Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Elite Eight Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,924
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 442
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #1
Elite Eight Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
The SEC dominates the Elite Eight, putting all three of its Sweet Sixteen teams through. Two of those teams, Kentucky and Florida, were expected to advance, but South Carolina pulled a surprise by routing Baylor. Since Florida and USCe play for the East regional final, the SEC is also guaranteed a Final 4 team. The SEC has a sterling 10-2 overall record. No other conference has won 10 games and no other has as few as two losses.

The B1G loser of the Sweet 16 games was the B1G, which had been riding highest. All three of their Sweet 16 teams lost - Purdue was run out of the gym by #1 Kansas while Michigan and Wisconsin lost gutsy heartbreakers. Nevertheless, the B1G is the only P5 not to advance a team to the Elite 8, and it means the B1G will be without a national champion for the 17th straight year. Still, the B1G did finish 1 game better than their seedings predicted, so it was actually a very credible tournament.

Almost quietly, three #1 seeds, Kansas, UNC, and Gonzaga, advanced to the Elite Eight, with Kentucky looking like they might as well be a top seed as well. Showdowns are coming!

ACC ........ 8-8 ..... 12-3-1 ..... -4.5 games (should have 3 Elite Eight teams, has 1)

Big East ... 6-6 .... 5-6-1 ....... +0.5 games (should have 1 EE team, has 1)

B12 ........ 9-5 ..... 9-4-1 ...... -0.5 games (should have 1 EE team, has 1)

BIG ......... 8-7 ..... 7-8 ......... +1.0 games (should have 0 EE teams, has 0)

SEC ........ 10-2 ..... 8-4 .......... +2.0 games (should have 1 EE team, has 3)

PAC ........ 9-4 ..... 9-3-1....... +0.5 games (should have 1 EE team, has 1)


Mid-Majors with two or more teams:

AAC ... 1-2 .... 2-1 ........ -1.0 games
WCC .. 4-1 .... 4-1 .......... even (should have 1 EE team, has 1)
A10 ... 1-3 .... 2-2 ......... -1.0 games
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2017 12:29 AM by quo vadis.)
03-18-2017 06:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,079
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 155
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Round of 32 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
So of the total 4.0 actual games that were lost to higher seeds (excluding the two +0.5 over "tie"), at least two of them were farces: Minn to MTSU, and Dayton to Wich St.

Not sure if SMU losing to USC counts as a mis-seeding ... either SMU just played bad, USC good, or both.

Miami losing to Mich St ... maybe Mich St was mis-seeded, based on the beating? But tough to hang that one on the committee given Mich St's body of work.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 12:08 PM by MplsBison.)
03-18-2017 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,233
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 232
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #3
RE: Round of 32 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-18-2017 11:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So of the total 4.0 actual games that were lost to lower seeds (excluding the two +0.5 over "tie"), at least two of them were farces: Minn to MTSU, and Dayton to Wich St.

Not sure if SMU losing to USC counts as a mis-seeding ... either SMU just played bad, USC good, or both.

Miami losing to Mich St ... maybe Mich St was mis-seeded, based on the beating? But tough to hang that one on the committee given Mich St's body of work.

True. At some point, the selection committee can't just ignore much of the regular season. Michigan State probably got the seeding they deserved because of their overall body of work, but they were also a more dangerous team than that seeding would suggest. Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The vast bulk of the lower seeded teams came from one bid conferences that failed to win a single first round game. Seems to me the "real" tournament starts today.
03-18-2017 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,079
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 155
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Round of 32 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
heh, I mean to say higher seeded.

We knew what we were saying.


Sort've like "high" vs "low" gears.
03-18-2017 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

quo vadis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,924
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 442
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #5
RE: Round of 32 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-18-2017 11:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So of the total 4.0 actual games that were lost to higher seeds (excluding the two +0.5 over "tie"), at least two of them were farces: Minn to MTSU, and Dayton to Wich St.

Not sure if SMU losing to USC counts as a mis-seeding ... either SMU just played bad, USC good, or both.

Miami losing to Mich St ... maybe Mich St was mis-seeded, based on the beating? But tough to hang that one on the committee given Mich St's body of work.

Yes, everyone knows that in March, Izzo and MSU are a very tough out. Someone almost always DOES out them, they haven't won the title in 17 years (geez how time flies!) but usually they do a lot of damage before it happens.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 05:02 PM by quo vadis.)
03-18-2017 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,924
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 442
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #6
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Updated for Sweet 16.
03-20-2017 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,079
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 155
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
The P4 in basketball: Big Ten, Big 12, PAC, and ... SEC! 04-cheers
03-20-2017 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

jgkojak Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 302
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Kansas
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
I don't understand the committee's seeding this year-

Biggest issues:
Wichita St, whose metrics in every area are Top 20 if not Top 10. Really more of a 5 - 7 seed, not a 10.

Minnesota, lost twice to B10 winner Purdue, yet only one seed lower

Purdue, so the winner of the B10 gets 3 seeds lower than the winners of the B12 and ACC, and two seeds lower than the SEC winner? Really? Purdue seems like a 3 seed.


I also think every 16 seed should be a play-in game... you open up two spots for at-large teams, and you make it fair that every 1 seed won't know their opponent until a day before they play them - which shouldn't matter if you are a top 5 team going against a #175 team.

I'd almost be in favor of making all the 15 and 16 seed games play-ins... you open up 6(!) spots for at-large, which means no one should be complaining.
03-20-2017 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,079
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 155
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Minnesota played Purdue once, at Purdue, and won in overtime. http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m-bas...sched.html
03-20-2017 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,920
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 338
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #10
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-20-2017 01:57 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  I also think every 16 seed should be a play-in game... you open up two spots for at-large teams, and you make it fair that every 1 seed won't know their opponent until a day before they play them - which shouldn't matter if you are a top 5 team going against a #175 team.

I'd almost be in favor of making all the 15 and 16 seed games play-ins... you open up 6(!) spots for at-large, which means no one should be complaining.

That's an interesting argument -- your point is that if the 16 lowest-ranked autobid teams had play-in games for the eight #15 and 16 seed places, there would be more six more at-large places available and a few would go to mid-majors who don't win their conference tournament.
03-20-2017 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.