Lunardi note re: SEC

Joey Brackets says Misery must beat the Wallets tonight to stay above/out of the dreaded 8-9 seed line. And to think three weeks ago they were a 4 seed. In fact he’s already got them as an 8.

Current SEC projections (Lunardi/Bracket Matrix/Jerry Palm):
Bama 2/2/2
Hogs 3/4/3
Tennessee 6/6/7
Florida 7/7/6
Misery 8/7/6
SAO 9/9/9
Ole Miss finished themselves off by losing to Vandy last week. Beating UK did not resuscitate them.

In most other seasons, it might have. But not this Kentucky team.

We will see what happens, but, IMO, if we beat A$M and win two games in the SECT, we will be a 3, not a 4.

We should all enjoy the best season for March madness. One that will not include Greaseball Cal and his Cats! I’m really happy with the wonderful season in Big Blue Nation! They have earned it!

2 Likes

It’s not quite that simple.

If you look at the “S curve” in Lunardi’s latest rankings (the ones from last night - it will change again tonight), you’ll see that we are a #3 in the same region as Alabama is a #2…similar situation for Michigan (#1) and Ohio State (#2). If that were to be the case, we’d probably be moved to another bracket ~or~ moved down a seed, so we wouldn’t run into another SEC team before the Sweet 16 game (anyone else remember that SWEET win over Texas in 1990 to get to the Final Four in Denver?).

The point is - balancing the brackets may move us up or down a line, through no “fault” of our own. Just the way they have to do things.

True, but remember geography is not a consideration this year. It’s easier to keep us out of the same bracket as Alabama. However, you’re right that sometimes a seed can change based on the way the opposition falls into a bracket. I expect the committee tends to favor the higher seeds than the lower ones when it comes to not moving them too far up or down. It’s those 13-16 seeds who can move all over the place although the consensus last pick gets to face the #1 seed (That’s my guess, not saying it with any authority.)

I get it. That is just my prediction! :grinning:

There is no reason for the committee to put us and Bama in the same bracket. Especially if we play them again in the SECT; that would be a third meeting and would preclude us meeting them until the Elite Eight. But since geography is not a factor this year, it’s just as easy to split us up (which is actually a requirement if a conference has four teams in the top 16 seeds, as the Big Ten will this year; they can’t put Iowa and Michigan in the same regional). No need to monkey with the seed lines.

I know NET isn’t used in seeding but let’s use today’s NET as an example to apply the S curve. Bama is the 7 and would be in the same region with Baylor, which is the 2. The third seed in the Baylor-Bama regional would be #10 Kansas. As the #12 team, our #1 seed would be #4 Illinois and our #2 seed would be #5 Houston. If the #5 team in NET was Ohio State instead of Houston, they’d have to put someone else in the regional with Illinois (possibly Houston anyway). But there would be no need to alter the S curve because of us unless Bama was the 8 and we were the 9 (or they were the 7 and we were the 10, or 6 and 11, or 5 and 12) AND we had played Bama three times.

If Bama was the 6 and we were the 11, and we don’t meet in Nashville, would they go straight S curve or split us up? I tend to think they’d split us up, but not necessarily by dropping us to a 4. Just swap us with the 10, or 12.

We could be a 2 in that scenario, depending on other results (Houston losing in the AAC for instance, or Iowa going out early in the Big 14, or Villanova continuing its late-season swoon).

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.