It seems so obvious, but I'm glad you laid it out so clearly.
Will we be a 1-6 seed?
- Thread starter KennyPratt42
- Start date
My gut feels the same way as you but I don’t know who was playing better than ISU second week of March last year and they didn’t even make the Elite Eight as a 2
Thought about that when I typed it. Illinois was probably the only team peaking, like us, unfortunately.
Sure, but I'm guessing that Houston preferred going in as a 1 seed, rather than a 2 or 3. Also, they had injuries but ended the regular season with like 10 straight wins.
By the end of the year, you are who your record and metrics say you are, and great teams find ways to win. You aren't going to see 3 seeds that should have been 1s.
Significantly more common for 7/10 over 2 compared to 8/9 over 1.
I think the 1 seed getting bounced in R32 probably stands out more since it's less frequent.
Interestingly, 10s do better vs. 2 than 7s, although historically 7 holds advantage in R64.
In the tournament it's also about finding ways to win games and we didn't in that Illinois game, who was also playing very well. We had a chance and came up short.
It happens often enough to be a “realistic threat.”
In the past 10 tournaments, seven of the 40 1-seed teams have lost vs 8/9, 12 of 40 among 2-seed lost vs. 7/10. Tally does not include the 16-over-1 (two occurrences) or 15-over-2 (four) in that span.
UConn was peaking all season it seemed, then Illinois was really good and a bad match up for ISU, NC State iirc wasn't even on the bubble before they went wild in the ACC tourney and it carried over.
Also remember ISU lost at KSU the last game of the season and many on here thought they were done so I'm not sure when the 'peaking' started. 5 days later?
I'm sure there were plenty of teams that were rolling then.
The point was only that as much as we wish a 2 firing on all cylinders were the same as a weak 1, the 1 still has an advantage, and is likely a better team overall i.e. more capable of making a deep run if they can handle their business the first two rounds.
Since you brought it up, though, I'm not sure what you would call ISU's tournament run if not peaking. I don't even think it's arguable that's the best an Otz team has played. Sure, UConn was great all year, but Houston was #1—ISU annihilated them, and Shead played 30 minutes. Illinois didn't even have to beat Purdue in its tournament. They were playing great basketball but it's not like ISU blew out UCF at home or something and everyone was overreacting
Houston had other injuries.
ISU was playing very well and then continued to play well in the NCAAs.
But the weeks leading up to the B12 tourney the narrative was back to 'they're burned out, tired legs' etc. because they had close wins and lost at KSU.
But the win probability for a 3 against a 6 or a 4 against a 5 is 50-60%. That's just to get into the second weekend, let alone a deeper run.
IMHO if they handle their business against the dregs and beat Arizona they should still be in play for a 2. Alabama, Florida, and A&M have multiple tough games remaining. Tennessee irks me because they have a similar profile to ISU yet, despite ISU's recent offensive woes, are even worse on that side of the ball. Being the best defensive team certainly helps, but maybe they'll drop one or two they shouldn't. You probably aren't hopping Purdue. That leaves Houston (Auburn and Duke are basically locks), and fair or unfair I think the committee is going to put a lot of stock into that game even though ISU only plays them once
At a three right now. Really no reason except playing like they did at KU to think they won’t reel off four in a row before going to Houston.
I don't get the optimism right now. I'm gonna wait until I see how we play tomorrow to change my outlook, hopefully, from glass half empty to glass half full.
Not really ISU related but more seed related, so I was listening to the Joe Lunardi segment on ESPN with his top 16 (and Joe is one of the more reliable bracketologists in the business) and they were talking about the seed ceiling of teams with Texas Tech and he said their ceiling is a 3 seed which is where they currently reside which utterly baffled me so Lunardi is implying that even if they run the table which would be a Big 12 regular season and conference title with wins over Houston twice, Arizona twice, at Kansas and Baylor plus whoever they beat in the tournament that they're a 3 seed at best? Absolutely no way. They probably can't reach the 1 seed line because the out of conference has no quality but, come on, a Big 12 Champ is a 2 seed at minimum.
Just seems like a dig at the Big 12 IMO.
Just seems like a dig at the Big 12 IMO.
But the highest 3 seed at #9 overall so the ceiling for this team is still high if they get their **** together.
Yeah Joe is not one of the more reliable in the business. He’s actually pretty bad at bracketology. He’s the most famous but reliable? No.
