Wisconsin Badgers Basketball

[hawing]

Outright Big Ten Champions! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[RyGuy671]

Yes! On Wisconsin!!

[Oldcity]

16-2. Amazing.

[TooLiveBrew]

Way to go Bucky!

http://www.bus.wisc.edu/mba/images/Bucky_stadium99.jpg

[Oldcity]

Looking at teams ahead of them/competing with them for top seeds, these are the amount of wins against the RPI Top 50:

Texas-10

Louisville-9

UCLA-8

UNC-7

Memphis-7

Duke-6

Xavier-6

Kansas-5

Wisconsin-4

 

 

 

At the same time, here are the same teams' losses against teams 50 and above (a.k.a. bad losses):

Texas: 1

Louisville: 2

UCLA: 1

 

UNC: 1

Memphis: 0

Duke: 1

Xavier: 4

Kansas: 1

Wisconsin: 0

 

 

[yoshii8]

Me and a couple of friends drove down to Evanston for the game today, and it was really cool to see how many other Badger fans showed up. I would say that over 75% of the crowd were in red.

 

Brian Butch had a great game today, and you can tell he is playing w/ a lot of confidence.

[bjkrautk]

Me and a couple of friends drove down to Evanston for the game today, and it was really cool to see how many other Badger fans showed up. I would say that over 75% of the crowd were in red.

 

Brian Butch had a great game today, and you can tell he is playing w/ a lot of confidence.

I went last year, and went back this year. About 90% upper seating areas at Welsh-Ryan arena are wearing red. That said, the crowd today was rather sedate when compared to last year. (No one started the "Nerds!" chant at the student section this year.)

Butch was great; I especially appreciated the 3-point play after taking a hard foul on the other end. Hughes got roughed up a bit; I was glad to see him get up after rolling on the ground holding his leg the first time.

[LouisEly]

Wisconsin also beat Texas at Texas; granted it was non-conference, but to beat a non-conference opponent at their place should get you a higher seed than them. The tourney always gives a lower seed to non-big conference teams, so that would put UW over Xavier. I think the #1s are UNC (East), UCLA (West), Memphis (Midwest), and Tennessee (Southeast), with the #2s being Kansas (Midwest), Georgetown (East), Duke (Southeast). That leaves one #2 left between Wisconsin, Texas, and Louisville. I think Wisconsin gets it if they make the Big 10 Championship game, because that is the last game played before the selection announcement, so the committee will have to have already made their selections before the game is done.

 

If UW had not played Texas already I would say that it would be a slam dunk for UW and Texas to be the #2 and #3 in the West - that would give the Pac-10 the #1, the Big 10 the #2, and the Big 12 the #3; but since they have already played I think they committee will try to avoid that matchup. Now I'm going to completely contradict what I said earlier - you can't have teams from the same conference as any of the top 5 seeds in the same regional. So Texas can't be in the Midwest with Kansas, which means it is very likely that Texas (and either Xavier or Louisville) will be the #2 and #3 in the West, and UW will be the #3 in the Midwest. Either that, or UW is in the West (with Xavier or Louisville) and Texas is the #3 in the East.

 

So if UW makes the Big 10 Championship, here's my prediction:

 

West: 1) UCLA, 2) UW, 3) UConn, 4) Xavier, 5) Vanderbilt, 6) Kentucky, 7) BYU

Midwest: 1) Memphis, 2) Kansas, 3) Stanford, 4) Notre Dame, 5) Michigan St., 6) Mississippi St., 7) Marquette

East: 1) UNC, 2) Georgetown, 3) Texas, 4) Butler, 5) Indiana, 6) Washington St., 7) Clemson

Southeast: 1) Tennessee, 2) Duke, 3) Louisville, 4) Purdue, 5) USC, 6) Gonzaga, 7) UNLV

[TooLiveBrew]

Wisconsin also beat Texas at Texas; granted it was non-conference, but to beat a non-conference opponent at their place should get you a higher seed than them.

 

I disagree with this logic. I don't think something as important as a tourney seed should come down to one game, unless it's absolutely necessary. Texas is a darn impressive win - and the Badgers actually have a 'worse' home loss in the Marquette defeat. That more than equalizes the two games to me.

 

I'm not suggesting that I think Texas should get a #2 ahead of Wisconsin, just that using that one game as the reason why is erroneous.

[Glennron]

Texas has beaten UCLA, Tennesse, and Kansas. I'm sorry, but unless Texas loses today and in the Big 12 quarters, I don't believe UW deserves a better seed than them.

 

I'll be rooting for Iowa over Michigan in the 8/9 Big Ten game, remembering how Michigan played us last time.

[Oldcity]

Anyone been keeping track of how many breaks UCLA has gotten the last two games? The phantom foul call against Stanford got the game into OT. Then against Cal there were two bad calls. After Love made a three to cut the deficit to one, UCLA trapped a Ryan Anderson in the corner and one player hacked his arm. No foul was called and UCLA got the ball. Then UCLA's game-winning shot was illegal because the ball cannot be shot over the back of the backboard.

 

UCLA really doesn't deserve the 1 seed they will get.

[LouisEly]

Texas has beaten UCLA, Tennesse, and Kansas.

 

That was a while ago. Texas has also lost at Missouri and at Texas Tech (worse losses than any on UWs schedule), and this week barely beat Nebraska and Oklahoma St. at home. So their last three were loss at TT, and barely beating Nebraska and OSU at home - not a strong finish. UW has only lost to ranked teams, only one blowout (at Duke, early in season), and their other three losses were all to ranked teams by a total of 14 points. Here's the other scenario I was looking at (if UW does not do well in the Big 10 tourney)

 

West: 1) UCLA, 2) Kansas, 3) UW, 4) Notre Dame, 5) Mississippi St., 6) Clemson, 7) Marquette, 8) BYU

Midwest: 1) Memphis, 2) Texas, 3) UConn, 4) Xavier, 5) Washington St., 6) Indiana, 7) Kentucky, 8) Drake

East: 1) UNC, 2) Georgetown, 3) Stanford, 4) Vanderbilt, 5) Gonzaga, 6) Michigan St., 7) Butler, 8) Pitt

Southeast: 1) Tennessee, 2) Duke, 3) Louisville, 4) Purdue, 5) West Virginia, 6) USC 7) UNLV, 8) St. Mary's

 

I have a bad feeling though that if Marquette doesn't do well in the Big East tourney they will be an 8 seed. Teams that don't finish strong (Marquette, Michigan St., Indiana, Washington St.) usually end up with 8 seeds.

[Glennron]

Wisconsin beat Texas in December, that's a while ago too. Even if it was a while ago it doesn't mean it all of a sudden isn't as important. I know that "how you finished" is more important than the beginning of your season, but beating three potential one seeds is still a huge accomplishment

 

Wisconsin beat a 9 win Michigan team at home by 3-4 (don't remember exactly), everyone's going to have close games against inferior competition. Unless UW wins the Big Ten tournament, and Texas loses before the Big 12 semis, Texas deserves a 2 seed ahead of Wisconsin. I still think Wisconsin can get it ahead of someone like Georgetown, if G'Town loses in the quarters.

 

I definitely agree about Marquette. If they don't beat Notre Dame in the quarters, they're likely a 7-8 seed. That Georgetown game probably dropped them a seed or two. If they make the Big East semis they can probably get a 6.

[TooLiveBrew]

Texas has also lost at Missouri and at Texas Tech (worse losses than any on UWs schedule), and this week barely beat Nebraska and Oklahoma St. at home. So their last three were loss at TT, and barely beating Nebraska and OSU at home - not a strong finish. UW has only lost to ranked teams, only one blowout (at Duke, early in season), and their other three losses were all to ranked teams by a total of 14 points.

Now that's some logic I can get behind for UW being superior to UT. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Oldcity]

In my opinion, there isn't much of a difference between a 2 or 3 seed. The much bigger difference is between a 3 and 4. A 4 seed is lined up with the 1 seed in the Sweet 16, while a 2 or 3 isn't lined up with the 1 seed until the Elite Eight. As long as Wisconsin doesn't get screwed with a 4 seed I'll be fine.

[fondybrewfan]

I think they will be a high #3. I can also gaurantee that they will be the sexy pick to get upset early as is the case with every UW team. Most people dont think UW score enough to go deep in the tournament. I guess "Offense wins games, defense wins championships" does not apply.

[homer]

It's all about matchups in the tourney. I think UW will struggle against a similar team (i.e. WSU) but they would compete with any team that runs and guns and is mediocre defensively.

[Glennron]

In my opinion, there isn't much of a difference between a 2 or 3 seed. The much bigger difference is between a 3 and 4. A 4 seed is lined up with the 1 seed in the Sweet 16, while a 2 or 3 isn't lined up with the 1 seed until the Elite Eight. As long as Wisconsin doesn't get screwed with a 4 seed I'll be fine.

True that. Also, I'd prefer a 3 in the Midwest (Detroit), to a 2 out West (Phoenix) with UCLA.

 

 

[Fatter than Joey]

Up to 6 in the rankings!

[JJHardy7]

In my opinion, there isn't much of a difference between a 2 or 3 seed. The much bigger difference is between a 3 and 4. A 4 seed is lined up with the 1 seed in the Sweet 16, while a 2 or 3 isn't lined up with the 1 seed until the Elite Eight. As long as Wisconsin doesn't get screwed with a 4 seed I'll be fine.

 

I agree and it's all about the region they're seeded in and who'll they'll play. I'd much rather be a low 3 or a low 4 if it meant I got to play opponents that matched up better. I think this year is wide open and even if Wisconsin does have to play a 1 seed to get in the sweet 16 there aren't too many teams that I think UW wouldn't have a shot against in that matchup.

[brwrsfan]

Is anybody on here an ESPN Insider? I would really like to know the justification Joe Lunardi has to dropping Wisconsin to a #3 seed in todays Bracketology. I'm fine with a 3 seed, especially if we're in a favorable destination, but we were a #2 seed as of Friday. All we've done since then is hammer Northwestern on the road, winning sole possession of the Big Ten title in the process...and this makes us fall from a #2 to a #3. Can anyone summarize this for me?

[MJLiverock]

Lunardi basically said he had to move WI down because he felt he had to move Georgetown up for winning a tougher conference. He acknowledged WI didn't need to fall from a 2 to a 3.

 

Personally, I would be OK with a 3 as long as they don't get hosed by having a ridiculously tough second round match becuase they gave some other team a bad seed.

[Roscoe Chill]

I'd love to see Wisconsin play Memphis. I'd love to see them play Tennessee. Any team that doesn't know what defense is and then...BAM...frustration that a team would actually have the gall to actually defend. Watching the Memphis-Tennessee game was like watching a McDonalds All American game at times. I'm with homer, a team that is similar would be a tougher game for this team.

[owbc]

It would be exciting to see WI go against Memphis or TN in the elite 8. However, I still fear a repeat of the Duke game, where a speedy team blows by our tall guys like they are standing still.

[Glennron]

Polar Bear *cringe* getting some love, on first team All Big Ten for the Media and the coaches. Flowers and Landry made 2nd and 3rd in the media, and flipped around in the coaches, and Hughes was honorable mention. It's pretty good when you have 4 starters make it, plus Krabbenhoft made all-defensive team.