Last week I thought the Texas Longhorns had an outside shot at a No. 1 seed if they could win the Big 12 tournament. They got to the final but dropped the championship game to the Kansas Jayhawks moving their season record to 27-7 and 13-3 in the Big 12. For that, I was guessing they'd be a No. 2 or a No. 3 seed.
Wrong. Texas was a four seed, which seemed a little low in my mind. They're matched up against Oakland, the 13th seed, in their first round game. SB Nation's Burnt Orange Nation previews Oakland and they look good:
Oakland just finished brutalizing the Summit League, both during a 17-1 regular season and the conference tournament, which they dominated with three wins by a combined 50 points. They check in at No. 69 on Ken Pomeroy's ratings, they are the 12th tallest team in the entire country, feature an enormous NBA prospect, and shoot the ball exceptionally well. Scipio thinks they're the best No. 12-16 seed in the tournament, and except for Utah State, I agree. If Texas isn't sharp, they'll lose, which isn't the case for, oh I don't know, say, Florida, who could play like absolute garbage and beat UC Santa Barbara by 20.
The Longhorns a 9.5-point favorite in this game which isn't a very big line considering the seeding. From what I've been reading, Texas is a popular pick to be upset in round one. Is this more about Texas, or is it more about Oakland? K-State is playing Utah State and, as BON noted, they're a very good No. 12 seed, but the Wildcats aren't getting the same upset picks as Texas.
I'm tempted to follow the crowd and go with Oakland because everyone loves a good upset but this Texas team was too good for too long for me to pick against them. What's up with everyone picking against Texas? Maybe I don't get it.