Plantin' Seeds

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 10:35 AM CST in Basketball Comment 53 comments

Littlevisigoth is ready for some seeding talk, and so am I. Let's break down various scenarios for Texas and how they might affect Texas' seed.

#10 - #11 Seed Very unlikely for Texas. For this to happen, the Horns would have to drop their last three regular season games and get slaughtered in their opening round tourney game. An ugly four game losing streak is the only way Texas falls to this range.

#8 - #9 Seed I could see Texas in this range with a win in Norman, two ugly losses to KU and A&M, and a sad showing in the Big 12 tournament. I -think- last night's win puts us in a position to avoid this seed if we do a little bit more than what I just outlined, which would give us a. . .

#7 Seed Looks to me like this is where Texas sits right now, and shouldn't have too much trouble maintaining. A win over OU, A&M, or Kansas, plus one win in the Big 12 tournament gets Texas a #7.

#6 Seed Texas has work to do to move up this high, but it's not at all out of reach. One such scenario is winning two of the final three regular season games (take your pick), plus a first round win in the Big 12 tourney. Another scenario is winning one of the final three plus -two- Big 12 tourney wins.

#5 Seed Texas would have to get pretty hot to earn a #5 seed, but it's certainly possible with the teams left on the schedule. Texas potentially has six games left on its schedule. If they won five of six, you'd see them as high as #5 in the brackets.

#4 Seed Win six in a row, and Texas would, I think, be a #4 seed. Those six wins would include at OU, versus A&M, at Kansas, and three Big 12 tourney wins (probably including Kansas and A&M again).

This is all speculative, of course, and largely an academic exercise. Texas has secured a spot in March Madness, and regardless of seed, will be exciting to cheer for come tournament time. Still, I'm curious:

Do you agree with my general assessment?
How do you see Texas finishing down the stretch?
Where do you envision us being seeded?

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 53 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

another thing to keep in mind

is that it's not all about what we do. it's about what the teams with currently similar seeds do too. if every team in the 6-8 range totally tanks these last few weeks and we split, we could still legitimately move up to a 5 or 6. That being said, I don't follow "bracketology" other than to see where Texas currently is so I couldn't say what we need to happen or how likely it would be.

As for our performance, I see us winning 2 of the last 3 regular season games, and then the first game of the tournament, but not the second. And as long as we at least beat OU and win our first game of the tourney, i can't see us below a 7.

But i sure would like a 6. With a 6 seed, you don't have to play a #1 until the regional finals. It might even be better than a #5, depending on the relative difference between the 4 and the 3 seeds you'd play in round 2 and the 1 and the 2 seeds you'd play in round 3.

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 10:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Good point

I think the name of the game this year is avoiding Florida, UCLA, and UNC. Getting in the bottom half of the bracket, even if that means a tougher Sweet 16 matchup, may just be worth it.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Balance

Given that fatigue has been such a concern recently, is the seed bump from a deep Big 12 tourney run worth forgoing the extra couple days of rest?

by ged3 on Feb 21, 2007 11:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

depends

on what the seeds are and who you'd be avoiding by going up. the bump between a 9 and an 8? obviously not. The bump between an 8 and a 7? possibly, considering that this year, as PB noted above, three #1 seeds are heads and shoulders above the rest of the field, while all the potential #2 seeds are beatable.

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True

I assumed that we could pick up 1 or 2 of the next three and go in with a 7th seed.

If that's the case is it worth it to play the extra 40-80 min (meaning 35-70 extra min on Durant and Co.) to effectivly move to a different part of the 2 seed side fo the bracket?

by ged3 on Feb 21, 2007 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

is it worth arguing?

are you really going to root for Texas to lose to A&M in the second round of the tourney (assuming that's how it shakes out)? it's not like they aren't going to prepare to win the whole thing. or are you just hedging in case that's what happens?

by littlevisigoth on Feb 21, 2007 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

6 Seed

Beat OU in Norman
Beat Aggies at home
Lose to Jayhawks in Lawrence

Beat Tech (again) in Tourney
Beat Aggies (to win the series)in Tourney
Lose to Jayhawks (again) in Tourney

Officially a Limey Longhorn

by patienthornsfan on Feb 21, 2007 11:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

6 might be ideal......

if we want to win the whole thing. Besides avoiding the 1 seeds until the Elite Eight, that is the likely lowest seed that you can have and realistically expect to win the championship, a la Kansas 1988.

by TroutDog1 on Feb 21, 2007 11:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

If we win 6 straight

That means that we would have won a split part of the big 12 regular season, assuming Kansas and A&M don't lose any other games, and the won big 12 tournament.
With all of that momentum, you still don't think we could slip into a 3?

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 12:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

that also

would suddenly put out record vs. top 10 teams at 4-1 (assuming A&M wouldn't drop out of the top 10 after losing to us in Austin and we'd be beating A&M and KU in the final two).

i think that's a bit much to ask. i really think two of the last three is very doable and two wins in the tourney is not beyond comprehension.

i'm trying not to get too giddy about the Tech and OSU blowouts, but it's hard not to. it really seems like we're finally seeing the kind of basketball these kids are capable of (and Durant didn't have to go off in either of those games, like i fully expect he will in tournament time).

hook 'em!

by littlevisigoth on Feb 21, 2007 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dont get me wrong

Winning the next 6 odds I still put as low. A&M at home would be an upset and Kansas at Kansas would be a big upset. Then we would have to beat them both again in OKC. I dont see that happening, I was just playing what if.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i understand

and i was adding to it. with such a young team, i think a selection committee would have more of a tendency to weigh such a late season surge a little heavier, especially with a Big XII crown sitting on their heads. our RPI and SOS are pretty poor right now, and it'd be interesting to see how much it would improve. a 3-seed would mean we're in the 9-12 range of the best teams in the country (in the eyes of the selection committee). it'd really depend on what happens in other conferences.

by littlevisigoth on Feb 21, 2007 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What if we win 12 straight?

What seed will we be then?

BTW, do they seed the Miss America Pageant? Cuz if like Miss North Dakota took out Miss Hawaii, that would be like a 15 beating a 2. Plus, we could have like a BON betting pool and stuff.

I'm just saying.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't the point of the article to play what if?

I was not the one to bring up winning 6 straight, it was PB, I was just responding.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you were crying for help

The idea of six straight wins was just too much to absorb. I think you should ask yourself, were you responding, or lashing out.

You should listen to Miss Oklahoma when she says, "denial ain't just a river in Spain."

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine

Use your jokes to deflect the fact that you decided to be an ass before realizing that I was responding to what PB had already wrote.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, fine...

Use your lethal whit to make me lower my self-esteem and question why I make jokes to deflect the pain of not experiencing the kind of stiff underpants childhood you undoubtedly had.

Wells, it's a joke. It was always a joke. I simply used your post as a lead in to more ridiculous pageant humor that irratates everyone to no end.

If you're offended and presently have me in the cross hairs of a high powered rifle, I apologize.

But seriously, which of my other 3.2 million posts on this forum made you think I was trying to be as serious as you.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know it is a joke 54b

I just don't find your schtick as funny anymore.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Harsh, but fair

I stepped into your serious conversation uninvited. I will now remove myself and go elsewhere.

Maybe we can divide the BON Greg and Peter Brady style...you stay on your serious side and I'll get back to 24/7 pageant talk.

You stay away from my unamusing "schtick" and I promise to leave you be.

Have fun, or not.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 7:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Texas wins next 3...

If Texas wins the next 3, wont we be the #1 seed in Big 12 tourney? Won't that make it impossible to play both Kansas and A&M again (assuming they stay at #2 and #3 seeds)?

by JohnsonUT on Feb 21, 2007 1:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Now that you mention it...

You might just be right...

Though I don't think it changes any of the above.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

was gonna ask

what the tie-breaker is, but just went on the Big XII website and answered my own question. for those others that are curious, if we finish the season tied with A&M at 13-3 (i.e. we win our last three and they win their others), the first tie-breaker, since we split the season series, would be record against South division schools. we'd win that since our other two losses would be KSU and OSU, while theirs would be twice against TTU.

by littlevisigoth on Feb 21, 2007 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Best seed

I'm not so sure that a higher seed (5 or 6) is better for us than 7, 8, or 9. Assuming that favorites win, the opponents will be:

#5: 12-4-1-2
#6: 11-3-2-1
#7: 10-2-3-1
#8: 9-1-4-2
#9: 8-1-4-2

The only advantage that #5 has over #8/#9 is a slightly easier first opponent. If the goal is the Final Four, we have to beat #1 sometime, so why not in second game? And if we can beat #1, we should not have trouble with #8/#9. It hurts our chances of getting to the Sweet Sixteen, but once there it gives us the best run to the Final Four.

by Caradoc on Feb 21, 2007 2:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

nope

you want to delay how long you pay the best teams because the longer you delay it, the more likely that someone else will have knocked them off already. if you're an 8/9, you're always going to play a #1 in the second round. if you're a 6/7, the likelihood of having to face a #1 decreases dramatically.

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nrrrrrr...

Dude, so what you're saying is #1 teams are only really #1 teams when they play UT. But if a #1 seed plays a lower seeded team than UT, they may lose because of overconfidence and because they're thinking about KD's 7'2" wingspan.

Conversely, if a lower seeded team than UT beats a #1 seeded team in Texas' direct path to the final 4, they will realize that they are really a shitty team sometime after beating the #1 seed but before playing UT in the next round.

I think I'll stick to pageants. There's a lot less math.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 3:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm saying

that I'd rather Texas play a #4 seed that beat a #1 seed than a #1 seed. I like our chances more against the #4 seed. If the #4 seed were really as good as the #1 seed, it would be a #1 seed.

Any team can get lucky or have a good matchup against a better team, Texas included. Texas can beat a #1 seed, certainly, but they'll beat a #4 seed a higher percentage of the time. And so to delay that potential matchup with the #1 seed so as to hope that some lesser team gets lucky or has a good matchup seems eminently reasonable to me.

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I dont see what is so fuzzy here

Not being in the way of a #1 team until the later rounds is desirable because they may get upset before that.
Just because George Mason beat UCONN last year does not mean that Florida wasn't happy to play GM instead of the Huskies in the final four.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's beccause you and BZ share the same brain

I could just as easily argue that it's better to play an unsuspecting #1 seed who is overconfident, fat and happy after feasting on a couple of cream puffs than to play a lower seed that's lean, mean, and full of piss and vinegar (not to mention the sympathetic crowds at the regionals who love underdogs and would cheer for them even if they didn't go that school.)

But thank you for the "drop some knowledge double-team" though, I'm pretty sure I understood what BZ meant from the beginning, but I thought I'd amuse the already confused by being "ironical." It's what I do.

Thank goodness you two straight arrows put me back on the narrows, and I think I can confidently say we're all safer for it.

Wells, I'm upgrading you Double Secret Serious BON'er status. No, you earned it.

Miss Komchatka Bay salutes you. Both of you.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks 54b

And you could argue that, but you would be wrong.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your welcome Wells

And by all means, take me to school and explain to me why I'd be wrong (or in this case, any "more wrong than you'd be right.")

Your shot at the Mr. BON Basketball Title may depend on it...and your chances in the Miss Congeniality Pageant too.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't want to discuss it

You just want fodder for your witty pageant references. But, at the risk of what I am certain will be another ironic barb coming my way, here you go: As much as number 1 teams make great headlines when they lose to the scrappy underdog and the Cinderella stories play well on TV, it is much more likely that the 1 seeds don't lose, and the Cinderellas come back down to earth.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are we married?

You don't love me. You don't care. You don't want to discuss it? You sound like my wife or pageant contestant who forgot her duct tape.

Anyway, I agree that #1 seeds win more often than not and probably make it to the final four with more regularity than any other seed, but I don't think that makes my assertion above wrong.

I think it all depends on the specific situation because the fact still remains that all four #1 seeds have never made it to the final four in the same year. And in lots of years, only one #1 seed made it.

Perhaps, you can prove me wrong statistically, but I still think the outcome and the desired opponent has more to do with the situation than the seeding. Just saying you're not any more or less right or wrong than I am.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

I did a google search on "Komchatka" and came up empty.
It brought up sites in another language.

Am I the only one lost on that reference?
Dennis Miller would be proud.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Feb 21, 2007 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kamchataka

or however it's spelled is a region of Siberia (east coast of Russia), where I've heard people are very serious and do not like jokes.

So I figured their beauty pageant nominee would be one of the few women on this planet who might share an appreciation for all things serious.

Not my best work. I am ashamed.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 21, 2007 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No the thread

was entertaining as always, I just missed out on the geo reference.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Feb 21, 2007 8:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Me neither

I did not understand the reference either. However, one of the main reasons I come to BON is for self improvement.

by JohnsonUT on Feb 21, 2007 8:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

try Kamchatka

didn't play Risk as a kid, EOB? 7 extra men at the beginning of your turn, but you could never fucking hold asia....

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 4:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Asia was my strategy

And, yeah, it was damn, damn hard not to get stretched too thin.

I think the purple Australias were the way to go. Build a massive army and then launch a full assault on southeast Asia, taking out the stretched-too-thin green Asia man.

Btw, if anyone's wondering, MMHorns is the most competitive Risk player on the planet.

No joke.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oh hell yeah

papua new guinea. build up and build up and build up.

and my dad might give MMHorns a run for most competitive Risk player ever. I never once beat him growing up. But i've won just about every time I've played a game without him. What a jerk.

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice Eddie Izzard references, everyone

by hornbone on Feb 21, 2007 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

damn

i was hoping no one would notice and i would be able to pass them off as my own. foiled again by izzard's popularity.

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

Oh, it's a bit cold, a bit cold. Hitler never played risk as a kid...

So BZ, are you going to watch that new show on FX with Eddie in it?

by hornbone on Feb 21, 2007 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well,

only if he uses his james mason impersonation as the voice of john f. kennedy. though he does sound a bit like god, doesn't he?

by billyzane on Feb 21, 2007 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well played

Holy Ghost, this is not an episode of Scooby Doo!

Hey PB, are conversations like these the reason this blog has the best community?

by hornbone on Feb 21, 2007 5:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I never played Risk

....and now I know the answer.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Feb 21, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if winning every time

makes me competitive, then yeah.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 4:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Log out of my account MMHorns

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

how about

you log me back on right after you get off MY computer.

he he

PB, i do remember some serious arguments on the Risk board, but I can't remember what I specifically did to get labeled overly competitive. did i spit in your face, flip the board, what? i do know that only dirty whores go for Kamchatka first.

-MMHorns
ok i will log off now

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 5:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't mean overly competitive

I meant you were a serious Risk player, and you never lost.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 21, 2007 8:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well Fuller cites Risk

as the epitome of my competitiveness as well. apparently i made quite an impression on the risk board.

nothing like having a personal conversation on the blog.

Crystal Balls

by MMHorns on Feb 21, 2007 9:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

People think you are competitive

Just because you win all the time.

Or maybe it is the crying and throwing the board when you lose.

by Wells on Feb 21, 2007 9:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How about you schedule a BON Risk tourney

I would certainly fly back to Austin to sign up for that. I've played Risk since my formative years, but thankfully learned to enjoy playing the game without focusing so much on winning at an early stage.

My own preference is taking over South America, largely cuz I was born there, but you can also make some interesting sorties to North America and Africa and wreak havoc on the players trying to hold Europe and Asia even when you have no prayer of winning the game.

I have a good friend we call GBX who always plays with an Africa Strategy, but that's due to his preference for men of a darker complexion, not due to the strategic importance of the continent. That would kinda be like 54b always trying to take and hold Europe cuz he likes Scandinavian babes. But to each his own I say.

Officially a Limey Longhorn

by patienthornsfan on Feb 22, 2007 3:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We're a 6-seed currently

If we defeat OU and A&M, lose to Kansas and win a game in the Big-XII tourney, then we'll make a 5-seed.

If we win the Big-XII tourney, then there is a chance we move up to a 4-seed but it gets pretty crowded up there.

We're a sportsmedia darling and the sportswriters/casters dearly want to help Durant/Augustine/Barnes. We're not going to fall below a 6-seed w/o a severe meltdown with blowouts.

--- We have pansies scheduling our patsies. ---

by HornChamps on Feb 21, 2007 9:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs