Bracketology: So, uh, about that first OUA semifinal...

It didn't take too long for everyone's brackets from last week to fall apart. We all had Lakehead and Saskatchewan; now, only one of those teams can advance. A fourth-place finish by UVic pushed them off six of the nine ballots, and needless to say nobody had Ryerson winning Friday night.

Here are our final guesses at the seedings, which are to be released by CIS soon:






Some disconnected thoughts:

  • St. F-X is as high as second and as low as eighth.
  • Acadia, same deal: from No. 3 to No. 8.
  • According to us, Alberta and Ryerson will always play each other in the quarterfinals, as will Concordia and Fraser Valley.
Next PostNewer Post Previous PostOlder Post Home

16 comments:

  1. "The waiting is the hardest part ..."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love that the CIS sends a tweet, telling us the announcement will be "coming out soon" ... in the time it took to type the tweet, they could have typed the seeds!

    ReplyDelete
  3. wow did peter lumoro ever have a bad cw final four for the huskies

    ReplyDelete
  4. Saskatchewan has no business getting the wildcard over Lakehead. Look at their schedules, the quality of their opponents, and the fact that Sask got killed at home in the playoffs, while Lakehead lost in a hostile environment, and both their regular season losses went right down to the buzzer against top-10 teams (including Carleton). Seems pretty simple to me...

    ReplyDelete
  5. pretty nervous right now lol...... how can sask not get it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. yes but they lost to ryerson an unranked team,

    ReplyDelete
  7. True, but if Ryerson had played the whole season with the lineup they had Friday night, they would have rolled through this season. They will be scary good next year.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1) Carleton
    2) Alberta
    3) Concordia
    4) Lakehead
    5) UFV
    6) X
    7) Ryerson
    8) Acadia

    ReplyDelete
  9. Only difference from my bracket is flipping Concordia and Lakehead ... don't agree with it, but I'm not on the Committee. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. We were all wrong, but I guess Dale wins by default.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the interest of full disclosure, I had an "expert" opinion, who discussed the seeding with me ... not a member of the Committee, but someone as knowledgeable about the sport and the process as maybe anyone in Canada. I'll split the prize money with him. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. The CIS has nine criteria that it uses for at-large selection. It's pretty cut and dry. How can Sask not get it? Because the Huskies lost on 6 of those 9 criteria. It had nothing to do with one loss on the last weekend of the season and everything to do with all the other results that go into a season.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you share the nine criteria, I'm trying to understand how the seedings are decided? Thanks

      Delete
  13. While it may be "cut and dry," the criteria used is also inherently flawed. It makes a major assumption that all conferences are equal and they are not. Strength of schedule does not enter the picture, but it should. Note: Five out of the top 8 CIS-ranked teams hail from the Canada West. That should be considered when deciding on an at-large berth.
    Yes, you betcha, Saskatchewan got hooped.

    ReplyDelete