2-20 Bracketology

[heitclone]

Can't play another Big 12 team in second round. Both Missouri and Kansas are likely to be placed in Omaha unless one of them really tanks. That boots ISU and other Big 12 teams from possibly playing there.

Is this a rule, I swear last year Marquette played another Big East team in the 2nd round. Maybe I'm just losing it. ISU/KU in Omaha would be about as lucrative for the NCAA as any other site. I'm sitting on 8 tickets for the first day, can't wait to see who's playing....or paying :spinny:

 

[packthejack23]

Dont care what these experts say

 

[LegendofRodA]

Is this a rule, I swear last year Marquette played another Big East team in the 2nd round. Maybe I'm just losing it. ISU/KU in Omaha would be about as lucrative for the NCAA as any other site. I'm sitting on 8 tickets for the first day, can't wait to see who's playing....or paying :spinny:

Yeah they upset Syracuse IIRC or was that in the round of 16?

 

[cyspy]

Is this a rule, I swear last year Marquette played another Big East team in the 2nd round. Maybe I'm just losing it. ISU/KU in Omaha would be about as lucrative for the NCAA as any other site. I'm sitting on 8 tickets for the first day, can't wait to see who's playing....or paying :spinny:

Marquette played a Big East team in last year's round 2 because there were 9 Big East teams in the tourney which made that possible. ISU will not play in Omaha period if both Kansas and Missouri play there,Creighton can't play in Omaha because the games are in the Quest Center.

 

[cyclones500]

Marquette played a Big East team in last year's round 2 because there were 9 Big East teams in the tourney which made that possible.

Half-correct about the detail, but fully-correct as far as the reason. Big East got 11 teams in last year ... there was another 2nd-round BE matchup, too —*(3) UConn vs. (6) Cincinnati.

I felt like the committee could've avoided that one, somehow. At least the SU-Marquette situation required one team to pull an "upset" in round 1 -- (3) Syracuse vs. (6) Xavier/(11) Marquette.

 

[Ficklone02]

As enticing as it may seem, that is a myth.

Similar interesting matchups have happened in the tournament pairings over the years, but committee Q&A always denies any motivation to do that. And considering how many bracketing procedures come into play, it'd be almost impossible to do it on purpose without breaking those rules.

Of course, when it does happen, sports media loves the storylines.

Heck, think of how many realistically potential storylines we could see this season involving ISU, either in first-round matchup or potential second round if teams advance:

* 8-9/7-10 ISU vs. So Miss. LE

* 8-9/7-10 ISU vs. Creighton. McD

* 1-8/9 or 2-7/10 ISU vs. UNC. Harrison Barnes

* 1-8/9 or 2-7/10 ISU vs. Michigan State. Chris Allen

Less likely:
* 6 ISU vs 14 Middle Tennessee. LaRon Dendy.

* ISU vs. Minnesota. Royce White. I don't see a bracketing possibility where this could happen prior to Sweet 16.

I would enjoy any of these as long as ISU won the game. :yes:

I wonder if having all of these interesting made for tv scenarios gives us an edge to get in if we wind up on the bubble. No tourney selection committee member in his right mind would ever admit to something like this, but I bet its happened before. We are a good story too with all the transfers and Coach Fred coming back home to coach the team.

 

[cyclones500]

I wonder if having all of these interesting made for tv scenarios gives us an edge to get in if we wind up on the bubble. No tourney selection committee member in his right mind would ever admit to something like this, but I bet its happened before. We are a good story too with all the transfers and Coach Fred coming back home to coach the team.

Committee members are human. I imagine. So yes, it's not completely out of the question that individual panel members would have unspoken bias in the process.

Yet, a few things to consider.

* How many teams they need to compare

* What I've gathered, they don't need a unanimous vote to include teams or eliminate them. Even if bias crept through, individuals would have different "good stories" -- it would realistically require everyone to be on the same page.

* Remember, too, chairman has to be able to justify selections, if questionable decisions arise (and they always do). They can't fall back on "good story/compelling matchup" stuff, because then all the procedures go out the window.

I suppose a chairman could just fabricate the justification details, but that'd be more trouble than it's worth, I bet