To this point, it made me very happy to watch Trice struggle mightily against Villanova's pressure. The future looks iffy in Madison...
Never heard this before.
To this point, it made me very happy to watch Trice struggle mightily against Villanova's pressure. The future looks iffy in Madison...
Never heard this before.
Yep but this is the first time with Gard as a coach instead of Ryan..
And a horrible no call in their direction. Carolina guy bowls over an Arkansas guy to give them a three point lead with about 1:30 to go. Refs have had a really bad tournament so far.
Most in here, if not all, are NOT saying Minnesota is/was better than Minnesota, although I suspect some believe they WERE before Springs went down. I'm one of those people.
But what we ARE saying, is that Minnesota's NCAA tourney Resume was BETTER than Wisconsin's, and why they got the #5 and Wisconsin only got an #8.
And there can not be any denying that Minnesota's NCAA tourney resume was better than Wisconsin's, and the NCAA Selection Committee apparently agreed, and it wasn't even close, a #5 to an #8.
To this point, it made me very happy to watch Trice struggle mightily against Villanova's pressure. The future looks iffy in Madison...
That is all I'm saying. If you are going to be captive to your narrative which is wrong. RPI is not a good way to determine seeds. It comes down to the difference in the records of the crappy teams that Minny played (200+rpi), vs. the crappy teams Wisconsin played (200+rpi) was better. The committee picked and chose what criteria was important to them. They for some reason chose to use RPI in seeding when its only real value is a a more general tool used to find a cut-off line on who is in the tourney and who is out. They mistakenly used RPI to determine seeds.