Remember that UGLY NCAA tourney game vs. Michigan State in 2007??

[MU_Iceman]

Well, there was a reason for that...MU got moved down two seed lines(one of only two times that a team has ever been moved DOWN Two seed lines). They got the 8 that year, and should have been a 6. Big difference assuming stay in same Region etc, they would have played George Washington instead of MSU. So those of you that tend to think MU fans are paranoid about getting screwed with seed etc...we have reason to be, and this proves it. it was for bracketing principles, and had NOTHING to do with McNeal's injury. :mad: Oh yeah....and remember the "14" seed BYU in 2012 that MU had to play?? The only other team to ever get moved down two lines...got the 14, were really a 12. I think our paranoia, is not so unfounded. :cool:


NCAA adding "seeding flexibility" for this years NCAA tourney.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9529836/ncaa-adds-flexibility-tournament-seeding

During the call, NCAA spokesman David Worlock noted that in recent years, two teams were dropped two lines -- Marquette in 2007 and Brigham Young in 2012. Wellman also said there was a long debate in the selection room last year regarding Oregon, which wound up with a No. 12 seed and played in one of the First Four games at Dayton, Ohio.

[MUMac]

MU did not get screwed, they dropped down 2 lines because Jerel was out for the tournament.

Yes, you are paranoid and yes it is unfounded.

[kneelb4zerg]

It's called bad luck, not a conspiracy to screw us.

[unclejohn]

It does sound to me from the article that Marquette got dropped from the seed it should have had to an 8 instead, and this was because of bracketing rules, not because of McNeal's injury. And we had the additional misfortune of playing MSU, which meant that Izzo knew exactly what Crean was going to do, and Crean melted down. But in both the situations, Marquette did not get "screwed." Nobody was out to get us. It was just unfortunate luck. Really unfortunate in the MSU case, less so with BYU. The deal with BYU is that they would not play on Sundays, so they had to be moved to a down a couple notches. If anything, it worked to their detriment. But in any case, the teams in that area are kind of a crap shoot anyway. Keep in mind that BYU was getting killed by Iona in the play-in game before Iona ran out of gas and collapsed. They were not that good of a team. On the other hand, Davidson, who got a 14 as a result of playing in a weak conference, was probably a better team than several of the 12s, and obviously gave us a much better game. Sometimes it comes down to luck of the draw. You need to be good to succeed in the tournament, but you also have to be lucky. That is why I think judging coaches on their tournament record is often deceiving.

[MUMac]

It does sound to me from the article that Marquette got dropped from the seed it should have had to an 8 instead, and this was because of bracketing rules, not because of McNeal's injury. And we had the additional misfortune of playing MSU, which meant that Izzo knew exactly what Crean was going to do, and Crean melted down. But in both the situations, Marquette did not get "screwed." Nobody was out to get us. It was just unfortunate luck. Really unfortunate in the MSU case, less so with BYU. The deal with BYU is that they would not play on Sundays, so they had to be moved to a down a couple notches. If anything, it worked to their detriment. But in any case, the teams in that area are kind of a crap shoot anyway. Keep in mind that BYU was getting killed by Iona in the play-in game before Iona ran out of gas and collapsed. They were not that good of a team. On the other hand, Davidson, who got a 14 as a result of playing in a weak conference, was probably a better team than several of the 12s, and obviously gave us a much better game. Sometimes it comes down to luck of the draw. You need to be good to succeed in the tournament, but you also have to be lucky. That is why I think judging coaches on their tournament record is often deceiving.

Where do you see any reference as to why MU was dropped? I don't see the reference, nor do I see the reference as to why BYU was dropped. I believe your inference as to bracketing being the reason is not supported in the article.

[Markedman]

So we are to believe that they sit around in the room and dropped MU 2 lines because the people on the SC wanted to screw MU?

Every fan base thinks they get screwed at one point or another......I have no complaints at all about how MU has been treated in most years by the SC....

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I don't think it was done with any malicious, anti-Marquette intent, but the article seems to indicate pretty clearly that Marquette was dropped 2 seed lines and forced to play a 9 instead of an 11 in 2007 and BYU was dropped 2 seed lines so MU played a 12 instead of a 14.

That said, we still should have been favored in 2007, and MSU should have had a tougher time with us than an actual 8-seed, and we beat BYU anyway. It's misfortune that the two most egregious seeding errors impacted our games, but at least they admitted it.

[unclejohn]

Where do you see any reference as to why MU was dropped? I don't see the reference, nor do I see the reference as to why BYU was dropped. I believe your inference as to bracketing being the reason is not supported in the article.

Because the whole article is about rules for bracketing, and the fact that teams have had to be moved to keep conference teams away from each other in the early rounds. There is a direct reference to Marquette being "dropped" in 2007. If Marquette had been moved down due to McNeal's injury, it would not have been dropped, but just seeded lower. The rules up to this point have stated that a team could be dropped up to two lines from the seed it was supposed to have in order to fulfill bracketing rules. The NCAA official interviewed that it has happened twice in recent years, both time coincidentally involving Marquette. It is likely that dropping or raising a team one line has happened more often than that.

Regarding BYU, there is no question. This is a problem the committee faces every time BYU makes the tournament. They have to be placed in a sub-region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, within a region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, since they will not play on Sunday. So they took their lumps when they played us.

[MUMac]

Because the whole article is about rules for bracketing, and the fact that teams have had to be moved to keep conference teams away from each other in the early rounds. There is a direct reference to Marquette being "dropped" in 2007. If Marquette had been moved down due to McNeal's injury, it would not have been dropped, but just seeded lower. The rules up to this point have stated that a team could be dropped up to two lines from the seed it was supposed to have in order to fulfill bracketing rules. The NCAA official interviewed that it has happened twice in recent years, both time coincidentally involving Marquette. It is likely that dropping or raising a team one line has happened more often than that.

Regarding BYU, there is no question. This is a problem the committee faces every time BYU makes the tournament. They have to be placed in a sub-region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, within a region that plays on Thursday and Saturday, since they will not play on Sunday. So they took their lumps when they played us.

The article was about bracketing, but the comment was not necessarily about bracketing. But, why would you not make the same assumption about BYU as MU? They were mentioned the same way as MU. You were not consistent. There were alternatives to moving BYU that did not involve two lines. As for 2007, there were 3 BE teams that would have been on the 6 line. I suspect the NCAA had to drop one of them and MU was the one to drop due to the injury anyway. Not because the NCAA had it out for MU. I am just not buying that crapola.

I do not understand the part I bolded. How can you be seeded lower but not dropped? That makes no sense. They were seeded lower, which forced them to be dropped. The seeding is done and then they take account the ancillary factors, such as what is in the article, injuries, not being able to play on a Sunday ... I do not have the time nor desire, but I do recall after it became known the severity of the injury that MU acknowledged they had to disclose this to the NCAA before seeding and that that was a factor for their being seeded lower.

Lastly, where did the article state that this had been done two times and both involving Marquette? Are we reading the same article?

[TheSultan]

Mac, BYU was dropped specifically because they had to find a place for them to play Thursday/Saturday.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2012/story/_/id/7674666/2012-men-ncaa-tournament-st-bonaventure-bonnies-win-canceled-vote-final-spot

"Another problem in bracketing was having to accommodate BYU in a Thursday-Saturday regional if the Cougars win the first round game in Dayton against Iona. BYU's policy against playing athletic events on Sundays forced the Cougars and Iona to No. 14 seeds -- the lowest at-large seed ever in the NCAA tournament, Worlock said."

[IWB]

They also like to play up stories, could be they dropped MU 2 spots just because of the storyline involved with the Crean-Izzo matchup.

[MUMac]

Mac, BYU was dropped specifically because they had to find a place for them to play Thursday/Saturday.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2012/story/_/id/7674666/2012-men-ncaa-tournament-st-bonaventure-bonnies-win-canceled-vote-final-spot

"Another problem in bracketing was having to accommodate BYU in a Thursday-Saturday regional if the Cougars win the first round game in Dayton against Iona. BYU's policy against playing athletic events on Sundays forced the Cougars and Iona to No. 14 seeds -- the lowest at-large seed ever in the NCAA tournament, Worlock said."

I know that. That was actually my point. MU and BYU were both mentioned, same sentence, to have been the two schools dropped two lines in the article that was linked at the beginning. The assumption made by gomarquette and UncleJohn was that it was adverse selection or due to the premise of the article. My position is that since both were the only one's mentioned to be dropped two lines how can you jump to the conclusion that UJ came to? It is not logical to me. We know there were factors not mentioned as to why BYU was dropped, yet we do not assume there were other factors as to why MU was dropped? The only answer is that it is the premise of the article? I am not buying that.

I know BYU was dropped for "religious" reasons. I also remember that Jerel's injury was a reason why MU was dropped.

[unclejohn]

The article was about bracketing, but the comment was not necessarily about bracketing. But, why would you not make the same assumption about BYU as MU? They were mentioned the same way as MU. You were not consistent. There were alternatives to moving BYU that did not involve two lines. As for 2007, there were 3 BE teams that would have been on the 6 line. I suspect the NCAA had to drop one of them and MU was the one to drop due to the injury anyway. Not because the NCAA had it out for MU. I am just not buying that crapola.

I do not understand the part I bolded. How can you be seeded lower but not dropped? That makes no sense. They were seeded lower, which forced them to be dropped. The seeding is done and then they take account the ancillary factors, such as what is in the article, injuries, not being able to play on a Sunday ... I do not have the time nor desire, but I do recall after it became known the severity of the injury that MU acknowledged they had to disclose this to the NCAA before seeding and that that was a factor for their being seeded lower.

Lastly, where did the article state that this had been done two times and both involving Marquette? Are we reading the same article?


I don't know what you are reading, but here is the exact line from the article.

"During the call, NCAA spokesman David Worlock noted that in recent years, two teams were dropped two lines -- Marquette in 2007 and Brigham Young in 2012."

So it has happened twice in recent years. Once, Marquette was moved. The other time, BYU was moved and ended up playing Marquette. So he mentions two cases in recent years, and both involve Marquette. I do not know how to make it clearer than that.

Again, the article is entirely about bracketing, and how changes in NCAA procedures are going to effect bracketing. It is not about seeding. It is not about how teams are moved to account for injuries. That would have been a whole different article and it would have made reference to a bunch more teams who have had to deal with injuries coming into the tournament. The whole point of the article was that with the changes, it would not be necessary to move teams from the line they are seeded on to some other line to avoid conference conflicts.

I have no idea what the alternatives were to moving BYU, and I doubt you do either. Do you seriously mean you memorized the bracket from two years ago andr know what the alternatives were? The fact that the NCAA spokesman mentions BYU means that they did get dropped two lines from where they were seeded, and the fact that they were suggests that it was necessary.

You can write this off as "crapola" but it seems that you are determined to find a conspiracy against Marquette no matter what the facts are. In that case, your argument is invincible.

[unclejohn]

They also like to play up stories, could be they dropped MU 2 spots just because of the storyline involved with the Crean-Izzo matchup.

That argument is made every year, and it has been disproved. The same year that Marquette and MSU met, the mock selection committee of sportswriters and the like put together their own bracket, and had them meeting in the second round. That mock bracket was done earlier in the season, when both Marquette and MSU were playing better, and I think the mock committee had them as a 3 and a 6 or something, both winning their first games and meeting in the second round. The reporters on the mock committee mentioned that match-up of one of those that fans would notice, but pointed out that nobody thought of it when they were putting the brackets together. As a matter of fact, nobody even noticed until they saw the whole bracket posted after they were done. There were just too many other factors to consider. and they didn't have time to figure out clever match-ups. And that is the way it goes every year. Putting the bracket together is a really complicated task. Throwing in the additional factor of trying to create interesting stories would just make it that much more difficult. And for what? The stories are going to be there anyway. There are going to be thirty-two games in the first (now second) round. One or two of them are going to have some interesting angle, like the time UNC played Charlotte in the first round. It is also not surprising that UNC, coached by the former Kansas coach met Kansas a in the early rounds a few years back. They are both teams that regularly make the tournament, and they are bound to meet in the early rounds sooner or later. I just don't buy the story angle. The interesting thing about those mock brackets that the NCAA put together for a few years was that they looked quite a bit like the real thing. One year they did it twice with two entirely different groups of sportswriters, and the results were about the same, with perhaps one or two different teams making the tournament, and a few teams being seeded a line or two differently, but otherwise about the same.

[TheSultan]

That argument is made every year, and it has been disproved. The same year that Marquette and MSU met, the mock selection committee of sportswriters and the like put together their own bracket, and had them meeting in the second round. That mock bracket was done earlier in the season, when both Marquette and MSU were playing better, and I think the mock committee had them as a 3 and a 6 or something, both winning their first games and meeting in the second round. The reporters on the mock committee mentioned that match-up of one of those that fans would notice, but pointed out that nobody thought of it when they were putting the brackets together. As a matter of fact, nobody even noticed until they saw the whole bracket posted after they were done. There were just too many other factors to consider. and they didn't have time to figure out clever match-ups. And that is the way it goes every year. Putting the bracket together is a really complicated task. Throwing in the additional factor of trying to create interesting stories would just make it that much more difficult. And for what? The stories are going to be there anyway. There are going to be thirty-two games in the first (now second) round. One or two of them are going to have some interesting angle, like the time UNC played Charlotte in the first round. It is also not surprising that UNC, coached by the former Kansas coach met Kansas a in the early rounds a few years back. They are both teams that regularly make the tournament, and they are bound to meet in the early rounds sooner or later. I just don't buy the story angle. The interesting thing about those mock brackets that the NCAA put together for a few years was that they looked quite a bit like the real thing. One year they did it twice with two entirely different groups of sportswriters, and the results were about the same, with perhaps one or two different teams making the tournament, and a few teams being seeded a line or two differently, but otherwise about the same.


Not to be a logic wiener here, but that doesn't mean that it has been "disproved," just less likely to have occurred.

[Gato78]

Some of us older types who were around in the Al McGuire days, remember how Adolph Rupp controlled the NCAA and the NCAA retaliated against Al and MU for Al's comeupance of Rupp. Proof? Bumblebee uniforms declared illegal because they were "psychedelic". Al constantly getting T'd up by certain officials. 1970 NCAA seed that ended up in MU going to NIT because Al had enough of getting kicked around by the NCAA. It apparently never stopped as Al had a famous rant about the NCAA and how we were getting hosed by the back room NCAA guys in 1977--probably directed at the Rupp battle. So those of us that can remember that stuff, we are a little paranoid when it comes to MU and the NCAA--for good reasons.

[MUMac]

I don't know what you are reading, but here is the exact line from the article.

"During the call, NCAA spokesman David Worlock noted that in recent years, two teams were dropped two lines -- Marquette in 2007 and Brigham Young in 2012."

So it has happened twice in recent years. Once, Marquette was moved. The other time, BYU was moved and ended up playing Marquette. So he mentions two cases in recent years, and both involve Marquette. I do not know how to make it clearer than that.

Again, the article is entirely about bracketing, and how changes in NCAA procedures are going to effect bracketing. It is not about seeding. It is not about how teams are moved to account for injuries. That would have been a whole different article and it would have made reference to a bunch more teams who have had to deal with injuries coming into the tournament. The whole point of the article was that with the changes, it would not be necessary to move teams from the line they are seeded on to some other line to avoid conference conflicts.

I have no idea what the alternatives were to moving BYU, and I doubt you do either. Do you seriously mean you memorized the bracket from two years ago andr know what the alternatives were? The fact that the NCAA spokesman mentions BYU means that they did get dropped two lines from where they were seeded, and the fact that they were suggests that it was necessary.

You can write this off as "crapola" but it seems that you are determined to find a conspiracy against Marquette no matter what the facts are. In that case, your argument is invincible.

Come on, you can't see how your initial comment could be taken FAR differently than as you put it in the bolded part above? Please. Your initial comment sure sounded to me like MU was moved twice. I read it wrong, but the writing was curious as well. Just as I believe you are reading the comment in question wrong, as the writing is unclear.

Have at the last response, I think this horse has been beaten. Not sure you could provide any insight that would help me see your position. I just think you are inferring things that do not exist.

[TheSultan]

Some of us older types who were around in the Al McGuire days, remember how Adolph Rupp controlled the NCAA and the NCAA retaliated against Al and MU for Al's comeupance of Rupp. Proof? Bumblebee uniforms declared illegal because they were "psychedelic". Al constantly getting T'd up by certain officials. 1970 NCAA seed that ended up in MU going to NIT because Al had enough of getting kicked around by the NCAA. It apparently never stopped as Al had a famous rant about the NCAA and how we were getting hosed by the back room NCAA guys in 1977--probably directed at the Rupp battle. So those of us that can remember that stuff, we are a little paranoid when it comes to MU and the NCAA--for good reasons.


To be honest, I am not sure this type of "retaliation" or "getting kicked around" ever really existed but in the mind of Marquette fans.

[MUMac]

Some of us older types who were around in the Al McGuire days, remember how Adolph Rupp controlled the NCAA and the NCAA retaliated against Al and MU for Al's comeupance of Rupp. Proof? Bumblebee uniforms declared illegal because they were "psychedelic". Al constantly getting T'd up by certain officials. 1970 NCAA seed that ended up in MU going to NIT because Al had enough of getting kicked around by the NCAA. It apparently never stopped as Al had a famous rant about the NCAA and how we were getting hosed by the back room NCAA guys in 1977--probably directed at the Rupp battle. So those of us that can remember that stuff, we are a little paranoid when it comes to MU and the NCAA--for good reasons.

I was around and I remember. Neither Adolf, nor the powers that be at the NCAA are around any longer. I do not see the lasting impact of this.

[Gato78]

MU Mac: No lasting impact but it is true that there are those of us who remember and are always suspicious. Sultan: this stuff happened and people like Murf and Nukem remember this stuff well. Al completely upset the NCAA good old boys apple cart. If you have any doubts, listen to Al's rant in 1977. He absolutely went off on the NCAA thinking it was his parting shot. If it was all a fraud, then we should still be wearing the bumblebees. It wasn't a fraud--Adolph Rupp hated Al ("Don't call me son unless I am in your will") (Played NCAA game in 1967(?) in Lexington vs Ky. Rupp asked Al to be on his TV show and Al refused unless he was paid.) Al also showed him up on race issues--Rupp was a segregationist, Al could walk through Harlem untouched. Adolph Rupp controlled the NCAA in those days and Rupp was responsible for the NCAA vs MU stuff.

[MUMac]

Al was one of the only people to stand up to Rupp. He knew how to push Rupp's buttons. Rupp could not figure out how to push Al's buttons the same way. At that time, the NCAA was afraid of Rupp and cowtowed to Rupp. He was not a good man, IMHO. A racist, as he proved to Al.

[unclejohn]

Not to be a logic wiener here, but that doesn't mean that it has been "disproved," just less likely to have occurred.

Good point. But the fact is, there are thirty-two games every year in the "second round." If the committee wanted to create story lines, we would see many more of them. As it is, they pop up once in a while and everybody gets suspicious. So UNC and Roy Williams play his former team Kansas in an early game. Well, they both make the tournament almost every year. They are bound to bump into each other eventually. What people forget is the dozens of games where there is simply no connection. There is no reason for Marquette to be interested in Utah State. Georgetown against Florida Gulf Coast is not a story until they lose. The point of the whole mock tournament committee was to give reporters an idea of what really goes on, and all of them concluded that there are just way too many factors to consider to worry about making provocative match-ups.