UCLA and Indiana - bubble teams with 10 and 11 seeds

U

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
I just dont get their seeding or how they seed. All these bracketology gurus say IU is out and UCLA is a bubble team then they procure one of the 37th thru 44th spots in the tourney.

Weird, and I dont like what they did to Tennessee and Iowa last year and a couple of co-11 seeds this year. You have 11 seeds playing in the first 4 games on tuesday or wednesday, whenever they are. You would think the last 8 teams picked whether they won a conference tourney or not would be the 8 teams to have to play in the first 4 game in the new first round.

I agree with some that Iowa has most always been underseeded and here IU gets in playing like dog poop the last 2-3 weeks.
 
I thought Purdue got the hardest hose-job of them all.

Better record than Iowa, beat Iowa, won a BTT game-->yet got a lower seed, AND, in with KY.

Ouch. Boiler up!
 
Last edited:
Alford takes care of ISU like the good ol' days and then sets up a classic match-up with Iowa. Should be a good one!
 
uihawk82 said:
I just dont get their seeding or how they seed. All these bracketology gurus say IU is out and UCLA is a bubble team then they procure one of the 37th thru 44th spots in the tourney.

Weird, and I dont like what they did to Tennessee and Iowa last year and a couple of co-11 seeds this year. You have 11 seeds playing in the first 4 games on tuesday or wednesday, whenever they are. You would think the last 8 teams picked whether they won a conference tourney or not would be the 8 teams to have to play in the first 4 game in the new first round.

I agree with some that Iowa has most always been underseeded and here IU gets in playing like dog poop the last 2-3 weeks.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why the first 4 is not part of the tourney. It's a play in.

if it was really part of the tourney there should be no reason not to put the lowest ranked four aq teams in it.
 
RocknRollface said:
This is exactly why the first 4 is not part of the tourney. It's a play in.

if it was really part of the tourney there should be no reason not to put the lowest ranked four aq teams in it.
Click to expand...

Actually it is just the opposite. You know it is part of the tourney, because they are making teams that Automatically quality play in it. How can it be a play in game if you qualified for the NCAA???

If it were truly a play in game, then the last 4 in would play each other.
 
If the team name was Iowa instead of Indiana the Iowa team would be on the outside looking in on this tourney. I truly believe that.
 
goods10 said:
If the team name was Iowa instead of Indiana the Iowa team would be on the outside looking in on this tourney. I truly believe that.
Click to expand...

I concur, why am I not shocked that schools named Texas, Indiana, and UCLA in reality had no issue getting into the tourney. While schools with much better resumes named Colorado ST, Temple, Richmond, etc were left out. Temple beat Kansas at Kansas who did hair gel and his thank goodness my dad is a D1 coach or I'd be playing NAIA ball beat? Exactly, nobody yet the UCLA brand got them in the tourney
 
My only problem with the first 4 is they shouldn't make the mid majors play in it. Make teams like UT, ucla, teams that had plenty of chances to cement a spot in the tourney and didn't.
 
BryceC said:
My only problem with the first 4 is they shouldn't make the mid majors play in it. Make teams like UT, ucla, teams that had plenty of chances to cement a spot in the tourney and didn't.
Click to expand...

Why? That makes no sense, they have already been through the gauntlet (Texas, UCLA) in conference play. Night in and night out playing teams in the top 100 RPI, playing top 50 RPI teams. Teams like UNI and Witcha St. haven't played anyone with a pulse for over 2 months, of course they are going to have less losses.
 
deanvogs said:
Actually it is just the opposite. You know it is part of the tourney, because they are making teams that Automatically quality play in it. How can it be a play in game if you qualified for the NCAA???

If it were truly a play in game, then the last 4 in would play each other.
Click to expand...

Au contraire mon frere.

If you're in the F'd Four, you have to PLAY IN order to be a part of the tournament that starts on Thursday and Friday.

Ergo, "play in."

Play, in order to play again.

Play in.

all-men-are-created-equal-wink-wink-this-guy-knows-what-i-mean.jpg
 
I'm of the opinion of some analysts that say who cares who the last few teams in are? If you missed the bubble you lost some games you shouldn't have. You really have nobody to blame but yourself. Had Iowa not dropped 6 of 7 to end last year they never would have been anywhere near the play-in games. So its their own fault they ended up there.

That being said, I also think that UCLA, Texas, Indiana, etc got in because of their name, their fan base size and the money they will bring in. Which team is going to get more tv ratings, UCLA or Richmond? Is that fair? no. Is the NCAA tournament a billion dollar business? Yes.
 
ThunderHawk said:
Au contraire mon frere.

If you're in the F'd Four, you have to PLAY IN order to be a part of the tournament that starts on Thursday and Friday.

Ergo, "play in."

Play, in order to play again.

Play in.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the NCAA sees it differently. Now this isn't something I'm gonna hang my hat on, as they are Azz bags, nor is it something I agree with. Yet for now (changes next year) the field is 68 teams (just like last year). Play in games count as NCAA games.
 
Last edited:
I agree Indy and UCLA got in on their names..... That said the bubble is pretty weak this year. The teams left off aren't that hot either... If anything that'll just **** off the Indiana faithful that have seen enough of Crean. The vocal minority there seems to want him out. Unless they win a game I don't think he's going to change the hearts and minds of many of that fan base.
 
mopkins said:
That being said, I also think that UCLA, Texas, Indiana, etc got in because of their name, their fan base size and the money they will bring in. Which team is going to get more tv ratings, UCLA or Richmond? Is that fair? no. Is the NCAA tournament a billion dollar business? Yes.
Click to expand...
You're exactly right. Tournament selection is no different than bowl selection in that regard.
 
Hawkfnntn said:
I agree Indy and UCLA got in on their names..... That said the bubble is pretty weak this year. The teams left off aren't that hot either... If anything that'll just **** off the Indiana faithful that have seen enough of Crean. The vocal minority there seems to want him out. Unless they win a game I don't think he's going to change the hearts and minds of many of that fan base.
Click to expand...
I agree the bubble was weak this year, but I do think Colorado State got absolutely hosed. I guess Larry will have more time to focus on his move from Natty Light to Coors Light (or weed), before getting ready for next season.
 
Last year Nebraska played well late in the year and got in the dance. They proceeded to take a beating in their 1 game appearance. The same fate could very well await UCLA.
 
UCLA and Indiana got in because of an extremely weak bubble. People gripe they got in, but Vegas says every bubble team that made it would be favored over every bubble team that didn't. Wish the bubble was this soft the previous 2 seasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top