Advertisement

Blogs

Looking ahead to NCAA Tournament seedings

Blog: Conference chatter

Subscribe

By Eric Sorrentino

March 13, 2009

Certainly, this is how most people filled out the semifinals portion of their Big 12 tournament bracket: No. 9 Baylor will meet No. 5 Texas, and No. 7 Oklahoma State will face No. 3 Missouri.

What in the name of Oklahoma City is going on here?

No Kansas. No Oklahoma. Perhaps the Jayhawks and Sooners can benefit from some down time before the NCAA Tournament. But this scenario is far from what I envisioned.

Much like last night's blog entry, I have some thoughts following day two that I will attempt to organize in another numbered list:

1. Does the Big 12 receive six or seven bids to the NCAA Tournament?

The following teams are locks: Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas and Oklahoma State. Texas A&M is most likely in with its RPI of 29 before Wednesday's second-half collapse. K-State (No. 75 RPI) is on the bubble after its loss to Texas on Thursday. The Big 12 has never had seven teams make the NCAA Tournament.

Of course, Baylor could crash the dance with an automatic bid by winning the Big 12 tournament.

2. NCAA seeding implications:

Oklahoma could have lost its chance at a No. 1 seed with the loss to Oklahoma State. I'm guessing the Sooners will land a No. 2 with an outside chance at still receiving a No. 1.

Kansas lost some ground and could be looking at a No. 3 or 4 seed, but not much lower than that.

It gets interesting with Missouri. If the Tigers win the Big 12 tournament, how far up the NCAA seeding chart would they rise? I'd think it's possible for MU to receive as high as a No. 2 seed if it wins this weekend in Oklahoma City.

What are everyone's predictions?

3. North with poor showing:

Teams from the Big 12 North are 1-5 against teams from the Big 12 South in the Big 12 tournament. Three of the four semifinals teams are from the South. Coming into the tournament, the North had three of the four top seeds.

4. Player of the day: Dexter Pittman, Texas:

It's fair to say Pittman has asserted himself as a dominating force in the Big 12 tournament. The 6-foot-10, 300-pounder scored 19 points and grabbed 20 boards against Kansas State on Thursday. He's averaging 22.5 points and 15 boards in UT's two tournament victories.

With so much attention paid to A.J. Abrams along the perimeter, Pittman has made a living inside the paint. It's amazing to think he averaged only 9.2 points and 4.6 rebounds per game in the regular season. I was somewhat skeptical about his stamina in playing consecutive days, but he logged 34 minutes on Thursday, after playing 28 on Wednesday.

5. Not Big 12-related, but how insane was that six-overtime game between Connecticut and Syracuse in the Big East tournament?

In case you missed it:

That should be all for now, friends. As always, discuss.

Comments

chuckberry32 (anonymous) says...

I'd say a 3-4 seed is about right. Hopefully a 3 seed. Fortunately with the chaos in college basketball yesterday we might get lost in the fold. I think we lost our chance of playing in KC though.

March 13, 2009 at 6:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

plasticJHawk (anonymous) says...

OU is a number 2 seed. KU is probably a 4 (late season losses to non tournament teams will hurt). Mizzou with a win tonight will land a 3, and with a loss will be a 4. The tough question is where will OSU be seeded. It's really hard to leave Texas A&M out of the tourney. But K-State's bubble has popped. They are out. They have some strong wins, but needed to beat OSU at the end of the season, or Texas in the tourney to stay alive. In fact they may have needed to win 2 games in the big 12 tournament to get in.

the Big 12 will get 5 or 6 teams in, it all depends on how many at large bids are still up for grabs when the dust clears from all of the conference tournaments.

March 13, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...

Great point, chuckberry...

As of about 3 p.m. yesterday, KU's loss was the big one of the day. But then 3 possible No. 1 seeds lose that night and all of a sudden KU doesn't look quite as bad.

That might have salvaged a No. 3 seed, which would be huge b/c they would then get to avoid the No. 1 seed a little longer should they advance.

As for the UConn-Cuse game..... Wow!!!!

Without question one of the Top 5 college basketball games I've ever watched. Ironically, Syracuse was involved in another one of my Top 5 — quite possibly No. 1...

Syracuse v. Georgia in the Sweet 16 in 1996. It was the game right before Syracuse beat KU to go to the Final Four that year and I was actually at this one. It was crazy.... Wild OT, buzzer-beaters, back-and-forth the entire way.

Just March Madness at its finest.

March 13, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

BPSkelly (anonymous) says...

ESPN still has us as a # 2 seed. This seems optimistic to me, but when you consider some of the other top teams losses yesterday, maybe its not as shocking as we're making it to be.

Pitt, UConn, OU, KU all losing means some teams would have to jump over us. Certainly possible, and there are candidates... Memphis comes to mind, Duke possibly. Villanova. Mizzou isnt going to pass us as # 2. You dont go from a 5 to a 2 on a weekend. Especially since they cant beat KU or OU to do it.

That said, by losing we get what we deserve. Whats most frustrating now is the fact that had we just won yesterday, even if we lost tonight, we'd probably have a # 2 locked up, unless Villanova wins the Big East Tournament, which is certainly possible now.

I still dont think the 2 is outta sight. 3 is certainly more realistic. 4 probably happens if Wake, Nova, Duke, Mizzou all keep winning... which is possible I'd guess. I just think were safer than people think with a 3 and maybe even a 2.

March 13, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BannerforKirk (anonymous) says...

Weird, Lunardi drops OU below us to a 3 seed and leaves us as the 2 in KC. Hard to imagine this happening, unless they actually give us credit for the head-to-head win (with BG, but on their court) and if they give us credit for the better Big XII record. We'll see Sunday, I guess.

March 13, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

kuhwks (anonymous) says...

I think OU and KU are going to split the last #2 and the first #3. It really doesn't matter much. The #2 goes to KC and the #3 goes to Minneapolis. I think the more important thing would be to stay out of the #4 seed and away from the Regions with Pitt, UConn, or UNC whom I see as the best three teams out there. Michigan St is pretty close to those, but having already played them, they don't scare me so much.

March 13, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

caddie733 (anonymous) says...

Call me crazy, but I can't see a huge difference in the resumes for KU and OU. I think this whole "Griffin-less" period is overblown as we have seen OU lose 2 of its last 3 with Griffin in the line-up. Looking at KU vs. OU, objectively...

OU:

1. 27-5 (overall)
2. Best non-con wins (vs. rpi top 50): Davidson? (not really, just the Curry factor), UAB, Purdue, Utah
3. Bad losses: Arkansas

KU:

1. 25-7 (overall)
2. Best non-con wins (vs. rpi top 50): Washington, Temple, Tennessee, Siena
3. Bad losses: UMass, Texas Tech

People say KU didn't have to play OU and Texas twice, well, the same can be said for OU this year, they didn't have to play KU and MU twice (KU and MU were better as a whole than OU and Texas).

The biggest thing is in the conference, the north vs. the south was an even split. So KU winning the league should count for a lot. OU didn't win the league and also had a first-round exit in the big 12 tourney, so what am I missing?

Are we saying 2 more wins (and 1 less bad loss) should get OU a 2-seed and KU a 4-seed? I honestly believe it is the hype created for Blake Griffin, when you look at things without who is on what team, why is OU so much more deserving, when they didn't finish 1st in anything?

March 13, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

K_Easthouse (anonymous) says...

Quick thought no one may have considered:

What's the likelihood that KU and Mizzou could end up 2&3 seeds in the same region? I haven't kept up with the possible brackets, but it seems to me that the NCAA has a history of trying to get good matchups at that spot. With everything that's happened the past couple days with upsets, it's looking like a possibility to me. Thoughts?

March 13, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

esorrentino (Eric Sorrentino) says...

Hey guys, really good points here. Easthouse, that's an interesting development to follow. I'd think the obvious way for KU-MU 2-3 seed to happen is for Mizzou to win the Big 12 tournament. I'm not sure the Tigers are a 2 or 3 seed right now. Lunardi has them as a 4 in his latest Bracketology.

As Bannerforkirk mentioned, Lunardi has KU as a 2 and OU as a 3. Very interesting developments. Kind of illustrates caddie's point, which I recommend everyone check out.

March 13, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

okjhok (anonymous) says...

caddie is right. OU's resume is not impressive. They are clearly not a 1, and losing in the first round, probably not a 2. I had never looked at them that hard, but with KU winning head to head and winning the league outright, there really is know way they get seeded above KU. The difference between a 2 and a 3 this year is almost non-existent. I say that because outside of the top 2 or 3 teams, parity is written all over the college scene this year. The selection committee has shown in the past that two huge elements they look for are total body of work and the last 10 games. While that may sound like a contradiction, I think you can still use those independently as good measurers of a team's worthiness.

March 13, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

okjhok (anonymous) says...

Either way, it's shaping up to be a tough second round game against a legit 6 or 7 seed.

March 13, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jnewell (Jesse Newell) says...

Easthouse — This from Wikipedia:

"The first three teams selected from each conference must be placed in different regions. When a conference has more than three teams in the tournament, the committee tries to seed the teams so that they cannot meet until the regional final. Before 2006, this was an absolute rule. However, in the summer of 2005, the NCAA changed its rules to allow intraconference matchups as early as the second round of the tournament, assuming all measures to keep the teams apart until the regional finals have been exhausted."

OU, KU and MU are the first three teams chosen in the Big 12. Therefore, if the article is correct, KU and MU will not be in the same region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectio...

March 13, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

esorrentino (Eric Sorrentino) says...

Jesse, thanks for the info. Good find.

And your Okie St. Cowboys continue to impress!

March 13, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

lonestarjayhawk (anonymous) says...

Off topic a little, but is anyone else disturbed that as of this afternoon they are talking about the Big East getting three number 1 seeds. Yes that is right three, Louisville, Pitt, and U-Conn. How do you leave out Michigan State if they win the Big 10.

Go Hawks!

March 13, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jwliddell (anonymous) says...

I think KU gets the 2 seed in KC. Winning the BIG12, and then having the top two seeds get knocked out of the conference tourney. That, coupled with the other big loses around the country makes it just. KU was probably already penciled in, but with such a crazy Thursday, the selection committee decided not to bust out the erasers. Just another reason why conference tourneys don't mean much. It's to showcase your final product, but that is about it (for teams that are already locks for the NCAA's)

The unfortunate part is KU played like they didn't want to play in the mini-tourney before the big journey. It doesn't matter who the opponent or what the reason is you're playing them. If you play for KU, you play to win!

March 13, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BPSkelly (anonymous) says...

Dont forget folks, they could have KU and Mizzou both in Kansas City, but in different regions.

Thats not likely (it seems Memphis has been on the Kansas City block from all those covering this almost the whole time), but possible.

Talk about nuts. I don't foresee that, but who knows.

March 13, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

wissoxfan83 (anonymous) says...

I'm a big 10 fan and Michigan State is not deserving of a 1.

KU with 7 losses and 4 of those "bad" losses leaves me wondering why we even would be considered for a 3 seed. I'd guess a 4 or even a 5, which of course gives you that 1 seed matchup in the 3rd round, not to mention a very tough 2nd round game.

Still kind of funny to think of how this season has gone. 1st month we're probably an NIT team. 2nd-3rd month looking a little better. 4th month, #1 seed? Last 2 weeks,
dropping quickly. Regretting losing a 1 or 2 seed is a whole lot better than regretting missing the Dance altogether, unless we run up against one of those B schools.

March 13, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

trader (anonymous) says...

I believe I recall last year hearing the tournament committee say they gave more weight to a conference champion. Reasoning was that that champion was over a meaningful group of games (16 in Hawk's case). And, they weigh more on what was done in the last half of the season rather than the first half. So, ...

Suspense until Sunday.

March 13, 2009 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oregonjhawk (anonymous) says...

I don't know, I think Michigan State is deserving of a 1 seed - if they convincingly win the Big 10 tourney. Eight wins in a row, plus wins over us, Texas and Oklahoma state??? I'd rather they get it than Memphis...

March 14, 2009 at 1:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

retiredickieV (anonymous) says...

KU is not getting a 2 seed. OU will get it. Historically the NCAA ignores the conference tourneys. They are fresh in the fans and pundits heads but the RPI and SOS reign supreme. OU was a #1 until Griffin got hurt. KU will probably be a 3 along with MU but I'd take the #4 in the midwest over a #3 elsewhere.

March 15, 2009 at 4:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )