I think if Kentucky gets by the Texas/Wake Forest game, it sets up favorable for them to beat New Mexico or Marquette. I think many UK fans are scared of the RD2 game over the RD3 game, especially in New Orleans (Texas could definitely put a dent in the Big Blue Nation crowd advantage there).

I have them playing Wake Forest. I just don't think that the Texas from the first half of the year shows up. I like UK to stomp Wake

I kind of agree. Texas is one of those teams you keep waiting to explode, but they haven't looked good for nearly 2-3 months. Those teams usually can't just turn it on. Rick Barnes is a coach that even Calipari (someone many people question his coaching ability) can coach circles around IMO.

Wisconsin is a team that could take out Kentucky in the Sweet 16. The will use every second of the shot clock to work and find a good shot, which means there will be fewer opportunities for Kentucky to run. If Kentucky has to play a half court game against Wisconsin, I don't think their half court offense or defense is good enough to win. Even if UK got by them, I don't see them getting out of their region.

Guys the #1 overall seed has ONLY to do with if all 4 #1s make the final four. They then get the 4th #1. They dont try to make their bracket any easier. I dont get why the analysts keep talking like that. The #1 overall seed only matters in the FF.

Laley23 wrote: Guys the #1 overall seed has ONLY to do with if all 4 #1s make the final four. They then get the 4th #1. They dont try to make their bracket any easier. I dont get why the analysts keep talking like that. The #1 overall seed only matters in the FF.

I see what your saying....but STILL, when your putting teams up on the brackets in the room...EVERYONE can see exactly where a teams is going. I am sure they move around teams, discuss where teams should go, etc, etc. It'd be pretty easy to see as things are coming together...who would have the toughest bracket.
Bob Knight said it best...most if not all of these guys are not coaches and don't have the overall knowledge that is needed in that room. They should include some retired coaches, or other coaches who are currently not coaching anymore.

centralbucksfan wrote:

I see what your saying....but STILL, when your putting teams up on the brackets in the room...EVERYONE can see exactly where a teams is going. I am sure they move around teams, discuss where teams should go, etc, etc. It'd be pretty easy to see as things are coming together...who would have the toughest bracket.
Bob Knight said it best...most if not all of these guys are not coaches and don't have the overall knowledge that is needed in that room. They should include some retired coaches, or other coaches who are currently not coaching anymore.

Well that I agree with. But my point is they arent trying to set up anyone with an easy road to the Final Four. I agree a #1 seed ALWAYS gets fucked, but if its the #1 overall or the #4 overall it doesnt matter.

I still say they do it like the District draw in Ohio. Decide on the 65 teams then everybody gets to place themselves on the bracket. Shit could get interesting

Laley23 wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote:

I see what your saying....but STILL, when your putting teams up on the brackets in the room...EVERYONE can see exactly where a teams is going. I am sure they move around teams, discuss where teams should go, etc, etc. It'd be pretty easy to see as things are coming together...who would have the toughest bracket.
Bob Knight said it best...most if not all of these guys are not coaches and don't have the overall knowledge that is needed in that room. They should include some retired coaches, or other coaches who are currently not coaching anymore.

Well that I agree with. But my point is they arent trying to set up anyone with an easy road to the Final Four. I agree a #1 seed ALWAYS gets fucked, but if its the #1 overall or the #4 overall it doesnt matter.

It should be an "unofficial official rule" that the #1 overall should get "rewarded" with an easier route than the other #1s.

I donno, I could be biased b/c this year my team is the #1 overall haha

CBF, Im not saying it shouldnt be. I think it should because it would put more weight on winning your conference tourney. Im just saying people shouldnt complain until that IS a rule, because in the end the committee is simply pairing the #1 with the #4.

Laley23 wrote: CBF, Im not saying it shouldnt be. I think it should because it would put more weight on winning your conference tourney. Im just saying people shouldnt complain until that IS a rule, because in the end the committee is simply pairing the #1 with the #4.

Not sure I agree with that in terms of the overall tourney. I mean, the place the 1's on the braket ahead of time. Then obviously the #2's, etc etc. So in terms of 1 with 4...that only applies when they seperate the 1's into the brackets. After that, they could surely watch, know where they are placing teams....its not like a computer is doing it...its all human decision...that I am sure is discussed/argued...take this team down, put this team there, etc, etc.

^^Right, im just saying their goal isnt to give the #1 overall the easiest road. So people shouldnt be pissed when the #1 overall has a tough draw.

Laley23 wrote: ^^Right, im just saying their goal isnt to give the #1 overall the easiest road. So people shouldnt be pissed when the #1 overall has a tough draw.

I realize that...but the goal should be to create the best balanced bracket...and I don't believe that happened.

centralbucksfan wrote:

Laley23 wrote: ^^Right, im just saying their goal isnt to give the #1 overall the easiest road. So people shouldnt be pissed when the #1 overall has a tough draw.

I realize that...but the goal should be to create the best balanced bracket...and I don't believe that happened.

I dont either. But as Bob Knight said, the people in the room dont know that...haha. Im sure they think its even as all get out.

I don't know if you can take the "money" factor out of the equation either. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think some teams that have a traditional following/viewership that are huge draws on TV aren't given consideration when these pairing are made. I have a hard time buying the fact that the committees intent is to build balanced brackets. Were that the case then I think what Bobby suggested would be a part of the equation, that being coaches, former caoches being in on the committee. I think his suggestion eludes to the fact that the money is a big part of the eqatiuon in essence.