Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Elite Eight Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Author Message
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,433
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
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
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
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: 8,496
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
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
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
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 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,433
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
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 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,433
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
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
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
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
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
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: 13,250
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 413
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
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,375
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-20-2017 01:57 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  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.


That makes the chances of the smaller conferences pulling a 15-2 upset much harder.

If anything, I would flip it - all the play-in games should be among the at-larges. If you are the 8th team in your conference, you are the one that deserves to have to play an extra game, not the auto-bid from a DI conference.
03-20-2017 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
I would side with dback, on that.

Would probably also create more (TV) interest in the "First ___" games. IE, USC/Providence/K St type games instead of Mount St Mary/Texas Southern type games.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2017 02:14 PM by MplsBison.)
03-20-2017 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,496
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #13
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-20-2017 02:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I would side with dback, on that.

Would probably also create more (TV) interest in the "First ___" games. IE, USC/Providence/K St type games instead of Mount St Mary/Texas Southern type games.

I'd sign on for that as well. But it wouldn't be fair to have them playing in to the #15 or #16 seeds. If you did that, you would be giving the top 2 seeds a much more difficult first round game than the #3 and #4 seeds in their region. The 3's and 4's would be the ones getting a virtual bye instead of the 1's and 2's.
03-20-2017 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,496
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #14
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Up to this point, the P6 conferences have earned tournament units as follows. The number in parentheses is the number of additional units each could still potentially earn this week (keeping in mind that some might have to play another team from their conference before the Final Four).

ACC 16 (2)
B1G 15 (5)
B12 14 (6)
PAC 12 (6)
SEC 12 (5)
BE 12 (4)
03-20-2017 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-20-2017 08:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  The 3's and 4's would be the ones getting a virtual bye instead of the 1's and 2's.

With the way the seeds have been going this year, I'm not so sure that 14 and 13 seeds are any cakewalk! 05-stirthepot
03-20-2017 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,496
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #16
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
A change to consider:

Increase the tournament field from 68 to 72.

Have the last 16 teams from the P6 conferences play in, with the winners seeded on the 11 and 12 lines. The 16 weakest automatic qualifiers are seeded in the 13-16 spots, where they play the teams expected to make the Sweet Sixteen as their first round opponents.

With a few personal tweaks to the actual committee seeds, this is how seeds 6-12 shake out (non-P6 in blue):

#6 Wichita State, Wisconsin, SMU, Cincinnati
#7 Michigan, South Carolina, Creighton, , St Mary's
#8 Maryland, Northwestern, Dayton, Rhode Island
#9 VCU, Illinois State, Nevada, Middle Tennessee
#10 UNC-Wilmington, Princeton, Vermont, E Tennessee St

#11 Arkansas, Miami, Michigan St, Seton Hall, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma St, Virginia Tech, Xavier

#12 Marquette, Wake Forest, Providence, Southern Cal, Kansas State, Syracuse, California, Iowa

Play in teams earn no units for their conference for the play in round. The 8 winners earn one unit for making the field of 64.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2017 10:18 AM by ken d.)
03-21-2017 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,246
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-20-2017 02:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

...or, more room for Syracuse, Iowa, Cal, Illinois, etc...

Let's be honest...did the committee HAVE to overlook Illinois State, UT-Arlington, and Monmouth? Because, they did just that for about 5-6 other major programs. And, if you can find value in some of those 5-6, you can find it in five or six more of those other majors overlooked. Case in point, the frustration for the Syracuse "snub" and their six top 50 wins.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2017 10:26 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-21-2017 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,375
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-21-2017 10:25 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

...or, more room for Syracuse, Iowa, Cal, Illinois, etc...

Let's be honest...did the committee HAVE to overlook Illinois State, UT-Arlington, and Monmouth? Because, they did just that for about 5-6 other major programs. And, if you can find value in some of those 5-6, you can find it in five or six more of those other majors overlooked. Case in point, the frustration for the Syracuse "snub" and their six top 50 wins.


Syracuse has no beef. Their RPI was 84, record of 18-14, only one OOC game outside of New York (lost), only 1 OOC win against team in top 175, 5 100+ RPI losses, 1 200+ RPI loss.


I have less an issue with UTA - they lost a number of 200+ RPI games
03-21-2017 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,246
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Sweet 16 Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
(03-21-2017 11:12 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 10:25 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

...or, more room for Syracuse, Iowa, Cal, Illinois, etc...

Let's be honest...did the committee HAVE to overlook Illinois State, UT-Arlington, and Monmouth? Because, they did just that for about 5-6 other major programs. And, if you can find value in some of those 5-6, you can find it in five or six more of those other majors overlooked. Case in point, the frustration for the Syracuse "snub" and their six top 50 wins.


Syracuse has no beef. Their RPI was 84, record of 18-14, only one OOC game outside of New York (lost), only 1 OOC win against team in top 175, 5 100+ RPI losses, 1 200+ RPI loss.


I have less an issue with UTA - they lost a number of 200+ RPI games

Would anyone be pitching a fit if Kansas State, Marquette, Providence, or Vanderbilt were locked out for either Syracuse or UTA?

When you got to that cluster of mediocrity, a lot of those programs looked the same. But, it wasn't the mid-majors who got any of the nods. In fact, when you have to look into the teens, 20's, and low 30's for mid-majors, and those guys get shafted for 6-lines or worse, that's where I'm coming from with more crap majors getting gifts.

Sure, you could open up more at-large spots forcing the play-in's for the 16 and 15-lines. Or, the committee could just trust that your Illinois State's and UTA's made it to those high numbers on merit and not some trickery. They have had a history of overlooking mid-majors in RPI positions that the committee has simply not overlooked when occupied by a major program. If the committee can look that deep into the major pile to pull teams at will at the expense of highly rated mid-majors, it will continue to do so.
03-21-2017 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,433
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #20
RE: Elite Eight Conference Records (actual and relative to seeding)
Updated for Sweet 16 results.
03-25-2017 12:29 AM
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.