I know the analytics show us in the top ten in strength of schedule and not the top. But the only team in the Country that might have had a tougher schedule is Kansas, and I doubt it. Thirteen of our 20 conference games were against teams that made the NCAA Tournament. Plus four NCAA Tournament opponents in the non-conference. Not to mention half a dozen bubble teams Oklahoma, Kansas State, Seton Hall, Providence, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh.

I love our bracket, but we got no love from the Committee.

And think of how many competitive losses we have, minus Michigan State.

Talk about saying nothing?

bear2be2 said:

---

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

And think of how many competitive losses we have, minus Michigan State.

---

Are you suggesting we were underseeded? Both KenPom and the NET rankings would seem to disagree.

I think this team ended right where it belongs based on its resume. And I think it's likely that -- like last year -- our resume is better than our team actually is.

---

Yes, I am saying we are under-seeded and they are wrong. You put way too much faith in your advanced stats and not nearly enough faith in your eyes. Home and home against Texas, Kansas, Texas Tech, TCU, BYU, plus Houston and Iowa State. Was Connecticut, Purdue, or North Carolina's schedule close to that? Talk to the hand!

82, it was the metrics that drove our high seed.

The eyes tell you a Tech is absolutely maximizing their potential and credit to them.. but just don't have anything special. Iowa st has showed out very recently but outside of that was consistent and good.. not great.

The supposed best team in the conference/country took a historic beating 24 hours ago. Ku had their worst team in two decades (but high one game upside when healthy).

A 3 is a great seed for our squad. We rolled the ball out there half the time and still managed a 3.. pretty good and more than fair.

Instead of worrying about the seed we should focus on winning games. No doubt the team will have their priorities straight.

We actually have a decent bracket and have a real shot at a Sweet 16.

I think Tech got screwed - I think us and Iowa State got fair draws - but I have Tech winning 2 in my bracket - yes - beating Kentucky

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

I know the analytics show us in the top ten in strength of schedule and not the top. But the only team in the Country that might have had a tougher schedule is Kansas, and I doubt it. Thirteen of our 20 conference games were against teams that made the NCAA Tournament. Plus four NCAA Tournament opponents in the non-conference. Not to mention half a dozen bubble teams Oklahoma, Kansas State, Seton Hall, Providence, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh.

I love our bracket, but we got no love from the Committee.

---

I saw us finish as the toughest schedule under Palm's stats and the most Quad 1 games played other than UH. A whopping 19 of our 33 games were Q1.

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

And think of how many competitive losses we have, minus Michigan State.

---

Are you suggesting we were underseeded? Both KenPom and the NET rankings would seem to disagree.

I think this team ended right where it belongs based on its resume. And I think it's likely that -- like last year -- our resume is better than our team actually is.

---

Yes, I am saying we are under-seeded and they are wrong. You put way too much faith in your advanced stats and not nearly enough faith in your eyes. Home and home against Texas, Kansas, Texas Tech, TCU, BYU, plus Houston and Iowa State. Was Connecticut, Purdue, or North Carolina's schedule close to that? Talk to the hand!

---

Hey we were .500 vs these teams … big deal,,, if we continue with 35% fg,20% 3's and 65% fts plus throw in 15-18 tovers Hello Crest , Ipana or Colgate ,, we're done ,,,,

Again, I love our bracket and the Committee did us a huge solid with our draw. But there are 3 teams we should be ahead of: Arizona, Creighton, and North Carolina.

Arizona played only 11 Quad 1 games and has 4 Quad 2 losses and even 1 Quad 3 loss. We have only 1 Quad 2 loss.

Creighton has played 13 Quad 1 games and has 4 Quad 2 losses.

North Carolina has played 12 Quad 1 games and also has 4 Quad 2 losses.

Only West Virginia has played fewer Quad 3 & 4 games than us and Michigan and both those teams have significant losing records.

And FYI KenPom has us number one in overall strength of schedule: Arizona is 26, Creighton is 23, and North Carolina is 21.

How does the Big East get a 1 Seed, a 2 Seed, and a 3 Seed and no one else in the Tournament? How good are their wins?

bear2be2 said:

---

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

And think of how many competitive losses we have, minus Michigan State.

---

Are you suggesting we were underseeded? Both KenPom and the NET rankings would seem to disagree.

I think this team ended right where it belongs based on its resume. And I think it's likely that -- like last year -- our resume is better than our team actually is.

---

Agreed. I thought we were seeded about right or were overseeded by a digit.

True, but almost all baylor losses are Quad 1 & most were close. Very few that could be called a blow out. A loss is still a loss but strength of schedule should count for something. I've heard lots of people say that over the years about football, I'm pretty sure it applies to basketball as well.

I'm not suggesting we should be seeded higher only that I understand the argument. A case could be made for a 2 seed. That said, we have a decent bracket and opportunities to take advantage.

BUCANDOIT82 said:

---

How does the Big East get a 1 Seed, a 2 Seed, and a 3 Seed and no one else in the Tournament? How good are their wins?

---

I think it's safe to say each of those teams earned their seed. The Big East was pretty good this year.

Again we lost 10 games. How many did the other 3 seeds lose? Also it's not like the teams above us played cupcakes…

historian said:

---

True, but almost all baylor losses are Quad 1 & most were close. Very few that could be called a blow out. A loss is still a loss but strength of schedule should count for something. I've heard lots of people say that over the years about football, I'm pretty sure it applies to basketball as well.

I'm not suggesting we should be seeded higher only that I understand the argument. A case could be made for a 2 seed. That said, we have a decent bracket and opportunities to take advantage.

---

It does/did count for something. We were the top No. 3 seed despite the highest loss total of any team on or above our seed line. With the exact same overall record, BYU and Tech were both six seeds, Nebraska was an eight and Virginia was a 10.

Still convinced the committee doesn't actually care about SoS. They just use it as a talking point. Iowa State punished for their non con SoS. Houston, would have been the one seed with an equally bad if not worse non-con SoS.

If we'd won more we'd be a higher seed, the basketball committee is trending more and more like the awful football one and that's not a good thing.

IvanBear said:

---

Still convinced the committee doesn't actually care about SoS. They just use it as a talking point. Iowa State punished for their non con SoS. Houston, would have been the one seed with an equally bad if not worse non-con SoS.

If we'd won more we'd be a higher seed, the basketball committee is trending more and more like the awful football one and that's not a good thing.

---

Houston's nonconference strength of schedule was 126 spots ahead of Iowa State, which at 351 played the 12th-worst out-of-conference schedule in the country. Northwestern (355) and TCU (357) were the only tournament teams that played weaker nonconference schedules.

I don't see the committee becoming like football and certainly hope it never does. March Madness is not the "ESPN Blue Blood Invitational" which is what we have for football. It's not even the "CBS Blue Blood Invitational" although they have the monopoly. This result is pretty much impossible with 68 teams participating and some talk of expanding it again.

A couple years ago some prominent blue bloods were left out entirely (Duke & Kentucky particularly) & I think gif the most part the teams that get in and the seeding can be justified. There will always be some complaining by some fans but that's inevitable. It's notable that this sometimes comes from the fans of blue bloods too, proving my point.

historian said:

---

I don't see the committee becoming like football and certainly hope it never does. March Madness is not the "ESPN Blue Blood Invitational" which is what we have for football. It's not even the "CBS Blue Blood Invitational" although they have the monopoly. This result is pretty much impossible with 68 teams participating and some talk of expanding it again.

A couple years ago some prominent blue bloods were left out entirely (Duke & Kentucky particularly) & I think gif the most part the teams that get in and the seeding can be justified. There will always be some complaining by some fans but that's inevitable. It's notable that this sometimes comes from the fans of blue bloods too, proving my point.

---

Those prominent Blue Bloods were bad that year, the blue bloods of football that are bad get left out all the time. There are college football blue bloods who have been down for decades and haven't sniffed a playoff. The committee looked very biased this year with some obvious biased seeding to the disadvantage of big 12 and big east teams on the bubble in favor of SEC and Big10 teams. Don't tell me they aren't trending similarly in overrating the two conferences that are about to control everything.