Start with a 16. Play the defending national champions and 8 seed in round 2. Sweet 16 against a 4 and a 3. Beat two 1’s in the final 4. Only higher seeded team we could’ve possibly played, would’ve been St. John’s as a 2. But instead, we got a 3. I’m curious what bracket rivals ours? Not sure many 1’s have had a path of tough as ours.
— They did. But only after beating a 13, 12 and 10. I wonder how many 1 seeds have won it facing a bracket as tough as ours?
It wasn't just having to beat #1 seeds, it was how highly they were actually rated. Would love to see the Kenpom ratings for 1997. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
From what I've seen, the top four seeds this year would all be in the top ten teams in metrics over something like the last quarter-century. Playing in an incredibly strong SEC battle-hardened us, no doubt.
Also, most observers felt that UConn, as an 8, was way underseeded this year and was as good or better than a 4 or 5. The reason being that they were much better in the latter part of the season once Liam McNeeley returned from injury. The West Region was seen as the toughest of the regions.
Honestly Texas Tech should have been the #2 in our region based on the metrics and analytics, so technically we played a 2 seed caliber team despite them being the 3. St. John’s was overrated all year, tbh, and I said that when the brackets were announced and there were many who were afraid of playing them.
It is right up at the top! How can you argue against Four #1 seeds advancing to the final weekend? I am going to be watching those Final 4 games over and over again
I take back my post about Arizona. They were a 4 seed and maybe had the hardest path to the championship having to beat THREE #1 seeds. But they weren't a #1 seed and the original post was about the hardest path for a #1 seed. I was going to say maybe 1991 Duke having to play the 1991 UNLV team that was one of the best teams ever and anybody that had to go through them had an incredibly hard path.. But Duke was a 2 seed in that tournament so not a 1 seed.
