Latest Bracketology
- Thread starter goody2012
- Start date
I honestly am so confused how it has happened. I think it's maybe because I had it written up then opened another thread and it carried over. I don't really know :/. My bad.
The problem with the Bracket Matrix is that some brackets are only updated weekly and that buffers teams that are falling down the brackets, like Iowa State for instance. If we're listed as a "9" that's best case scenario now, 10-11 is more likely.
Bracket matrix looks to have brackets only from 3/12 and 3/13. They have us as the last 9
If I could bet my house that ISU would be seeded no lower than 10 I think would. Every time in CF history that ISU has made the tournament, there have been posters worrying about the resume - even when the team was a 2 seed. You guys should know better, and so should Lunardi, but it does serve as a bright line for identifying trolls.
ISU hasn't been a 2 seed in over twenty years.
It's weird how there's still a 'they may not get in' narrative out there though.
You can click on individual brackets on there. What I could see from the ones updated last night/today, most still have us at a 9.
From Andy Katz:
"Xavier has five Quadrant 1 wins, but the Musketeers went 2-8 in their final 10 games -- and even though the committee doesn't officially have "Last 10 Games" as a category, it's hard to say they were playing like an NCAA tournament team when the season ended. How do they compare to a Texas A&M team that was completely out of the picture a month ago, but has won seven in a row entering Sunday and has racked up three Quadrant 1 wins over that span?"
I'm sure ISU is comfortably in, but I also believe that late season performance is in the heads of selection committee members. Even though it's not an official selection criteria.
"Xavier has five Quadrant 1 wins, but the Musketeers went 2-8 in their final 10 games -- and even though the committee doesn't officially have "Last 10 Games" as a category, it's hard to say they were playing like an NCAA tournament team when the season ended. How do they compare to a Texas A&M team that was completely out of the picture a month ago, but has won seven in a row entering Sunday and has racked up three Quadrant 1 wins over that span?"
I'm sure ISU is comfortably in, but I also believe that late season performance is in the heads of selection committee members. Even though it's not an official selection criteria.
The matchup in the first round is a million times more important than the number on the seed line. Gotta win the first one for the second one to matter.
4-6 in the last 10 isn’t awful. Especially when 3 of those losses were to Tech, Baylor and Texas. And 2 of our wins were Q1.
Reece Davis on ESPN just said it's the 4 teams before the Last 4 In.
Still makes no sense though.
Why doesnt that make sense? That is literally what "last 4 byes" means.
It’s not too tough to grasp.
There are 68 total teams in the field, meaning there has to be 4 teams eliminated before we have a field of 64, which is divisible by 16 and 4. 4 regionals with 16 teams in each region = 64.
There are 4 at large teams who have to play in the first four games (the other 4 teams are not at larges…in the tournament via autobid for winning a small conference tournament), hence “in the tournament” (field of 68) but they do not receive a bye since they have to play an extra game to get into the field of 64.
The “last 4 with byes” are already in the field of 64, meaning they do not have to play an extra game in “The First 4”.
