BYU hoops team.

[MikeWaters]

It seems like no BYU team can ever stick it to the selection committee and actually beat a team in the tourney.

Frankly there is no real reason to believe BYU ought to have been seeded higher all those times, IMO.

Fans who always whine about seeding seem to forget that you have to beat good teams to win the NC, and more than one.

"Oh I hope we play one of the worst teams so we can make it to the 2nd round, wouldn't that be awesome?" Loser-think.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I agree. I think Tavernari will be BYU's leading scorer, or if BYU is going to be real good I think Tavernari needs to be BYU's leading scorer. He also needs to be the go to guy on the team. He has the moxy, confidence and desire to have the ball in crunch time.

I didn't see that in Tav. I saw a guy that could light it up from the outside and scores in bunches when he's hot. I don't see a guy that can be a go to guy in crunch time. If this team is going to be really good, TP will increase his production to 18 and 8 and the team will ride his back. That might be asking a lot, but if it doesn't happen this team won't reach greatness.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It seems like no BYU team can ever stick it to the selection committee and actually beat a team in the tourney.

Frankly there is no real reason to believe BYU ought to have been seeded higher all those times, IMO.

Fans who always whine about seeding seem to forget that you have to beat good teams to win the NC, and more than one.

"Oh I hope we play one of the worst teams so we can make it to the 2nd round, wouldn't that be awesome?" Loser-think.

Let me save you the time, BYU ain't going to win a hoops NC in your lifetime or mine.

Why is there no reason to believe BYU should have been seeded higher? What criteria establishes proper seeding for a year?

Personally, I think if a 12 seed is competitive with a 5 seed there might be an argument that the 12 seed was as good as many teams seeded above it.

I don't think BYU has room to whine because they didn't do the things within their control to ensure a higher seed, namely beat the teams they should have. But I am not convinced BYU was seeded properly in 2003 and 2004.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Let me save you the time, BYU ain't going to win a hoops NC in your lifetime or mine.

Why is there no reason to believe BYU should have been seeded higher? What criteria establishes proper seeding for a year?

Personally, I think if a 12 seed is competitive with a 5 seed there might be an argument that the 12 seed was as good as many teams seeded above it.

I don't think BYU has room to whine because they didn't do the things within their control to ensure a higher seed, namely beat the teams they should have. But I am not convinced BYU was seeded properly in 2003 and 2004.

If you don't think seeding/polling should determine NC then have them play it out on the court for the NC. Oh wait, they already do that.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I didn't see that in Tav. I saw a guy that could light it up from the outside and scores in bunches when he's hot. I don't see a guy that can be a go to guy in crunch time. If this team is going to be really good, TP will increase his production to 18 and 8 and the team will ride his back. That might be asking a lot, but if it doesn't happen this team won't reach greatness.

I don't see it in Plaisted, perhaps he will develop and last year he was ecclipsed by KY, but from what I saw I just don't think Trent is a really great basketball player. He is a great athlete who is crafty and can score inside but really good coaches can get him out of his game without too much difficulty.

I am not a fan of his mental game and I think he lived so long on pure athleticism that I doubt his skill level catches up.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Let me save you the time, BYU ain't going to win a hoops NC in your lifetime or mine.

Why is there no reason to believe BYU should have been seeded higher? What criteria establishes proper seeding for a year?

Personally, I think if a 12 seed is competitive with a 5 seed there might be an argument that the 12 seed was as good as many teams seeded above it.

I don't think BYU has room to whine because they didn't do the things within their control to ensure a higher seed, namely beat the teams they should have. But I am not convinced BYU was seeded properly in 2003 and 2004.

Do I need to bust out my NCAA seed/RPI correlation analysis?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you don't think seeding/polling should determine NC then have them play it out on the court for the NC. Oh wait, they already do that.

What are you saying? I really am missing your point here. The tangential point was on whether or not BYU was properly seeded in 2003 and 2004. I stated that IMO as well as BYU competed with 5 seeds indicated they were probably every bit as good as anyone seeded between 8 and 12. Do you dispute that point? Further, it is my opinion that BYU would have been an 8 or 9 seed if they had not choked away key games to Utah, that I thought BYU should have won, both of those years. Whether or not BYU would have won any tourney games is debateable, but I think they would have probably won at least one.

If there is this tourney and since they play to determine a winner why not discontinue seeding and just pull the pairings from a jar?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

What are you saying? I really am missing your point here. The tangential point was on whether or not BYU was properly seeded in 2003 and 2004. I stated that IMO as well as BYU competed with 5 seeds indicated they were probably every bit as good as anyone seeded between 8 and 12. Do you dispute that point? Further, it is my opinion that BYU would have been an 8 or 9 seed if they had not choked away key games to Utah, that I thought BYU should have won, both of those years. Whether or not BYU would have won any tourney games is debateable, but I think they would have probably won at least one.

If there is this tourney and since they play to determine a winner why not discontinue seeding and just pull the pairings from a jar?

would you also complain if BYU instead of going to the Las Vegas Bowl, were instead signed up for a bowl where they were very likely to lose?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

would you also complain if BYU instead of going to the Las Vegas Bowl, were instead signed up for a bowl where they were very likely to lose?

Curses no, I am the one that thinks winning a game in the NCAA tourney is better than losing in the first round despite the fact that neither result will win the NC.

Do you think BYU was properly seeded in 2003 and 2004? If so, why?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Curses no, I am the one that thinks winning a game in the NCAA tourney is better than losing in the first round despite the fact that neither result will win the NC.

Do you think BYU was properly seeded in 2003 and 2004? If so, why?

My point is that I don't care about the seeding. If we are seeded poorly then it is a trap game for the higher seeded team, and then we should really be set in the 2nd game, which would propel us into the sweet sixteen.

That's how I see it.