AAC/USF gets a raw deal

[todbo]

Both AAC entries in the NCAA are in the same region. Admittedly, they cannot meet until the regional finals. But still, I think that USF has earned the right to potentially face a top seed other than the one they've battled (heroically) three times already.

Other conferences have a chance (however small) to place more than one team in the Final Four.

 

[warbler1055]

Agreed, horrible selection committee mistake. Possible 4 games vs UConn was stupid!!!

 

[Jimbo]

Two years in a row with this nonsense of making USF the #6 seed in our region. It's really unbelievable.

 

[Kaizen]

Two years in a row with this nonsense of making USF the #6 seed in our region. It's really unbelievable.

Should switch USF with Tenn but one is 6th seed the other is 7th seed.

(We played USF 3 times alredy)

 

[Amston Joe]

Watching the brackets unfold, I thought the committee may have had the guts to put Tennessee in our bracket, but no again. They could have put South Florida as the 7 in Sioux City and Tennessee as the 6 in Bridgeport. USF would have preferred it as well, even one seed lower. Maybe Tennessee would have preferred it too. Actually I would have preferred Tennessee as the 8 at Gampel. Talk about selling out Gampel, like Geno's wants.

 

[Carnac]

Watching the brackets unfold, I thought the committee may have had the guts to put Tennessee in our bracket, but no again. They could have put South Florida as the 7 in Sioux City and Tennessee as the 6 in Bridgeport. USF would have preferred it as well, even one seed lower. Maybe Tennessee would have preferred it too. Actually I would have preferred Tennessee as the 8 at Gampel. Talk about selling out Gampel, like Geno's wants.

I would have loved for them to put Tenn in our region. We could have had the pleasure of putting them out of their misery on our way to Indianapolis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the 4th year in a row that USF has been placed in UConn's region.

I sure would like to know the reasoning behind THAT decision. There were 3 other regions they could have put then in. Why ours? That's not right or fair.

 

[UcMiami]

As I posted elsewhere - it is better for them to get a six in our region than a seven in any other region - so if that were the choice I am happy with this outcome.
AND
If they do in fact make it out of the first two rounds which would involve an upset on an opponents home court, they will have firm fan support from CT fans in a potential sweet sixteen match-up, something that would not be likely in another region.

 

[geneticrex]

Does ANYONE think this is just luck of the draw???

 

[Plebe]

Does ANYONE think this is just luck of the draw???

I don't believe this is any conspiracy. I simply think that USF was the last #6 seed and was therefore relegated to the most distant 1st-/2nd-round site of all the teams on the 6 line.

Here are the #6 seeds and their assigned sites:

• West Virginia, sent to Columbus (205 miles away).
• DePaul, sent to Louisville (297 miles away).
• Oklahoma, sent to Lexington.
• USF, sent to Los Angeles.

It seems evident to me that WV and DePaul were intentionally placed at the sites that were within driving distance (defined as within 350 miles). They were probably also the top two #6 seeds, based on the quality of their resumes.

Neither USF nor OK is within "driving distance" from any of the four first-round sites hosted by the #3 seeds. We may not like the prospect (however unlikely) of a UConn-USF rematch in the Elite 8, but the problem with sending Oklahoma to Los Angeles is that it could have set up an even earlier all-Big 12 matchup with Texas in the Sweet 16. Or, it could have been simply a matter of Oklahoma being higher on the S-curve than USF.

 

[geneticrex]

I don't believe this is any conspiracy. I simply think that USF was the last #6 seed and was therefore relegated to the most distant 1st-/2nd-round site of all the teams on the 6 line.

Here are the #6 seeds and their assigned sites:

• West Virginia, sent to Columbus (205 miles away).
• DePaul, sent to Louisville (297 miles away).
• Oklahoma, sent to Lexington.
• USF, sent to Los Angeles.

It seems evident to me that WV and DePaul were intentionally placed at the sites that were within driving distance (defined as within 350 miles). They were probably also the top two #6 seeds, based on the quality of their resumes.

Neither USF nor OK is within "driving distance" from any of the four first-round sites hosted by the #3 seeds. We may not like the prospect (however unlikely) of a UConn-USF rematch in the Elite 8, but the problem with sending Oklahoma to Los Angeles is that it could have set up an even earlier all-Big 12 matchup with Texas in the Sweet 16. Or, it could have been simply a matter of Oklahoma being higher on the S-curve than USF.

Reasoned debate can be crafted on both sides of this seeding. Did USF finish as the 24th ranked team in America???

I simply find it 'curious' that USF has somehow found a way into UCONN's bracket in consecutive tournaments, with little to no regard by the committee to conference, or head to head and when you consider the number of schools in the dance, the odds are.....................'interesting'.

Like we say where I come from..................where there's 'interesting', there's fire.

 

[UcMiami]

It is interesting to note that two teams geographically divergent from Uconn have followed very different paths: Since 2008 TN and Uconn have been on different seed lines I believe every year and in those 8 years I believe TN has only been in Uconn's region once (?) while USF certainly further away from Uconn has been to the dance 3 times and twice ended in Uconn's bracket. Odd coincidence but not a conspiracy I think.

I suspect there may have been a little connivance to keep Uconn and TN apart until the FF in general, but the idea that anybody thinks about Uconn/USF in conspiratorial ways seems far fetched. As far fetched as KY ending up in Uconn's bracket two years running or that TX is in the same boat this year being a contrivance. In years past the presence of the more prominent men's coaches being grouped within one or two regions was also seen as a conspiracy - with all of the various conspiracies being postulated through the years it is a wonder that the committee is able to get their work done at all within their allowed time frame!

 

[Jimbo]

To be clear, I agree that it is extremely unlikely that this is the result of some nefarious bracket conspiracy. My frustration stems from a belief that the committee should make some effort to separate teams from the same conference if it is feasible to do so. I was also annoyed in 2011 when the men's committee set up a UConn-Cincinnati matchup in the Round of 32, but that was somewhat more justifiable because there were 11 Big East teams in the field that year, so something had to give. Here, where there are only two AAC schools in a 64-team tournament, I think there should be some way to put them in two different regions. Plebe's travel-based explanation makes tons of sense, and that may well be why we're bracket neighbors with USF again, but IMO the committee should have the ability to bump someone up or down a seed line to avoid this kind of thing.

 

[magic]

I don't believe this is any conspiracy. I simply think that USF was the last #6 seed and was therefore relegated to the most distant 1st-/2nd-round site of all the teams on the 6 line.

Here are the #6 seeds and their assigned sites:

• West Virginia, sent to Columbus (205 miles away).
• DePaul, sent to Louisville (297 miles away).
• Oklahoma, sent to Lexington.
• USF, sent to Los Angeles.

It seems evident to me that WV and DePaul were intentionally placed at the sites that were within driving distance (defined as within 350 miles). They were probably also the top two #6 seeds, based on the quality of their resumes.

Neither USF nor OK is within "driving distance" from any of the four first-round sites hosted by the #3 seeds. We may not like the prospect (however unlikely) of a UConn-USF rematch in the Elite 8, but the problem with sending Oklahoma to Los Angeles is that it could have set up an even earlier all-Big 12 matchup with Texas in the Sweet 16. Or, it could have been simply a matter of Oklahoma being higher on the S-curve than USF.

Oh , you are sooo... NAIVE !

 

[UConn79]

This happens all the time. I have always felt unless a league has more than 4 teams in the tournament, they should all be separated into different regions. Even if it means they are slightly mis-seeded. Better to give each one a chance to reach the final 4. Rather than play a team from your conference a 4th time like USF. This should be common sense for the selection committee.

BTW, IMO, AAC 3rd place regular season finisher Temple deserved to also make the field.

 

[Wally East]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the 4th year in a row that USF has been placed in UConn's region.

2016: Yes, obviously.
2015: Yes. 6 seed in UConn's region.
2014: USF didn't play in the tournament
2013: USF a #10 seed in the Spokane regional -- Stanford's region. USF lost in the second round to #2 seed California in OT 82-78.
2012: USF didn't play in the tournament

 

[Wally East]

It is interesting to note that two teams geographically divergent from Uconn have followed very different paths: Since 2008 TN and Uconn have been on different seed lines I believe every year and in those 8 years I believe TN has only been in Uconn's region once (?) while USF certainly further away from Uconn has been to the dance 3 times and twice ended in Uconn's bracket. Odd coincidence but not a conspiracy I think.

2015
UConn: 1, Albany
Tenn: 2, Spokane

2014
UConn: 1, Lincoln
Tenn: 1, Louisville

2013
UConn: 1, Bridgeport
Tenn: 2, Oklahoma City

2012
UConn: 1, Kingston
Tenn: 2, Des Moines

2011
UConn: 1, Philly
Tenn: 1, Dayton

2010
UConn: 1, Dayton
Tenn: 1, Memphis

2009
UConn: 1, Trenton
Tenn: 5, Berkeley (the Ball State-loss year)

 

[reno tony]

Well, I'm hoping TENN runs the board and gets to the final four. If not them, then maybe Syracuse can do it. I want Geno to let the big dogs play and to crush somebody.