Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2017 NCAA Selection Show
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
dan10 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,833
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Drexel
Location: Indianapolis
Post: #61
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-13-2017 03:57 PM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  If the Cuse wants to improve their resume, they need to play more games against good teams outside of New York and win some. They are notorious homers, where they are tough to beat. But as far as the selection committee goes, they made their own bed.

Sad part is if they didnt lose the bad games to St Johns and/or Boston College, they would have been in even with the horrible numbers. So in reality I dont think they needed to play more games against good teams away from the Carrier Dome, they just needed to not lose 2 really bad games.
03-14-2017 06:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #62
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 06:15 AM)dan10 Wrote:  
(03-13-2017 03:57 PM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  If the Cuse wants to improve their resume, they need to play more games against good teams outside of New York and win some. They are notorious homers, where they are tough to beat. But as far as the selection committee goes, they made their own bed.

Sad part is if they didnt lose the bad games to St Johns and/or Boston College, they would have been in even with the horrible numbers. So in reality I dont think they needed to play more games against good teams away from the Carrier Dome, they just needed to not lose 2 really bad games.

That's the sad reality, an ACC team doesn't need to play strong OOC because they get enough chances for good wins in conf. The Colgates of the world continue to play Cuse every year in NY because it's a huge payday for them.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 08:40 AM by Seahawkhoops.)
03-14-2017 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SEA33HAWK Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,573
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 29
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #63
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
So, how many quality wins did they have outside of New York?
03-14-2017 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #64
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 08:44 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  So, how many quality wins did they have outside of New York?

This year they didn't have any, thus the reason they are not in. Their road record was hideous. Usually if/when they get a few so it doesn't wind up mattering. IMO they didn't deserve to get in, That said, you could certainly make the argument them Vs Michigan State and Vandy. Illinois state deserved to get in over both those IMO.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 08:51 AM by Seahawkhoops.)
03-14-2017 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dan10 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,833
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Drexel
Location: Indianapolis
Post: #65
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
MSU was certainly not deserving of that high of a seed. As far as which teams made it and didn't, I thought they did fine. I thought they seeded everyone poorly just to make entertaining matchups and potential matchups, but thought the teams that made it were fine. Personally I thought Iowa or Ill State should have been in over USC, but at that point you were deciding between teams that really didn't belong in the first place. I was glad to see that Syracuse got that last 1 seed in the NIT, which meant they were further off the bubble than everyone acted like.
03-14-2017 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #66
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 08:54 AM)dan10 Wrote:  MSU was certainly not deserving of that high of a seed. As far as which teams made it and didn't, I thought they did fine. I thought they seeded everyone poorly just to make entertaining matchups and potential matchups, but thought the teams that made it were fine. Personally I thought Iowa or Ill State should have been in over USC, but at that point you were deciding between teams that really didn't belong in the first place. I was glad to see that Syracuse got that last 1 seed in the NIT, which meant they were further off the bubble than everyone acted like.

The seeding is all F'ed up! Wisconsin an 8? Minn a 5? The Shockers a 10? Mich State a 9? By all measurements Wisc and Wichita are top 30 teams so either of them being below A 6 is a bit off the mark. Also, if you look at Duke Vs. UNC for a #1, Duke has a better resume, 1 more loss, but won 2 of 3 head to head, and the ACC title.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 08:58 AM by Seahawkhoops.)
03-14-2017 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bricksnivy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,629
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 14
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #67
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 08:57 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 08:54 AM)dan10 Wrote:  MSU was certainly not deserving of that high of a seed. As far as which teams made it and didn't, I thought they did fine. I thought they seeded everyone poorly just to make entertaining matchups and potential matchups, but thought the teams that made it were fine. Personally I thought Iowa or Ill State should have been in over USC, but at that point you were deciding between teams that really didn't belong in the first place. I was glad to see that Syracuse got that last 1 seed in the NIT, which meant they were further off the bubble than everyone acted like.

The seeding is all F'ed up! Wisconsin an 8? Minn a 5? The Shockers a 10? Mich State a 9? By all measurements Wisc and Wichita are top 30 teams so either of them being below A 6 is a bit off the mark. Also, if you look at Duke Vs. UNC for a #1, Duke has a better resume, 1 more loss, but won 2 of 3 head to head, and the ACC title.

Kenpom ranks UNC #3. Sagarin ranks UNC #3. RPI has UNC 5th. ESPN's BPI has UNC 3rd.

Duke finished 5th in the ACC and went on a great run to win the ACC tournament. With that 4 game winning streak, they're now 5-4 in their last nine games...all with Coach K and with a full roster. The talk about injuries doesn't carry any weight when comparing to UNC. Carolina played two games with a full roster this year. Get over it. Injuries happen.

Carolina won the ACC regular season by 2 games and were 3 games ahead of Duke. Yes, Duke's schedule was harder, but they have a loss worse than anything close to Carolina's.

I think Duke was 12-7 vs. the RPI Top 50 & UNC was 11-6.

UNC deserved a 1-seed with their fine ACC Regular Season...but it was very close. The difference between UNC & Duke's overall resume got very small with the Blue Devils' ACC Tourney run.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 09:29 AM by bricksnivy.)
03-14-2017 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #68
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 09:23 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 08:57 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 08:54 AM)dan10 Wrote:  MSU was certainly not deserving of that high of a seed. As far as which teams made it and didn't, I thought they did fine. I thought they seeded everyone poorly just to make entertaining matchups and potential matchups, but thought the teams that made it were fine. Personally I thought Iowa or Ill State should have been in over USC, but at that point you were deciding between teams that really didn't belong in the first place. I was glad to see that Syracuse got that last 1 seed in the NIT, which meant they were further off the bubble than everyone acted like.

The seeding is all F'ed up! Wisconsin an 8? Minn a 5? The Shockers a 10? Mich State a 9? By all measurements Wisc and Wichita are top 30 teams so either of them being below A 6 is a bit off the mark. Also, if you look at Duke Vs. UNC for a #1, Duke has a better resume, 1 more loss, but won 2 of 3 head to head, and the ACC title.

Kenpom ranks UNC #3. Sagarin ranks UNC #3. RPI has UNC 5th. ESPN's BPI has UNC 3rd.

Duke finished 5th in the ACC and went on a great run to win the ACC tournament. With that 4 game winning streak, they're now 5-4 in their last nine games...all with Coach K and with a full roster.

Carolina won the ACC regular season by 2 games and were 3 games ahead of Duke. Yes, Duke's schedule was harder, but they have a loss worse than anything close to Carolina's.
Somehow i knew you'd chime in. There is a reason Duke has the best odds to win the tourney. UNC has a good body of work, the committee chair said they were firmly planted on the one line before the ACC tourney and there wasn't much that could move them. I honestly have no problem with UNC being a 1, was just stating you could make the case. If you you believe in the BPI than Cuse should have been in, and Gonzaga #2? Not buying it at all. I see UNC going down to UCLA, put it in the books.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 09:33 AM by Seahawkhoops.)
03-14-2017 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bricksnivy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,629
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 14
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #69
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 09:28 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Somehow i knew you'd chime in. There is a reason Duke has the best odds to win the tourney. UNC has a good body of work, the committee chair said they were firmly planted on the one line before the ACC tourney and there wasn't much that could move them. If you you believe in the BPI than Cuse should have been in, and Gonzaga #2? Not buying it at all. I see UNC going down to UCLA, put it in the books.

The committee's job is not to seed the teams based on Vegas' odds. Of course Duke is playing great and hitting their stride at the right time. But, the regular season has to matter. You can't on one hand say that mid-majors deserve more respect for their accomplishments, and then turn around and suggest that Duke deserves a higher seed based on their potential. Duke was a 4 seed prior to the ACCT. There is absolutely no way they deserved a number seed. Massey composite rankings which average +30 different rankings have them as ordered below. I have taken the liberty of putting ESPN's BPI, Kenpom, RPI and Sagarin rankings in parenthesis):

2 Gonzaga (2, 1, 8, 1)
3 Kentucky (9, 4, 4, 5)
4 UNC (3, 3, 5, 3)
6 dook (6, 12, 6, 8)
8 Arizona (24, 20, 2, 18)

Duke can win it all mainly because Tatum is unguardable, but that isn't the point. The point is their regular season didn't warrant a number one seed and there really isn't any metric that supports it.

Teams that run with Carolina and don't defend usually don't fare well. Can UCLA beat Carolina? Of course, but they both have to win three games to get there. Arizona can beat Duke too. That's not really relevant to the discussion.

**Disclaimer, I spent the weekend with Duke fans. I'm tired of hearing how their 8-loss team deserved a one seed. I have no problem acknowledging how good they are, but that argument reinforces the entitled reputation they have.* <<Off pedestal>>
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 09:40 AM by bricksnivy.)
03-14-2017 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #70
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 09:37 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 09:28 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Somehow i knew you'd chime in. There is a reason Duke has the best odds to win the tourney. UNC has a good body of work, the committee chair said they were firmly planted on the one line before the ACC tourney and there wasn't much that could move them. If you you believe in the BPI than Cuse should have been in, and Gonzaga #2? Not buying it at all. I see UNC going down to UCLA, put it in the books.

I'm tired of hearing how their 8-loss team deserved a one seed. I have no problem acknowledging how good they are, but that argument reinforces the entitled reputation they have.* <<Off pedestal>>
UNC has ONE less less, ONE. SO if 8 losses is really not worthy, how is 7 so much more worthy? Carolina fans are pretty entitled too. I have no dog in the fight and both fan bases act the same, problem is UNC fans are much more in numbers.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 09:53 AM by Seahawkhoops.)
03-14-2017 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bricksnivy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,629
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 14
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #71
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 09:52 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Carolina fans are pretty entitled too. I have no dog in the fight and both fan bases act the same, problem is UNC fans are much more in numbers.

I get it!

(03-14-2017 09:52 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  if 8 losses is really not worthy, how is 7 so much more worthy?

Massey composite rankings which average +30 different rankings have them as ordered below. I have taken the liberty of putting ESPN's BPI, Kenpom, RPI and Sagarin rankings in parenthesis):

2 Gonzaga (2, 1, 8, 1)
3 Kentucky (9, 4, 4, 5)
4 UNC (3, 3, 5, 3)
6 dook (6, 12, 6, 8)
8 Arizona (24, 20, 2, 18)

Carolina was a one seed going into the ACCT and the only thing that was going to knock them out of that line was a loss to Miami in the qtr finals. ACC regular season > ACCT.
03-14-2017 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #72
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 10:03 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 09:52 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Carolina fans are pretty entitled too. I have no dog in the fight and both fan bases act the same, problem is UNC fans are much more in numbers.

I get it!

(03-14-2017 09:52 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  if 8 losses is really not worthy, how is 7 so much more worthy?

Massey composite rankings which average +30 different rankings have them as ordered below. I have taken the liberty of putting ESPN's BPI, Kenpom, RPI and Sagarin rankings in parenthesis):

2 Gonzaga (2, 1, 8, 1)
3 Kentucky (9, 4, 4, 5)
4 UNC (3, 3, 5, 3)
6 dook (6, 12, 6, 8)
8 Arizona (24, 20, 2, 18)

Carolina was a one seed going into the ACCT and the only thing that was going to knock them out of that line was a loss to Miami in the qtr finals. ACC regular season > ACCT.
You don't have to quote the numbers to me, i get it. They have a good body of work. I'm just saying the argument is there. I listened to several hours of the selection coverage on the road back from Wilmington Sunday, i heard several making the argument and i also get that too.
03-14-2017 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bricksnivy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,629
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 14
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #73
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 10:14 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  I'm just saying the argument is there.

We're growing, Hoops. I agree that the difference was very small. In the end, Carolina ended up in a bracket where they'll likely play UK or UCLA; both teams with NBA guys. Duke ended up in a bracket with Nova. Which team benefited the most? Carolina probably is the right answer, but the difference is marginal much like the difference in their resumes.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 10:26 AM by bricksnivy.)
03-14-2017 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawk Nation 08 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,641
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 65
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #74
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
seahawkhoops Wrote:The seeding is all F'ed up! Wisconsin an 8? Minn a 5? The Shockers a 10? Mich State a 9?

Proof positive why Lunardi is worthless. He doesn't know sh*t about what the committee will do.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 10:35 AM by Seahawk Nation 08.)
03-14-2017 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bricksnivy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,629
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 14
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #75
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 10:35 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Proof positive why Lunardi is worthless. He doesn't know sh*t about what the committee will do.

Exactly. I think he got 67 of 68 of the field right, but that isn't challenging. He was pretty close in respect to the teams that were given a top 3 seed, but the committee gave him those answers by revealing the top 16 the weeks prior. He has no clue has the committee will seed. But, everyone loves to guess along with him and we all (obviously) enjoy the banter. He has a fail-proof job.
03-14-2017 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #76
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 10:35 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  
seahawkhoops Wrote:The seeding is all F'ed up! Wisconsin an 8? Minn a 5? The Shockers a 10? Mich State a 9?

Proof positive why Lunardi is worthless. He doesn't know sh*t about what the committee will do.
Actually it's proof positive the Committee is worthless!!
03-14-2017 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dan10 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,833
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Drexel
Location: Indianapolis
Post: #77
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
Again they clearly seeded teams in a way to make entertaining matchups in the first and 2nd rounds. Nothing more, nothing less. The seed lines were all over the place for that reason. They wanted opposite styles battling (run and gun vs slow plodding for example). They wanted rematches that were classics (think WSU and UK). They wanted big time matchups for coaches (Think Self vs Izzo or even Williams and Cal/Alford). It is not different than the NIT. You can't honestly think UNCG heading to Syracuse happened by shear luck, do you? What about the Potential second round game between UGA/GT or UT Arlington/Houston? The committees make intentional choices to make the product more entertaining.

There are no rules that states they will seed teams appropriately or by any type of ranking. It is why they have clauses that state seed lines can be moved up or down at the committee's discretion, which is just code words for "Do whatever the hell they want to make matchups how they see fit for entertainment"
03-14-2017 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawkhoops Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,646
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UNCW
Location: RTP
Post: #78
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 11:41 AM)dan10 Wrote:  Again they clearly seeded teams in a way to make entertaining matchups in the first and 2nd rounds. Nothing more, nothing less. The seed lines were all over the place for that reason. They wanted opposite styles battling (run and gun vs slow plodding for example). They wanted rematches that were classics (think WSU and UK). They wanted big time matchups for coaches (Think Self vs Izzo or even Williams and Cal/Alford). It is not different than the NIT. You can't honestly think UNCG heading to Syracuse happened by shear luck, do you? What about the Potential second round game between UGA/GT or UT Arlington/Houston? The committees make intentional choices to make the product more entertaining.

There are no rules that states they will seed teams appropriately or by any type of ranking. It is why they have clauses that state seed lines can be moved up or down at the committee's discretion, which is just code words for "Do whatever the hell they want to make matchups how they see fit for entertainment"
it's a hell of a lot easier to exploit those things in the NIT
03-14-2017 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seahawk Nation 08 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,641
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 65
I Root For: UNCW
Location:
Post: #79
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 11:14 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Actually it's proof positive the Committee is worthless!!

His job is to guess what the committee will do. So they're both worthless. Until the committee has more basketball people (I.E. former coaches) and is a lot more transparent, it will be very clear that both the committee and "bracketologists" are equally worthless positions.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 12:58 PM by Seahawk Nation 08.)
03-14-2017 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dan10 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,833
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Drexel
Location: Indianapolis
Post: #80
RE: 2017 NCAA Selection Show
(03-14-2017 12:58 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  His job is to guess what the committee will do. So they're both worthless. Until the committee has more basketball people (I.E. former coaches) and is a lot more transparent, it will be very clear that both the committee and "bracketologists" are equally worthless positions.

Worthless may not be the correct choice of words. There is plenty of worth/value to those positions. You have to keep in mind this is an entertainment business. Having these discussions is for entertainment. They obviously do well enough that people care and tune in, which means they have value and are not worthless. Now to some people is it worthless, sure, but to enough people it is not. Talking about bubbles teams and trying to look at teams objectively is a much more interesting debate every year than most other topics they could be talking about instead.
03-14-2017 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.