Although the Big12 and BigTen had some disapointing losses, did any conference do worst than the Pac-12 in thursday and Friday's round of 64 games?
Did the MVC do the best job of performing above expections?
well I know Pac 12 is the worst...
just saw this:
The Pac-12 is the first league to lose 5 games as higher seeds in the Round of 64 since field expanded in 1985
(03-19-2016 02:36 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]well I know Pac 12 is the worst...
just saw this:
The Pac-12 is the first league to lose 5 games as higher seeds in the Round of 64 since field expanded in 1985
Let's be honest every Power 5 conference except the ACC has disappointed.
The ACC has re-established itself the last 2 years as the country's premier basketball conference.
(03-19-2016 03:16 PM)GTTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2016 02:36 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]well I know Pac 12 is the worst...
just saw this:
The Pac-12 is the first league to lose 5 games as higher seeds in the Round of 64 since field expanded in 1985
Let's be honest every Power 5 conference except the ACC has disappointed.
The ACC has re-established itself the last 2 years as the country's premier basketball conference.
Still a lot of basketball to determine that....
SEC says we're still here for the worst performance... they could be done tomorrow...
(03-19-2016 06:53 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]SEC says we're still here for the worst performance... they could be done tomorrow...
But they would still have a better win % than the PAC.
I believe with Virginia's win the ACC is now 10-1. Dayum. Dominance thus far and Louisville is not even a part of it this year.
AAC is 1-4 but all of the losses were either very hard fought or to a team that simply outclassed them (and the team that lost in that circumstance had the only win).
Yeah... Moral victories...
Why does it have to be moral victories? Going by seed, the AAC shouldn't have been expected to win any game they played so far. And the fact is that after 67 games of Tournament play, someone will have to have lost 33 times. No conference goes undefeated.
(03-20-2016 12:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]AAC is 1-4 but all of the losses were either very hard fought or to a team that simply outclassed them (and the team that lost in that circumstance had the only win).
That's a total of two wins in two years for the AAC. Considering how many schools in that league consider themselves strong basketball programs, that's pretty weak sauce. Whether that hurts the chances of members for a P5 callup remains to be seen.
(03-20-2016 08:04 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2016 12:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]AAC is 1-4 but all of the losses were either very hard fought or to a team that simply outclassed them (and the team that lost in that circumstance had the only win).
That's a total of two wins in two years for the AAC. Considering how many schools in that league consider themselves strong basketball programs, that's pretty weak sauce. Whether that hurts the chances of members for a P5 callup remains to be seen.
I can't argue the fact it has been a disappointment the past two years with only two wins. However, you are not including the first year of the conference in 2013/2014 when UConn won it all. Granted, Louisville was still in the AAC at that point but the league took 9 wins and 3 losses in the tourney that year. Take the red birds record out and the league went 7-2. The following year only 2 teams qualified - SMU and Cincinnati. I think it is a small sample size for a relatively young league and the jury is still out. I remember years when other conferences didn't show well in the tourney. How about the P12 this year? 2-6 with only Oregon remaining out of 7 teams I believe.
To your point about tourney success related to a P5 callup...I don't believe that is a strong metric for selection compared to other items like fan interest, markets and facilities. Did Rutgers basketball "prowess" factor in their callup to the B1G?
(03-20-2016 12:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]AAC is 1-4 but all of the losses were either very hard fought or to a team that simply outclassed them (and the team that lost in that circumstance had the only win).
our best team in SMU was banned, so I'll take 4 in with 5 NCAA credits...
Seeding has A LOT to do with the ACC's success so far.
TWO #1 seeds. #3, #4...and that 4 got to play a 12 in round two.
Let's put the ACC 10-1 record into context...here are the seeds they beat...16/16/14/13/12/11/11/9/9/7...and the loss was to a 7. If ND and Syracuse win today add a 14 and a 15 to the total. So they could be 12-1 with 6 teams in the Sweet Sixteen with its avg opponent being almost a 12 seed.
The ACC by all accounts has had it easy. Not to mention putting its two #1 seeds in Raleigh.
Give them credit where credit is due though, the lower seeded teams have a good record in this Tournament. The caution is to not go overboard.
This whole conference girth measuring contest is absurd anyways, the Tournament is a crapshoot. The results matter but a better measure of a conference's stregnth is how many of its teams make the Dance or barely miss the cut. Michigan State lost to Middle Tennessee, I guess Middle could win the Big Ten. See how ridiculous that comes off?
I would love to have seen a full strength SMU (with Keith Frazier) team in this seasons NCAA tourney....I think they were pretty well built to make a run.
(03-19-2016 02:36 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]well I know Pac 12 is the worst...
just saw this:
The Pac-12 is the first league to lose 5 games as higher seeds in the Round of 64 since field expanded in 1985
You can add another higher seed in the round of 32. The PAC is now 2-6 and Utah was not even competitive and both of their wins were over true lightweights.
As to the SEC, our performance might not be as poor as that of the PAC, but I've never seen a Kentucky squad that just stands around when the guard has the ball like this one. Individual talent kept them in the Indiana game, but Indiana functioned so much better as a unit that I thought the score was closer than it should have been for the Kentucky effort put forth.
(03-20-2016 09:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: [ -> ]Seeding has A LOT to do with the ACC's success so far.
TWO #1 seeds. #3, #4...and that 4 got to play a 12 in round two.
Let's put the ACC 10-1 record into context...here are the seeds they beat...16/16/14/13/12/11/11/9/9/7...and the loss was to a 7. If ND and Syracuse win today add a 14 and a 15 to the total. So they could be 12-1 with 6 teams in the Sweet Sixteen with its avg opponent being almost a 12 seed.
The ACC by all accounts has had it easy. Not to mention putting its two #1 seeds in Raleigh.
That's one way to spin it, at least the ACC has avoided being upset.
The Big 12 beat a 16/9/15/13/12 & loss to a 14/12/11/9. The B1G had beaten a 2 12's/4/2 10's/11. They have lost to 15 & a 12. The PAC only has wins over a 14 & 16. Their best losses are to 9 seeds. So so far the only P5 win better than the ACC's, by seeds, is Indiana over Kentucky. The B1G has a chance to make a strong statement today when they play 2 2 seeds & a 6.
It's the early rounds, all of the top seeds are playing the bottom seeds. Perhaps you should ask Arizona how easy Wichita St is. Or Baylor how easy Yale is. Or Michigan St how easy MTSU is. Or WV how easy SF Austin is.
But no conference had two #1 seeds, who have the easiest roads. The upsets have clearly benefited the ACC so far.
ACC fans need to keep it in perspective when beating their chests. They have performed as expected except for Cuse beating Dayton...that was clearly a good win for the conference as a whole.
(03-20-2016 10:36 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: [ -> ]But no conference had two #1 seeds, who have the easiest roads. The upsets have clearly benefited the ACC so far.
ACC fans need to keep it in perspective when beating their chests. They have performed as expected except for Cuse beating Dayton...that was clearly a good win for the conference as a whole.
Beating our chests?
I'd say that is an overstatement...I've been through enough of these tourneys to realize luck (draw, injury, site location) is as important as the strength of the team.
BTW, Louisville isn't even playing...yet most of the ACC teams suffered losses by them to hurt our seeding. Cuse is a shell of itself right now.