Bear Down Wildcats

KU has such an easy path

Fuck this PSA! Seriously wtf?

Looks like the FBI needs to investigate the NCAA Selection Committee next. Talk about corruption!

MountainCat wrote:North Carolina the top number 2 after loosing the ACC championship. .... and have 10 losses

And Mich St is a 3?

I honestly don't understand what the committee is doing... except that Mich St is also under investigation....

OSUCat wrote:Well, not sure Arizona needed it, but the committee gave some serious motivation to Arizona.

That's what I was thinking. Just another chip on the shoulder. It's a crazy year where the Cats have been on the wrong end. The Cats are good enough and may take this, just because we aren't expected to win.

Here's to beating three no. 1s again!!!!

Gonzaga with the protected seed

maybe AZ is better on a new path, Boise is easy travel.

we got Ayton, let’s do this.

3 losses without Alkins, in fucking November, in another country. Are you kidding me? Regular season and tourney champs and still can't budge an inch since they unveiled the top 16 weeks ago. Tennessee? Really? Horseshit.

Ride or Die. This train left the station two weeks ago. Kentucky and Virginia are about to find out what happens when you park an RV on the train tracks.

Why does the committee hate Virginia?

How in the ^^^^ do you leave USC out and put ASSU in. Mind blowing.

Upsets happen. This stuff is never chalk. Just have to play the games. No one thinks 2 seeds will lose to 15 seeds or 1 seeds to 8/9 seeds.

Just continue feeding Ayton. If we lose so be it.

Longhorned wrote:Why does the committee hate Virginia?

Because Bennett is really a PAC 12 coach!

only took 47 min to fix the sound to match their mouths.

Don't matter where we are. We've had western locals the last 8 years and won jack shit. This year is different and nastiness is required.

#bullyseason #savagelife #fuckespn

Yes Chuck! pointing out the obvious

Didn't even attempt to answer the USC question

Charles asking the good question.

Committee saying their non-con wins are what mattered. Crazy.

Im going to laugh at the calipari interview. I imagine he's going to shit all over the committee.

Conspiracy theory: Virginia too boring for prime time, so they stuck it too them.

phxcat23 wrote:Yes Chuck! pointing out the obvious

Looking at the seeding, is our best win against a 7 seed Texas A and M?

AZCatGirl wrote:Charles asking the good question.

Committee saying their non-con wins are what mattered. Crazy.

If that's the case then the ACC should have only got two seeds in.

jajoyce wrote:Looking at the seeding, is our best win against a 7 seed Texas A and M?

No the committee thinks our best wins are against ASU. That's why they put them in.

AZCatGirl wrote:Charles asking the good question.

Committee saying their non-con wins are what mattered. Crazy.

Wins when in November and December when nobody has an identity matter more than games late in the season when you're weaknesses are exposed. Committee also ignored injuries. A fucking joke. Do they want a shitty tournament?

I don’t understand Gonzaga over Arizona. Both with 4 quadrant 1 wins. RPI top 50 wins: Arizona was 6-2 as opposed to 3-3. We had the higher RPI as well.

Phylek wrote:Didn't even attempt to answer the USC question

The decision is inexplicable. On one hand they are coming right out and saying the Pac-12 is absolutely horrible. On the other hand, that apparently doesn't matter in asu's case because losing 11 out of 19 games in this "horrible" conference doesn't even weigh into the decision.

Our weakness is the elite 8, and see no problem for us there. But as a fan, I do want to watch us play Kentucky then Virginia hopefully. Should be fun interesting games.

Pac 12 got killed; should have had 3 teams in the 64 field, +1 make asu play in. ACC and Big East got 15 teams in alone. The committee couldn't have spared one of those east coasts teams at the least?

We were closer to being to a 5 seed then a 3 seed. That is head scratching.

Frybry02 wrote:We were closer to being to a 5 seed then a 3 seed. That is head scratching.

Crazy to think what would have happened if we didn’t beat USC last night.... 6 seed???

Absolutely brutal job by the committee this year, props to Chuck for calling out the Chairman about ASU/Oklahoma/USC

Chuck picking us for the final 4 again.

worst job from a selection committee in....... ever?

After flipping around a bit on TV one thing is clear. We are getting ZERO respect. They shower praise on Ayton and that's about it. I truly hope the team uses this to fuel the fire. We get no respect.

LBdCactus wrote:After flipping around a bit on TV one thing is clear. We are getting ZERO respect. They shower praise on Ayton and that's about it. I truly hope the team uses this to fuel the fire. We get no respect.

Chuck said we're a FF team and Bilas said we should be a 2 or 3 seed.

Chuck put us in the Final 4 which is no surprise.

Kenny the Jet did, too... which is.

Lots of head scratching decisions from the committee this tournament. Numbers just don't add up on a lot of the selections/omissions

PAC-12 is the fifth rated conference in terms of RPI. They were treated like they were rated 8th or 9th. USC deserves a bid.

The committee wanted the madness to start before the tourney starts.

I'm pissed. And not so much about Arizona althought I think we have the worst path to the sweet 16 and elite 8. The PAC-12 was treated like shit. UCLA in a play in game....that is just BS. USC completely left out after finishing second in the PAC and making the tourney final? If they had not lost Benny they would have been a tough out for Ariz in the tourney. Then ASU......if USC got left out how did they even make it? 3 teams.....should have been 4. I think UCLA paying an extra game damages them and the conference. The commitee were idiots.

Hard to feel sorry for USC. No impressive wins and also lost at home to Princeton.

TatetheGreat wrote:Hard to feel sorry for USC. No impressive wins and also lost at home to Princeton.

What's the metric now? Is it "impressive wins" ...because I thought it was RPI and quadrants.

USC has an RPI of 34, 4 Q1 wins and 5 Q2 wins... that's more "good wins" than Seton Hall, UCLA, NCState, and plenty of others.

And if that's not the metric then what is - because I think these teams deserve to know how they're being judged.

YoDeFoe wrote:

TatetheGreat wrote:Hard to feel sorry for USC. No impressive wins and also lost at home to Princeton.

What's the metric now? Is it "impressive wins" ...because I thought it was RPI and quadrants.

USC has an RPI of 34, 4 Q1 wins and 5 Q2 wins... that's more "good wins" than Seton Hall, UCLA, NCState, and plenty of others.

And if that's not the metric then what is - because I think these teams deserve to know how they're being judged.

The committee's metrics are totally fucked. I go by impressive wins vs. bad losses.

I'm betting the committee had no clue or did not take into account injuries. Boatwright missed a ton of games. The point is to get the best 36 at large teams. This committee was schizophrenic.

Wow...mind blown.

We got shafted, but get through Virginia and we are going to the final four.

I remember there was a time when how you finished the season was a huge factor in seeding/selection. Apparently not the case anymore.

CatMG wrote:I remember there was a time when how you finished the season was a huge factor in seeding/selection. Apparently not the case anymore.

nope, all that matters is how you play before Christmas.

ASUHATER! wrote:

CatMG wrote:I remember there was a time when how you finished the season was a huge factor in seeding/selection. Apparently not the case anymore.

nope, all that matters is how you play before Christmas.

Yep and it’s so incomprehensible, incompetent and makes for a lower quality tourney IMO.