Most on this board believed that the MW got disrespected in terms of seeding. Looking back now, do you feel the same way? Is the MW actually as good as some of you hype it up to be?

Boise State played poorly and lost.
Colorado State scored 11 points in a half and lost.
Nevada lost with a 17 point lead.
SDSU nearly lost.
NM is losing by double digits.
Utah State . . . ?

Go to bed

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:35 pm

Go to bed

I may take a nap before the game tonight. I’m SO excited!

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:38 pm

I don't know how to answer the question. Is the question "Is the MW actually good?" Or is the question "Did the selection committee get the MW seeds right?"

Because they are both yes or know questions with different answers.

I want your thoughts on the seeds now that the MW has played and wet the bed. Once again it looks like the only team that makes the MW relevant is SDSU.

The answer is still no

Was the SEC overseeded? Lost to an 11, 14, etc already

Fact remains a lot of these March games are coin flips, and being underseeded consistently doesn’t help either

Nevada was just bad coaching and CSU would’ve won if they could hit a layup or open 3 to save their lives, Steven’s was also playing hurt

Are we comparing the seeds and results so far to the 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, and 10 seeds that were projected and the "what if?" results they might have produced? How can anyone answer that?

Palm's last predictions:

USU - 5
SDSU - 6
CSU - 6
Nevada - 6
Boise - 7
UNM - 8

Would the MW have the same results with those seeds?

Run a poll on how you think your Pukes will do in the NIT.

What you deserve and how you react to it aren't the same thing. Based on the results of the regular season, the teams were seeded lower than any previous teams with similar resumes. I still don't think Michigan State had the resume to get in. Them winning a game in the tournament doesn't change my mind. I still believe the MW was underseeded...I wish our teams would have come out with a fire and shown that was the case.

I understand that March is “Madness” and literally anyone can win on any given night. Do you guys think that if the MW received higher seeds, the results would be different up to this point?

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:49 pm

I understand that March is “Madness” and literally anyone can win on any given night. Do you guys think that if the MW received higher seeds, the results would be different up to this point?

Nevada was seemingly the better team until Alford played prevent offense, CSU boat raced the #3 ACC team and then couldn’t hit open shots against Texas

SDSU won and is coming off a natty appearance

NM always stinks in the tourney, as do past USU teams. Not sure any seed differences would help us, although NM probably deserved a 9/10

spud wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:49 pm

Run a poll on how you think your Pukes will do in the NIT.

This is a USU board. Why would I talk about “that” basketball program?

Yossarian wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:46 pm

Are we comparing the seeds and results so far to the 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, and 10 seeds that were projected and the "what if?" results they might have produced? How can anyone answer that?

Palm's last predictions:

USU - 5
SDSU - 6
CSU - 6
Nevada - 6
Boise - 7
UNM - 8

Would the MW have the same results with those seeds?

I personally believe that similar results would have occurred. I don’t think it’s a seed problem.

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:43 pm

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:38 pm

I don't know how to answer the question. Is the question "Is the MW actually good?" Or is the question "Did the selection committee get the MW seeds right?"

Because they are both yes or know questions with different answers.

I want your thoughts on the seeds now that the MW has played and wet the bed. Once again it looks like the only team that makes the MW relevant is SDSU.

In other words you think we (Aggies) are going to get creamed tonight?

Maybe in a few spots, but the mw is doing itself no favors and nobody is going to feel sorry for the MW with these results

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

So far no team has lost a game they were seeded to win. SDSU nearly underperformed for their seed but still won as expected. Would the MWC have gone 6-0 vs Duquesne? Hard sayin.

Alright, it's time to put the troll tag on, gone on long enough.

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

After those seeds most of the games are a toss up depending on match ups. If you have good guard play you do have an advantage.

National media is towing the line for the big conferences but I think outside of Nevada we have done what we should have so far with MW. We didn't pick up an extra win but I don't feel like we crapped the bed either.

mcaggie1 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:05 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:43 pm

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 2:38 pm

I don't know how to answer the question. Is the question "Is the MW actually good?" Or is the question "Did the selection committee get the MW seeds right?"

Because they are both yes or know questions with different answers.

I want your thoughts on the seeds now that the MW has played and wet the bed. Once again it looks like the only team that makes the MW relevant is SDSU.

In other words you think we (Aggies) are going to get creamed tonight?

It’s tough to say. I believe there will be only one of two results. We pull off a close win like we’ve done all season, or history repeats itself and we lose by double digits.

The seeding was bad.
I figured that New Mexico was going to lose since they won 4 games in 4 days before this Clemson game.
Boise State has players that shoot the ball no matter what, so them losing is no surprise.
Nevada just got overconfident with a big lead.
Colorado State crushed UVA then did terrible.
San Diego State won.
We have yet to play.
Things to consider
Kentucky and BYU lost to AQ mid-major teams.
Samford was on the verge of beating Kansas then the refs pull the rug out from Samford.
Seeding impacts the quality of the opponent, and the MWC got hosed with tougher teams.

Seeding was definitely poor based on metrics and history. Performance was as expected based on seeding (8/9 is typically 50-50). If the MWC wants more respect, they will need to win games when they are not seeded higher.

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

Well this is a ridiculous statement. Here are the winning percentages for the higher seeds from 1985-2023:

1vs16: .987
2 vs 15: .928
3 vs 14: .855
4 vs 13: .789
5 vs 12: .651
6 vs 11: .618
7 vs 10: .609
8 vs 9: .487


Oh look at that, we're still historically not favored as far as seed goes :/

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:32 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

Well this is a ridiculous statement. Here are the winning percentages for the higher seeds from 1985-2023:

1vs16: .987
2 vs 15: .928
3 vs 14: .855
4 vs 13: .789
5 vs 12: .651
6 vs 11: .618
7 vs 10: .609
8 vs 9: .487


Oh look at that, we're still historically not favored as far as seed goes :/

I was fairly accurate actually. 5 seeds and on are basically 50/50. Thanks for providing the data to prove my point. If you look at more recent years, my point will just be proven more accurate.

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:38 pm

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:32 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

Well this is a ridiculous statement. Here are the winning percentages for the higher seeds from 1985-2023:

1vs16: .987
2 vs 15: .928
3 vs 14: .855
4 vs 13: .789
5 vs 12: .651
6 vs 11: .618
7 vs 10: .609
8 vs 9: .487


Oh look at that, we're still historically not favored as far as seed goes :/

I was fairly accurate actually. 5 seeds and on are basically 50/50. Thanks for providing the data to prove my point. If you look at more recent years, my point will just be proven more accurate.

Is this satire?

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:38 pm

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:32 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

Well this is a ridiculous statement. Here are the winning percentages for the higher seeds from 1985-2023:

1vs16: .987
2 vs 15: .928
3 vs 14: .855
4 vs 13: .789
5 vs 12: .651
6 vs 11: .618
7 vs 10: .609
8 vs 9: .487


Oh look at that, we're still historically not favored as far as seed goes :/

I was fairly accurate actually. 5 seeds and on are basically 50/50. Thanks for providing the data to prove my point. If you look at more recent years, my point will just be proven more accurate.

Not to but pick, but losing 60% of the time isn't 50/50. I'd take 60/40 over 50/50 any day of the week. I'm hoping we over perform for our 8 seed later tonight.

stwinward wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:41 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:38 pm

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:32 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

Well this is a ridiculous statement. Here are the winning percentages for the higher seeds from 1985-2023:

1vs16: .987
2 vs 15: .928
3 vs 14: .855
4 vs 13: .789
5 vs 12: .651
6 vs 11: .618
7 vs 10: .609
8 vs 9: .487


Oh look at that, we're still historically not favored as far as seed goes :/

I was fairly accurate actually. 5 seeds and on are basically 50/50. Thanks for providing the data to prove my point. If you look at more recent years, my point will just be proven more accurate.

Not to but pick, but losing 60% of the time isn't 50/50. I'd take 60/40 over 50/50 any day of the week. I'm hoping we over perform for our 8 seed later tonight.

Not 50/50, “basically” 50/50. During college basketball in March, 60/40 doesn’t mean anything.

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:43 pm

stwinward wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:41 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:38 pm

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:32 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

Well this is a ridiculous statement. Here are the winning percentages for the higher seeds from 1985-2023:

1vs16: .987
2 vs 15: .928
3 vs 14: .855
4 vs 13: .789
5 vs 12: .651
6 vs 11: .618
7 vs 10: .609
8 vs 9: .487


Oh look at that, we're still historically not favored as far as seed goes :/

I was fairly accurate actually. 5 seeds and on are basically 50/50. Thanks for providing the data to prove my point. If you look at more recent years, my point will just be proven more accurate.

Not to but pick, but losing 60% of the time isn't 50/50. I'd take 60/40 over 50/50 any day of the week. I'm hoping we over perform for our 8 seed later tonight.

Not 50/50, “basically” 50/50. During college basketball in March, 60/40 doesn’t mean anything.

I know I'm feeding the troll, but you'll never win the argument that 60/40 is basically 50/50 with a fan board which is filled with lots of engineering degrees.

Tell you what, let's both start with $10. I'll be the 60/40 guy. We'll give each other a dollar when our turn comes up. Won't be long and I'll have all $20.

Seeding can help.

5, 6, and 7 seed win 626 out of every thousand games.
10, 11, and 12 seeds win 374 of every thousand games.

To me that is very significant.

three 11 seeds won. The one 11 seed who lost was a mw team who got blown out. Yes the seeds aren't ideal, but other lower seeds find ways to win. Other than sdsu the mw just doesn't win in the tournament.

stwinward wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:49 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:43 pm

stwinward wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:41 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:38 pm

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:32 pm

AggieIceCream05 wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:07 pm

cval wrote: ↑

March 22nd, 2024, 3:02 pm

Contrary to board opinion, seeding does affect who you play, and your chances of winning.

Maybe if you are a 1, 2, or 3 seed. Outside of that, I don’t think so.

Well this is a ridiculous statement. Here are the winning percentages for the higher seeds from 1985-2023:

1vs16: .987
2 vs 15: .928
3 vs 14: .855
4 vs 13: .789
5 vs 12: .651
6 vs 11: .618
7 vs 10: .609
8 vs 9: .487


Oh look at that, we're still historically not favored as far as seed goes :/

I was fairly accurate actually. 5 seeds and on are basically 50/50. Thanks for providing the data to prove my point. If you look at more recent years, my point will just be proven more accurate.

Not to but pick, but losing 60% of the time isn't 50/50. I'd take 60/40 over 50/50 any day of the week. I'm hoping we over perform for our 8 seed later tonight.

Not 50/50, “basically” 50/50. During college basketball in March, 60/40 doesn’t mean anything.

I know I'm feeding the troll, but you'll never win the argument that 60/40 is basically 50/50 with a fan board which is filled with lots of engineering degrees.

Tell you what, let's both start with $10. I'll be the 60/40 guy. We'll give each other a dollar when our turn comes up. Won't be long and I'll have all $20.

Seeding can help.

Finally, someone was nice enough to simplify the information for me. I love a good teacher! Thank you.

Every once in a while I'm reminded of a saying my dad used to use. "He just talks to hear his gums flap"