke, LSU, Tennessee
#2 seeds: Ohio State, Maryland, Connecticut, Oklahoma
Would the committee not send Tennessee to Nashville? Charlie's got 'em going to Norfolk, Virginia. I would like to see OU sent to either San Antonio or Albuquerque....though I have to say, Albuquerque: already played there twice this season. I would really hate to see any potential matchup of New Mexico once again..
we've spoken of seedings....though I don't believe there is anyway OU will get that 4th #1 seed, shouldn't the way they plowed through the Big XII and the tourney lend some favortism to WHERE they are placed?
If we are a 2 to North Carolina's 1, doesn't this make us the last #2 to be awarded?
#1 seeds: North Carolina, Duke, LSU, Tennessee
#2 seeds: Ohio State, Maryland, Connecticut, Oklahoma
Would the committee not send Tennessee to Nashville? Charlie's got 'em going to Norfolk, Virginia. I would like to see OU sent to either San Antonio or Albuquerque....though I have to say, Albuquerque: already played there twice this season. I would really hate to see any potential matchup of New Mexico once again..
we've spoken of seedings....though I don't believe there is anyway OU will get that 4th #1 seed, shouldn't the way they plowed throught the Big XII and the tourney lend some favortism to WHERE they are placed?
OU gets no respect on placement. And of course now that we have the pseudo no home court hosting in the early rounds (which is a joke), we still have teams hosting on their home courts in the early rounds, and automatically assigned to the regionals they host.
And then we have the teams that make you want to gag because of the special treatment they get. UConn's surrogate for home court posting, Fairfield, didn't make the field, but somehow UConn almost always gets favorable site placements, so they are likely in Trenton before the leisurely short drive to Bridgeport.
OU should to cheat the system like these other schools do. Provide behind-closed-door incentives to Tulsa and Oral Roberts to bid to host early rounds and regionals. Then, maybe like UConn, we can get 28 of our next 57 tournament games either played on our home court or at least in our vastly larger state of Oklahoma.
Why don't they just go back to top 4 seeds hosting? They haven't changed anything except manage to make MORE teams travel farther from home, while badly damaging postseason attendance.
Until the tournament is truly home court, there's going to be resentment everywhere except a few favored places.
ChipperF1
03-13-2006, 08:32 AM
"OU gets no respect on placement.
You won't know that until 7:00pm ET :)
We know going in that most likely, the Big 12 isn't going to get the respect the conference has earned. The teams that get in the draw just have to smack some people around.
At this point, it doesn't matter where you get sent. You beat the team in front of you. Win or go home.
labcoatguy
03-13-2006, 01:09 PM
<a href="http://www.collegerpi.com/women/06/ncaaguess.html">Jerry Palm</a>'s final bracket has now been posted. OU is a 2 seed in the Albuquerque bracket facing the Oakland Golden Grizzlies in the first round.
UNM is projected as a 6 seed on the same side of the bracket as OU. Could it be a third round of UNM-OU in the Pit for a Sweet 16 matchup?
4 Big XII teams in on Palms bracket, including Mizzou in the last four in category. Wyoming is fourth in the last four out category. And the Mountain West conference owns 3 out of 4 of the available 6 seeds.
<a href="http://www.collegerpi.com/women/06/ncaaguess.html">UNM is projected as a 6 seed on the same side of the bracket as OU. Could it be a third round of UNM-OU in the Pit for a Sweet 16 matchup?
Well, we have a perfect record against every team we've played at least twice this year, which by my count adds up to a total of something like 17 games against teams we've played twice or more: two each against four of our five divisional opponents and three against Baylor, and two each against Missouri, Iowa State and New Mexico.
BTW, anybody notice today that OU's #5 in the RPI, ahead of LSU, Ohio State, Maryland and Rutgers?
Now how could a four-loss team in a "weak" conference manage to do that?
:rolleyes:
Bball Girl
03-13-2006, 01:58 PM
Now how could a four-loss team in a "weak" conference manage to do that?
It's pretty simple..by being so much better than their competition in the Big 12 and by getting better every game.
We're not weak. What we have is VERY good, but we're just not very deep.
A&M is the team most likely not to be respected enough by the committee. They dang well better get a 7 seed at the very least. If UNM is a 6 then so is Texas A&M.
It's pretty simple..by being so much better than their competition in the Big 12 and by getting better every game.
We're not weak. What we have is VERY good, but we're just not very deep.
A&M is the team most likely not to be respected enough by the committee. They dang well better get a 7 seed at the very least. If UNM is a 6 then so is Texas A&M.What I'm getting at with this comment is that I've had people hammering at me that OU's record is good because we play in a "weak" conference and we didn't play a good non-conference schedule.
Which is funny since our non-conference SOS was better than 326 teams and worse than only five. And our conference SOS was better than LSU's. Which begs the question, if the SEC is better than the Big 12, then how did OU play a tougher conference schedule.
And of course, the answer is that OU played a higher percentage of conference games against better conference opponents than LSU did. That's why our overall RPI is better despite having one more loss.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.