Bear Down Wildcats

Well, do you?

I don't.

I'll gladly take a #2 or #3 seed, Miller doesn't lose the first weekend anyway. Once you get to the Sweet 16, all the teams are good anyway.

Always better to have a higher seed than a lower seed. Always better to make more money than less money. You won't make more money if you work less, and you won't earn a higher seed if 3/5 of your starting lineup and your 6th man drop their effort level on defense. So I care less about 1-seed than I care about seeing this team come back with purpose.

I did care, but then the assu loss happened. At this point I just hope the Cats can manage to stay out west. These 3 bad losses have really tempered my expectations for this team though. I will not be shocked if they get bounced in the sweet sixteen.

Yes. But if the Wildcats cannot beat teams like ASSU UNLV or Oregon State they don't deserve it.

PHXCATS wrote:Yes. But if the Wildcats cannot beat teams like ASSU UNLV or Oregon State they don't deserve it.

Other 1-seeds don't have such losses?

Longhorned wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:Yes. But if the Wildcats cannot beat teams like ASSU UNLV or Oregon State they don't deserve it.

Other 1-seeds don't have such losses?

Kentucky 0 losses

Gonzaga 1 loss on the road to a highly ranked team

Virginia 1 loss to a highly ranked team.

Duke has two bad losses

So none as bad as Arizona and Arizona can't get good wins the rest of the way to make up for it like those ACC and Big 12 teams can

I'm on record before saying we are a 2 and will be better for it.

I'd rather have a 2/3 seed out west than a 1 seed outside of the west.

Dosia wrote:I did care, but then the assu loss happened. At this point I just hope the Cats can manage to stay out west. These 3 bad losses have really tempered my expectations for this team though. I will not be shocked if they get bounced in the sweet sixteen.

I definitely wanted a 1 seed before our losses, but I don't see the Cats getting one now. I'm fairly confident in saying the Cats aren't going undefeated the rest of the way, so there's going to be at least another, if not a couple, losses which means at least one, if not more, bad loss will be tacked onto the tournament resume.

Hopefully the Cats can hang on to a protected 2 seed.

Protected seed is all that matters. 1, 2, 3...who cares? Just keep us close to home for the West Regionals.

By the way, the winner of our game with Utah on 2/28 has the upper hand for a 2. Loser is most likely a 3 or 4, depending on what happens in the Pac tourney.

It doesn't matter. Just need to be in the right region with the right bracket. A 1 seed can still get nailed by a having great 2,3,4 seeds in the same bracket, so in some ways it doesn't matter.

Does anyone really think Gonzaga is a bona fide number 1 seed? They haven't played anyone in over 6 weeks. They are going to finish the season with one loss against a good team, and a ton of wins against weak conference teams. The moment they play a mid-ranked tournament team like Louisville who has been battling it out all season against major competition, they are going to get stretched and quite possibly upset like every other year.

This thread is irrelevant. No 1 seed available. Probably not a 2. Considering a 4-3 road record, 4 more road games, and the PAC tourney...6 losses in a weak conference puts the Cats at a 5 or 6 seed. Current range is looks to be a 3-9 seed.

Dosia wrote:I did care, but then the assu loss happened. At this point I just hope the Cats can manage to stay out west. These 3 bad losses have really tempered my expectations for this team though. I will not be shocked if they get bounced in the sweet sixteen.

This most recent loss ended the vision of a Final Four. I am not sure what this team's ceiling is, but Sweet 16 or better would exceed my current expectations.

Three God awful anchor around the neck losses that we haven't had in years. We have the worst resume of any top 15-20 team. Just hoping for a 3/4 seed now.

20-3

# 6 or 7 RPI, depending on which one you use

#5 BPI

ASUHATER! wrote:Three God awful anchor around the neck losses that we haven't had in years. We have the worst resume of any top 15-20 team. Just hoping for a 3/4 seed now.

Do you say dumb things on purpose?

http://kenpom.com/

Hater, 91, and bigsky...grow three respective sacks.

I cannot see the Cats being below a 5. Likely a 2 or 3 as long as there are no more bad losses.

Would not consider UCLA or Utah in Vegas or @ Utah a bad loss.

Anything else this season would be one.

Machina wrote:I cannot see the Cats being below a 5. Likely a 2 or 3 as long as there are no more bad losses.

Would not consider UCLA or Utah in Vegas or @ Utah a bad loss.

Anything else this season would be one.

The worst loss of all though, it the time used to read your drivel.

I'm never getting that time back.

Lot of that going around.

Back to the seed argument...the chance for a 1 seed is still alive, although dim. If you are inclined to use statistical evidence based on historical trends, then you should want that 1 seed.

I personally feel that matchups matter more. I'd want a 1 seed to stay out of the way of UK this year, although I have a strong feeling that they will hit a stretch before the final 4 that will cost them a trip to that final weekend. I'd take a 2 seed in the west any day of the week, and I think that the Zags are destined to be the 1 in the west...but who know's who they'll face.

A few things that I've never understood is the arguing about the seedings and matchups that are projected...especially now. Too much basketball left. Teams that should win, will lose...and teams that "suck" will get hot...

It all comes down to your path in the tourney. If you are inclined to think that a 1 seed has an easier path to the Final 4, then start praying for things to happen.

Otherwise, I think we are destined to be a 2 seed...and we resemble the Wisconsin team of last year...a little under the radar, a team with a few non-attractive losses and a coach that is the "best coach not to reach a final 4".

Enjoy the ride, stop the fretting over a loss that you won't even remember in a month.

Lunardi has the Cats out west as the #2 seed, with the Zags as #1. SDSU is also in the Zags' bracket.

Not sure who wouldn't take that over a 1 outside the west.

Don't see the 1 happening though. Zags are going to win out.

Merkin wrote:Lunardi has the Cats out west as the #2 seed, with the Zags as #1. SDSU is also in the Zags' bracket.

Not sure who wouldn't take that over a 1 outside the west.

Don't see the 1 happening though. Zags are going to win out.

I have no desire to play the Zags (cause they're good) or SDSU (cause I am tired of that game) again.

Olsondogg wrote:

Merkin wrote:Lunardi has the Cats out west as the #2 seed, with the Zags as #1. SDSU is also in the Zags' bracket.

Not sure who wouldn't take that over a 1 outside the west.

Don't see the 1 happening though. Zags are going to win out.

I have no desire to play the Zags (cause they're good) or SDSU (cause I am tired of that game) again.

Don't know how well Gonzaga travels, but it will be near a home game for Arizona playing in Anaheim. SDSU might be 50-50.

Merkin wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:

Merkin wrote:Lunardi has the Cats out west as the #2 seed, with the Zags as #1. SDSU is also in the Zags' bracket.

Not sure who wouldn't take that over a 1 outside the west.

Don't see the 1 happening though. Zags are going to win out.

I have no desire to play the Zags (cause they're good) or SDSU (cause I am tired of that game) again.

Don't know how well Gonzaga travels, but it will be near a home game for Arizona playing in Anaheim. SDSU might be 50-50.

That doesn't matter. Ask Wisconsin.

With that said, I'd like to be in the west cause it's cool to have fans in the building...but there were a ton there on Saturday too.

I said after the unlv game we would end up a 4 seed and that the @asu game was one of 10 in-conference games I considered 50:50 tossup. I still think we look to have a 4-seed resume because you know a P12 tourney title always escapes us, still have to play @ Wash schools, and @ Utah but I think we win @ Utah because they aren't good enough (smart enough?) to pack the paint and force us to make 3s.

ill be disappointed if we are a 5 seed or lower.

ASUHATER! wrote:Three God awful anchor around the neck losses that we haven't had in years. We have the worst resume of any top 15-20 team. Just hoping for a 3/4 seed now.

We are ranked #7 in both the AP and Coaches' polls this week.

Harvey Specter wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:Three God awful anchor around the neck losses that we haven't had in years. We have the worst resume of any top 15-20 team. Just hoping for a 3/4 seed now.

We are ranked #7 in both the AP and Coaches' polls this week.

I think we fell a spot on KenPom too.

Last 30 years:

18 #1 seeds have won the whole thing
4 #2 seeds
4 #3 seeds
4 All other seeds

Seeding matters - take the #1 seed over any other no matter what region.

KaibabKat wrote:Last 30 years:

18 #1 seeds have won the whole thing
4 #2 seeds
4 #3 seeds
4 All other seeds

Seeding matters - take the #1 seed over any other no matter what region.

Seeding does matter. But only once in the last 10 years have all 1 seeds advanced to the Final 4. In fact, twice in the last ten years, zero 1 seeds made the Final 4.

In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Olsondogg wrote:I'm on record before saying we are a 2 and will be better for it.

No way to prove this, as you know.

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Sure this sounds reasonable, but I'm waiting to hear from Bob Kemp. He is really good at math. The best, actually.

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Sorry, this is faulty reasoning. You can't say the team that one would not have won anyway if they were seeded other than #1.

What is true is that the best teams - generally - are seeded #1 and the best teams usually win. If they seeded the best teams #4, they would still probably win and then, based on your logic, we would all be seeking a #4 seed.

edit: Correlation doesn't prove Causation.

psiclist23 wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Sorry, this is faulty reasoning. You can't say the team that one would not have won anyway if they were seeded other than #1.

What is true is that the best teams - generally - are seeded #1 and the best teams usually win. If they seeded the best teams #4, they would still probably win and then, based on your logic, we would all be seeking a #4 seed.

edit: Correlation doesn't prove Causation.

But when people say "it doesn't matter if we're a 1 seed or a 2 seed," it suggests that we're the same team regardless and that the odds are the same. Not true.

If they seeded the best teams #4, they would still probably win and then, based on your logic, we would all be seeking a #4 seed.

If they did this, they would be less likely to win it based on who they would have to play. Easier to beat a #16, than a #13. Easier to beat a #8 or #9 than a #5. Easier to beat #4 or # 5 than a # 1. If you're a #1, you NEVER have to beat another # 1 until the FF. If you're a #4, you might have to beat three of them (see: 1997).

Hence, better to be a 1 seed. Odds here.

http://www.beardownwildcats.com/posting ... =8&p=77549

psiclist23 wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Sorry, this is faulty reasoning. You can't say the team that one would not have won anyway if they were seeded other than #1.

What is true is that the best teams - generally - are seeded #1 and the best teams usually win. If they seeded the best teams #4, they would still probably win and then, based on your logic, we would all be seeking a #4 seed.

edit: Correlation doesn't prove Causation.

Seeds are not awarded randomly,

Those teams that have separated themselves during the course of the season with their play, and are awarded a 1 seed as a result, have a better chance of advancing to a Final 4 (than those teams that have not). In other words, the committee has done a good job of identifying the best teams in the nation. Translation: regular season form more often than not translates into a correlating degree of tournament success.

The seed is a consequence or result of the team's play, which is what really determines the likelihood of advancing - along with the difficulty of the draw (also related to seeding).

There iS a causal relationship between the quality of a team's play and it's seeding, and (by default) its Final 4 prospects.

psiclist23 wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Sorry, this is faulty reasoning. You can't say the team that one would not have won anyway if they were seeded other than #1.

What is true is that the best teams - generally - are seeded #1 and the best teams usually win. If they seeded the best teams #4, they would still probably win and then, based on your logic, we would all be seeking a #4 seed.

edit: Correlation doesn't prove Causation.

Keep drawing to those inside straights when your opponent has aces showing. One of these days you'll win a hand.

Olsondogg wrote:

Merkin wrote:Lunardi has the Cats out west as the #2 seed, with the Zags as #1. SDSU is also in the Zags' bracket.

Not sure who wouldn't take that over a 1 outside the west.

Don't see the 1 happening though. Zags are going to win out.

I have no desire to play the Zags (cause they're good) or SDSU (cause I am tired of that game) again.

But the Zags will not have played a relevant team in 3 months. That isn't to say they may not pull out wins over strong teams, but this happens to the Zags every year; the can't close the deal against legitimate top 25 competition in the tournament after months of playing inferior competition.

midnightx wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:

Merkin wrote:Lunardi has the Cats out west as the #2 seed, with the Zags as #1. SDSU is also in the Zags' bracket.

Not sure who wouldn't take that over a 1 outside the west.

Don't see the 1 happening though. Zags are going to win out.

I have no desire to play the Zags (cause they're good) or SDSU (cause I am tired of that game) again.

But the Zags will not have played a relevant team in 3 months. That isn't to say they may not pull out wins over strong teams, but this happens to the Zags every year; the can't close the deal against legitimate top 25 competition in the tournament after months of playing inferior competition.

I know I don't have history on my side, but this is a different Gonzaga team.

Olsondogg wrote:

midnightx wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:

Merkin wrote:Lunardi has the Cats out west as the #2 seed, with the Zags as #1. SDSU is also in the Zags' bracket.

Not sure who wouldn't take that over a 1 outside the west.

Don't see the 1 happening though. Zags are going to win out.

I have no desire to play the Zags (cause they're good) or SDSU (cause I am tired of that game) again.

But the Zags will not have played a relevant team in 3 months. That isn't to say they may not pull out wins over strong teams, but this happens to the Zags every year; the can't close the deal against legitimate top 25 competition in the tournament after months of playing inferior competition.

I know I don't have history on my side, but this is a different Gonzaga team.

And you might be right this year; this is a good Zags squad. But whether its Gonzaga or another top tier program, playing inferior competition for 2-3 months does not prepare a team for teams with more athleticism, size, speed, defensive pressure, and superior coaching. It is easy to get complacent with unrealistic expectations and confidence against inferior competition and have difficulty pulling through tight games against bona fide contenders later in the season. That said, Butler did it twice, so you never know.

Got it, but lets not pretend that the PAC teams we play are superior either...

I mean just because UK executed better than their inferior conference opponents down the stretch doesn't mean they are safe from getting bounced early either.

BTW, I seem to remember a lot of bragging from UK about their defense holding teams to under 50% shooting...what's happened lately?

Like KK said, if you want a championship you should want a 1 seed.

That said I just want a Final Four. For now.

Harvey Specter wrote:

psiclist23 wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Sorry, this is faulty reasoning. You can't say the team that one would not have won anyway if they were seeded other than #1.

What is true is that the best teams - generally - are seeded #1 and the best teams usually win. If they seeded the best teams #4, they would still probably win and then, based on your logic, we would all be seeking a #4 seed.

edit: Correlation doesn't prove Causation.

Seeds are not awarded randomly,

Those teams that have separated themselves during the course of the season with their play, and are awarded a 1 seed as a result, have a better chance of advancing to a Final 4 (than those teams that have not). In other words, the committee has done a good job of identifying the best teams in the nation. Translation: regular season form more often than not translates into a correlating degree of tournament success.

The seed is a consequence or result of the team's play, which is what really determines the likelihood of advancing - along with the difficulty of the draw (also related to seeding).

There iS a causal relationship between the quality of a team's play and it's seeding, and (by default) its Final 4 prospects.

Seems like you are proving my point. Yes, there is a causal relationship between the quality of a teams play and it's seeding, and their FF prospects. And, as I said, the best teams are seeded #1. And they have the best prospects for reaching a final four. But it is because they are the best teams, not because they are seeded #1.

I agree that desiring a #1 seed makes sense. Why not take the easiest path and have the best chance?

I was just saying that the assertion that 7 out of 10 #1's won because they are #1 does not follow. It's untestable. Those 7 teams may have won no matter what their seed was.

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Ken Pomeroy disagrees:

Once a team makes it in, seeding mistakes matter most in the bottom half of the bracket. If a Cinderella hopes to make the Sweet 16, it needs to be matched up against teams it can beat. But fans of Duke, Indiana, and Gonzaga, whose objective is to win it all, shouldn’t care about the little number next to their team in the bracket. The debate over who should be No. 1 is a fun intellectual exercise, but when it comes to cutting down the nets in April, it hardly matters at all.

I posted this in another thread, I think. At the top of the bracket, seed doesn't matter much. And before you scoff without reading it, like CST did, realize that the article is from 2013.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... where.html

salim'sheadband wrote:Like KK said, if you want a championship you should want a 1 seed.

That said I just want a Final Four. For now.

Same. Best achieved from the 1 seed slot than any other. Not even close.

Puerco wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:In the last 10 years 7 #1 seeds have won the National Championship. All other seeds combined have won 3. Give me a #1 any day of the week.

Ken Pomeroy disagrees:

Once a team makes it in, seeding mistakes matter most in the bottom half of the bracket. If a Cinderella hopes to make the Sweet 16, it needs to be matched up against teams it can beat. But fans of Duke, Indiana, and Gonzaga, whose objective is to win it all, shouldn’t care about the little number next to their team in the bracket. The debate over who should be No. 1 is a fun intellectual exercise, but when it comes to cutting down the nets in April, it hardly matters at all.

I posted this in another thread, I think. At the top of the bracket, seed doesn't matter much. And before you scoff without reading it, like CST did, realize that the article is from 2013.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... where.html

Don't understand. So it's coincidence that 48 of FF teams since 1985 have been 1 seeds? And 26 have been 2 seeds, and that it drops off a lot from there?

No, it's not a coincidence. The best teams are seeded at the top. And the best teams usually win. Seed is irrelevant. Thanks for the Ken Pomeroy support.

Do you think if Washington State, USC, Eastern Michigan, and ASU were seeded #1 and for the next 10 years equal quality teams to those were seeded #1 that the next 10 NC's would come mostly come from #1 seeds? If the seeding mattered so much, they would. But I doubt it.

He looked at her and said: "Dense."

She looked back, smiled, and said: "I'd love to."

KaibabKat wrote:He looked at her and said: "Dense."

She looked back, smiled, and said: "I'd love to."

psiclist23 wrote:No, it's not a coincidence. The best teams are seeded at the top. And the best teams usually win. Seed is irrelevant. Thanks for the Ken Pomeroy support.

Do you think if Washington State, USC, Eastern Michigan, and ASU were seeded #1 and for the next 10 years equal quality teams to those were seeded #1 that the next 10 NC's would come mostly come from #1 seeds? If the seeding mattered so much, they would. But I doubt it.

Right. So I think the confusion is when people say seeds don't matter. On Selection Sunday, whether it's a 1 seed or 2 seed doesn't change how good your team is. But to say it in February, you're looking past what must transpire to fall to a lesser seed: inconsistent play, which reflects the quality of the team.

Then there's the "we're better when we fly under the radar" contingent, who still can't quite bring themselves to root for losses to make it so.