After looking at schedule, great chance UK will be 20-4 heading to USCjr

[The_Answer1313]

Furthermore, this is what the actual rules says about it

1. The committee will place the four No. 1 seeds in each of the four regions, thus determining the Final Four semifinals pairings (overall 1 vs. 4; 2 vs. 3).

2. The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed. The committee will not compromise the principle of keeping teams from the same conference in separate regions

I'm actually a little surprised by this. I know what they are trying to by balancing (1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5) but you can't have it both ways.

And then what........it just says that for the 2 line. So you go to the 3 seed line and the best 3 gets placed in their natural region.

It doesn't seem very fair to the 2 seeds lol

Either you do this by location or you should just go straight S Curve again NCAA. You can't have it both ways.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I'm skeptical on this. They use the word "may". If it's 1 vs 5 then they might do it but if it's 1 vs 6 I can't see them doing this.

Again just seems awfully weird to do this JUST on a 2 seed line

 

[The_Answer1313]

Too bad this rule didn't happen in 2010. Kentucky being the #1 overall seed definitely got the best #2 in WVU.

Still, good to see. Kentucky will a lot of times be in the top8, so it's nice to see them try and get the match-ups right.

Yep. Most argued that WVU should have been the 1 seed and Duke the strongest 2 that year I believe.

 

[The_Answer1313]

3. The committee will then place the No. 3 seeds in each region in true seed list order.

4. The committee will then place the No. 4 seeds in each region in true seed list order.

5. After the top four seed lines have been assigned, the committee will review the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true seed” numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total. 6. In “true seed” order, the committee then assigns each team (and, therefore, all teams in its bracket group—e.g., seeds 1, 8, 9, 16) to first-/second-round sites.


Honestly now it makes more sense for UK to be a 3 seed or 4 seed to get in Louisville lol. A 2 seed and they may push them out just for being the strongest two lol

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I'm skeptical on this. They use the word "may". If it's 1 vs 5 then they might do it but if it's 1 vs 6 I can't see them doing this.

Again just seems awfully weird to do this JUST on a 2 seed line

See it's this type of vague wording that always leaves me skeptical of the whole process. "We MAY do it in this scenario, but not in this scenario". Sounds to me like the NCAA likes to muck up the entire process, and never definitely say that something is one way or another, leaving the door open to interpretation.

 

[The_Answer1313]

See it's this type of vague wording that always leaves me skeptical of the whole process. "We MAY do it in this scenario, but not in this scenario". Sounds to me like the NCAA likes to muck up the entire process, and never definitely say that something is one way or another, leaving the door open to interpretation.

To me it's like the NCAA is trying to please everyone.

Ok lets give the best seeds preference on location.
Oh wait but doesn't that create an imbalance within the regions
Yes let's do something about that and make sure the strongest 1 and strongest 2 aren't in the same region.

There's really only two ways you can go here
1) Make location a factor and leave it at that. Has to be a factor for all seeds tho. Heck even get rid of the conference rules. Get rid of the matchup rules. Just make it strictly location. The regions will be unbalanced and conference teams will meet up sooner but so what.
2) Take the seed list and go full S Curve. The regions will be balanced but teams will have no control over regions they play in. By doing this you can however still keep the first two rounds home advantage with the pod system

It seems like the NCAA is trying to incorporate both. It's not good.

Honestly I don't care if 1 has to play 5. These numbers are arbitrary anyways. If someone can make a case of a team being 5 and a case for team b being 8 then I can make a case for team B being a 5 and Team A being an 8. To me theres just not enough difference within a seed line to really care about this.

I hate this decision honestly. If your going to do location, don't relax it just for the 2 seeds. Do location period

 

[The_Answer1313]

Either way, unless this is a 1 vs 5 problem, I don't see them doing this. I think eventually they stick with location on that 2 seed line.

 

[The_Answer1313]

One last thing they really didn't even have to change this rule

5. After the top four seed lines have been assigned, the committee will review the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true seed” numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total. 6. In “true seed” order, the committee then assigns each team (and, therefore, all teams in its bracket group—e.g., seeds 1, 8, 9, 16) to first-/second-round sites.

That's been in the rules for years, but looking back on recent tournaments I found no evidence they actually went back and did this step. If they actually do this step and they balance the first four seeds, then they really don't have to worry about balancing after the 2 seed line as well IMO.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

There isn't a single game left on our schedule, in the SEC Tourney, or the NCAA Tourney that we could not lose. This is not that kind of season.

 

[The_Answer1313]

There isn't a single game left on our schedule, in the SEC Tourney, or the NCAA Tourney that we could not lose. This is not that kind of season.

That's not true at all.