Under-seeded teams

[proudopete]

Have we been playing under-seeded teams on our national championship run?

Utah State should’ve been a 6. Tennessee should’ve been a 1. NC state seems to be under-seeded as well.

I think our path has been perfect for this team as they seem to play better the better the competition but have we been playing teams that should’ve been seeded higher than they were/are?

 

[Gemini95]

No

 

[RDUBoiler]

I wouldn't say that. The Zags were probably properly seeded (if not a little high). NC State happened to put it together at the right time, but 11 seed was what they deserved.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

Revisionist history doesn't really work here, but I would say the answer is no.

Utah State may have been talked about as under-seeded, along with the rest of their conference, but the results don't show it. At all. The truth is that outside of St. Mary's (which arguably wasn't as good as their seed/rank either), all those teams did was beat each other, and crush the bottom of their conference like Wyoming, Fresno and San Jose St.

Gonzaga was perfectly seeded IMO.

Tennessee was on the edge of being a 1-seed all year long but in the end I had them a 2.

NC State could have been a 10 maybe, but it didn't appear they would have made the tournament without winning the ACC, so they're right.

 

[Gemini95]

It's already great that we are in the final four. We don't have to do magic thinking to try and make it even better.

 

[SqueakyClean]

The only argument for an underseeded team would be NCState. Their 11 is based upon their overall body of work, but they supposedly had a few injuries over the course of the year (heard from someone else, not confirmed) and the end of the year was when they were finally healthy.
Even then though, I don't think they would really have been much better than a 9.

 

[TC4THREE]

If you listen to their fans, all of our opponents have been so much better than their record would indicate and certainly better than when we beat them the first time by less.