A10 performance

[Stinger92860]

2 wins 4 losses so far and it's possible the conference is eliminated today. 6 seeds can end up 2-6 in the tourney. Might this be one of the worst performances by a conference in tournament history?

The committee has some explaining to do. The rat was right.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Based on seedings, the A10 was expected to go 3-3 with no teams reaching the Sweet 16. 2-4 is underachieving, but hardly one of the worst performances in history.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You bring up a question that needs a lot more research. There was one year about 15 years ago where the Big 10 lost 5 of 6 teams in the first round, including a 3 and a 4 I believe. The old Big East had some gruesome tournaments too if UConn was having a down year.

 

[alexd]

VCU gives up a 4 pt play to send it into OT and loses to SF Austin????

 

[UConnJim]

Based on seedings, the A10 was expected to go 3-3 with no teams reaching the Sweet 16. 2-4 is underachieving, but hardly one of the worst performances in history.

For a non-power conference to get six NCAA bids and lose 4 in the first round is a disaster. Will make the committee think twice about doing that again. To your point about the A-10 seeds predicted a 3-3 performance: Exactly! Even the committee's backward selection process showed the A-10 didn't deserve 6 bids.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

1995. Good, if heartbreaking year for UConn basketball. Bad year for Big 10 basketball.

Purdue - 3 seed. Pulls out a 1 point first round win over Wisconsin Green Bay, lost to Memphis in second round.
Michigan State - 3 seed. Lost to Weber State in first round.
Minnesota - 8 seed. Lost to St. Louis in first round.
Indiana - 9 seed. Lost to Missouri in first round.
Michigan - 9 seed. Lost to Western Kentucky in first round.
Illinois - 11 seed. Lost to Tulsa in first round.

THAT is a bad tournament for a conference.

 

[tzznandrew]

You bring up a question that needs a lot more research. There was one year about 15 years ago where the Big 10 lost 5 of 6 teams in the first round, including a 3 and a 4 I believe. The old Big East had some gruesome tournaments too if UConn was having a down year.

Right, but we have people talking about how bad the American embarrased itself, and it went 3-1.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

For a non-power conference to get six NCAA bids and lose 4 in the first round is a disaster. Will make the committee think twice about doing that again. To your point about the A-10 seeds predicted a 3-3 performance: Exactly! Even the committee's backward selection process showed the A-10 didn't deserve 6 bids.

Easy with the hyperbole. I am not sure if you are aware of the rules of basketball, but someone needs to lose every game, which means someone is expected to lose every game. If the committee had given the A10 better seeds, they might have won more games. We will never know.

I don't know why so many on this board seem to rejoice in the alleged struggles of "non power" conferences. In case you didn't notice, we are in a non-power conference.

 

[tzznandrew]

For a non-power conference to get six NCAA bids and lose 4 in the first round is a disaster. Will make the committee think twice about doing that again. To your point about the A-10 seeds predicted a 3-3 performance: Exactly! Even the committee's backward selection process showed the A-10 didn't deserve 6 bids.

I doubt it does, and I don't think it should. People on this board have been over-valueing first round games. Crazy things happen in them, and it isn't really a reflection of who should be in.

An exception: you have to make a decision about Tennessee-UMass game...a 6-seed should not be blown out.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Right, but we have people talking about how bad the American embarrased itself, and it went 3-1.

I haven't heard anyone talking about the American at all. You could make a case that Louisville is already in the ACC and UConn and Memphis are independents based on the way the studio crew ignores their conference affiliation.

 

[tzznandrew]

I haven't heard anyone talking about the American at all. You could make a case that Louisville is already in the ACC and UConn and Memphis are independents based on the way the studio crew ignores their conference affiliation.

Not in this thread. Read the Whaler thread about how UConn-Louisville-Cincy were an embarrassment, and how people should shut their mouths about the under-seeding.

While the committee sucked in seeding the American, I still have some hope if the dregs schedule well since I think the committee did a solid job seeding the A10. St. Joe's, after winning the tournament, maybe was a seedine too low, but their path wasn't terrible because of some upsets, so not a big deal. Their big mistake was UMass, and the only justification is their insane love of the RPI. And they did a disserivice to UMass, and that bracket, in their selection.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think the UMass game says more about Kellogg than it does about the Committee. It was one game, and I thought UMass' seeding was right more or less.

RPI is a good tool because it is right so often. Of course there are upsets. If the outcomes were all known beforehand, no one would play or watch the games, but generally the higher seeds, which got those seedings in a large part based on RPI, win more games. UConn, Memphis and Louisville got hosed with bad seedings, otherwise I thought the committee was right on everyone else, more or less.

 

[tzznandrew]

I think the UMass game says more about Kellogg than it does about the Committee. It was one game, and I thought UMass' seeding was right more or less.

RPI is a good tool because it is right so often. Of course there are upsets. If the outcomes were all known beforehand, no one would play or watch the games, but generally the higher seeds, which got those seedings in a large part based on RPI, win more games. UConn, Memphis and Louisville got hosed with bad seedings, otherwise I thought the committee was right on everyone else, more or less.

Well, I disagree on UMass. The RPI was way off on them, and they did not have an impressive resume other than an artificially high RPI. Probably should have been in the 8-9 game, or perhaps swapped with New Mexico.

 

[UConnJim]

Easy with the hyperbole. I am not sure if you are aware of the rules of basketball, but someone needs to lose every game, which means someone is expected to lose every game. If the committee had given the A10 better seeds, they might have won more games. We will never know.

I don't know why so many on this board seem to rejoice in the alleged struggles of "non power" conferences. In case you didn't notice, we are in a non-power conference.

If the selection committee is not going to give a non-power conference high seeds, than they don't deserve 6 bids. They didn't rate the the AAC high, which is why the AAC got 4 bids instead of 5. I get it. There is no history to suggest that the A-10 is one of the top conferences in the country and deserved a high number of bids. As for your Big 10 comment, EXACTLY!! A power conference can get away with poor performance in a given year, but a non-power conference can not. If the American shows it's worth in this and future tournaments, the bids will come. This is exactly what happened to the Big East in it's early years.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If the selection committee is not going to give a non-power conference high seeds, than they don't deserve 6 bids. They didn't rate the the AAC high, which is why the AAC got 4 bids instead of 5. I get it. There is no history to suggest that the A-10 is one of the top conferences in the country and deserved a high number of bids. As for your Big 10 comment, EXACTLY!! A power conference can get away with poor performance in a given year, but a non-power conference can not. If the American shows it's worth in this and future tournaments, the bids will come. This is exactly what happened to the Big East in it's early years.

Almost every word in this post is based on completely false assumptions.

What does the number of high seeds have to do with whether Dayton or GW was more deserving of a bid than FSU? Alternatively, since Virginia was a 1 seed, does that mean the ACC should have gotten more bids?

The Committee selects the 36 most deserving at large teams, and for the most part they do a pretty good job. A case could have been made for SMU over NC State or Iowa, but there was no one after SMU that anyone is arguing deserved to go.

All the Big 10 example shows is that the committee does have a tendency to occasionally overrate an entire power conference. 1 or 2 teams getting picked off is no big deal, but when the entire 6 team conference contingent is 1 point against a 14 seed from getting knocked out in the first round, the committee booted it. I also think it provides some perspective from for the OP's silly statement about "worst performances by a conference in tournament history".

 

[storrsroars]

If VCU doesn't commit a stupid foul to send the game into OT, we're probably saying A-10 is exactly as expected.

 

[gars44]

I haven't heard anyone talking about the American at all. You could make a case that Louisville is already in the ACC and UConn and Memphis are independents based on the way the studio crew ignores their conference affiliation.

Nailed that. That's kind of how it feels, anyway.

 

[businesslawyer]

If the selection committee is not going to give a non-power conference high seeds, than they don't deserve 6 bids. They didn't rate the the AAC high, which is why the AAC got 4 bids instead of 5. I get it. There is no history to suggest that the A-10 is one of the top conferences in the country and deserved a high number of bids.

This is beyond stupid. The Committee does not give bids, or seeds, to conferences. It gives them to teams. The A Ten didn't get six teams in because the Committee decided it "deserve" six teams - St Joes got in as an auto qualifier and the other five got in because they were better than the alternatives than the other at large candidates. Which, by the way, they all clearly were. VCU losing an awful game, UMass sucking and St Joes and GW losing games in which they played well and could have won shows nothing beyond the fact that, unlike last year, the teams from that conference didn't get it done when they had chances.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If VCU doesn't commit a stupid foul to send the game into OT, we're probably saying A-10 is exactly as expected.

A six seed UMass team was expected to be blown out by a team that had to play in a play in game? Yet everyone picked it, because we knew either Iowa or Tenn were better than the wildly overseeded UMass.

The system failed. Had Louisville beaten UNC and UK, they'd be a 1 and the whole AAC would be viewed differently. They discounted the whole league based on those two games. They did the opposite with the A10.

 

[mauconnfan]

I think the UMass game says more about Kellogg than it does about the Committee. It was one game, and I thought UMass' seeding was right more or less.

RPI is a good tool because it is right so often. Of course there are upsets. If the outcomes were all known beforehand, no one would play or watch the games, but generally the higher seeds, which got those seedings in a large part based on RPI, win more games. UConn, Memphis and Louisville got hosed with bad seedings, otherwise I thought the committee was right on everyone else, more or less.

Kellogg proved his worth as a big game coach. Actually if you have watched them over the years they were always fairly talented but he didn't do a good job with them. They do what they want when they want. He had 4-5 guys 23 years or older……UMass will now sink back into oblivion. The only reason they had a good year is he caught that team with experienced seniors and 5th year guys…….no back to the drawing board. A good guy, a decent coach but not real good at all!

 

[caw]

If VCU doesn't commit a stupid foul to send the game into OT, we're probably saying A-10 is exactly as expected.

Yep.

I think the A10 has shown fairly well.

VCU one poorly coached play from advancing. That was really inexcusable for Shaka to even have his guys defending. Horrible. Still only lost in OT.

St Joes lost to a higher seed in OT.

St Louis actually won in OT.

GW lost a pretty competitive game against a pretty good Memphis team.

Dayton beat OSU and Craft which makes them the new favorite in the tournament with Mercer.

UMass was UMass.

5 of the 6 teams played highly competitive games , or won.

Another reason the whaler thread was silly. None of the AAC teams were blown out. Cinci lost a close game against a very good Harvard squad. Honestly if Harvard was in the AAC or A10, they would have been a 7-8 seed. They probably have more right to complain about seeding than UL or UConn.

 

[Stinger92860]

Yep.

I think the A10 has shown fairly well.

VCU one poorly coached play from advancing. That was really inexcusable for Shaka to even have his guys defending. Horrible. Still only lost in OT.

St Joes lost to a higher seed in OT.

St Louis actually won in OT.

GW lost a pretty competitive game against a pretty good Memphis team.

Dayton beat OSU and Craft which makes them the new favorite in the tournament with Mercer.

UMass was UMass.

5 of the 6 teams played highly competitive games , or won.

Another reason the whaler thread was silly. None of the AAC teams were blown out. Cinci lost a close game against a very good Harvard squad. Honestly if Harvard was in the AAC or A10, they would have been a 7-8 seed. They probably have more right to complain about seeding than UL or UConn.

Regardless of the how or why, VCU lost and will not play tomorrow. Survive and advance they did not.

 

[Tenspro2002]

As far as historical, embarrassing performances by a conference, look no further than the Big East in 2011. With one notable exception, the Big East made the Committee look awfully bad after they awarded the conference (what looked beforehand to be a well-deserved) 11 bids.

9-seed Villanova: lost a close, first-round game to GM (eh, fine, it's a toss-up game, whatever)
5-seed WVU: beat Clemson, but then lost a second-round game to UK (eh, I guess that one was a toss-up too, not great, but whatever)
11-seed Marquette: upset Xavier (yay) and then Syracuse (wow) to reach Sweet 16; not competitive with UNC (but still overachieved)
3-seed Syracuse: beat Indiana State, but then lost to Marquette (eek) [kind of a wash for the conference in that 2nd round game]

6-seed Cincy: beat Missouri, then lost to us (performed to expectations)
3-seed UConn: nothing further

So far it hasn't been too terrible, but then...

4-seed Louisville: lost to Morehead State in the first round (ughh)
6-seed Georgetown: blown out by VCU in the first round (yikes -- side-note, has any team put up more embarrassing NCAAT performances than Georgetown over the last 6 years?)
2-seed Notre Dame: beat Akron in the first round, then got blown out by 10-seed Florida State in the second (horrible)

1-seed Pitt: beat Asheville in the first round, lost to 8-seed Butler due to sheer idiocy in the second round (pathetic)
6-seed St. John's: blown out by Gonzaga in the first round

If not for our magical run, the Big East would have lost tons of credibility. One could make the argument that if there weren't two matchups of Big East teams in the second round, we might have gotten zero teams to the Sweet 16. To summarize:

- Two 1/2 seeds lost in the second round, one of them non-competitively
- Two 6 seeds lost non-competitively in the first round
- A 4 seed lost in the first round
- Two 50/50 games lost (one 9 seed in the first round, one 5 seed in the second round)
on the neutral/positive side
- Two separate pods where the Big East did as well as it could (albeit expectedly), getting two Sweet 16 teams (and one Champion)

 

[Walker11]

One could make the argument that if there weren't two matchups of Big East teams in the second round, we might have gotten zero teams to the Sweet 16.

I'm definitely cherry picking for post, and I do agree that if it wasn't for UCONN, the Big East would've looked horrible with all the hype surrounding the conference. That said, the part of your post I bolded could be argued, but it would be a really ____ing stupid argument.

For the A10 talk, the league deserved 6 teams and has performed about up to expectations. The seeding was an absolute joke but I'm sure a couple of those schools would've rather been in our position.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I'm definitely cherry picking for post, and I do agree that if it wasn't for UCONN, the Big East would've looked horrible with all the hype surrounding the conference. That said, the part of your post I bolded could be argued, but it would be a really ____ing stupid argument.\

Yes, I agree. One could just as easily argue that if the 4 teams were in different pods, we could have gotten 4 Sweet 16 teams. (Really, anywhere from 0 to 4, rather than the near-guaranteed 2.)