Who got hosed? What's the toughest region? Why are Kentucky and Arizona slated to meet in the national semifinals? Who got overseeded? Let's discuss!

Glad to see mid majors like Butler, Gonzaga and Southern Illinois get in! Georgia's ineligibility must have opened a spot for one of them.

No Texas Tech, Boston College, Seton Hall, Tennessee. Can't really say any of them got hosed though. Alabama is probably the least deserving at large team, IMO.

Illinois, UConn and Oregon seem underseeded to me, while Florida, Indiana and Notre Dame overseeded.

I heard Andy Katz say on ESPN that the East is the toughest region, but the West seems to be to me. Arizona, Kansas, Duke and Illinois the top 4 seeds makes for one stacked region!

Oh, and I really hate this pod system!

[ March 16, 2003, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

Since I am doing the Pre-Tournament story I don't have a lot of time to post here but I have to say the West Region top 4 seeds are killer. Did the selection committee even watch the conference tournaments? Illinois got screwed with a #4 in that bracket.

For a change, I pretty much agree with the at-large teams. Only exception would be Seton Hall over BYU. The West is by far the toughest. Syracuse got lucky with where they play. Nothing against them, but not sure how they rate possibly playing in Albany. Notre Dame also got lucky with a #5 seed playing in Indianapolis. ND-Ill. game in the 2nd round could turn on that advantage even though Illinois is not too far of a drive either.

All great questions, George. First, who should not be there? Auburn is the least deserving, followed quickly by Alabama. Boston College is the recipient of the most ridiculous snub award, IMO, but it just reflects the total lack of respect for the Big East this year.

I was at the Big East Tournament and saw some high quality ball. No way Pitt doesn't deserve a #1 seed, especially over Oklahoma. At the very least, they should be the #2 seed in Okla's region? What more do they need to do? And why Syracuse gets to play in Boston and --potentially-- in Albany amazes me.

I also think it stinks that Arizone and Kentucky would play in the national semis --if both get there. But if my shaky short-term memory serves, I don't think this is the first year that the two teams who are widely considered the best are scheduled to play in the semis.

I think it will be a great tournament...and I am looking forward to every play of every game.

Re: Kentucky and Arizona - I heard on the radio this morning that the chairman of the selection committee said (paraphrase), "It's not our job to look down the road at future match-ups." WHAAAATTT??? I thought that was exactly their job, and the whole reason behind the big "Selection Day" hubbub. Otherwise they could just determine the seedings, and assign the regions by random drawing.

Also, now there's a big to-do about BYU, and how they will have to switch regions with another team to avoid playing on a Sunday, if they should make it to the sweet 16.

DND...while you may think that Auburn is the least deserving team. I will beg to differ. We were picked last in the SEC west division. We finished 2nd in the division. Our strength of schedule was 27th in the nation. So, we are deserving of being in the tournament. I think Tennessee got hosed. They should have been in the tournament rather than Alabama. But what is all of this crap about TTU getting hosed? My God, aren't they 6-10 in their league.

I don't think we will go far in the tournament considering if we do beat St. Joe, we have to play Wake and by miracle of winning that game, we would play Syracuse. However, I certainly think that we are deserving of being in the tournament.

A Badger board I lurk at is all abuzz over this, since one of the solutions was to switch the UW bracket with BYU.

But I understand the plan is this: \"In the event BYU advances from the second round in Spokane, it would play its regional semifinal game Thursday, March 27, in Minneapolis. In that case, the team advancing from the second-round \"pod\" including Wisconsin, Weber State, Dayton and Tulsa in Spokane would play its regional semifinal game Friday, March 28, in San Antonio.\"

BYU is gonna lose before that anyway -- they'd have to beat UConn, then probably Stanford ... and then would had to beat Texas in the Friday game in order for them to even face a Sunday game. NOT!

Same here! A friend who's a Terps fan had the nerve to complain to me this a.m. about MD being place in the South with Texas -- finals are in San Antonio -- and first they would have to beat Florida -- in Tampa. I had no problem reminding her that her Terps got to play their opening round last year at MCI Center in DC -- barely a few miles from their campus!

[ March 17, 2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

I agree completely with George's hatred of the "pod system"....regardless of how well a team may have performed during the regular season, allowing Texas to play their regional semi-finals and finals in San Antonio and giving Syracuse (who isn't even a #1 or #2 seed) a path to the Final Four through Albany is an absolute joke!....the reward for an exceptional regular season should be a high seed in the tournament and the benefit of facing a "lesser caliber" opponent, NOT being given the overwhelming advantage of playing a home game in the postseason, which all but assures the team of victory.

The disparity in upsets (involving #5-8 seeds) in last year's tournament, when the pod system was first implemented, as opposed to 2001 bears this point out....two years ago the #5-8 seeds went a combined 8-10, which resulted in an abundance of exciting, emotionally charged upsets as compared with last year's opening rounds when the higher seeded teams went 23-5, causing the tournament to lose much of the charm and drama that has made March Madness so spectacular over the past two decades.

As for the selections themselves, although I am normally pro-SEC (despite the mediocrity of my Gamecocks on the basketball court during the past 25 years ), I feel that both Alabama and particularly Auburn were clearly undeserving of a tournament berth....as Dick Vitale repeatedly emphasized last night, Auburn's victory total is heavily skewed with wins over "cupcake" opponents -- TEN of their 20 victories were over this "ELITE" caliber of competition: Wofford, Georgia State, S.E. Louisiana, S.C. State, Murray State, PR Mayaguez eek! , Denver, Troy State, So. Miss., and North Texas and their losses included an 18 point defeat to Western Michigan AT HOME and a 19 point loss to "powerhouse" Western Kentucky....anyone who believes Auburn is deserving of a bid solely based upon their 20-11 overall mark and 8-8 conference record must bleed orange and blue and have "war eagle" tattooed somewhere on their body.

As for Alabama, they are barely more deserving of a bid than their intrastate rival, particularly when you take into account the Tide's 6-10 record since early January including two losses to a Vanderbilt team that finished the season 11-18....the committee chairman claims they rewarded Bama for their tough nonconference schedule, which is commendable, but that should not enable them to overlook mediocre performance down the stretch within their own conference.

If the selection committee truly was looking to reward a team for facing a brutal schedule, they would have given Texas Tech one of the final two at large bids -- all the Red Raiders did was lose 6 of their 12 games to THE TOP 5 TEAMS IN THE COUNTRY when you look at their 3 losses to Oklahoma (including 2 in O.T., one of which was stolen from TTU as the OU clock operator in Norman "forgot" to start the clock during the final three seconds of regulation, enabling Hollis Price to hit a "buzzer beater" that sent the game into O.T.), 2 close losses to Texas, and one to Kansas, who IMHO was equally if not more deserving of a #1 seed than were the Longhorns, who failed to win EITHER the regular season OR conference tournament.

My final (and most glaring) complaint is with the West Regional being comprised of SIX teams that were consistently ranked among the top 15 in the country all season long while the East Regional is loaded with mediocrity and Kentucky is given a virtual cake walk to the Final Four from the Midwest.

I am still VERY MUCH looking forward to another exciting two and a half weeks of March Madness but the unexplainable actions of this year's committee have clearly taken some of the luster away from the tournament....I hope the results of this week's games and quantity of upsets prove me wrong and justify the questionable actions of Jim Livengood and his nine cronies who were able to complete their task "behind the curtain" without seemingly having to justify their actions to anyone.

[ March 17, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I never thought Id live to see the day when Duke wasnt playing in the East regional!! Thank you bracket gods.

And you cant really use the argument that Texas Tech should be in the tournament based on who they lost to. The fact is they lost and lost a lot. UNC had the same problem. Pre-season NIT champs, wins over Kansas Duke & UConn, but then a long string of losses, a lot of which to top ranked teams. But theyre stuck in the NIT just like Tech, which is where they belong with those records. At least the NIT will have a strong field this year, considering all the crappy cinderellas in the NCAA field.

[ March 17, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: DallasUNC ]

Amen to everything Gamecock so eloquently said.No offense Aubie, but putting the Tigers in the Dance is a joke.Not only is their non-conference schedule unbelivably weak,but they didn't even beat the top teams in the SEC.Their key win was against LSU,another overrated team that benefited greatly from playing the SEC tournament in N'orleans.

I think the committee overrated the SEC in general,and felt like they had to give them 6 teams to match the Big 12.Alabama is shaky,but at least they beat some notable teams like Oklahoma and Xavier.The loss of Georgia should have resulted in the BEST remaining team,NOT the best SEC team remaining,being named to fill that spot. Personally,I never saw any evidence of the SEC being the best conference as all the hype would lead you to believe.Am I the ONLY person that sees UK running the tables as an indicator the SEC was NOT as good as advertised? :confused: I think once you get past UK, Fla and Miss St the SEC goes from contenders to pretenders.I HATE Purdue,but if they have a healthy Lowe I think they can handle LSU on a neutral court.


It's a judgement call between TT and BC as to who deserved the slot Auburn got.I'd say TT because the Big 12 is the most top-heavy conference,and they totally got screwed at Oklahoma.When you consider the emphasis and benefits that the committee gave to Texas for winning at Okla and ending the Sooner home streak,I think that is more evidence in TT's favor.They won that game pure and simple and that timekeepers' "error" had a real negative effect on their season.My personal opinion is that we are looking at one of the most evenly balanced tournaments and we could witness one of the lowest seeds ever emerging victorious. :cool:

I was shocked the Auburn and Alabama were included in the tournament. I very much agree with Gamecock, Syracuse never has to leave New York, and the West is BRUTAL, and the bracket for Kentucky is VERY Weak but im thinking if Pitt gets that far they could cause some major problems for Kentucky.The AD for Arizona was the selection chairman, he defintly didnt do them any favors. Should be a great tournament.

Well, well, well ... Which SEC team was it that advanced to the Sweet 16 besides Kentucky? Take the paper-thin "Wake was a weak #2 seed" argument elsewhere.

Our guys fell one point short of beating a team that was playing before a crowd in their home state -- a team that is now in the Final Four.

A big thanks to Dick Vitale for admitting he was wrong.

WAR EAGLE!

[ April 03, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: SportsOutdoorsGA ]

I'll assume that was aimed at me,because I was the person who described Wake as a misseeded 2. Btw, I actually believed that and my bracket showed Auburn losing to Syracuse in the East Semi.

For me the issue all along was fairness,not the idea that Auburn couldn't compete.Supposedly, getting into the tourney is supposed to be a reward for your accomplishments in the regular season.I honestly felt,and still do,that if you do a face to face comparison of Auburn and TT,then TT is more deserving of an NCAA bid than Auburn.Tougher conference,much more impressive non-conference schedule,and more quality wins.I think that once Georgia withdrew the committee felt compelled to fill that spot ONLY with an SEC team.The problem with that decision,imo,is that it is based on a false premise.Namely,the idea that the SEC was a superior conference,and deserved equal representation with the Big 12.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but other than the UK/Wisc matchup, I don't remember the SEC winning any other game in a head to head battle with either the Big 12 OR Big 10. Yet the SEC was (incorrectly??) rated as equal to the Big 12 and above the Big 10,and as a result given more spots than the Big 10. To me this was a joke.Not only did the Big 10 win the regular season head to head with the SEC,someting like 7-2,but 3 SEC teams were eliminated by Big 10 teams.

I'm really not interested in beating a dead horse,just felt compelled to reply to your post. The Tigers, whether they deserved the bid or not,took advantage of their oppurtunity and turned in a good run.I felt like they had a pretty easy draw,for a 12 seed, and that's why I picked them to get to the Sweet 16.I think they responded well to the negative criticism,in the same way TT responded to what they considered a snub from the committee.The valliant effort against Syracuse was impressive,but keep in mind that TT beat Texas (in their conference tourney) and had Okla beat in Norman before a timeskeepers' shenanigans stole the game from them. :cool:

I think my assertion that the SEC only deserved 5 teams is basically correct.Based on results, it just might be that the Tigers underserving of a bid were LSU,not Auburn. :confused: