Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,606
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 416
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #1
Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Relative to seeding, the PAC or B1G has done best, depending how you look at it. In terms of games won, the PAC has done the best so far, at 8-1 they are 1.5 games above expected seeding. The Big 12 is .5 games above expected. The SEC and B1G both improved over the round of 32 and are both 1 game above expected.The Big East remains .5 games below expected, and the ACC is a whopping 4.5 games below expected.

However, in terms of how many teams should have advanced to the Sweet 16, the B1G has done best. The B1G should have 1 team in the SW16, but has 3, as both Michigan and Wisconsin won 4-team brackets they weren't expected to win. The B1G is just one game over expected in terms of wins, but they have won the "right" games in terms of getting teams through. The SEC has 3 teams but should have 2. Florida and Kentucky advanced as expected, but South Carolina won what should have been Duke's bracket.

The Big 12 and PAC have 3 teams in the SW16, and that is as expected by seeding. The Big East has 2, which is also as expected. The ACC is the big loser - they were expected to have 4 teams in the SW 16 but only North Carolina made it.

Overall, mid-majors with more than one bid have done worse than expected. They should be 7-4 right now, but are 5-6, with #1 Gonzaga the only team still alive. The WCC has performed as expected, but the AAC and A10 did worse.

As of the Sweet 16, actual record and expected record via seeding (First Four games are expected ties though that can't happen in practice):

ACC ........ 7-8 ..... 11-3-1 ..... -4.5 games (should have 4 SW16 teams, has 1)

Big East ... 5-5 .... 5-4-1 ....... -0.5 games (should have 2 SW16 teams, has 2)

B12 ........ 8-3 ..... 7-3-1 ...... +0.5 games (should have 3 SW16 teams, has 3)

BIG ......... 8-4 ..... 7-5 ......... +1.0 games (should have 1 SW16 teams, has 3)

SEC ........ 7-2 ..... 6-3 .......... +1.0 games (should have 2 SW 16 teams, has 3)

PAC ........ 8-1 ..... 7-2-1....... +1.5 games (should have 3 SW 16 teams, has 3)


Mid-Majors with two or more teams:

AAC ... 1-2 .... 2-1 ........ -1.0 games
WCC .. 3-1 .... 3-1 .......... even (should have 1 SW 16 teams, has 1)
A10 ... 1-3 .... 2-2 ......... -1.0 games
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2017 08:51 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: 12,775
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 153
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: 6,898
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 221
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: 12,775
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 153
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: 22,606
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 416
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: 22,606
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 416
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: 12,775
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 153
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: 295
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: 12,775
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 153
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
There will be no extra point.
*

Posts: 11,646
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 331
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.