More Upsets, and Counting [merged thread]

[JoePgh]

Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.

 

[Plebe]

Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.

South Carolina's body of work is still stronger than Stanford's, even with today's loss. SC has a ridiculous ledger of quality wins, headlined by wins over two of the other #1 seeds. Stanford has a ton of Quad 1 wins as well, but their best wins are over teams that will be 4 seeds or low 3 seeds at best (Tennessee, Maryland, Indiana, Arizona).

 

[Skeets]

Games have to be played, that's why you can't just hang banners.

 

[Jim R]

Games have to be played, that's why you can't just hang banners.

 

[BRS24]

Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.

South Carolina's body of work is still stronger than Stanford's, even with today's loss. SC has a ridiculous ledger of quality wins, headlined by wins over two of the other #1 seeds. Stanford has a ton of Quad 1 wins as well, but their best wins are over teams that will be 4 seeds or low 3 seeds at best (Tennessee, Maryland, Indiana, Arizona).

During the Stanford/Utah game, the "experts" said that even with a Stanford win, it would not move SC from the top seed spot.

 

[Stymie]

To me, it comes down to, what do the seedlings mean. Do they mean the teams with the best body of work for the entire season. Then of course SC is a 1, maybe still the overall 1. In that case, UConn is about what they are projected, 2 or 3. Do they mean, some sort of projection that tries to insure the best matchups throughout the tourney. In that case SC is still a 1 and UConn moves up, based on recent play and extenuating circumstances.
If the NCAA wants greater emphasis on conference tourneys, then they do what you suggest, rewarding the winner with the higher seeding position. Frankly IMO, with a 64 team tournament, why are conference tournaments necessary? Like Geno said, reward the winner of the league over 3 months.

Conference Tournaments=$$$$

 

[BRS24]

For any controversial seeds or placements, it will be interesting to see what the committee says. Was it the entire season's body of work? How the team ended the season? Rambling about the intersection of quad/massey/SOS/something/something?

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Is it possible that one effect of South Carolina losing to Kentucky is that it could cause Stanford to become the #1 overall seed, and therefore, if UConn remains as the #8 overall seed, UConn gets to be #2 in Stanford's region rather than South Carolina's?

However, if UConn becomes the #7 overall seed as a result of other upsets, that would ironically put UConn back in South Carolina's region.

It's still best if UConn moves up to #6 overall, and goes to Bridgeport.

If UConn beats Villanova by more than 10-15 points they should get the overall 6 seed or even the 5 seed.

 

[Stymie]

I like commentators that can also offer insights as to what I am seeing and highlight something I may not have seen or known.
Jim Kaat (retired) and Ron Darling doing baseball games come to mind.
There are others.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Like who for example?

 

[Carnac]

Different strokes for different folks. We've had analysts that some folks like, while others detested them. Kind of a "glass half full type situation. A reason why there are different types of music.....something for everyone because one size DOES NOT fit all.

I don't have an issue with anyone that didn't like Peretta. I DID!!! It just means that we perceived his style of color commentating differently. I would never tell someone they were wrong for disliking him. But by the same token, don't tell me I'm wrong because I do.

Take Howard Cosell. You either loved him, or you hated him. I loved Howard. He had a very unique style and grace that I was able to appreciate. He always though HE was the smartest guy in the room, and wouldn't mind telling you so. He like to display his command of the English language and his extensive vocabulary, like when he told Muhammad Ali (right after one of his fights) that he was "extremely truculent" (that sent me scurrying to my dictionary). Ali responded "I don't know what that is, but if it's good, them I'm it."

 

[Carnac]

I like commentators that can also offer insights as to what I am seeing and highlight something I may not have seen or known.
Jim Kaat (retired) and Ron Darling doing baseball games come to mind.
There are others.

Commentators that have "walked a mile in their shoes" make the best color commentators. They see the game from a totally different perspective than we ever will. I listen to Colon Cowherd's program everyday. He had former Cincinnati Bengals receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh on his show. TJ was talking about some of the receivers in the league, and who the best route runners were (in his opinion). He also touched on the deficiencies of some others (lacking the ability to separate, poor route running, etc.)

As a fan, I don't know about the different coverages or the different routes ran by receivers. He does. So we can look at the same game, and see it differently. How many times has a quarterback thrown an interception, and the color commentator said that it was the receiver's fault. He wasn't were he was suppose to be, or her broke off the route too soon? Because I never played pro football, I wouldn't know that. To me, it just looked like your everyday poorly thrown "pick".

 

[Phil]

If UConn beats Villanova by more than 10-15 points they should get the overall 6 seed or even the 5 seed.

Why not the fourth number one seed?

NCAA NET has UConn as number four, and that metric doesn’t adjust for injuries, so the adjustment should be upward. UConn rotation players missed 32 games this season (plus 29 for Griffin’s but she’s not coming back so I won’t count them).

Another committee doesn’t look at Massey but they know it exists. Massey has UConn as the number four overall team and that metric doesn’t make any adjustment for injuries. Adjuster injuries and the question is are they the number two overall or number three overall team?.

Another way to look at it is to see how UConn is done since they got everybody back.

Here are the results for the past few games.

	Massey	Actual	Excess
	MOV	MOV
Marquette	14​	14​	0​
Xavier	31​	54​	+23
Georgetown	38​	51​	+13
Marquette	20​	31​	+11
St. John's	23​	55​	+32
Providence	29​	57​	+28
Georgetown	35​	46​	+11
Marquette	17​	20​	+3
Villanova	16.5​	??
			121​

If the Massey rating were correct the actual margin of victory versus the predicted margin of victory should be a random walk around zero. Instead in every single game it’s equal or above (and note we didn’t have everybody back in those early games). Instead, we scored 121 points, over and above what one would expect for the fourth-ranked team in the nation. That means we are better than fourth. We really should be the second or third overall seed. I don’t honestly think this is going to happen, but that’s the starting point for the discussion.

 

[Longtime fan]

I may be mistaken, but I believe that 11 out of the top 25 ranked teams have lost within the past 2+ days. Eight of those losses are to unranked teams.

Have tournaments in past years featured this many ranked teams getting knocked off at this rate?

No way. This is exceptional, and a reflection how much better women's BB has become. What Miami did was mind blowing (beating Louisville and then the Irish). What Kentucky did was not believable. They had lost several straight games before the tourney even started. Michigan and OSU both got knocked out. And Utah was game for three periods v Stanford, despite two of their best players severely hampered by injury. In 10 days how much better might they be? And why does no one ever talk about Baylor? This Big Dance is going to be wild.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Assuming UConn wins comfortably tonight, my one seeds would be SCAR Stanford NC State and UConn. I realize UConn doesn't have the body of work as some of the other top contenders (Louisville + the Big 12's Big Three of Baylor, Texas, and Iowa State), but even Massey has them at 4th now, and I can tell you definitively I would rather face Louisville or anyone from the Big 12 than UConn on a neutral floor in the Elite Eight.

However, as long as UConn is the #2 in #1 Louisville's bracket, the difference is just a question of how much worse it is for UConn to play a #3 seed like Michigan than a #4 seed like Arizona. I think March Peak UConn should beat other, so hopefully the committee brackets accordingly and this is a (mostly) intellectual debate.

 

[UConnCat]

Why not the fourth number one seed?

NCAA NET has UConn as number four, and that metric doesn’t adjust for injuries, so the adjustment should be upward. UConn rotation players missed 32 games this season (plus 29 for Griffin’s but she’s not coming back so I won’t count them).

Another committee doesn’t look at Massey but they know it exists. Massey has UConn as the number four overall team and that metric doesn’t make any adjustment for injuries. Adjuster injuries and the question is are they the number two overall or number three overall team?.

Another way to look at it is to see how UConn is done since they got everybody back.

Here are the results for the past few games.

	Massey	Actual	Excess
	MOV	MOV
Marquette	14​	14​	0​
Xavier	31​	54​	+23
Georgetown	38​	51​	+13
Marquette	20​	31​	+11
St. John's	23​	55​	+32
Providence	29​	57​	+28
Georgetown	35​	46​	+11
Marquette	17​	20​	+3
Villanova	16.5​	??
			121​

If the Massey rating were correct the actual margin of victory versus the predicted margin of victory should be a random walk around zero. Instead in every single game it’s equal or above (and note we didn’t have everybody back in those early games). Instead, we scored 121 points, over and above what one would expect for the fourth-ranked team in the nation. That means we are better than fourth. We really should be the second or third overall seed. I don’t honestly think this is going to happen, but that’s the starting point for the discussion.

Nice to see your post. I was thinking of you the other day and how much I valued your input on these sorts of discussions.

 

[fomalhaut]

Not that the committee cares, I'm sure, but Connecticut's recent surge pushed their scoring margin up to 20.3, into third place (ahead of S.Carolina among others), only trailing BYU and Florida Gulf Coast. They're also leading the country with a field goal percentage margin of +13.43%.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Not that the committee cares, I'm sure, but Connecticut's recent surge pushed their scoring margin up to 20.3, into third place (ahead of S.Carolina among others), only trailing BYU and Florida Gulf Coast. They're also leading the country with a field goal percentage margin of +13.43%.

Note that all three are playing in non-power 5 conferences. I think UConn belongs in the conversation for the last number one seed but beefing up your stats by feasting on the weak is not the best argument for that, IMHO.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Different strokes for different folks. We've had analysts that some folks like, while others detested them. Kind of a "glass half full type situation. A reason why there are different types of music.....something for everyone because one size DOES NOT fit all.

I don't have an issue with anyone that didn't like Peretta. I DID!!! It just means that we perceived his style of color commentating differently. I would never tell someone they were wrong for disliking him. But by the same token, don't tell me I'm wrong because I do.

Take Howard Cosell. You either loved him, or you hated him. I loved Howard. He had a very unique style and grace that I was able to appreciate. He always though HE was the smartest guy in the room, and wouldn't mind telling you so. He like to display his command of the English language and his extensive vocabulary, like when he told Muhammad Ali (right after one of his fights) that he was "extremely truculent" (that sent me scurrying to my dictionary). Ali responded "I don't know what that is, but if it's good, them I'm it."

I think you missed what CajunHusky’s main point was. Call the game, who got called for a foul, who scored, etc, and stop preaching about coaches and teams you like and follow the play on the court, and get off the podium, so to speak. This does occur all the time in the womens game and everyone knows who the guilty game callers are, and Harry Peretta is definitely not one of them.

 

[Phil]

??
Do you mean Power Rankings? That would be a hoot but not gonna happen.

The power rankings seem very heavily weighted by recent events.

 

[tchalla1]

I'd have to agree--Perretta's analysis definitely indicated that he knows the game of basketball. But like you said, he questioned almost every move, every strategic decision that both of the coaches made--it got to the point that his questioning and second-guessing overwhelmed the broadcast of the game... it was insufferable.

 

[Zanzman]

I'd have to agree--Perretta's analysis definitely indicated that he knows the game of basketball. But like you said, he questioned almost every move, every strategic decision that both of the coaches made--it got to the point that his questioning and second-guessing overwhelmed the broadcast of the game... it was insufferable

I'd have to agree--Perretta's analysis definitely indicated that he knows the game of basketball. But like you said, he questioned almost every move, every strategic decision that both of the coaches made--it got to the point that his questioning and second-guessing overwhelmed the broadcast of the game... it was insufferable.

some of your comments sounds like the boneyard in the chat room