>They have a better record percentage wise, and you guys split
>both games
>against each other.

Because they played fewer games? In your appraisal of Michigan thats a bad thing. So which is it?

>But the real kicker was, they beat Alabama. And Alabama should
>have been
>a 1 seed in my opinion over Michigan( who played like shit
>down the stretch, and
>missed weeks of basketball due to Covid). That’s a win over
>a top 5 team!
>You guys don’t even have a win over a top ten team.

so while you tout ranked wins and alabama in the same sentence fragment, you realize
Alabama had a grand total of 1, exactly 2 months ago, yes? to pair up with a loss to WJU? That aint a 1 seed.

And while you talk about Michigan down the stretch (with injuries to 2 seniors) playing like shit, Clemson has lost 2 of 3 while we are riding an 8 game streak. So again, which is it?

>Plus y’all had a weak out of conference schedule, and
>y’all lost to Georgia State
>( in 4 OTs!) and Mercer. And the wins against Nebraska and UK
>hurt as well,
>because they both sucked.

Well then its a good thing we played a whole conference schedule and won the championship to drive the point home.

And this isnt even about Alabama, but need we revisit your phantom 1 seed's non-conf schedule if it really matters?

>No way, bro. That seeding is correct, possibly even generous.

You have not presented a compelling case against either Michigan or GT (or for Alabama for that matter lmao) because it seems that certain things either vitally important or totally devoid of meaning depending on who youre talking about.

Pull yourself together.