NCAA Tournament Day 1 Thread (Merged)

[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.

 

[YukonDolt6]

I feel pretty stupid for putting Clemson in my sweet 16, they just aren't very good.

I have them losing by 1 (on a last second prayer) to UConn in the title game.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

I am not arguing for fewer SEC schools, because the pickings were pretty slim at the end of the bubble with the collapse of the mid-majors. I do have a problem with their, and the Big East's, seedings. The argument was that all of these SEC schools must be awesome because in 8 shots they had at Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky and Florida, they won 1 or 2 games, so give all of these teams higher seeds than they would otherwise deserve, pushing down the seeds of the Big East, and to some extent the Big 12 and Big 10.

 

[storrsroars]

SEC OOC record by conference (not incl this week):

SEC vs ACC: 30-4
SEC vs B12: 14-2
SEC vs. B1G: 10-9
SEC vs. BE: 4-4
SEC vs. non-P5: 127-4

Of note, the 4 wins vs BE were vs Creighton (3x) and Providence. Losses were UConn, Marquette, Xavier, and Butler.

Non-P5 losses were to Memphis (x2), Drake and North Florida.

Read into that what you wish.

 

[tzznandrew]

I am not arguing for fewer SEC schools, because the pickings were pretty slim at the end of the bubble with the collapse of the mid-majors. I do have a problem with their, and the Big East's, seedings. The argument was that all of these SEC schools must be awesome because in 8 shots they had at Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky and Florida, they won 1 or 2 games, so give all of these teams higher seeds than they would otherwise deserve, pushing down the seeds of the Big East, and to some extent the Big 12 and Big 10.

I don't really think you're the one I'm arguing with on this. I think the seeds are mostly fine. I think you might bump UConn-Marquette-Creighton up a line, but I think they each had enough flaws that I can see why they are where they are. You can probably also drop OU, Georgia, and Arkansas (at least) down one...I'm also on the fence about Ole Miss, Vandy, and MSU. There are a host of SEC schools I just don't think are all that great and it's pretty much all but the 5 you name.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

That's the problem. Wins against quality opponents is overrated as a metric. I want more emphasis on losses. If you lose twice as many conference games as you win, you aren't good and don't belong in the tournament. It doesn't matter who you beat if you can't win league games. Lucky wins and bad losses happen all the time.

They did not deserve more than 12 bids and even the bottom four of those 12 should be high seeds.

 

[UCLJ0211]

I have them losing by 1 (on a last second prayer) to UConn in the title game.

“The shot” part 2

 

[upstater]

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.

I have to be getting them confused with an earlier team. Still, the point remains, don't you think the BE is perennially underseeded?

They build a strong tourney record even though they rarely get those cupcake 1-16 or 2-15 matchups, which always buffs up a conference's overall W/L

 

[ec33]

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.

The point is that winning percentage is an awful indicator of conference strength. Either that or we need to stop saying Gonzaga and St. Mary's don't play a tough conference schedule because they play in one of the top conferences in the country.

While I am ranting, losing a game in the first round is not an indicator that you didn't belong in the tournament. Half the teams lose in the first round. And upsets happen.

 

[gsmooth]

??
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.

Sure it was debated and I reacted with disbelief when the call was made, but when looking at the replay, it was definitely the correct call.

 

[ctbro1999]

Boring first day. Not many upsets.

Yeah, no "huge" upsets (just your run of the mill 12 over 5/11 over 6 mini upsets).
Hopefully today is different. At least give us some more close games!

 

[Giddyup5]

I would love for them to have the MTE event and perhaps one more H/A in November and December. Play the conference challenges in late January/Feb.

 

[ec33]

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.

If you discount the games with their best teams and only consider the weaker teams playing as underdogs, there is something wrong with the computer models?

Did you honestly think Texas was going to beat Xavier? Georgia over Gonzaga? Missouri blew it (but where would your money be in a rematch?), but that was made up for by Arkansas beating Kansas.

Yes, Ole Miss and Mississippi State will be a big indicator of the middle of pack SEC entrants (although they are playing against traditional powers who are used to being in the NCAA tournament). Winning 5 games today would be holding serve.

 

[Tenspro2002]

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.

The SEC deserves the bids from a resume point of view. The question is whether those resume-building wins are "predictive."

There are sometimes statistical flukes. Bad teams sometimes beat good teams. The SEC may have had a lot of flukiness in their favor. You have to give them the bids -- what else would you go on? -- but there's a decent likelihood that the conference overall is just overrated.

 

[ec33]

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.

Maybe the Big East's problem isn't a conspiracy against them, but their inept commissioner sending an inept representative to the committee? Do you think the power conferences send placeholders to advocate for their schools?