NCAA Tournament Day 1 Thread (Merged)

[ec33]

I really wish there was some kind of extra incentive for the league with the highest winning percentage in the tournament. I think I’ve mentioned this in the past, but if you have the highest winning percentage you should get to select an at large team from your league the next year. Or, add a financial incentive and make the credits worth more for the best winning % conference.

The Big East's winning percentage is inflated by UConn and being top heavy and the strange bubble situation last year (where St. John's might have warranted inclusion).

If (God why can't there be a different example?) UNC loses tomorrow and Duke wins the title the ACC overall record of 7-3 even though Duke was the only ACC to win an actual tournament game. Should the ACC receive an award for awesomeness?

 

[huskyjawz]

Huge 3 by the Michigan guard at the end.

 

[UconnU]

McNeese guard Copeland had the wildest ingame layup of all time in high school.

https://x.com/overtime/status/1397919507427991567?s=61

 

[HCCForever]

UC San Diego had a shot at the end but missed a three. One of the better games on Thursday.

 

[Devland]

Saw a comment on the Calipari-Pitino match up. Said there are 180 vacated games between the two, so there's a good chance that in five years this game never happened.

 

[caw]

Big East was severely underseeded vs. other top 5, especially ACC.

Nah, SJU is where they should be. Same with UConn, MU, Creighton and X. UConn and X had not great OOC losses and some injuries that hurt their seed. MU faded after a stellar OOC. Creighton had issues adjusting to Pops getting injured. They are all probably better than the seeds they got, but they deserved the seeds they got.

 

[temery]

I won 50 bucks in the pool with the Drake upset. They needed a win after the brutal Super Bowl 1/2 time show bullying.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Nah, SJU is where they should be. Same with UConn, MU, Creighton and X. UConn and X had not great OOC losses and some injuries that hurt their seed. MU faded after a stellar OOC. Creighton had issues adjusting to Pops getting injured. They are all probably better than the seeds they got, but they deserved the seeds they got.

SJU is fine. UConn, Marquette and Creighton were under-seeded. OOC games in the fall are terrible basis for seeding teams in March. It just is. I realize they are trying to be objective, but it doesn't work.

 

[Glenn]

SJU is fine. UConn, Marquette and Creighton were under-seeded. OOC games in the fall are terrible basis for seeding teams in March. It just is. I realize they are trying to be objective, but it doesn't work.

The metrics also overweight the OOC fall games, because that is how the relatvie conference strengths get determined--thus every SEC team gets highly regarded and a lot of Q1 wins from inconference play. It would be better if some nonconference games--against equal teams--were played in January and February,

 

[Hey Adrien!]

I love the absurdity of all of this.

 

[Mr. Hand]

I love the absurdity of all of this.

That's awesome. I mean, that's what it's all about. Hits me right in the feels.

 

[caw]

SJU is fine. UConn, Marquette and Creighton were under-seeded. OOC games in the fall are terrible basis for seeding teams in March. It just is. I realize they are trying to be objective, but it doesn't work.

It wasn't just OOC games though. Marquette, X and UConn dropped games to Nova, and UConn had that SHU loss. Creighton and X lost to Georgetown. Those are the types of games that will compound a bad/mediocre OOC.

Basically, Nova and Georgetown being just lively enough to beat the good teams probably cost the BE a few seed lines amongst the five teams in the tournament. That was further compounded by UConn losing to SHU. If those teams had handled business OOC they could have weathered those losses. The BE needs to do better OOC.

 

[Muddler]

SJU is fine. UConn, Marquette and Creighton were under-seeded. OOC games in the fall are terrible basis for seeding teams in March. It just is. I realize they are trying to be objective, but it doesn't work.

A Quad 4 loss in February is a reasonable basis for seeding in March.

 

[Superhuskies]

Very interesting first game. Creighton v.s. Ville

Creighton-Louisville an 8/9 game-- huh ????
I STILL don't get it-- a damned good team , Creighton, gets to and loses BET final, but gets a lousy 9... seed??? ...yet the team that beats them in BET final, St Johns, gets a great 2 seed... ???? for beating a "lousy" 9.. ???
Contradictory??
And a very good team, Louisville gets to/loses ACC final, but gets a lousy...8 seed??
and...Duke gets a great 1 seed...for beating a "lousy" 8????
Contradictory??
It wasn't a blowout...but UL down to an 8?
If UL had WON the ACC final, they'd a been.... a...lousy 7??. 6??
A lousy 8 seed, yet they get to play at "home," in nearby Lexington???
Way too good of a game in the FIRST 64 !! WTF??

 

[Hurleyman216]

The Big East's winning percentage is inflated by UConn and being top heavy and the strange bubble situation last year (where St. John's might have warranted inclusion).

If (God why can't there be a different example?) UNC loses tomorrow and Duke wins the title the ACC overall record of 7-3 even though Duke was the only ACC to win an actual tournament game. Should the ACC receive an award for awesomeness?

Thanks for me explaining how winning percentages work. Even more reason for the NCAA to have some incentive built in there because if a league with just 1-2 bids has a team go off and win 3-4 games it may make them the conference with the highest winning percentage. It’ll be a tough title for a league like the SEC to win unless all 13 of their teams win 1-2 games and they have a few go beyond the sweet 16. I get that conference performance is going to vary from year to year, but it would add an interesting wrinkle.

All that being said, this will not happen because the SEC/Big 10/Big 12 run the NCAA and it wouldn’t benefit them, so zero chance it would happen.

 

[TheShot1990]

I want all BE teams to win. We need the tourney credits.

Me too. And why would I EVER root for a team from a P4 who didn't want us since "we're not good enough for them?" So ram it down their throats Jonnies, Muskateers, BlueJays and Golden Eagles. You are only allowed to lose when you play the UConn Huskies.

Now the little guys like McNeese St (where is that? - forget it, I don't want to know)...I root for them.

 

[ctbro1999]

If I am the drake coach i am making the team shoot free throws all day tomorrow

I don't think there was a single instance a player hit both their FTs.

 

[UCLJ0211]

Boring first day. Not many upsets.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It wasn't just OOC games though. Marquette, X and UConn dropped games to Nova, and UConn had that SHU loss. Creighton and X lost to Georgetown. Those are the types of games that will compound a bad/mediocre OOC.

Basically, Nova and Georgetown being just lively enough to beat the good teams probably cost the BE a few seed lines amongst the five teams in the tournament. That was further compounded by UConn losing to SHU. If those teams had handled business OOC they could have weathered those losses. The BE needs to do better OOC.

Ok, but Nova is pretty decent actually. Look at all the teams in the SEC losing to each other. You didn't say "oh but they lost to Vandy"? Because you think Vandy is good, and the only reason anyone thinks that is because the SEC did so well OOC. Oklahoma went 6-12 in conference. Twelve losses. But you assume those teams are good. As I said the other day, Texas sucks. UGA sucks. Vandy sucks. None of them are really any better than Villanova. It's an illusion created by that incredible OOC run the SEC went on.

From February 1 to March 1 OU went 2-7 in league play. Including a loss to LSU at home. Yet a weird loss to SH on the road is a problem.

 

[7774]

Ok, but Nova is pretty decent actually. Look at all the teams in the SEC losing to each other. You didn't say "oh but they lost to Vandy"? Because you think Vandy is good, and the only reason anyone thinks that is because the SEC did so well OOC. Oklahoma went 6-12 in conference. Twelve losses. But you assume those teams are good. As I said the other day, Texas sucks. UGA sucks. Vandy sucks. None of them are really any better than Villanova. It's an illusion created by that incredible OOC run the SEC went on.

From February 1 to March 1 OU went 2-7 in league play. Including a loss to LSU at home. Yet a weird loss to SH on the road is a problem.

"it's an illusion created by them winning games against other conferences" lol

 

[upstater]

The Big East's winning percentage is inflated by UConn and being top heavy and the strange bubble situation last year (where St. John's might have warranted inclusion).

If (God why can't there be a different example?) UNC loses tomorrow and Duke wins the title the ACC overall record of 7-3 even though Duke was the only ACC to win an actual tournament game. Should the ACC receive an award for awesomeness?

??
Did you miss Creighton and Marquette making deep runs? It would have been Creighton versus UConn in the national championship if not for a ref's call that was much debated afterward.

Not to mention the fact that the BE is always underseeded which gives the BE tougher matchups. In 2023, UConn was somehow a 4th seed, which was absolutely preposterous for a team ranked 7th in the final AP poll.

 

[uconnfan68]

Creighton-Louisville an 8/9 game-- huh ????
I STILL don't get it-- a damned good team , Creighton, gets to and loses BET final, but gets a lousy 9... seed??? ...yet the team that beats them in BET final, St Johns, gets a great 2 seed... ???? for beating a "lousy" 9.. ???
Contradictory??
And a very good team, Louisville gets to/loses ACC final, but gets a lousy...8 seed??
and...Duke gets a great 1 seed...for beating a "lousy" 8????
Contradictory??
It wasn't a blowout...but UL down to an 8?
If UL had WON the ACC final, they'd a been.... a...lousy 7??. 6??
A lousy 8 seed, yet they get to play at "home," in nearby Lexington???
Way too good of a game in the FIRST 64 !! WTF??

Someone had to sacrifice for the SEC and B1G.

 

[tzznandrew]

You didn't say "oh but they lost to Vandy"? Because you think Vandy is good, and the only reason anyone thinks that is because the SEC did so well OOC.

People think Vanderbilt is good because they came into tournament play 13-1 (only losing to Drake), and beat Tennessee, Texas A&M, Kentucky and other teams that made the NCAAs along the way.

Look, I get that you think the SEC is overrated. They actually haven't had a terrible performance other than Georgia embarrassing themselves, which happens to teams of every conference every year. Ultimately, there's no real other way to judge a conference's strength than OOC. And we want to allocate more bids to better conferences, not give the SOCON the same number of bids as the SEC. The 9th place BE team won, which went 9-9 in conference, won the NCAAT in 2011 and got in with a 3 seed because of its OOC performance. It's the way it is, and the way it sort of has to be unless you want to entirely destroy the value of teams playing OOC games. There has to be a reward.

The SEC's reward was a well-earned 14/16 bids. At least 13 of them are going to lose. More in probably spectacular fashion. Some of their seeds are a bit inflated...but unless you want to go 4-team CFP style "ummm... they just look better now" this is the best we got and it gets settled on the court. Some teams are clearly over-valued, but that's a price I'm willing to pay to reward continued strong scheduling, great OOC performance, and an inclusive nature of who gets into the tournament.

Also...no, 19-14 Villanova, who lost to Georgetown twice, Providence, and MFing Columbia is not good. They stink. They were talented, but they were not a good team and we should be embarrassed we lost to them.

 

[tzznandrew]

Not to mention the fact that the BE is always underseeded which gives the BE tougher matchups. In 2023, UConn was somehow a 4th seed, which was absolutely preposterous for a team ranked 7th in the final AP poll.

They were 10th in the Final AP poll.

Not that the AP poll is an end-all, be-all, but it was a perfectly reasonable seed for an 8 loss team that didn't make their top-heavy, 5-bid league's tournament final, a team that had gone 2-5 against the 2-seed, 3-seed, and 6-seed in conference. They were on the cusp of a 3 because of their OOC, but 4 was perfectly fair.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

3 SEC schools knocked out by two 11 seeds and an 8, and the 8 got up 30-5 and never looked back. Since most of the SEC teams' high power rankings were based on quality losses, maybe the models need to be adjusted to incorporate these things called "wins" when evaluating which teams are better.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Ok, but Nova is pretty decent actually. Look at all the teams in the SEC losing to each other. You didn't say "oh but they lost to Vandy"? Because you think Vandy is good, and the only reason anyone thinks that is because the SEC did so well OOC. Oklahoma went 6-12 in conference. Twelve losses. But you assume those teams are good. As I said the other day, Texas sucks. UGA sucks. Vandy sucks. None of them are really any better than Villanova. It's an illusion created by that incredible OOC run the SEC went on.

From February 1 to March 1 OU went 2-7 in league play. Including a loss to LSU at home. Yet a weird loss to SH on the road is a problem.

The SEC's astronomical power rating is based in a large part on its dominance of the ACC in the non-conference. What if the ACC was really weak, more like a MWC or A10 caliber league that happened to have one dominant team that inflated every ACC teams' power ratings? Then that SEC dominance of the ACC doesn't look so impressive anymore, and then the SEC doesn't look that impressive anymore.

Right now, the GREATEST CONFERENCE IN THE HISTORY OF CONFERENCES is 4-3, with wins over Kansas, Yale, Alabama State and Wofford. In other words, the SEC went 1-3 in games that were not complete mismatches, and A&M never really put Yale away in a game that should have been a mismatch.

On today's slate, Kentucky/Troy, Florida/Norfolk and Alabama/Robert Morris don't count, but the SEC has Vanderbilt/St. Mary's, UConn/Oklahoma, Ole Miss/UNC, Mississippi State/Baylor. If the SEC doesn't win at last 3 of these last 4 games, something is wrong with the computer models.

 

[tzznandrew]

3 SEC schools knocked out by two 11 seeds and an 8, and the 8 got up 30-5 and never looked back. Since most of the SEC teams' high power rankings were based on quality losses, maybe the models need to be adjusted to incorporate these things called "wins" when evaluating which teams are better.

Hmm... just count the wins or something?

Missouri won at Florida. They beat Alabama. They beat Kansas (lol). Those are real wins. And that's not counting against other teams in the tournament.
Georgia got absolutely smoked against Gonzaga...but if you follow the "power rankings" Gonzaga was under-seeded...and their power ranking was as high as it in part because of performing well in losses (to UConn, Kentucky, UCLA, and West Virginia). In conference they lost to Oregon State, Santa Clara, St. Mary's twice. By KenPom, Georgia was the seed they deserved, and Gonzaga should have been a 2. That game is what 2 seeds often do to 7/10 winners. And, look, Georgia looked awful. But... they beat St. John's, Florida, and Kentucky OOC. That's a 1, 2, and 3 seed.
Texas is the shakiest. It would have made a lot of sense to leave them out, but they did beat Kentucky. And they didn't embarass themselves. They lost a 50-50 game to Xavier.

The other "shakiest" team, IMO, is Oklahoma. 6-12 like Texas. But they beat Arizona and Michigan. None of the best teams in conference, but the third place B12 team and the B10 champ.

When you line up their resumes in terms of wins against quality opponents, all of them look better than the bubble teams, except maybe Texas. I think this is a fluke year: I don't think you'll ever see a conference perform that well against top competition OOC again.

 

[Inyatkin]

The SEC is one thing, but the ACC is something else altogether. Louisville and Clemson each went 18-2 in conference. That'd be an insane record in any league. And zero tournament wins between them.

Who knows about Duke, maybe their star power can carry them. UNC may have something in the tank. But this is an embarrassment already.

 

[tzznandrew]

On today's slate, Kentucky/Troy, Florida/Norfolk and Alabama/Robert Morris don't count, but the SEC has Vanderbilt/St. Mary's, UConn/Oklahoma, Ole Miss/UNC, Mississippi State/Baylor. If the SEC doesn't win at last 3 of these last 4 games, something is wrong with the computer models.

My guess...they aren't getting 3 of these games. At best, 2, and probably the one where they're the biggest "upset" seed (don't trust non-Gonzaga WCC/MVC teams...)

 

[tzznandrew]

The SEC is one thing, but the ACC is something else altogether. Louisville and Clemson each went 18-2 in conference. That'd be an insane record in any league. And zero tournament wins between them.

By the logic of some in this thread, the SEC should have gotten fewer teams because their bubble teams accumulated a lot of losses against 1-3 seeds because "wins and losses matter!" But then, of course, that would mean they probably should have put in 13-7 Wake and SMU. But we can't have that, because that conference sucked! There really isn't a logical consistency except for justifying the results they want. The SEC teams are probably not as good as their seeds. But there wasn't one of them you can look at objectively and tell me should have been left out in favor of any of those bubble teams, except maybe Texas—but I'd have taken them over UNC. And none of the teams left out really felt robbed.

And, as you said, only one conference really embarrassed themselves yesterday, and it wasn't the SEC.