Oklahoma deserved a #1 seed, but in essence, it makes no difference as they were going to be aligned with Cincy as a 1 or 2 seed in the same bracket. Actually, they should be thankful they were given the 2 seed in the West. Instead of possibly having to play UCLA in the second round, they will have to face the winner of Xavier/Hawaii...admittedly those are both decent teams, especially Hawaii but neither have the potential to make a run through the region like UCLA does. Instead, Cincy as the #1 seed might have to face them in the second round.
Wyoming was awarded a berth primarily because they won the Mountain West regular season championship. Yet, they lost in their conference tournament, albeit in the second round (and they just barely got by Air Force in the first round) and have zero quality wins out of conference. Butler wins the Horizon regular season title, won at Ball St, beat Indiana on a neutral court, and beat other bigger name conference teams, yet they don't get the bid over Wyoming. Not to mention, and I think this should be taken into account to a degree, Butler has an excellent pedigree in the tournament the past two years. Destroyed Wake Forest last year, and almost beat eventual championship finalist Florida two years ago. They still have many key players from those teams. Their RPI was killed because of the weak conference they are in, but that in no possibly way should have taken them out of the dance, nor should losing the opening round game in their conference tournament. A 25-5 team with quality non-conference wins, regular season conference title, and a strong recent tournament history has to be in the tournament.
Someone mentioned UCLA should have been a 11 or 12 seed, if in the tournament at all. Huh? Granted, they are extremely inconsistent but this a 19 win team, went 11-7 in the most competetive conference probably in the country, played one of the toughest schedules in the country, and beat Alabama and Kansas handily. They are a no-brainer and I would say they definitely have a chance to be a bracket-wrecker as well as a darkhorse for the Final Four.
As everyone else had said, it is obvious that Gonzaga got screwed as a #6 seed. Quite amazing that their seeding was so far off. They should have been a #4 seed at the very worst, more likely a #3.
This years West bracket is the toughest single bracket I can remember in tournament history.
St Johns a #9 seed? They should have been in the 11-12 range. I know Missouri is one of true underachieving teams this season but they play in a better conference and had quality non-conference wins...and Tulsa tied for the WAC regular season title, played Kansas to an 8pt game at Kansas, had a super RPI, but they both get 12 seeds and St Johns a #9? Add NC-Charlotte to that mix...how they get a 9 and get placed much higher than Missouri and Tulsa. I don't see the logic.
The AP and coaches polls shouldn't be taken as an indicator as to where the teams should be placed. UConn was ranked 24th I believe and Miss St was unranked. That doesn't mean UConn should have been a 6th seed or something like that. They won their division in the Big East, won the Big East tournament, won 9 straight games to finish the season, played a good non-conference schedule, losing to Maryland and by 2pts to Oklahoma, won at Arizona. This is a team that greatly improved from the beginning of the season. I don't have a problem with a #2 seed for them at all.
Virginia at 17-11 and 7-9 in the ACC is more impressive than Boston College at 8-8 and 20-11. A win over Duke and a conference where virtually each team besides Duke and Maryland is assured 4 losses right off the bat (having to play both Maryland and Duke twice). But both teams didn't deserve a berth. Would have much rather seen teams like Butler and Bowling Green go that didn't underachieve the last half of the season.
Wyoming was awarded a berth primarily because they won the Mountain West regular season championship. Yet, they lost in their conference tournament, albeit in the second round (and they just barely got by Air Force in the first round) and have zero quality wins out of conference. Butler wins the Horizon regular season title, won at Ball St, beat Indiana on a neutral court, and beat other bigger name conference teams, yet they don't get the bid over Wyoming. Not to mention, and I think this should be taken into account to a degree, Butler has an excellent pedigree in the tournament the past two years. Destroyed Wake Forest last year, and almost beat eventual championship finalist Florida two years ago. They still have many key players from those teams. Their RPI was killed because of the weak conference they are in, but that in no possibly way should have taken them out of the dance, nor should losing the opening round game in their conference tournament. A 25-5 team with quality non-conference wins, regular season conference title, and a strong recent tournament history has to be in the tournament.
Someone mentioned UCLA should have been a 11 or 12 seed, if in the tournament at all. Huh? Granted, they are extremely inconsistent but this a 19 win team, went 11-7 in the most competetive conference probably in the country, played one of the toughest schedules in the country, and beat Alabama and Kansas handily. They are a no-brainer and I would say they definitely have a chance to be a bracket-wrecker as well as a darkhorse for the Final Four.
As everyone else had said, it is obvious that Gonzaga got screwed as a #6 seed. Quite amazing that their seeding was so far off. They should have been a #4 seed at the very worst, more likely a #3.
This years West bracket is the toughest single bracket I can remember in tournament history.
St Johns a #9 seed? They should have been in the 11-12 range. I know Missouri is one of true underachieving teams this season but they play in a better conference and had quality non-conference wins...and Tulsa tied for the WAC regular season title, played Kansas to an 8pt game at Kansas, had a super RPI, but they both get 12 seeds and St Johns a #9? Add NC-Charlotte to that mix...how they get a 9 and get placed much higher than Missouri and Tulsa. I don't see the logic.
The AP and coaches polls shouldn't be taken as an indicator as to where the teams should be placed. UConn was ranked 24th I believe and Miss St was unranked. That doesn't mean UConn should have been a 6th seed or something like that. They won their division in the Big East, won the Big East tournament, won 9 straight games to finish the season, played a good non-conference schedule, losing to Maryland and by 2pts to Oklahoma, won at Arizona. This is a team that greatly improved from the beginning of the season. I don't have a problem with a #2 seed for them at all.
Virginia at 17-11 and 7-9 in the ACC is more impressive than Boston College at 8-8 and 20-11. A win over Duke and a conference where virtually each team besides Duke and Maryland is assured 4 losses right off the bat (having to play both Maryland and Duke twice). But both teams didn't deserve a berth. Would have much rather seen teams like Butler and Bowling Green go that didn't underachieve the last half of the season.
