Quote Originally Posted by MUMac View Post
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?

I don't know what you are reading, but here is the exact line from the article.

"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."

So it has happened twice in recent years. Once, Marquette was moved. The other time, BYU was moved and ended up playing Marquette. So he mentions two cases in recent years, and both involve Marquette. I do not know how to make it clearer than that.

Again, the article is entirely about bracketing, and how changes in NCAA procedures are going to effect bracketing. It is not about seeding. It is not about how teams are moved to account for injuries. That would have been a whole different article and it would have made reference to a bunch more teams who have had to deal with injuries coming into the tournament. The whole point of the article was that with the changes, it would not be necessary to move teams from the line they are seeded on to some other line to avoid conference conflicts.

I have no idea what the alternatives were to moving BYU, and I doubt you do either. Do you seriously mean you memorized the bracket from two years ago andr know what the alternatives were? The fact that the NCAA spokesman mentions BYU means that they did get dropped two lines from where they were seeded, and the fact that they were suggests that it was necessary.

You can write this off as "crapola" but it seems that you are determined to find a conspiracy against Marquette no matter what the facts are. In that case, your argument is invincible.