Is it fair to match up these conference champions in rd 1?

aggiesdotcom · Post by **aggiesdotcom** » March 22nd, 2019, 10:22 pm

The two best conferences in the west get their best teams lined up to play each other first round? I don't think that's right. We should have been playing a 3rd or 4th place team from the Big 12 or 10, or an 8th place SEC team as Reno did.

Jjoey53 · Post by **Jjoey53** » March 22nd, 2019, 11:32 pm

My thinking has always been to expand tourney to 96 and give 32 conference champs byes. That would make those tourneys mean something for the power schools.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

GameFAQSAggie · Post by **GameFAQSAggie** » March 22nd, 2019, 11:35 pm

Jjoey53 wrote: ↑
March 22nd, 2019, 11:32 pm
My thinking has always been to expand tourney to 96 and give 32 conference champs byes. That would make those tourneys mean something for the power schools.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem is the power schools would be against that idea, and would instead want an expansion to 96 teams so that the last place teams in their conferences can get in.

utaggies · Post by **utaggies** » March 23rd, 2019, 12:46 am

aggiesdotcom wrote: ↑
March 22nd, 2019, 10:22 pm
The two best conferences in the west get their best teams lined up to play each other first round? I don't think that's right. We should have been playing a 3rd or 4th place team from the Big 12 or 10, or an 8th place SEC team as Reno did.

Yes, it is absolutely fair. Had we beaten Nevada twice during the year our seedings would have likely been flipped and it would possibly have been them playing Washington and us playing Florida. To whine about losing after the fact is unseemly. We had our shot.

The seeding is based on overall performance during the season. Washington tracked as the #9 seed and we tracked as the #8 seed. Where each team finished in its respective conference is not a compelling factor in making the match-ups. Many conference champions face off in the 1st games of the NCAA tourney. However, these are generally 1 or 2 seeds playing a 15 or 16 seed, or two 16 seeds playing against each other in a play-in game.

Aggie formerly in Hawaii · Post by **Aggie formerly in Hawaii** » March 23rd, 2019, 12:55 pm

Yep the seeding was fair. We got a good seed despite the mw being down. The pac 12 was also down and washington hadnt been playing good ball at the end. Oregon was the best team in the pac at the end and they beat washington twice. Before we lost, nobody was complaining about the seed. We just didnt get it done, end of story. Next year we should be even better.

dyedblue · Post by **dyedblue** » March 23rd, 2019, 1:09 pm

JFW. It was fair, we just weren't up to the task and Washington played to win

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

aggiesdotcom · Post by **aggiesdotcom** » March 23rd, 2019, 2:22 pm

I'm not saying we got the screw job and that neither teams didn't deserve the seed number. I just think the committee should take more into account pitting conference champions against each other in the earlier rounds. Only 5/16 (including USU and Reno) of the 7-10 seeds were conference champions, they could figure out a way to let conference non champions play against season champions before they pit champions vs champions.

Imakeitrain · Post by **Imakeitrain** » March 23rd, 2019, 2:37 pm

so you just eat up NIT?

There are teams in the NIT who are better than conference championship auto bids.

I just don’t think teams with similar records in unsimilar conferences should be placed as 8/9 teams. Based on what I saw Washington was severely undersold. It doesn’t really matter, because we lost regardless. But Washington was probably
one of the better 9 seeds. We probably weren’t the best 8 seed. But regardless, we didn’t jfw.

Upcoming Events

Event Results