Quote:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy
That is a complete valid viewpoint. Clearly Jason King believed Mizzou to be higher than the bottom #2...Mizzou finished the last coaches poll as #3 with one first place vote, I don't see any way that they should have been a #3...but the committee chairman's comments could have taken that way. I only read them, did not hear them, so maybe it did not sound that way. Jason King is pretty respected, and he seemed to think that Mizzou was closer to a #3 seed than most folks were thinking. Otherwise, I don't think it would have gotten the mention in the blog. Like I said, it was an interesting opinion, and something different, so I posted it.
I think if you based the seedings on location, then Mizzou is clearly the bottom #2. I think if you look at the opponents in the brackets, I think it is clear that Duke is the bottom #2. Duke has a much tougher road to the final four than Mizzou, and I am perfectly okay with that.
|
I get his point about the "eyeball factor," and understand what you're saying... and for Mizzou, it seems like the statement is "they had the 8th best resume" instead of "they're the 8th best team". When 2-8 are so close, and one team's non-conference SoS is significantly worse than the others, is it fair to overlook that in favor of the "eyeball test," when the other top teams played each other in non-con?
It does seem like it's give and take with the top lines... you get a #1, but you get shipped out of region, you're pushed down to #2, but stay in region... and in Mizzou's case, I'm sure they weren't blind to the eyeball test, so while they couldn't ignore the non-con SoS, they put them in with the weakest #1 in a true neutral court setting. With 6 teams from 3 conferences presenting a challenge for seeding, it seemed to end up fitting together nicely.