(posted this on M&W too).

I don't think its that bad. The difference between a 7 and a 9 is minimal. Bob Knight was on ESPN saying the most over blown thing in the whole tourney is seeding and that there is not much of a difference between a 1, 2 and 3.

There is NO difference in being an 8 or 9. In fact, the 9 has won slightly more of the 8-9 matchups historically. Playing a 1 in the second round sucks, but its not that much different than facing a 2. (Or even a 3 seed Look at last year. #1 Ohio State, #2 Memphis, #3 A&M.)

UT, tu, Duke and Georgtown were all in the running for a number one seed heading into the weekend. I just don't see it being that much different. Playing UCLA in Cali is certainly tough, but is it that much different than having to play a 2?

One thing I am happy about is that I have not seen any quotes from the team saying "we got hosed on the seed." Everybody seems to have said, "I don't care where we are, let's go play."

I like the team's attitude. No one had final four expectations based on the up and downs, so why not take a crack at a big dog in the first weekend when their guard might be down.

Well, I'm a Horn and I think you guys have a legit gripe.

I said it somewhere else here, seeds 7-10 are the worst in the tourney. You get an *even* matchup for your first game, an almost certain loss for your second.

The seedings between 4-13 or so seem like a lot of guess work to me. You could be a 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 easy. Very tough to pick that. Once you're a 9 might as well be an 11 or 12. At least that way you're not playing the number one team in your bracket your second game.

I'd rather be playing BYU than USC.

That's KSU's draw.

Amen to that although KSU matches up pretty well with USC, IMO.

Of course, if they win that, they get a much easier draw in Wisc.

I think we got the low end of what we deserved. I was thinking we were a 7 or 8. Didn't think we were a 9, but an 8 or 9 really is no difference (just changes your uniform selection).

Looking at it in a completely non-biased way, I think we put ourselves in this position, even though it would have been more beneficial to get a 12 seed or something...

quote:

---

I said it somewhere else here, seeds 7-10 are the worst in the tourney. You get an *even* matchup for your first game, an almost certain loss for your second.

The seedings between 4-13 or so seem like a lot of guess work to me. You could be a 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 easy. Very tough to pick that. Once you're a 9 might as well be an 11 or 12. At least that way you're not playing the number one team in your bracket your second game.

---

I agree. I'd rather play a tougher team in the first round and then have a much better chance of beating a 3/4/5 seed in the second round.

I don't think there is much difference between a 1 seed and a 2 seed and probably not a whole lot of difference between a 2 and a 3 seed, but when you add the differences up, there is a pretty huge difference between a 1 and a 4/5/6 seed. There is also a decent difference even between a 1 and a 3 seed.

theo...Of course, but they won't.

Last year a team with two future lotto picks got killed by USC and there is no reason it shouldn't happen again.

USC is playing very good right now. I do think they are a horrible draw.

But your average 7 seed ain't that great. And who wouldn't want OU as their second game?

If your goal is the Sweet 16, I'd take the path that didn't involve the almost certain loss.

[This message has been edited by Theo (edited 3/16/2008 11:04p).]

Littlecheesedog -- what a gay ass name

....how was the Grand Canyon?

I know.

Winky face.

I think we've all seen enough of the 07-08 Aggies to know that they could win OR lose at BYU by 20 and beat UCLA by 5 or lose by 55. Let's see which team shows up. No complaints here. I'm expecting the Aggies to win 'em both. Why not? Gig'em!