I believe this is the first time in a long time (possibly ever) that we've garnered a prediction where we play a team seeded lower than us.

This means GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD things.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

I'd be shocked if we got a seed that high. I still think we'll wind up an 11 or 12. The BB game could really help us, though.

I just saw this too. This would be awesome for us!

Personally, I don't see how we could be predicted to get 8 or 9 seeds, have the record and rpi, and then fall 3-4 seedings for inexplicable reasons. We've warranted a 12 seed in years past with records MUCH worse that what we're doing right now. We win out, including the bracket buster, and an 8 is easily within our grasp.

St. Johns would be a tough matchup, but one we would probably be favored to win by about 1.5 points on a neutral floor. St. Johns, however, has played and beaten some VERY good teams. They beat Duke, Notre Dame, Georgetown, and West Virginia. Playing in the Big East, they will be no stranger to tough competition. That said, they have also lost to Fordham (!?!), St. Bonaventure, and St. Mary's. They are really up and down.

Texas would be favored by about 8 points.

lcrasmus wrote:Personally, I don't see how we could be predicted to get 8 or 9 seeds, have the record and rpi, and then fall 3-4 seedings for inexplicable reasons. We've warranted a 12 seed in years past with records MUCH worse that what we're doing right now. We win out, including the bracket buster, and an 8 is easily within our grasp.

We also only got an 11 seed against Marquette with a 30-4 record in a WAC that is nowhere near as weak as this year's WAC. Never underestimate the committee's ability to make our life hell if we don't take care of our own business from here on out.

lcrasmus wrote:I believe this is the first time in a long time (possibly ever) that we've garnered a prediction where we play a team seeded lower than us.

This means GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD things.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

I remember Lunardi had USU as high as a 6 or 7 seed in 2004, before we lost to Northridge. Even after we lost to CSN, Lunardi and most other analysts had USU safely in the field... according to almost everyone, we weren't even on the bubble. Go figure, right?

AGGZILLA wrote:

lcrasmus wrote:I believe this is the first time in a long time (possibly ever) that we've garnered a prediction where we play a team seeded lower than us.

This means GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD things.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

I remember Lunardi had USU as high as a 6 or 7 seed in 2004, before we lost to Northridge. Even after we lost to CSN, Lunardi and most other analysts had USU safely in the field... according to almost everyone, we weren't even on the bubble. Go figure, right?

That was a screw job of historic proportions. I don't think that happens this year.

AGGZILLA wrote:

lcrasmus wrote:I believe this is the first time in a long time (possibly ever) that we've garnered a prediction where we play a team seeded lower than us.

This means GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD things.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

I remember Lunardi had USU as high as a 6 or 7 seed in 2004, before we lost to Northridge. Even after we lost to CSN, Lunardi and most other analysts had USU safely in the field... according to almost everyone, we weren't even on the bubble. Go figure, right?

I remember that too. I think he had us even as a 5 before we lost to Pacific in Stockton.

If we win out (not likely but possible) and win the WAC tourney, we'd have a 13 RPI but just 1 top 50 win. My guess is that we'd get a 7 seed then. But I don't know. In the words of Al Davis, just win.

But lets not just win like the raiders! I want a good record! Lets win like Stew

isrred wrote:

lcrasmus wrote:Personally, I don't see how we could be predicted to get 8 or 9 seeds, have the record and rpi, and then fall 3-4 seedings for inexplicable reasons. We've warranted a 12 seed in years past with records MUCH worse that what we're doing right now. We win out, including the bracket buster, and an 8 is easily within our grasp.

We also only got an 11 seed against Marquette with a 30-4 record in a WAC that is nowhere near as weak as this year's WAC. Never underestimate the committee's ability to make our life hell if we don't take care of our own business from here on out.

USU desperately needs a signature win. It seems like the committee treats good wins as the most imortant factor in seeding.

Sorry to disappoint you all but the Committee is just as bad as the BCS! I will hope, pray and dream for a good seed, but I will not believe it til' I see it.

If we run the table from here on out (including conference tournament), we'll have an RPI around 14 and will be 30-2 (against D1 teams). That should warrant better than an 11. Of course, it's more likely that we drop a couple of games and end up around 28-4....I could see us in the 11 range if that happens.

By the way, I figure we have about a 66% chance of winning the WAC tourney.

I think the scars of history are opening up in a reverse logical direction. I can't show the data, but I really doubt that a team from the Big West ranked about #20 garnered a 5 or 6 seed by Lunardi. That implies a direct correlation between the rankings and his seedings - something we never saw as a Big West team. I'm guessing that our pain is re-writing things a bit to confirm how painful it was.

I will submit that #8 at this time is the earliest a USU team has been seeded this high by Lunardi, regardless. And if we are an 8 now, there is time and room to move up - hence his little arrows.

I've said this before, I'd rather be an 11th seed than an 8th. Remember, at an 8th seed, we're probably playing a 1st seed in the second round. We're good, but not that good. An 11th seed has us playing a 6th seed. I think we can beat any team that would get a 6th seed, and that puts us against a third seed in the second round. With a little luck, we can beat a 3rd. Even if we win out and crush St. Mary's by 20 points, I don't think we get a 6th seed, certainly nothing higher. So, if we can get a 6th seed, sure, that would be great. But strategically, if we can't have a 6th, give me an 11th. Of course, none of this matters, since we all have absolutely no controll over the process. And, as John Maynard Keynes said, "In the end, we're all dead."

Is Lunardi on the Committee? If he's not, then it's as good as our opinion on this board.

I don't trust either. Show me, don't tell me. We have no evidence that tells us this year is any different than any other. I still don't think we are a dominant team as it is. Yes, we can win over average competition, but that's about it. It's one thing to be competitive, but another thing to win. I'll have a better feel for this team after the BB.

I don't mind an 11, or even a 10, but I don't want anything to do with an 8 or 9. A 6 or 7 would be ideal, but not likely. I just think it would be good to avoid the #1 seed in that second game. I don't just want to win one in the dance, I'd like to get past the first weekend.

The tournament is filled with the best teams. We have to play well in order to advance. The game last year we didn't play well but I bet we could have beaten A&M 3 out of 10 times.

I like the optimism that everyone has wanting us to get past the first weekend, but it doesn't really come down to seeds. While playing a #1 seed would give us a low probability of winning, I think that how far we goes depends on how well we play.

I think we should look at potential first round matchups before we worry about who we would face in the 2nd round.

While I understand the reason that people would prefer an 11 seed to an 8 or 9 seed, I can't say that I agree with it. Yes, the second round game is more difficult, but that's putting the cart before the horse. Give me the highest seed possible. I'd rather play a 1 seed in the second round than a 6 seed in the first round.

Yeah I agree with Mario. Lets win a first round game before we worry about our draw in the second round. Besides, maybe if we win that first round game our guys will have enough confidence and excitement to pull off a huge win vs a 1!! You never know. I say gimme the 8 or 9. Heck I'll take anything from 6-11 though to be honest. I will be disappointed in a 12 or lower and I don't want the pressure of being anything better than a 6. Keep in mind, these are not expectations...these are desires. I realize we still have a lot of work to do before Selection Sunday.

I'm always happy with any tournament bid but I really really don't want to see us land a 12 or 13 and have to play an incredible team like so many times in the past. This team has earned better. If we get the 12 or 13 that means we haven't earned an ounce of respect with all our 25+ win seasons over the past decade.

Also lets be honest. There are some great teams that fall to 3 and there are some weaker squads that make it to 2 or even 1. Some 3 seeds are tougher than the weakest 1. So anywhere we land 6-11 we could get the toughest 3 or the easiest 1 and be in the same situation. For example, I'd rather play BYU or SDSU (Lunardi has them as a 2) over Georgetown, Nova, or Uconn (Joe has them all at 3) Just furthering my argument for wanting the 8 over 11 if possible. The highest seed we can get is what we should want.

I want the highest seed we can get with the most favorable FIRST ROUND matchup that we can get.