Remember that UGLY NCAA tourney game vs. Michigan State in 2007??

Well, there was a reason for that...MU got moved down two seed lines(one of only two times that a team has ever been moved DOWN Two seed lines). They got the 8 that year, and should have been a 6. Big difference assuming stay in same Region etc, they would have played George Washington instead of MSU. So those of you that tend to think MU fans are paranoid about getting screwed with seed etc...we have reason to be, and this proves it. it was for bracketing principles, and had NOTHING to do with McNeal's injury. :mad: Oh yeah....and remember the "14" seed BYU in 2012 that MU had to play?? The only other team to ever get moved down two lines...got the 14, were really a 12. I think our paranoia, is not so unfounded. :cool:


NCAA adding "seeding flexibility" for this years NCAA tourney.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...nament-seeding

During the call, NCAA spokesman David Worlock noted that in recent years, two teams were dropped two lines -- Marquette in 2007 and Brigham Young in 2012. Wellman also said there was a long debate in the selection room last year regarding Oregon, which wound up with a No. 12 seed and played in one of the First Four games at Dayton, Ohio.

MU did not get screwed, they dropped down 2 lines because Jerel was out for the tournament.

Yes, you are paranoid and yes it is unfounded.

It's called bad luck, not a conspiracy to screw us.

It does sound to me from the article that Marquette got dropped from the seed it should have had to an 8 instead, and this was because of bracketing rules, not because of McNeal's injury. And we had the additional misfortune of playing MSU, which meant that Izzo knew exactly what Crean was going to do, and Crean melted down. But in both the situations, Marquette did not get "screwed." Nobody was out to get us. It was just unfortunate luck. Really unfortunate in the MSU case, less so with BYU. The deal with BYU is that they would not play on Sundays, so they had to be moved to a down a couple notches. If anything, it worked to their detriment. But in any case, the teams in that area are kind of a crap shoot anyway. Keep in mind that BYU was getting killed by Iona in the play-in game before Iona ran out of gas and collapsed. They were not that good of a team. On the other hand, Davidson, who got a 14 as a result of playing in a weak conference, was probably a better team than several of the 12s, and obviously gave us a much better game. Sometimes it comes down to luck of the draw. You need to be good to succeed in the tournament, but you also have to be lucky. That is why I think judging coaches on their tournament record is often deceiving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclejohn

It does sound to me from the article that Marquette got dropped from the seed it should have had to an 8 instead, and this was because of bracketing rules, not because of McNeal's injury. And we had the additional misfortune of playing MSU, which meant that Izzo knew exactly what Crean was going to do, and Crean melted down. But in both the situations, Marquette did not get "screwed." Nobody was out to get us. It was just unfortunate luck. Really unfortunate in the MSU case, less so with BYU. The deal with BYU is that they would not play on Sundays, so they had to be moved to a down a couple notches. If anything, it worked to their detriment. But in any case, the teams in that area are kind of a crap shoot anyway. Keep in mind that BYU was getting killed by Iona in the play-in game before Iona ran out of gas and collapsed. They were not that good of a team. On the other hand, Davidson, who got a 14 as a result of playing in a weak conference, was probably a better team than several of the 12s, and obviously gave us a much better game. Sometimes it comes down to luck of the draw. You need to be good to succeed in the tournament, but you also have to be lucky. That is why I think judging coaches on their tournament record is often deceiving.

---

Where do you see any reference as to why MU was dropped? I don't see the reference, nor do I see the reference as to why BYU was dropped. I believe your inference as to bracketing being the reason is not supported in the article.

So we are to believe that they sit around in the room and dropped MU 2 lines because the people on the SC wanted to screw MU?

Every fan base thinks they get screwed at one point or another......I have no complaints at all about how MU has been treated in most years by the SC....

I don't think it was done with any malicious, anti-Marquette intent, but the article seems to indicate pretty clearly that Marquette was dropped 2 seed lines and forced to play a 9 instead of an 11 in 2007 and BYU was dropped 2 seed lines so MU played a 12 instead of a 14.

That said, we still should have been favored in 2007, and MSU should have had a tougher time with us than an actual 8-seed, and we beat BYU anyway. It's misfortune that the two most egregious seeding errors impacted our games, but at least they admitted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUMac

Where do you see any reference as to why MU was dropped? I don't see the reference, nor do I see the reference as to why BYU was dropped. I believe your inference as to bracketing being the reason is not supported in the article.

---

Because the whole article is about rules for bracketing, and the fact that teams have had to be moved to keep conference teams away from each other in the early rounds. There is a direct reference to Marquette being "dropped" in 2007. If Marquette had been moved down due to McNeal's injury, it would not have been dropped, but just seeded lower. The rules up to this point have stated that a team could be dropped up to two lines from the seed it was supposed to have in order to fulfill bracketing rules. The NCAA official interviewed that it has happened twice in recent years, both time coincidentally involving Marquette. It is likely that dropping or raising a team one line has happened more often than that.

Regarding BYU, there is no question. This is a problem the committee faces every time BYU makes the tournament. They have to be placed in a sub-region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, within a region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, since they will not play on Sunday. So they took their lumps when they played us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclejohn

Because the whole article is about rules for bracketing, and the fact that teams have had to be moved to keep conference teams away from each other in the early rounds. There is a direct reference to Marquette being "dropped" in 2007. If Marquette had been moved down due to McNeal's injury, it would not have been dropped, but just seeded lower. The rules up to this point have stated that a team could be dropped up to two lines from the seed it was supposed to have in order to fulfill bracketing rules. The NCAA official interviewed that it has happened twice in recent years, both time coincidentally involving Marquette. It is likely that dropping or raising a team one line has happened more often than that.

Regarding BYU, there is no question. This is a problem the committee faces every time BYU makes the tournament. They have to be placed in a sub-region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, within a region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, since they will not play on Sunday. So they took their lumps when they played us.

---

The article was about bracketing, but the comment was not necessarily about bracketing. But, why would you not make the same assumption about BYU as MU? They were mentioned the same way as MU. You were not consistent. There were alternatives to moving BYU that did not involve two lines. As for 2007, there were 3 BE teams that would have been on the 6 line. I suspect the NCAA had to drop one of them and MU was the one to drop due to the injury anyway. Not because the NCAA had it out for MU. I am just not buying that crapola.

I do not understand the part I bolded. How can you be seeded lower but not dropped? That makes no sense. They were seeded lower, which forced them to be dropped. The seeding is done and then they take account the ancillary factors, such as what is in the article, injuries, not being able to play on a Sunday ... I do not have the time nor desire, but I do recall after it became known the severity of the injury that MU acknowledged they had to disclose this to the NCAA before seeding and that that was a factor for their being seeded lower.

Lastly, where did the article state that this had been done two times and both involving Marquette? Are we reading the same article?

Mac, BYU was dropped specifically because they had to find a place for them to play Thursday/Saturday.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...ote-final-spot

"Another problem in bracketing was having to accommodate BYU in a Thursday-Saturday regional if the Cougars win the first round game in Dayton against Iona. BYU's policy against playing athletic events on Sundays forced the Cougars and Iona to No. 14 seeds -- the lowest at-large seed ever in the NCAA tournament, Worlock said."