XUFan09 wrote:@Seton Hall was one of three bad losses on the year. They very well could have gone up three spots, as bad losses can be debilitating.
stever20 wrote:XUFan09 wrote:@Seton Hall was one of three bad losses on the year. They very well could have gone up three spots, as bad losses can be debilitating.
maybe. I think 1 other problem they had was Tennessee and Iowa. Lost to both of them neutral site(yes, that means more for the committee than the home win vs Tennessee)..
stever20 wrote:and my point to your rant is this- isn't that exactly what are you saying? If the injury doesn't happen Xavier would have been a slam dunk and not in the PIG. You are using the word if just as much as me. You have no way of knowing how the game with Nova would have gone. Maybe if he plays, the game is worse than a 7 point loss for Xavier. You just don't know. To act like it automatically would go better for Xavier is not right.
Also, if Xavier beats Seton Hall, do you really think they would have gone in the seed list up 3 slots to avoid the PIG? I don't.
XUFan09 wrote:stever20 wrote:XUFan09 wrote:@Seton Hall was one of three bad losses on the year. They very well could have gone up three spots, as bad losses can be debilitating.
maybe. I think 1 other problem they had was Tennessee and Iowa. Lost to both of them neutral site(yes, that means more for the committee than the home win vs Tennessee)..
I don't argue with the fact that the Bahamas was a bigger factor. Heck, Xavier could have beat Iowa and lost to UTEP and Kansas and still been well away from the PIG. But when we're talking only three spots on the S-curve, the elimination of a bad loss could be all that is needed.
Also, recent results would have looked better, and apparently the Committee was making judgments partly off of that, based of Wellman's explicit comments. That's crap, because that has not been a criterion for a few years (though you can't remove the unconscious bias), but it is what it is.
cu blujs wrote:Keep in mind that sometimes seeding also gets modified because of who the other teams in the bracket are. In this case, switching Nebraska and Xavier puts Xavier as the 11th in San Antonio with a possible 2nd game matchup with Creighton. I have no way of knowing, but it is possible that to avoid such a result, they had to switch X and Nebraska.
XUFan09 wrote:cu blujs wrote:Keep in mind that sometimes seeding also gets modified because of who the other teams in the bracket are. In this case, switching Nebraska and Xavier puts Xavier as the 11th in San Antonio with a possible 2nd game matchup with Creighton. I have no way of knowing, but it is possible that to avoid such a result, they had to switch X and Nebraska.
The rules change just this past summer to allow for more flexibility on that account, though there was a condition if two teams played each other more than twice, which Xavier and Creighton did, but I can't remember what it was. Xavier also faced the two teams playing each other in the higher-seeded PIG, and the Committee simply cannot have rematches in the First Round. So, both would have to move down, and Xavier would have to move up with NC State, who was decidedly the last team in the tournament.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 32 guests